Pirate Party rally August 28th against Bill C-32

[HeartsOfFire]

Saw a bill posted on a traffic light pole downtown concerning a rally hosted by the Pirate Party in opposition of Bill C-32. August 28th, 4pm. In front of City Hall I believe, which seems silly given that City Hall has nothing to do with federal politics.

May have been the Harry Hays building, I'm not entirely sure.

[Traditional_Ale]

He'll be there.

[Burninator]

Why is it called a pirate party? Do people want stealing content on the internet to remain/become legal?

[HeartsOfFire]

I don't know why they call themselves the Pirate Party. The title contains notoriety that definitely would not work in their favour, one would think. On the other hand, the Pirate Party surprised the world when they won a seat in the EU elections, so maybe people see it as a glimmer of hope.

I'm not a member of the Pirate Party, but I'm not a fan of Bill C-32 either in its current draft. I am utterly against it as long as the clause about circumventing digital locks remains in place, and I cannot vote for any federal party that doesn't think the same way I do. My vote hinges entirely on the outcome of that bill.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Why is it called a pirate party? Do people want stealing content on the internet to remain/become legal?

We want to be free, free as the wind
Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing

- Frank Zappa

[mykalberta]

Expect many cans of mountain dew and doritos bags to be littered there after the rally.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I don't know why they call themselves the Pirate Party. The title contains notoriety that definitely would not work in their favour, one would think. On the other hand, the Pirate Party surprised the world when they won a seat in the EU elections, so maybe people see it as a glimmer of hope.

I'm not a member of the Pirate Party, but I'm not a fan of Bill C-32 either in its current draft. I am utterly against it as long as the clause about circumventing digital locks remains in place, and I cannot vote for any federal party that doesn't think the same way I do. My vote hinges entirely on the outcome of that bill.

So you're basing your voting decision entirely on the outcome of one bill, and how it impacts your ability to burn your CD's to our computer?
That sounds like a good stance to take, especially since a party's stance on social and economic legislation is completely irrelevant compared to one's ability to download music.

If you're looking for a politicaly party that is going to support or oppose legisation exactly as you would, then you'll never vote for anyone.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So you're basing your voting decision entirely on the outcome of one bill, and how it impacts your ability to burn your CD's to our computer?

Close.

I'm basing my voting decision entirely on the outcome of one bill, and how it impacts my right to format shift a DVD I purchase -- after circumventing the digital lock -- into a format iTunes can understand, and vice versa.

Hollywood wants me to pay twice. Once for the DVD, and once for the soft copy. And in its current form, Bill C-32 will make this a law. One that could see me fined.

I understand your rationale, Bring_Back_Shantz. Indeed, it sounds even somewhat silly to myself, and a truly trivial issue to base my voting decision on. But this is important to me. I do not believe in paying twice for the same product. I believe in my right to do to my purchased media, gadgets, and gizmo's what I bloody well want to do. And when a big corporation that develops these things I've purchased has an issue with me doing so, and wants to have me subsequently prosecuted, I take exception to that as a consumer. But their lobbyists are making a strong campaign for consumer reform, to the point where I'm afraid that if they go unchallenged, our descendants will one day grow up thinking that paying twice for the same product is the norm. Commonplace.

Bill C-32's bread and butter is actually pretty sound, but it's that supid circumvention clause that ruins it. It has to be removed, and then I will be satisfied.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

our descendants will one day grow up thinking that paying twice for the same product is the norm. Commonplace.

Most young people are not even paying once for movies, music etc.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by troutman

Most young people are not even paying once for movies, music etc.

Good times.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by troutman

Most young people are not even paying once for movies, music etc.

I'm surprised we haven't seen the inevitable "who pays for music anyway?" post. Consider this pre-emptive.

[Icon]

?