C-61: Copyright legislation **UPDATE**

[FFR]

^^ Oh ok....so as long as we aren't breaking any codes or 'bytes' as you have said, then we will still be able to use our Media Center as a PVR of sorts? That's all I'm worried about

[wpgflamesfan]

Read an article about this issue in the Edmonton Journal today and they were saying how they wanna pass it but have no plans to enforce it.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not what I meant.

Could they still 'trace' me if I download something, and not share it afterwards? They know I downloaded something via bittorrent...but how would they know its a movie as opposed to legal software....or even CBC TV shows?

Photon explain it pretty well above. As to answer the question how do they know its a movie as opposed to legal bit torrent software (like some linux distros) check out that article I liked above. It's really concise and infomative. Here it is again, just in case you're like me and too lazy to scroll back

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...0515239&pnum=0

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by FFR

^^ Oh ok....so as long as we aren't breaking any codes or 'bytes' as you have said, then we will still be able to use our Media Center as a PVR of sorts? That's all I'm worried about

You are excatly right... As long as you don't do anything to get around the desired effect of the content byte. You can do whaterver you want with it. That means if the content byte is set so the program cannot be recorded, but you point a camcorder at your TV so you can record it an watch it later, get ready to pony up your $20,000.00 maximum of course, thanks to this law.

For thoes of you who are thinking " I can just put some "Intermediate" box between your "cable box" and your TV to circumvent it. Well, firstly that's breaking the law, and really how could someone know so who cares? Thay can't know so what they've done instead is start Phasing in TV's and devices with HDMI ports. Fancy, simple ports that give the best quality TV for all your VIDEO and AUDIO devices.... Oh... and when enabled will only accept signals from "Devices supporting Content Bytes" so your "special box" and old video devices can't be used.

This process and transition has been in the works for quite a while. The game plan is, make the technolgy attractive (HD,HDMI), make the technology too hard to break for the general person(Encription,DRM) and for the rest get the government to make laws enabling producers to collect fines.

We're way to late to stop this now really, we've already bought into it, and the companys have done thier DRM... you wanna break the "law" now, you still can, but you are gonna have to do it knowingly, and will have little defence against the law other then then "Charter of rights and freedoms" route..
________
Mflb vape review

[RougeUnderoos]

Does anyone know what, if anything, the useless Liberal party has to say about this matter?

I was just looking at their website. Their latest news release was about the 110th anniversary of the independence of the Philippines. I couldn't see anything about C61 anywhere on the site. It's not on the front, it's not in the news (the Bernier affair is more important I guess. To whom, I don't know) and there isn't a press release about it.

The NDP appear to be ignoring it as well. It ain't even on the Conservative website.

This whole thing reminds me of the gun registry.

"What this legislation will do is criminalize law-abiding citizens and the real criminals won't be affected at all".

I guess that logic doesn't wash anymore.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Circa89

It happened to me a few months back and Telus said hey we know you downloaded Movie "X", please do not do that, however we will not release your IP address UNLESS ordered to do so by a court.

So now I guess the courts may in fact order IP addresses be provided by ISP's.

Bye bye bit Torrent from me until I hear how this is shaking down.

Don't take this as gospel, but if I had to guess they were more worried about you using their bandwidth that the content you downloaded. At the time you downloaded the movie, there wasn't anything technically illegal about it. They more than likely sent you that notice to scare you off from downloading movies, which uses a lot of bandwidth, rather than to express concern for copyright infringement. At the time they sent you the notice, it was illegal for them to give out your personal info and I very much doubt they could enforce this law retroactively.

But like you said its probably a good idea to stay away from bit torrent until we see how this all pans out. I have a feeling it will be enforced about as rigidly as jay-walking laws in Montreal (ie not very). Its far easier for them to go after someone in the US anyway, to avoid international law/treaty concerns. The RIAA and MPAA will probably make an example of a few Canadians to show how great their new law is, but after that, I imagine they'll go after Americans which is far easier from a legal perspective.

Like I said, just my 2 cents, but its always better to err on the side of caution.

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by wpgflamesfan

Read an article about this issue in the Edmonton Journal today and they were saying how they wanna pass it but have no plans to enforce it.

Who doesn't plan to enforce it?....

The courts rule on the laws the government creates. When this bill passes and becomes law I can sue you claiming that you circumvented a DRM I put into my content. The court decides if you pay me or not. Maybe the determin the law is against your rights and freedoms, and you don't pay, but likley thats the only argument you're gonna have.

Maybe what they mean is the police are not gonna activly enforce it like they do with say..... "Speeding"
________
BUY E CIGS

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Does anyone know what, if anything, the useless Liberal party has to say about this matter?

I was just looking at their website. Their latest news release was about the 110th anniversary of the independence of the Philippines. I couldn't see anything about C61 anywhere on the site. It's not on the front, it's not in the news (the Bernier affair is more important I guess. To whom, I don't know) and there isn't a press release about it.

The NDP appear to be ignoring it as well. It ain't even on the Conservative website.

This whole thing reminds me of the gun registry.

"What this legislation will do is criminalize law-abiding citizens and the real criminals won't be affected at all".

I guess that logic doesn't wash anymore.

The Liberals, I expect, are waiting to find out if this is a confidence motion before they come out and declare their position. It's likely they are opposed to a bill that is/could be so vastly unpopular with Candians, but if it means toppling the government and forcing an election the Liberals would rather abstain from voting and essentially pass this into law considering the mess their party is in right now. I have my doubts on whether this could be considered confidence motion as it doesn't deal with government spending, but I'm no legal expert.....

Considering the bill on Net Neutrality the NDP is proposing I imagine they are opposed to this, but its easy to talk in ideals when your party has no real chance at power.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by wpgflamesfan

Read an article about this issue in the Edmonton Journal today and they were saying how they wanna pass it but have no plans to enforce it.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...d-85818435f1cf

From the article:

OTTAWA - Consumers will be locked out of some digital content they have already paid for and face penalties up to $20,000 if they try to get around any digital lock to copy CDs or DVDs for themselves under Canada's proposed new copyright bill.

However, the federal government admits it won't be policing the proposed new rules and concedes it's unlikely most people would be penalized.

...

Policing the proposed regulations would be the responsibility of the copyright holder, such as musicians who create the music.

"The person who owns the copyright has the legal right to pursue that consumer for up to $500. Now will they do it? It's pretty unlikely somebody is going to start a lawsuit to recover $500," Industry Minister Jim Prentice said.

"I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to police and enforce."

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Does anyone know what, if anything, the useless Liberal party has to say about this matter?

I was just looking at their website. Their latest news release was about the 110th anniversary of the independence of the Philippines. I couldn't see anything about C61 anywhere on the site. It's not on the front, it's not in the news (the Bernier affair is more important I guess. To whom, I don't know) and there isn't a press release about it.

The NDP appear to be ignoring it as well. It ain't even on the Conservative website.

This whole thing reminds me of the gun registry.

"What this legislation will do is criminalize law-abiding citizens and the real criminals won't be affected at all".

I guess that logic doesn't wash anymore.

I can't find anything either, but as someone posted earlier, the Liberals had a very similar bill proposed before the last election, but never had time to get it through. They are selling this bill as a "Protect the artist", "only hurt the criminals". Very few people understand how this will affect them untill they are, and by then it's too late.

You're excatly right, it is just like the gun registry in that it does little to help, and turns alot of law abiding citizens into criminals... Only difference is this law is FAR more invasive as just about every person in the country owns a TV or some other media device..
________
Brunette blowjob

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by fredr123

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...d-85818435f1cf

From the article:

OTTAWA - Consumers will be locked out of some digital content they have already paid for and face penalties up to $20,000 if they try to get around any digital lock to copy CDs or DVDs for themselves under Canada's proposed new copyright bill.

However, the federal government admits it won't be policing the proposed new rules and concedes it's unlikely most people would be penalized.

...

Policing the proposed regulations would be the responsibility of the copyright holder, such as musicians who create the music.

"The person who owns the copyright has the legal right to pursue that consumer for up to $500. Now will they do it? It's pretty unlikely somebody is going to start a lawsuit to recover $500," Industry Minister Jim Prentice said.

"I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to police and enforce."

Does Jim Prentice think we are stupid?... Of course noone is gonna sue for 500.00 ... that why he included the PER Infringment clause.... Maybe he's the stupid one, and thinks that people will only put 1 of the 15 songs that circumvent the DRM to put in thier IPOD...


HELOOOOOOO JIMBO... thats 15x500.00 or $7500.00


"I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to police and enforce."

JIMBO... again... do you really think we are that stupid, or are you actually that stupid?.....of course it's not the govenments responsibility to police and enforce.... that's why you have police and courts.. you just make the laws meatball.... If the law is not gonna be inforced then why make the law in the firstplace?..


I'll tell you why... cause he knows FULL WELL, he's making the law for other people to use and the courts to enforce... he's not lying.. he's just not telling the truth because he thinks we are to stupid to realise the difference....
________
Portable Vaporizer Weed

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by metal_geek

Does Jim Prentice think we are stupid?... Of course noone is gonna sue for 500.00 ... that why he included the PER Infringment clause.... Maybe he's the stupid one, and thinks that people will only put 1 of the 15 songs that circumvent the DRM to put in thier IPOD...


HELOOOOOOO JIMBO... thats 15x500.00 or $7500.00

I think you may be misunderstanding the bill's wording.

Originally Posted by Bill C-61

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.

Source GOC Bill C-61

[Shawnski]

Here is some verbage from their "fact sheet" regarding that situation. Actually, it's best if you read it all, so I won't link the snippet. They are splitting private use versus not for private use.

Link

[photon]

Heh, "Hey we're going to make a whole bunch of you criminals with this archaic piece of law, but don't worry we'll make the fine only $500."

Or maybe it'll be $500 plus they'll make you stop programming computers like they did to one guy in the US as part of his settlement.

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/13...on-do-you.html

The one I like was about the Sony rootkit DRM, it'd be a $20,000 fine to remove the rootkit virus from your computer!

If you create a law and before it's even a law you have placate people by telling them that it won't be enforced as written, well that's wrong on so many levels...

[MarchHare]

The one I like was about the Sony rootkit DRM, it'd be a $20,000 fine to remove the rootkit virus from your computer!

This raises an interesting question: suppose an individual plays a rootkit-infested Sony CD on his or her work PC, and then I, an IT technician, remove the rootkit. Would I be liable for bypassing the DRM and receive the $20,000 fine for protecting the security of my company's corporate network? What if the rootkit was removed by our automated security tools -- could Sony sue McAfee?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by photon

For something like bittorrent, every computer in the "swarm", the group of computers all downloading and sharing the same file, knows about each other, or at the very least knows about the other peers they are connected to in the swarm. When using bt, it shows how many seeders and leechers you are connected to, so each one of those computers knows your IP address and knows what you are downloading (because they have to know where to send and what to send to you).

So all a company has to do is enter into the swarm and record all the IP's they connect to, and they have a nice list of people to hunt down.

Wouldn't that be violating the legislation, and if it is, then would they be able to use it as evidence?

[photon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Wouldn't that be violating the legislation, and if it is, then would they be able to use it as evidence?

Good question. It probably wouldn't be difficult to create a custom torrent client that would jump into the swarm and make the requests to get the IPs of computers in it, but not actually download or upload.

Though maybe to be evidence some data would have to be transferred.. Are they allowed to break the law to gather evidence? Without a warrant or wiretapping order?

Not that it would matter to some of those companies that work on poison torrents and stuff, there was that whole incident where they DoSed Revision3 that someone posted earlier.

[Barnes]

Photon, have you ever read through the leaked Media Defender emails?

[Circa89]

How does this law affect a website like Project Free TV? As I understand it these were set up in the States to circumvent the Downloading apect of piracy. These sites allow you to stream copyright material and therefore nothing illegal is done by the end user.
anythoughts on these sites?

I would link it but that may be against CP rules.

[Azure]

And what about something like Rapidshare or Megaupload? Both those sites host direct link movies, music, etc, etc....usually illegal content though.

How can you possibly monitor that?