Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Canadian DMCA May Actually Be Worse » Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
If not this then it will be something MUCH worse. »
« Welcome to our Nightmare....  
AuthorAll Replies


GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR

I'll have to read that again, thought it said $500 per song max fine.

What I find more annoying are provisions against ripping CDs to media players. That's total crap.


TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast


2 edits
said by GlobalMind See Profile :

I'll have to read that again, thought it said $500 per song max fine.

What I find more annoying are provisions against ripping CDs to media players. That's total crap.
I'm no lawyer, but these 2 paragraphs in the bill seem to me to limit the damage to $500 max.

(1.1) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1), a defendant who is an individual is liable for statutory damages of $500 in respect of all the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes and that are involved in the proceedings.

(1.3) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) in respect of a defendant referred to in subsection (1.1), no other copyright owner may elect statutory damages in respect of that defendant for the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made.
Also further explanation at this Canadian web site:
»www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.···62e.html
What the proposed statutory damages provision would allow

* A court could only award $500 in statutory damages against an individual for all private use infringements identified in the lawsuit.

For example, if you downloaded five movies without authorization:
o Under current law, you could be liable for up to $100 000 in statutory damages
o Under the proposed bill, you would be liable for $500
* Once a copyright owner decides to sue an individual for $500 in statutory damages, all other private use infringements preceding the lawsuit may be compensated only by actual damages (even if these infringements involve the copyright material of others).

Limitations

* For infringements that are not for private purposes, the current range of statutory damages (between $500 and $20 000 for each work infringed) would remain available. For example:
o Posting music using the Internet or peer-to-peer (P2P) technology.
o Posting a copyright-protected work, such as a picture or video, onto a website such as Facebook or YouTube.
o Selling, renting or giving away a device (e.g., iPod) that contains copies of music that were originally copied onto the device by you for private purposes.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page


mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·MTS


1 edit
Ah, but there are a few little things that make that 500 dollars limit useless.

1) Most music downloaded (the most likely source of the infringements) are likely the result of bypassing some form of copyright lock (Most CDs after 2002). In that case, the penalty is increased to 20,000 dollars per infringement as the infringement now falls under a different section of the act and 21.1 no longer applies.

2) Ripping anything to a device that bypass a holders lock is subject to the same 20,000 dollars fine.

500 Dollars? right.


GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

reply to TKJunkMail
Yea what I see there is that statement "all the defendant’s infringements" which I would bet you mean each file. Each file would be considered an act of infringement and thus subject to the $500 fine.

Just my read of it, but legislation like this is usually somewhat vague.


GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

1 edit
reply to mazhurg
@mazhurg,

And thus all the rights holders place DRM on the CD so that to rip it you're bypassing and thus you're infringing.

Great how that works.
Forums » Canadian DMCA May Actually Be WorseIf not this then it will be something MUCH worse. »
« Welcome to our Nightmare....  


Friday, 27-Nov 03:34:50 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [114] Time Warner Cable Fires Broadside At Broadcasters
· [109] New AT&T Ad Campaign Hits Back At Verizon
· [95] Apple Joins AT&T Verizon Snark Fest
· [87] New Bill Takes Aim At Higher Verizon ETFs
· [70] TiVo Sees Record Customer Losses
· [63] In-Flight Internet Headed For Bumpy Landing?
· [56] Thanksgiving Open Thread
· [38] ICANN Slams DNS Redirection
· [36] Senators Want ACTA Made Public
· [35] Despite Billions In USF Fees, U.S. Libraries Lack Bandwidth
Most people now reading
· Newegg Black Friday Sale started [Users Find Hot Deals]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Only firefox accesses Internet? [Security]
· [ Classes] Druid tanking: rotation and glyphs [World of Warcraft]
· Bell Response to PIPEDA Request [TekSavvy]
· Connecting to Google Voice Via SIP [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Whats the big deal about being "Old School"....? [World of Warcraft]
· Slow speeds in the evenings [TekSavvy]
· [ PVP] 3.2 DK PvP D/W Spec... [World of Warcraft]
· HOW-TO: QoS and Tomato (fixes "choppy voice") [MagicJack]