C-61: Copyright legislation **UPDATE**

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Why is it wrong? cause its usually not listed on the package. You buy the product in good faith and when you get it home realize that... wow! i can't listen to this cd in the same way i listen to all 200 other cd's i've bought. Can't take it back - the package is open. So now because of some hidden DRM you are either forced to become a criminal and break the DRM or you've just wasted $25 on a nice coaster.

This is a very good point. Way back when we first started having this discussion (when the thread was created), I mentioned that while I believe that the artist should have full control over how someone views (or hears) their work, I also think the consumer purchasing that work needs to be protected.

This means that there should be a sticker on the front of all DRM protected CDs/DVDs that clearly states not only that protection is used, but also which protection is used.

When Generic Teenage Angst Band #41268 sees that their DRM protected CDs aren't selling at all, and they also see that the Generic Angst bands without DRM protected CDs are selling, maybe they'll put their foot down and elicit change within the companies they are contracted to.

In this day and age, with the way money controls politics, the only reliable way to vote is with your dollar.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

This is a very good point. Way back when we first started having this discussion (when the thread was created), I mentioned that while I believe that the artist should have full control over how someone views (or hears) their work, I also think the consumer purchasing that work needs to be protected.

This means that there should be a sticker on the front of all DRM protected CDs/DVDs that clearly states not only that protection is used, but also which protection is used.

When Generic Teenage Angst Band #41268 sees that their DRM protected CDs aren't selling at all, and they also see that the Generic Angst bands without DRM protected CDs are selling, maybe they'll put their foot down and illicit change within the companies they are contracted to.

In this day and age, with the way money controls politics, the only reliable way to vote is with your dollar.

Would you have gotten an iPhone if you knew it would be illegal to jailbreak it?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Would you have gotten an iPhone if you knew it would be illegal to jailbreak it?

Can't you see this is not helping his point so he is ignoring those comments and questions?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Would you have gotten an iPhone if you knew it would be illegal to jailbreak it?

I've JB'd mine a couple of times, but I keep going back to vanilla. Not because of some moral high ground, just because the phone seems to run better when it's left alone.

Putting that aside...

Is it going to be illegal to jailbreak it? I know it will be illegal to unlock it so you can use it with other carriers, but I saw nothing that made it illegal to simply alter the operating system.

Because (this part is very important) of the way the mobile industry in North America operates, I think it should be illegal to unlock a cell phone.

Take the iPhone. Apple negotiated an exclusive agreement with AT&T as the sole provider of the iPhone when it first launched. Imagine how many ways they had to change their service, their business model, their support center... everything. Imagine, also, the ripple effect the iPhone had on their other plans and products.

Do you really think it was fair to AT&T that 2 days after the iPhone launched, people were walking around and using their phones with other carriers? Do you think it was fair that those other carriers got money from people using AT&T "exclusive" iPhones, when the other carriers didn't have to give up one single thing or change on single aspect of their company to get that money?

I know everybody hates big business and everyone loves to get whatever they can get for as cheap as they can get it... but right is still right and wrong is still wrong.


Edit: (forgot to type this part out...) Now, here's the kicker... I've based what I just said on the knowledge of how the industry currently works. Personally, I think it should be illegal to LOCK cellphones. That way there are no exclusivity agreements and carriers are forced to rely on their prices and service in order to get (and keep) customers, rather than just getting a phone that no one else has and then locking people into 3 year contracts while they kick the crap out of them.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Can't you see this is not helping his point so he is ignoring those comments and questions?

Thanks for your concern, but I wasn't ignoring anything.

The guy asked me a question at 1:47 and I answered at 2:07. Seriously, I don't live inside the server. I do walk away from my desk from time to time.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Thanks for your concern, but I wasn't ignoring anything.

The guy asked me a question at 1:47 and I answered at 2:07. Seriously, I don't live inside the server. I do walk away from my desk from time to time.

I was just giving you a hard time...I guess the would have helped. However he also made the same comment at 11 this morning...

If this bill passes I will make sure you buy even less media then I do now. I am the type to download it, listen to it, then buy it if deserving of my money. There are too many artist who try and fill CD's with garbage so they can make their 2-3 good songs into a full 15-20 song album. This is not the case for all artists so that's why I like to listen before buying and standing at the counter of HMV is not good enough.

With this bill passing I will not have that opportunity to have a "test drive" so I won't be buying anything because of it. There is ALWAYS going to be a way to download stuff for free and if I have to take the chance on getting sued for doing so I will not be supporting then by buying the CD also.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by HOOT

I was just giving you a hard time...I guess the would have helped. However he also made the same comment at 11 this morning...

If this bill passes I will make sure you buy even less media then I do now. I am the type to download it, listen to it, then buy it if deserving of my money. There are too many artist who try and fill CD's with garbage so they can make their 2-3 good songs into a full 15-20 song album. This is not the case for all artists so that's why I like to listen before buying and standing at the counter of HMV is not good enough.

With this bill passing I will not have that opportunity to have a "test drive" so I won't be buying anything because of it. There is ALWAYS going to be a way to download stuff for free and if I have to take the chance on getting sued for doing so I will not be supporting then by buying the CD also.

Whoops. Sorry, I thought you were being serious. Sometimes the orange text is a good idea.

As for everything else, the "killer vs filler" argument is very valid. There's nothing worse than spending 15 bucks on a CD just to get one song. Unfortunately, I quite often fall into that trap. I'm a quality junkie. I need lossless or nothing! I can't wait for the day Apple starts selling lossless versions of songs in iTunes.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Is it going to be illegal to jailbreak it? I know it will be illegal to unlock it so you can use it with other carriers, but I saw nothing that made it illegal to simply alter the operating system.

Intent doesn't enter into it, breaking a digital lock would be illegal.

Because (this part is very important) of the way the mobile industry in North America operates, I think it should be illegal to unlock a cell phone.

Take the iPhone. Apple negotiated an exclusive agreement with AT&T as the sole provider of the iPhone when it first launched. Imagine how many ways they had to change their service, their business model, their support center... everything. Imagine, also, the ripple effect the iPhone had on their other plans and products.

Do you really think it was fair to AT&T that 2 days after the iPhone launched, people were walking around and using their phones with other carriers? Do you think it was fair that those other carriers got money from people using AT&T "exclusive" iPhones, when the other carriers didn't have to give up one single thing or change on single aspect of their company to get that money?

That was a problem for the first iPhone, but hasn't been for the second iteration, because they closed the loophole in their process that allowed that to happen.. it wasn't a legality issue that caused that to happen, it was because they didn't require a contract to activate the phone.

If I pay full price (i.e. non-carrier subsidized price) for a device, then yes I should be able to use it on whatever carrier I see fit.

And that's not even considering people who travel a lot and can't use their phones outside their own countries.

Again it's a matter of allowing companies to control what's purchased after the fact. If they want to have that in place (like AT&T exclusivity) that's fine, but do it through business processes and contracts like everyone else does, not through some special part of the law that gives them access to my personal life whenever they want.

[cSpooge]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I've JB'd mine a couple of times, but I keep going back to vanilla. Not because of some moral high ground, just because the phone seems to run better when it's left alone.

Putting that aside...

Is it going to be illegal to jailbreak it? I know it will be illegal to unlock it so you can use it with other carriers, but I saw nothing that made it illegal to simply alter the operating system.

Because (this part is very important) of the way the mobile industry in North America operates, I think it should be illegal to unlock a cell phone.

Take the iPhone. Apple negotiated an exclusive agreement with AT&T as the sole provider of the iPhone when it first launched. Imagine how many ways they had to change their service, their business model, their support center... everything. Imagine, also, the ripple effect the iPhone had on their other plans and products.

Do you really think it was fair to AT&T that 2 days after the iPhone launched, people were walking around and using their phones with other carriers? Do you think it was fair that those other carriers got money from people using AT&T "exclusive" iPhones, when the other carriers didn't have to give up one single thing or change on single aspect of their company to get that money?

I know everybody hates big business and everyone loves to get whatever they can get for as cheap as they can get it... but right is still right and wrong is still wrong.


Edit: (forgot to type this part out...) Now, here's the kicker... I've based what I just said on the knowledge of how the industry currently works. Personally, I think it should be illegal to LOCK cellphones. That way there are no exclusivity agreements and carriers are forced to rely on their prices and service in order to get (and keep) customers, rather than just getting a phone that no one else has and then locking people into 3 year contracts while they kick the crap out of them.

except for the fact that what Apple and AT&T did might be illegal to begin with. They're facing an anti-trust lawsuit over the exclusive deal now.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by llama64

Stealing [creative] content is bad. That said, this act proves what I've suspected the Conservative party of for a while now.

The jist of what is going on is that large American companies are trying to enforce arbitrary limits on how customers can view/enjoy content. They seem to believe that we should be buying a movie in multiple formats so we can enjoy it in different ways. This is despite the existence of simple technologies that allow us to convert or share the content in different ways. Big business is trying to force immoral buisiness practises by getting their philosophy set in law.

This flies in the face of anything resembling a free market principle. That the Conservatives are going along with it demonstrates that they as a whole do not have a clue that a free market is nor that they give a damn about customers.

The Conservative Party of Canada cares more about foreign interests then it does about domestic ones, and this bill serves to highlight that.

Too bad there isn't another right leaning party...

Excellent post. If only everyone could realize the hypocracy in this bill ...

[MaDMaN_26]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Take the iPhone. Apple negotiated an exclusive agreement with AT&T as the sole provider of the iPhone when it first launched. Imagine how many ways they had to change their service, their business model, their support center... everything. Imagine, also, the ripple effect the iPhone had on their other plans and products.

Do you really think it was fair to AT&T that 2 days after the iPhone launched, people were walking around and using their phones with other carriers? Do you think it was fair that those other carriers got money from people using AT&T "exclusive" iPhones, when the other carriers didn't have to give up one single thing or change on single aspect of their company to get that money?

Do you think its fair Apple negotiated that deal? Should I the consumer not have two choices here... 1 - Which phone do I want. 2 - Which service provider will I use. Personally I think its unfair for companies to make that decision for me... these partnerships and exclusive deals to try and pursuade or force me to accept something I dont want to get something I do want. I am tired of being told what I am allowed to do by laws and Corporations. We all work hard for our money and yes I'd like to tell big business to F-off and allow me to spend it as I see fit with out the constant manipulation.

Here's the kicker I just saw your edit now and it seems to me your coming from two sides... pick one.

Additionally exactly in how many ways did the hard done by AT&T have to change their services and support centers etc... etc... if companies that had no idea they would have Iphones on their networks 2 days later where able to manage?

I agree with your edit. It's the rest of your post that makes no sense to me.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by photon

Intent doesn't enter into it, breaking a digital lock would be illegal.



That was a problem for the first iPhone, but hasn't been for the second iteration, because they closed the loophole in their process that allowed that to happen.. it wasn't a legality issue that caused that to happen, it was because they didn't require a contract to activate the phone.

If I pay full price (i.e. non-carrier subsidized price) for a device, then yes I should be able to use it on whatever carrier I see fit.

And that's not even considering people who travel a lot and can't use their phones outside their own countries.

Again it's a matter of allowing companies to control what's purchased after the fact. If they want to have that in place (like AT&T exclusivity) that's fine, but do it through business processes and contracts like everyone else does, not through some special part of the law that gives them access to my personal life whenever they want.

I'm not sure if you saw my late edit or not, but it's pretty much the same thing (I think) as what you're saying.

I think the cell phone makers should compete against other cell phone makers to make the best cell phones they can.

I think service providers should compete against other service providers to provide the best services (incl plans and prices) they can.

I think consumers should be able to purchase a cell phone of their choice from a maker of their choice, and then acquire a plan of their choice from a provider of their choice.

I also think that service providers should not be allowed to lock customers into long term plans with cancellation fees, as this just adds to the complacency of the entire industry.

[Bobblehead]

And this is just the cell phone and music DRM issues that is generating this debate.

You know those Bell PVR commercials with the cowboy who tells the guy it ccan stoer every western ever made (aside: I seriously doubt it) and to "never" delete the movie?

Under this Bill, those are useless, since you are only able to record a broadcast until it is convenient for you to view it, then it must be erased.

Your favourite shows you recorded - delete them or you are breaking the law.
Those Flames playoff games from the cup runs? Delete them, they will be illegal.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I'm not sure if you saw my late edit or not, but it's pretty much the same thing (I think) as what you're saying.

I think the cell phone makers should compete against other cell phone makers to make the best cell phones they can.

I think service providers should compete against other service providers to provide the best services (incl plans and prices) they can.

I think consumers should be able to purchase a cell phone of their choice from a maker of their choice, and then acquire a plan of their choice from a provider of their choice.

I also think that service providers should not be allowed to lock customers into long term plans with cancellation fees, as this just adds to the complacency of the entire industry.

So, from what I have read about your posts today:

1) It is fine for music labels to lock content to specific formats.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

If I make a CD and I (for some stupid reason) decide I only want it played on CD players... should I not have that right? I made it, it's my work. I should be allowed to decide how it's listened to.

2) You think it should phone companies should not be allowed to lock phones to their service.

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Personally, I think it should be illegal to LOCK cellphones. That way there are no exclusivity agreements and carriers are forced to rely on their prices and service in order to get (and keep) customers, rather than just getting a phone that no one else has and then locking people into 3 year contracts while they kick the crap out of them.

See, I see those as essentially the same darn things. I think if I have paid for the product, that I should be allowed to what I want with the product I have purchased.

Be it a CD I want to play on my MP3 player, a DVD I want to rip to an iPod, or a cell phone I want to use on Bell/Telus/Virgin or whomever.

Once I have paid for the product, why the heck should the company that sold it to me be able to tell me what I am allowed to do with it?

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So, from what I have read about your posts today:

1) It is fine for music labels to lock content to specific formats.

2) You think it should phone companies should not be allowed to lock phones to their service.

See, I see those as essentially the same darn things. I think if I have paid for the product, that I should be allowed to what I want with the product I have purchased.

Be it a CD I want to play on my MP3 player, a DVD I want to rip to an iPod, or a cell phone I want to use on Bell/Telus/Virgin or whomever.

Once I have paid for the product, why the heck should the company that sold it to me be able to tell me what I am allowed to do with it?

Those are two different things though. One is a piece of art created by an artist, and the other is an electronic device created by a manufacturer.

It's very easy to get music without paying for it. It's not so easy to get an iPhone without paying for it. If a recording artist is concerned about people not paying for their music, or using their music in ways they don't like, they should have a way of rectifying that.

But cell phone manufacturers? It's not like I'm going to go out and copy my friend's cell phone.

It's not the manufacturers that lock cell phones anyway. It's the service providers, and they don't even make anything. They take something someone else made and then control how people use it. Completely different comparison.

TV is the perfect example. I should be able to pick the PVR/receiver I want to use, and get my channels from the provider I want to get them from, without having anythign locked down by either the receiver or the channel provider.

...however, if the studio that makes my favourite show doesn't want me to be able to record that show, they should have that right.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Those are two different things though. One is a piece of art created by an artist, and the other is an electronic device created by a manufacturer.

It's very easy to get music without paying for it. It's not so easy to get an iPhone without paying for it.

If a recording artist is concerned about people not paying for the music his making, or using his music in ways he doesn't like, he should have a way of rectifying that.

But cell phone manufacturers? It's not like I'm going to go out and copy my friend's cell phone.

I'm not talking about wanting to get music without paying for it.
I'm not talking about selling it.
I'm talking about buying a CD, or MP3, or DVD and being able to put music that I have paid for in any format that I want. I'm talking about being able to create a mix CD of songs I have already paid for.

You want to create a law that sets penalties for giving away or selling MP3s? As far as the selling goes, that is already illegal.
As far as giving away goes, there is already a blank CD levy that has collected millions of dollars. But if that isn't good enough, then come up with something better. I believe artists should get their due for their efforts. I have hundreds of CDs to attest to that fact.

But don't make me an insta-criminal for wanting to put the CD I purchased on my iPod. Or the MP3 I purchased from iTunes on a non-Apple MP3 player. Or the MP3 I purchased from the Zune store onto my iPod. I don't believe any of those things are stealing from anyone. Yet every one of those would be illegal with this new bill. And I believe that is not only wrong, but the way the sitting government has handled the issue is wrong.

Once I purchase something be it a chair, TV, cellphone or CD, I believe I have the right to do with it as I wish (within the bounds of current society/law, of course). And I don't think anyone has the right to tell me I can't listen to that CD while sitting in that chair, or from that cellphone.

[FanIn80]

Unfortunately, it's not about how you use a CD. I buy my own CDs and rip them to my iTunes, too.

It's about the simple fact that music CDs are very easy to copy and distribute illegally. A cell phone isn't.

All the other stuff is another issue altogether. I'm merely responding to your comparison of DRM on a CD vs a service provider locking a cell phone.

For the record, it will not be illegal for you to copy your CD to your iTunes library. It will only be illegal to circumvent copy-protection in order to copy that CD into your iTunes library. This gives you the right to make the copy, and the content provider the right to prevent you from making that copy, if they wish to use it.

All the legislation is doing is granting each party their rights. The rights both parties should have had all along. It is then up to each party to decide how to proceed.

So... 6 months from now, if you go to Futureshop to buy a CD and see a label on it that says it has copy-protection (I feel this label should be mandatory), then you get to choose whether or not to purchase it.

If enough people choose not to purchase it, I'm willing to bet that it gets re-released without copy-protection.

I don't see any problems with that, whatsoever.

Realize, again, that I am still only discussing the DRM thing on music (and movies, I suppose).

All the other stuff isn't really that big of a deal to me, since I rent my movies and buy my TV shows with my Apple TV. I don't use a PVR and I don't bittorrent them anymore (again this is because of quality issues, not moral high-ground).

Edit: To be clear... I'm not saying that I like any of this legislation, I just don't see it as the problem everyone else is making it out to be. To be perfectly honest, I'd much rather the Government spend their time, resources and our money on changing the media industries themselves so that the whole process makes more sense... but I'm not sure that they can do that even if they wanted to.

Putting everything else aside, I'm certainly not going to throw my vote away on re-electing those crooks and scam artists from the other party, or (almost as bad) the NDP, just because the PCs want to make it a criminal offense to hack someone's copy-protected CD.

[Barnes]

Again, this does not apply to only TV, music and movies.

[HOOT]

What else is there?

[Azure]

I have talked to my MP about it.....he doesn't care, everyone is going to vote conservative around here anyways.