Canadian Copyright Disaster?

[photon]

Originally Posted by fredr123

You'll need to buy a tube of Colgate for home use, a separate tube for when you're at work and need to freshen up before a meeting and a third entirely different tube for in your travel kit while you're on the road.

And restrict it so the toothpaste can only go on your teeth.

At least until they can figure out a way to charge you for every squeeze of the tube.

[Bobblehead]

What really gets me is why won't Bev Oda et al list listen to the actual Canadian Music Industry?

Last year, all Canadian music labels pulled out of the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association). Graham Henderson, who is quoted frequently in the CP article, is the head of an association of Multinational Music labels with no actual Canadian Music Labels.

And during the last election, here were a list of some of Bev Oda's campaign contributors:

• copyright lobby groups - CRIA, CFTA, CMPDA, CMMRA, Director's Guild, Entertainment Software Association, SOCAN, Writer's Guild
• record labels - BMG Canada, EMI Canada, Sony Music Canada, Warner Music Canada, Universal Music Canada

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Oi.

CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...ht-canada.html
Canoe: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNew...279859-cp.html

Thank you for a link to a trustworthy site.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by fredr123

You'll need to buy a tube of Colgate for home use, a separate tube for when you're at work and need to freshen up before a meeting and a third entirely different tube for in your travel kit while you're on the road.

So I will need to buy the same song three times so that I can use it on my Ipod and my wife can use it on hers and so that we can use it on our cd player?

And here we thought photo radar was a cash cow

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Mccree

So I will need to buy the same song three times so that I can use it on my Ipod and my wife can use it on hers and so that we can use it on our cd player?

That's exactly the way the industry lobby is pushing. Songs from Itunes are already, in theory, limited to a certain number of computers and devices. You're not "buying" the song so much as you are getting a license to use the song in a particular way. You might own the physical media but the content encoded on that CD is licensed. And by circumventing any copy protection measures that may be utlized to protect users from using that content in a way that violates the license (e.g. copying the song to your mp3 player) you would be violating the anti-circumvention provisions of the proposed copyright law.

So, yeah. This is really not cool. Tell your friends. Tell your coworkers. Tell your MP.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by fredr123

So, yeah. This is really not cool. Tell your friends. Tell your coworkers. Tell your MP.

Done and Done

[Burninator]

Ugh. If I buy a CD then I am not able to rip it onto my iPod then I will simply stop buying music and I will download it illegally. I bet a lot of people will start doing the same.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Ugh. If I buy a CD then I am not able to rip it onto my iPod then I will simply stop buying music and I will download it illegally. I bet a lot of people will start doing the same.

That's exactly it.
There will then be a larger underground for music that can then be used a number of different devices. They aren't going to fix the problem, they are going to push it underground, away from their eyes, and line the pockets of "criminals".

How is this going to affect something like google video (ie: NHL on Google Video). I am sure google has to convert the origional format in order for it to be downloaded or viewable on their site. If I watch an NHL game on Google, does that mean I am breaking the law?

[housejunk]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. The notion of "Fair Dealing" as an exception to copyright infringement in the Canadiany Copyright Act (s.29) is generally only relevant to personal research and/or criticism . If you look at what constitutes actual copyright infringement under s.27 there is little to no application of personal use being restricted. The primary aim of the legislation is towards distrubtors aiming to profit off of someone else's copyright. Its highly unlikely that your own personal use would ever be affected. For that reason, there's no concern with you transferring your music to an iPod. That's clearly personal use, and I would be absolutely shocked if anything ever changed that. Again, this looks like a case of an MP that doesn't really understand the law. (I'm an IP lawyer and engineer.... and a huge practioner of downloading everything from TV shows to software....as far as I'm concerned it is all perfectly legal). There's some free legal advice.

As a side note, that's why bit Torrents are perfectly legal. No one is out there offering a completed file. Instead everyone is grabbing tiny bits and pieces of files from everyone else who is sharing that torrent. Tiny packets of data are not considered copyrightable material.

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...42///en?page=1

(the relevant sections of the act...)

[jolinar of malkshor]

I read that section and although it gives some exemptions it baiscally says that you cannot do anything that is the copy right owner is allowed to do. Without reading the entire act.....is there a section that specifically mentions personal use?

[housejunk]

That's the tricky question when it comes to the Canadian Copyright Act with respect to personal downloads and personal use. It's a question that I don't believe has come before our courts as of yet. s.(3) of the Act lays out VERY broadly what the Copyright owner has the right to do. Strictly speaking, the copyright owner is the only individual who may legally perform those actions.

With regards to personal downloads and personal use do those actions constitue a "reporduction or production" in a "material form" as indicated under s.(3)? That's the debate. A personal download to me does not constitute a reproduction in a "material form". Of course, "material form" is not defined anywhere in the act. In my mind, and in my legal opinion there is ambiguity in the interpretation. As a result, I feel that personal downloads and personal use of those downloads are currently fair game under the Canadian Copyright Act. Of course, take that opinion with a grain of salt.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Typical of legislation....let the courts define the act.

Thanks for your input...very interesting.

[fredr123]

Section 80 is awesome... for people like you and me. I see any copyright revision seriously messing with the exceptions in that section. That's where you get your "right" to make personal copies of music, for example.

[housejunk]

Originally Posted by housejunk

The primary aim of the legislation is towards distrubtors aiming to profit off of someone else's copyright. Its highly unlikely that your own personal use would ever be affected. For that reason, there's no concern with you transferring your music to an iPod. That's clearly personal use, and I would be absolutely shocked if anything ever changed that.

Bang on. s.80 is all about private use as I stated above. The legislation seems clear that they are only looking towards individuals who are distrbuting materials. However, the point that raises some concern among IP lawyers is the limitation to "private use" exception;

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

In other words, any form of distribution negates the "private use" exemption from copyright infringement for audio recordings which can limit the "private copying" defense.

HOWEVER, it is even more important to note that nowhere does this exepmtion talk about "downloads". This amendment was passed in 1997, when music downloads were not the primary concern they are today. s.80 "private copying" exemptions had in mind situations where someone bought a CD, and then made their own "reproductions" based on that. Downloading is newer terriority, and I'd be reluctant to hang my hat on a s.80 defence.

[RougeUnderoos]

This is an article in today's Globe and Mail about movie pirating in Canada, more specifically about the practice of going into a theatre and recording the movie with a camera. Has anyone ever seen one of these things? I can't imagine the quality would be very good if it's filmed by some guy sitting in the front row with a camera poking out of his shirt.

Then he threatened to do something unprecedented in Canadian distribution history: Fox could stop sending copies of all its films to Cineplex Entertainment's 130 movie houses, with close to 1,300 screens. Or, Fox might decide to delay the Canadian release of popular films until a few weeks after their U.S. release.
In the letter, Snyder fumed that his company had discerned that, at one point during 2006, Canadian theatres were the source for nearly 50 per cent of illegal camcords across the globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rtainment/home

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Canadian theatres were the source for nearly 50 per cent of illegal camcords across the globe

They probably got that statistic from the place FOX usually gets their stats: Their ass.A friend of mine downloads a fair number of movies off the 'Net. Most that he downloads are on the 'Net a week or two before they are in theatres; BEFORE people get a chance to camcorder them.

I have seen a camcordered movie and not only is the quality not very good, but the image jumps up and down. Since there is no tripod to set the camera up on, the person recording has to be very, very still. Unless you are watching "Blair Witch Project", the jostling makes the film almost unwatchable.

[killer_carlson]

I'd also be emailing Apple and any other MP3 player person.

If done right this could be spun as an attack on MP3 players.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

They probably got that statistic from the place FOX usually gets their stats: Their ass.A friend of mine downloads a fair number of movies off the 'Net. Most that he downloads are on the 'Net a week or two before they are in theatres; BEFORE people get a chance to camcorder them.

Maybe they did get it out of their ass, but your comment doesn't make any sense in regards to that statistic. Just because "your friend" downloads movies BEFORE anyone gets a chance to camcorder them doesn't mean that 50% of camcorded movies don't come from Canada.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I'd also be emailing Apple and any other MP3 player person.

If done right this could be spun as an attack on MP3 players.

Apple won't be upset about this type of legislation. They have DRM on their downloads and they are more than happy about anything which prevents people from being able to play downloaded files on "non-Apple" players. This type of legislation promotes lock-in to Apple products.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Maybe they did get it out of their ass, but your comment doesn't make any sense in regards to that statistic. Just because "your friend" downloads movies BEFORE anyone gets a chance to camcorder them doesn't mean that 50% of camcorded movies don't come from Canada.

My point was that a lot of movies get put on the net and distributed long before they get to the movie theatres. By the go-fers and interns working for FOX and the other movie companies. Why go after Canadians making horrible copies of their movies when perfect high-res copies are being leaked right out their back door?