C-61: Copyright legislation **UPDATE**

[FanIn80]

I must be missing something, because I've ripped the 78 CDs I have sitting on the second desk in my office, using Windows Media Player, and not one of them failed to rip.

In fact, I can't remember ever finding a CD I couldn't rip with WMP.


(Note: I don't use WMP to rip anymore, but that's just because it does a crap job - not because of DRM issues on the CDs.)

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Movies became available on iTunes in Canada before this bill was introduced, let alone before the bill became law:
http://www.apple.com/ca/press/2008_0...es_movies.html

Yeah, but the two go hand-in-hand. It's pretty well known that the reason the service wasn't offerend in Canada was because of our lax laws.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Yeah, but the two go hand-in-hand. It's pretty well known that the reason the service wasn't offerend in Canada was because of our lax laws.

... or because they couldn't work out a licen$ing deal.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Yeah, but the two go hand-in-hand. It's pretty well known that the reason the service wasn't offerend in Canada was because of our lax laws.

No, the reason the service wasn't offered in Canada is because many of the rights-holders are different here than in the US, and Apple had to negotiate new deals with all of them. For example, Alliance Atlantis owns the Canadian distribution rights to many films which are owned by other companies elsewhere. The delay had nothing to do with our copyright laws -- afterall, Apple has been selling music on the iTunes store in Canada for many years now.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Question: Who benefits from this? What does the average Canadian citizen "get" out of it? Have they even bothered to try to explain that?

It's pretty clear to me that the average Canadian citizen doesn't get anything at all except a bunch of pointless new regulations that nobody will understand, but I'm wondering about the spin they are putting on it to make it look beneficial to Canadians.

A question in response to your question.

Right now, Americans can buy DRM free tracks through online providers, however, Canadians cannot. Correct? Would this now become possible?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

A question in response to your question.

Right now, Americans can buy DRM free tracks through online providers, however, Canadians cannot. Correct? Would this now become possible?

It has nothing to do with legislation. The ONLY reason there are DRM free tracks anywhere in the US is because the big labels think that iTunes/Apple has too much power.

[BlackEleven]

Here's Scott Brison's (Liberal industry critic) response. If that's any indication, at least the Liberals should be opposed.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...copyright.html

Hopefully enough BQ and NDP MPs agree and this thing gets defeated.

[FanIn80]

Either way, I think it will be safe to assume that the next election turnout won't be as lethargic as the last.

My election prediction:
1. Liberals promise to amend this law
2. Liberals get elected
3. Liberals "forget" they promised to amend the law
4. Liberals give private contracts to record companies with close relatives in the party
5. Someone throws a pie in the face of the Liberal PM
6. Conservatives promise to amend government
7. Conservatives get elected
8. Conservatives introduce a new law making it illegal to state an opinion
9. Liberals promise to amend that law

Rinse, repeat.

[BlackEleven]

I'll vote for any party that opposes this. I don't care if that means voting for the NDP who also want to pass bills that decree we have to hug five random strangers everday and the government buys free hybrid cars for everyone below the poverty line.

[MarchHare]

Either way, I think it will be safe to assume that the next election turnout won't be as lethargic as the last.

I'll take that bet.

Young people don't vote, and old people don't care about this issue. I'd be very pleased if opposition to this bill is what it takes to get more 18-30 year olds involved in the democratic process, but I wouldn't count on it.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I'll vote for any party that opposes this. I don't care if that means voting for the NDP who also want to pass bills that decree we have to hug five random strangers everday and the government buys free hybrid cars for everyone below the poverty line.

What the heck? Who doesn't want 5 random hugs per day and a free hybrid?!

[Freeway]

So... I can record/rip/PVR whatever I want, so long as I procure it legally and recording/ripping/PVRing it is not expressly forbidden by the producer.

What's the point of this amendment to the law, anyway?

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by Freeway

So... I can record/rip/PVR whatever I want, so long as I procure it legally and recording/ripping/PVRing it is not expressly forbidden by the producer.

And...

(d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time;

(In relation to recording a broadcast. Not relevant for ripping a CD).

As I said before, I like the idea of clarifying the laws so there isn't such a grey area (or perceived grey area). My biggest concern is letting consumers know exactly what their rights are. So for example, if a TV network expressly forbids the recording of their programs, they should show a brief warning at the start of the broadcast stating so. And if a CD is "copy protected", make it obvious for the consumer, so they know that if they buy the CD, they cannot legally copy it to their iPod. If people are fed up with such policies, hopefully they will let the media corporations know by voting with their dollars.

[Old Yeller]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I'll vote for any party that opposes this. I don't care if that means voting for the NDP who also want to pass bills that decree we have to hug five random strangers everday and the government buys free hybrid cars for everyone below the poverty line.

I just emailed my MP and said I'm going from indifferently voting Conservative to actively campaigning against them because of this.

I expect my email will be read promptly and a proper response will be sent back to me.

[HotHotHeat]

From the iTunes website:

Usage Rules

(i) Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.

(ii) You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.

(iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time, except in the case of Movie Rentals, as described below.

(iv) You shall be able to store Products from up to five different Accounts on certain devices, such as an iPod or iPhone, and Apple TV at a time; provided that each iPhone may sync ring tone Products with only a single Apple-authorized device at a time, and that syncing an iPhone with another Apple-authorized device will cause any ring tone Products stored on such iPhone to be erased and, if you so choose, to be replaced with any ring tone Products stored on such other Apple-authorized device. Additional restrictions apply to Movies Rentals, as described below.

(v) You shall be authorized to burn an audio playlist up to seven times.

(vii) You shall be entitled to export, burn (if applicable) or copy (if applicable) Products solely for personal, noncommercial use.

(viii) You may use only ring tone Products as a musical “ringer” in connection with phone calls.

(ix) Any burning (if applicable) or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners in any audio or video content, sound recording, underlying musical composition, or artwork embodied in any Product.

http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/service.html

....I assume most other legal downloading services have similar terms of service rules. This new law challenges these rules as far as I can tell. It would make for an interesting court case.

My point is this...How can a DRM free .mp3 that was legally purchased be tracked? (The answer is it can't). So would this not make it impossible to prosecute an individual that has allegedly violated the law? You could just explain that you are one of the 5 people authorized to own that certain mp3, and it would be the job of the government to prove otherwise....It also says you are entitled to burn your mp3's onto CD. I can't see how this law could ever be upheld in court.

[Antithesis]

I guess I'm mainly interested in the PVR stuff, though I do torrent some TV shows ... I don't seem to see a lot about making it illegal to record time-shifted programming.

If I'm no longer able to torrent some TV shows, it's not really a big deal to me ... I've happily downloaded music from iTunes for the past while, so music isn't an issue either.

Is most of the opposition towards this from people who are angry they can't buy a CD and then legally put it onto an MP3 player if it has DRM? Or am I missing something?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

And if a CD is "copy protected", make it obvious for the consumer, so they know that if they buy the CD, they cannot legally copy it to their iPod. If people are fed up with such policies, hopefully they will let the media corporations know by voting with their dollars.

Yeah, if this bill goes through that will be the best bet to end this nonsense.

I know I won't be buying any CD that is copy protected and I may let them know. "Sorry guys, I would have bought your record, but...".

With the way things are nowadays the record company is becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway. Some artists will no doubt just leave them behind. The internet is a hell of a lot better distribution network than the one they have now and it's getting better every day.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, if this bill goes through that will be the best bet to end this nonsense.

I know I won't be buying any CD that is copy protected and I may let them know. "Sorry guys, I would have bought your record, but...".

With the way things are nowadays the record company is becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway. Some artists will no doubt just leave them behind. The internet is a hell of a lot better distribution network than the one they have now and it's getting better every day.

I'll write a letter directly to the artists themselves, to let them know that I went to a store to buy their CD but decided against it when I saw it contained DRM.

Sending a letter to Blah Blah Records won't have much affect, but sending a letter to The Trews might.

[BlackEleven]

I wrote my MP as well. It will be interesting to see if he has anything to say, especially considering he has a degree in computer engineering and should be able to comprehend the technical details. I also haven't been able to find any responses from any BQ MPs on the net, so I asked for his party's stance.

[Azure]

My MP still hasn't replied, and I got the same automated reply from Jim that Barnes got.