Canadian Copyright Disaster?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

ACTRA isn't pleased about the delay:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...copyright.html

But it would seem ACTRA doesn't have the support of all their members. Some big name acts like the Barenaked Ladies and Sarah McLachlan oppose the legislation.

From your linked CBC article:

A large number of Canadian musicians, however, do not support ACTRA's position and are concerned that industry bodies are not speaking in their interests. A number of high-profile acts, including the Barenaked Ladies, Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne launched the Canadian Music Creators Coalition in May to speak on their behalf.

In October, the coalition urged the government to come up with balanced legislation that wouldn't make it possible for record labels to sue fans.

"It's shortsighted to say 'See you in court' one day and 'See you at Massey Hall' the next," said Barenaked Ladies frontman and coalition spokesman Steven Page. "If the Canadian government wants to reform copyright, it should be creating a made-in-Canada solution that looks to where the music industry is going, not where it was."

[mykalberta]

Bump - and I will continue to do so every day until this POS legislation is righfully defeated.

"Bill C-60 American entertainment companies like the DMCA, and they're lobbying the Canadian government to make our copyright reform legislation more like the DMCA. Specifically, they want to make it illegal to circumvent "technical protection measures" on copyrighted material for any reason, and to implement a regime that forces Internet service providers (ISPs) to censor their subscribers based merely on allegations of copyright infringement."

I own over 250 DVD's. All in their originally packaged case and on display if I want to watch it at any one time. I have never uploaded any movie or song to the internet so that someone who has not purchaed it could download it for free. If this passes Parliment, then Shaw better be ready for the largest uploading session in the history of Calgary ISP users before the completely useless Senate rubber stamps it.

Dont get me wrong, I am not a net neutrality supporter, I think if Google wants to remove your video from youtube (like the one in another post) they should be able to do so (everyone has the right to create their own site and upload whatever useless content they want). But when entertainment companies get to call the shots as to what I use my Internet time with, with nothing other than their assumptions, that crosses the line.

[MarchHare]

If I own a DVD, I should have the right to rip it to DivX to watch it via my 360's media extender.

I agree that you should have the right to do that, but why on earth would you want to? The Xbox 360 is already a DVD player...what's the point of ripping a DVD to your PC's harddrive, compressing it to DivX format (reducing the audio and video quality in the process) and then streaming it to your Xbox, when you could just watch the DVD directly on your Xbox to begin with?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one instance where's it's really advantageous to rip a DVD is if you want to copy it to your laptop to watch on a plane. You're lucky to get 1.5-2 of battery life from a laptop if the DVD drive is in constant use, but you can easily watch a full movie if it's playing from the harddrive.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I agree that you should have the right to do that, but why on earth would you want to? The Xbox 360 is already a DVD player...what's the point of ripping a DVD to your PC's harddrive, compressing it to DivX format (reducing the audio and video quality in the process) and then streaming it to your Xbox, when you could just watch the DVD directly on your Xbox to begin with?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one instance where's it's really advantageous to rip a DVD is if you want to copy it to your laptop to watch on a plane. You're lucky to get 1.5-2 of battery life from a laptop if the DVD drive is in constant use, but you can easily watch a full movie if it's playing from the harddrive.

Well it doesn't have to be a lossy rip like DivX, you could rip it directly and use the MPEG2 directly without transcoding it, for full video quality. Or I'm sure there are other streaming solutions out there for high def streaming as well.

Another use would be for kids, rather than having tons of DVDs of shows and stuff all lying around the house and getting wrecked by kids, having them all on a media server and can be streamed to whatever TV is handy is a great thing.

Just two examples.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I agree that you should have the right to do that, but why on earth would you want to? The Xbox 360 is already a DVD player...what's the point of ripping a DVD to your PC's harddrive, compressing it to DivX format (reducing the audio and video quality in the process) and then streaming it to your Xbox, when you could just watch the DVD directly on your Xbox to begin with?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one instance where's it's really advantageous to rip a DVD is if you want to copy it to your laptop to watch on a plane. You're lucky to get 1.5-2 of battery life from a laptop if the DVD drive is in constant use, but you can easily watch a full movie if it's playing from the harddrive.

So you could have your movie collection ripped and set up like a jukebox. Then if you want to watch a movie you you just use your remote to pick the movie you want and watch it.

Or perhaps you want to watch a movie on a different TV while someone else is using your home entertainment centre.

Or your kids to be able to watch movies on their TV.

Or you rip the movies so you don't need to watch the $!$@ trailers they won't let your DVD player skip for movies that are "coming Christmas, 2003!" (I have a couple movies that have almost 10 minutes on trailers you can't skip).

Or you want to store the original DVD so you don't accidentally scratch it.

Lots of reasons.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Bump - and I will continue to do so every day until this POS legislation is righfully defeated.
.

</p>
if i make a song, invest in the equipment to record it and distribute it and then up front tell you that you can only buy it if you agree to not copy it to anything else and you still buy it, why should you have the right to copy it, even after agreeing to not copy it? my proposal is the license should be clear at time of purchase.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Bump - and I will continue to do so every day until this POS legislation is righfully defeated.

..........

Dont get me wrong, I am not a net neutrality supporter, I think if Google wants to remove your video from youtube (like the one in another post) they should be able to do so (everyone has the right to create their own site and upload whatever useless content they want). But when entertainment companies get to call the shots as to what I use my Internet time with, with nothing other than their assumptions, that crosses the line.

That's not what net neutrality is about. Net neutrality is against ISPs slowing, speeding up or blocking access to content based on ownership or source. Has nothing to do with the companies controlling content on there own sites.

Here's a good link.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[Cliche]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

</p>
if i make a song, invest in the equipment to record it and distribute it and then up front tell you that you can only buy it if you agree to not copy it to anything else and you still buy it, why should you have the right to copy it, even after agreeing to not copy it? my proposal is the license should be clear at time of purchase.

IANAL

The imposition of your limitation of license acts as a disincentive to purchase your (song)material. The purchase of the material implies the convenience of the reproduction of the performance at the buyer's will. Limitation of the right to reproduce the performance will act as a negative on the purchase of the material as the presentation of the sale of the material is disingenuous, as the seller is only offering the same material at pre-licensing levels, thusly mis-representing the value of the material, which under previous licenses, did not have the limitations of reproduction.

Now, in order to guarantee that material is not reproduced unless under the specified license granted by licensor, bills such as the one recently proposed by this, and the two previous, need to grant the licensor's pretty much totalitarian powers of censorship, privacy invasion, and monopolization. Which is great if you are the licensor, not so much if you are the licensee. Which is what this bill and the DMCA are.

So yeah, you could clearly state what conditions your song could be reproduced under, however, as the law could be extrapolated, make sure you aren't singing about anything. Period. Case in point, take a look at copy right law, that use to have a limitation, however, since some art is technically created by corporations who are considered living entities (yet not having a body, or can be considered people in the conventional sense, as the actual artist has signed over their work to the corporation) the limitation of copy right is effective until the death of that corporation...(ummm... search Disney and copy right)
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
(OT-Segueing into a rambling discourse about the general theory of corporations) So if a corporation is a living entity under some laws, then would it not be assumed that in a twisted way, a corporation is a god? They have their own worshippers, they have their own pastors(sales people/HR) who extoll the virtues of the corporation and encourage the trade, they make sacrifices of people by laying them off, and convert them by hiring people. The construction of large building with the names of the corporation on them with people working inside can be viewed the same as building churches. Afterall aren't the most successful companies essentially churches? They offer enlightenment for only pennies a day!

Anybody recommend a good place to grab some of Marshall McLuhan's writings?