Canadian DMCA to be introduced in June

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think music isn't such a big deal anymore simply because iTunes has come along offering decent enough prices for music downloads.

But, in regards to movies, at least here in Canada nothing like that exists. And until it does, I think there will always be piracy.

My biggest challenge in trying to move away from downloading will not be movies (Rarely watch them at home) or music (iTunes solves this) but TV shows that I happen to forget to record etc.

There really isn't a way to catch a TV show that you happened to miss other than to watch the DVD's that come out like 2 years later. I usually use torrents but am thinking about switching to newsgroups for the occasional tv show.

[Russic]

The justification process astounds me. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I've never downloaded a movie before. I can try to justify it to myself, but ultimately it boils down to me being a cheap prick. I know it's wrong and I don't intend to make an argument in an attempt to make myself feel ok about it.

People who think paying for internet entitles them to thousands of dollars worth of free content can't actually believe that right? I'm thinking it has to be a coping mechanism.

I'm always interested in how this kind of thing will impact the industries involved. If too many people do it and profits are legitimately decimated, what kind of person is going to get into that industry? You look at a movie like The Dark Knight that made money in the billion dollar range and it looks like piracy doesn't have a huge impact, but you have to wonder how many small-time movie producers drop out.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

My biggest challenge in trying to move away from downloading will not be movies (Rarely watch them at home) or music (iTunes solves this) but TV shows that I happen to forget to record etc.

There really isn't a way to catch a TV show that you happened to miss other than to watch the DVD's that come out like 2 years later. I usually use torrents but am thinking about switching to newsgroups for the occasional tv show.

And ironically TV has been the least inflicted with piracy related losses to their business model.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Russic

The justification process astounds me. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I've never downloaded a movie before. I can try to justify it to myself, but ultimately it boils down to me being a cheap prick. I know it's wrong and I don't intend to make an argument in an attempt to make myself feel ok about it.

People who think paying for internet entitles them to thousands of dollars worth of free content can't actually believe that right? I'm thinking it has to be a coping mechanism.

I'm always interested in how this kind of thing will impact the industries involved. If too many people do it and profits are legitimately decimated, what kind of person is going to get into that industry? You look at a movie like The Dark Knight that made money in the billion dollar range and it looks like piracy doesn't have a huge impact, but you have to wonder how many small-time movie producers drop out.

It's not just about being cheap.

Convenience is another huge factor. With DVDs I have to go to the store or buy it online and wait for it to be delivered. With download it's almost on demand. The fact that movie studios haven't really woken up to this is shocking. In the U.S. I will concede that this is now available. But not here. Frankly, the last thing I want is a bunch of dvds cluttering up my living room. Would much rather have files on a storage server available for instant consumption.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

It's not just about being cheap.

Convenience is another huge factor. With DVDs I have to go to the store or buy it online and wait for it to be delivered. With download it's almost on demand. The fact that movie studios haven't really woken up to this is shocking. In the U.S. I will concede that this is now available. But not here. Frankly, the last thing I want is a bunch of dvds cluttering up my living room. Would much rather have files on a storage server available for instant consumption.

Sure, but most people still wouldn't pay for it if they could still get it for free. Itunes is convenient and most people I know still download free music from torrents.

Like I said before, people now expect this content to be free, and they blind themselves to the ramifications of it. Its a selfish attitude and no one wants to call a spade a spade.

[The Yen Man]

Oh I totally agree about the justification of piracy. It doesn't matter how you justify it, piracy is piracy.

Let's be honest here. The majority of people download because it's easy to do, saves them money, and they aren't going to get caught. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about the human race, but I really do think only a small percentage of people actually feel morally guilty of stealing if they can get away with it.

If hypothetically, there was a way for you to steal gas at your gas store without ever being caught, would the majority of people do it? I tend to think they would. You would justify it by saying "oh, the big corporations make billions of dollars, what's my small action going to do?". They might not realize that this is stealing from the local gas station owner, who may have to pay the shortage.

That's exactly what happening with the online downloading. People think big corporations and celebrities make a crap load of money as is. They don't think about the bit actors or the writers and production crew who make the same wages that you and I make being affected.

[Methanolic]

Just listening to Clement on Rutherford.

He explained that somebody DLing a movie (for personal use) is certainly in violation, however, for that person to be prosecuted they would first have to have a complaint against them by somebody connected with the content in question.

This would then have to go through court proceedings, the offender found guilty of violating the copright, then He said that nobody is going to be sued for 50K for DL-ing a movie, the fines will literally represent the price of the content. A song might cost you a few dollars. A movie would set you back about 20 bucks.

So, as far as downloading goes, this doesn't do much. Like another poster commented, are they going to go after everybody?

.....What I foresee, is the Gov. now going after the torrent sites.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Oh I totally agree about the justification of piracy. It doesn't matter how you justify it, piracy is piracy.

Let's be honest here. The majority of people download because it's easy to do, saves them money, and they aren't going to get caught. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about the human race, but I really do think only a small percentage of people actually feel morally guilty of stealing if they can get away with it.

If hypothetically, there was a way for you to steal gas at your gas store without ever being caught, would the majority of people do it? I tend to think they would. You would justify it by saying "oh, the big corporations make billions of dollars, what's my small action going to do?". They might not realize that this is stealing from the local gas station owner, who may have to pay the shortage.

That's exactly what happening with the online downloading. People think big corporations and celebrities make a crap load of money as is. They don't think about the bit actors or the writers and production crew who make the same wages that you and I make being affected.

I absolutely agree. If I'm not going to get caught, I feel little guilt in stealing. That's not to say I spend my days and nights in an alcohol fueled rage stealing things, it's just that if given an opportunity to do something immoral and anonymous, I'm going to have to be honest and say I'd go for it (assuming the action falls within my personal realm of acceptable behaviour).

[photon]

Originally Posted by fredr123

http://www.entertainmentmedialawsign...digital-locks/

According to these guys, the government has struck an interesting balance with respect to breaking digital locks for private purposes.

Thanks, nice to see some kind of balance in there.

[BlackEleven]

Breaking copyright is not the same as stealing. When you steal something your actually deprive someone of a resource. When you break copyright the owner still retains the original, you're making an unauthorized copy of it. It's different that actually going into the video store and smuggling a DVD out under your jacket. One is a criminal act, the other is not.

Some argue that it is unfair because you're getting content for free that you would normally have to pay for, but this makes the assumption the person would have still downloaded the content if it wasn't free. If not, no one is losing any money. Free downloads are a bit of a double-edge sword. Some people are bound to be exposed to new artists that they may contribute money towards in the future and others are still going to break copyright no matter what.

Personally, I think the RIAA/MPAA's response to the whole situation has been nothing short of terrible. If there's one thing that can be learned from pirating is that people like having instant access to a wealth of media without having to leave their homes. Instead, the RIAA et al have been using lawyers, scare tactics and political lobbying to not only alienate their customers but to make digital media even more difficult to acquire or consume for those who do still pay for it.

I think the whole industry would have been far better off investing all that time and money in an infrastructure to deliver media to consumers as quickly and easily as pirating does. Apple picked up on this a bit with iTunes, but that still means you have to buy from Apple and it often means digital locks too.

I don't see why the industry isn't trying to promote or create legal technology for consuming media as easily as pirated media. If it was easier to acquire the media legally (at a reasonable cost), I think they would win a lot of people over.

For example, I am a big fan of imdb. I love to read about movies on there. How hard would it be to include a link where I could download the movie for a fee of $2 or something? I would use that all the time if they had it. Or why not set up a website where I can stream movies? And even better include apps and instructions on how I can stream them to my television. And there are a lot of people out there way more creative than I am they could think of a wealth of new ideas.

It's all shame, really. I'm not advocating piracy, I'm just expressing my contempt for how its being dealt with.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by BurningYears

Does anyone know how long it takes parliament to pass a bill usaully? im not a big CPAC follower. haha

As little as a couple of days, if everyone is (more or less) on the same page.

This particular legislation though, I suspect, will still be on the table when Parliament is dissolved for an election. Killing this bill would likely result in a significant boost in popular support for the Liberals. The question is whether or not they actually realize that.....

[Pastiche]

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ry_id=15868004

WHEN Parliament decided, in 1709, to create a law that would protect books from piracy, the London-based publishers and booksellers who had been pushing for such protection were overjoyed. When Queen Anne gave her assent on April 10th the following year—300 years ago this week—to “An act for the encouragement of learning” they were less enthused. Parliament had given them rights, but it had set a time limit on them: 21 years for books already in print and 14 years for new ones, with an additional 14 years if the author was still alive when the first term ran out. After that, the material would enter the public domain so that anyone could reproduce it. The lawmakers intended thus to balance the incentive to create with the interest that society has in free access to knowledge and art. The Statute of Anne thus helped nurture and channel the spate of inventiveness that Enlightenment society and its successors have since enjoyed.
Over the past 50 years, however, that balance has shifted. Largely thanks to the entertainment industry’s lawyers and lobbyists, copyright’s scope and duration have vastly increased. In America, copyright holders get 95 years’ protection as a result of an extension granted in 1998, derided by critics as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”. They are now calling for even greater protection, and there have been efforts to introduce similar terms in Europe. Such arguments should be resisted: it is time to tip the balance back.


The notion that lengthening copyright increases creativity is questionable, however. Authors and artists do not generally consult the statute books before deciding whether or not to pick up pen or paintbrush. And overlong copyrights often limit, rather than encourage, a work’s dissemination, impact and influence. It can be difficult to locate copyright holders to obtain the rights to reuse old material. As a result, much content ends up in legal limbo (and in the case of old movies and sound recordings, is left to deteriorate—copying them in order to preserve them may constitute an act of infringement). The penalties even for inadvertent infringement are so punishing that creators routinely have to self-censor their work. Nor does the advent of digital technology strengthen the case for extending the period of protection. Copyright protection is needed partly to cover the costs of creating and distributing works in physical form. Digital technology slashes such costs, and thus reduces the argument for protection.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Sure, but most people still wouldn't pay for it if they could still get it for free. Itunes is convenient and most people I know still download free music from torrents.

Like I said before, people now expect this content to be free, and they blind themselves to the ramifications of it. Its a selfish attitude and no one wants to call a spade a spade.

And you might ask yourself why people got that way.

Answer is because the music/movie/tv show industry were too slow to adapt to the 'new technology' so people developed new ways to have access to that kind of stuff.

Which is why I have zero sympathy for for those 'lost profits.' These multi-billion dollar companies had the money and resources to create something like iTunes, Hulu and Netflix years ago, and they didn't do it. Now they can suffer from their incompetence to keep up with technology.

When Spotify has been ready since last year in October to launch in the US, but is being held back by Warner because Warner wants to be a bunch of 'arseholes'....I have zero sympathy when people continue downloading music illegally.

We're in 2010, and outside of Apple TV, there is absolutely no way to watch tv shows on demand, or even movies on demand like Hulu does in the US.

So the media industry can suck it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Methanolic

.....What I foresee, is the Gov. now going after the torrent sites.

As they should.

Shut down the sites that are offering this illegal content. That is the only way to stop it.





















Truth is actually, I'm hoping they go after torrent sites because that will get this stupid media companies caught up in court proceedings for the next 10 years, and maybe it'll make them realize that there is a HUGE consumer outcry for on demand video/music, and they need to get with the times.

[Flamesguy_SJ]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

*a really great post*

Film critic James Berardinelli has had a lot to say about movie piracy and its actual impact on the industry vs what the industry wants you to think.

Here's how the studios figure "lost revenue" via on-line piracy: every movie illegally downloaded, regardless of the intent of the downloader or the quality of the film, represents one lost full-price ticket sale. Therefore, total lost revenue is determined by taking the number of illegal movie downloads worldwide and multiplying it by about $7. Anyone with half a brain can see that this is a gross overinflation of losses. It's to the studios' advantage, however, to get the biggest number possible because it makes the problem appear worse than it may actually be.

When it comes to theatrical releases, indications are that the majority of downloaders fall into one of two categories: those who have already seen the title theatrically and want a copy for their private collection, and those who wouldn't pay to see it but are willing to "try it out" if they can get it for free. Few downloaders fall into the "lost ticket sale" category: those who would have seen it in a theater if it wasn't available gratis on their computer. I'm not saying there's no one who fits that description, but it's a minority case. Considering the quality of most theatrical release downloads, it's understandable why. They are, in many cases, unwatchable. It's nonsensical to get upset about an on-line copy of The Bourne Ultimatum that was made using a camera phone from the last row of a multiplex.

Rest of the article.

Basically, his argument is similar to yours: that not every download represents a lost DVD or ticket sale. In an overwhelming number of cases, it's people who have already seen the movie that want a copy before the DVD comes out (if we're talking about actual pirated movies..). His suggestion is a $2 YouTube-quality version being released between theatrical release and DVD, and you can stream it from the website.

I've spent a good deal of time discussing copyright and piracy when it comes to music, and I kind of look at it like this: to me, music's value is more creative than monetary. It's about an artist sharing emotion and experience and creativity with an audience. Obviously, if it's an artist whose work I enjoy then I do try to spend a little money on their CD or a concert; but how are they any different than a couple buddies of mine who jam together on a Friday or Saturday night just to get together and create something?

Reading the responses already in this thread, I have a feeling I'll probably take some flak for that position, but it's pretty close to how I feel about it. I don't like the idea of music as being a commodity or product by default.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by Azure

And you might ask yourself why people got that way.

Answer is because the music/movie/tv show industry were too slow to adapt to the 'new technology' so people developed new ways to have access to that kind of stuff.

Which is why I have zero sympathy for for those 'lost profits.' These multi-billion dollar companies had the money and resources to create something like iTunes, Hulu and Netflix years ago, and they didn't do it. Now they can suffer from their incompetence to keep up with technology.

When Spotify has been ready since last year in October to launch in the US, but is being held back by Warner because Warner wants to be a bunch of 'arseholes'....I have zero sympathy when people continue downloading music illegally.

We're in 2010, and outside of Apple TV, there is absolutely no way to watch tv shows on demand, or even movies on demand like Hulu does in the US.

So the media industry can suck it.

The thought process is astounding. Anyways, you are really hurting the industry and people like me who want to pay for content, because of people like you I have to pay more.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

The thought process is astounding. Anyways, you are really hurting the industry and people like me who want to pay for content, because of people like you I have to pay more.

Explain.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Explain.

You want me to explain why the industry and consumers paying for their media are hurt by people who are illegally downloading the media?

[Pastiche]

I want you to explain why you have to pay more because of people who download movies.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Flamesguy_SJ

I've spent a good deal of time discussing copyright and piracy when it comes to music, and I kind of look at it like this: to me, music's value is more creative than monetary. It's about an artist sharing emotion and experience and creativity with an audience. Obviously, if it's an artist whose work I enjoy then I do try to spend a little money on their CD or a concert; but how are they any different than a couple buddies of mine who jam together on a Friday or Saturday night just to get together and create something?

Reading the responses already in this thread, I have a feeling I'll probably take some flak for that position, but it's pretty close to how I feel about it. I don't like the idea of music as being a commodity or product by default.

What about NHL hockey? Is that more recreational than monetary? How is that different than watching guys at the local outdoor rink play on a weekend? Maybe you should be getting free Flames tickets.