C-61: Copyright legislation **UPDATE**

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Are they going to do random iPod checks? Or do you have to be sharing the CD to get in crap for it?

I bet you they won't check a thing.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Are they going to do random iPod checks? Or do you have to be sharing the CD to get in crap for it?

Just at the border, if ACTA goes through...

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Just at the border, if ACTA goes through...

Even so how could they prove you circumvented DRM to get it on your iPod as opposed to legally downloaded a DRM-free copy of it?

That's likely why the fine is $20K as opposed to $500 for illegally downloading. It's easier to catch 40 downloaders than one person circumventing DRM.....

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Azure

I bet you they won't check a thing.

But they could use it as a reason to detain you or screw around with you at the border/immigration. Use it as an excuse to look for other things like kiddie porn.

If that's the case, come out and say it. If a border guard said can we have your password to check for kiddie porn, I would give it up in a second. If they said can we have your password to check for copyright violations, I would have a problem with that because it's not cut and dry.

[photon]

Even a blanket check for kiddie porn is an invasion of privacy.. they're assuming I'm guilty until I prove I'm not. They can't search my house unless they have a warrant which means they have a decent reason to search, searching data should be the same IMO. It's just easy to search data so the line is very easy to cross.

http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/20...eat-bill-c-61/

Some good basics there.

The bill is bad for Canadians for a number of reasons:

1. It reduces your rights: Consumers will continue to be able to use copyrighted materials for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting, but will no longer have the means to exercise those rights when the copyrighted materials are protected by DRM.
2. It reduces reduces the usefulness of your media: Consumers will no longer have the right to take commonly purchased physical media, such as DVDs, or downloaded DRM-protected files, such as digital music, and make copies for their personal use.
3. It forces you to buy media you’ve already purchased: Consumers will be unable to unlock media they’ve legally purchased in the past for use on new devices, and hence will be forced to buy the same content again and again.
4. It makes your devices less useful: Consumers will be able to do less, not more, with new devices they purchase, as many of these device may, at any time, limit the user’s access to media they have a legal right to view, modify, or redistribute.
5. It reduces competition and innovation: Consumers will be unable to influence the market by finding new uses for their existing media and copyrighted materials, limiting the application of ingenuity that can lead to the creation of new applications and markets for Canadians and the world.
6. It makes the public domain works inaccessible: Consumers will have the right to re-use works in the public domain, but in cases where those public domain works are protected by DRM consumers will not have the means to exercise those rights and hence lose access to their own heritage.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by photon

Even a blanket check for kiddie porn is an invasion of privacy.. they're assuming I'm guilty until I prove I'm not.

The border cops have more power than real cops. It is scary what they can do without and probable cause.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/20...eat-bill-c-61/

Some good basics there.

That list is telling me I'm going to be a criminal if this law goes through.

Oh well...too bad.

[simonsays]

What's crazy, and this has probably been said before, but what's really crazy is that by allowing DRM to effectively set its own limits, the government is allowing content providers to create their own laws.

If altering DRM is against the law, then anything that DRM does must then be within the law. But there's absolutely no law regulating DRM... so it has the power to keep people from exercising other legal rights granted by the bill.

Shouldn't we define and limit DRM before we pass a law protecting it?

[freakinsaprikin]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know if there is an example yet, but one day soon there will be a "recording artist" that becomes famous (and rich) without ever having signed to a traditional record label.

Not sure if anybody answered this yet, but Radio Head's last cd was released without a record label and completely through their website. The best part is that you could pay whatever you wanted for it. I'm not sure how much money they made off of it but I thought it was a great idea.

[photon]

Originally Posted by simonsays

Shouldn't we define and limit DRM before we pass a law protecting it?

The problem with that is that technology changes fast enough that if you try to do it that way the law will have to be updated constantly.

Better is to focus on why you would want to limit DRM, and that's fair use. So companies can have their DRM but circumventing DRM for fair use should not be illegal, and in fact I think companies should make the tools to circumvent their DRM available for cases of fair use; depending on hackers so you can make a backup of your DVD so your kids don't destroy it is kind of silly.

[photon]

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/19...stry-mi-2.html

CBC Radio's Search Engine just posted/aired its interview with Canadian Industry Minister Jim Prentice about his Canadian version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. They've been trying to get him on the air for months now and he finally consented to ten minutes, but he delivered nothing but spin and outright lies about his legislation and ended up hanging up on Jesse Brown, the interviewer.

[gottabekd]

10 minute interview will Jim Prentice about this bill. (MP3 Link at the bottom). Pretty good interviewer, pretty poor answers. I am not a lawyer, but I seem to read the bill quite a bit differently from Mr. Prentice.

EDIT...

Ahh, damn you photon. Beat me to posting this while I was listening...

[photon]

Lol, post first, then listen!

So the jist I got from Jim was it's illegal but don't worry they won't come after you because the law is written in such a way they can't get much $$ from you (damages).

That's great, until they figure out a way around the way the law is written, or sue for damages (the cost of the song, 99 cents, plus legal fees, $10,000) anyway just to try to intimidate the consumers like they are doing in the US.

So we have a minister who's supposed to be creating laws, saying don't worry about the law because they won't prosecute because it's not worth their while. Whee!

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by photon

So we have a minister who's supposed to be creating laws, saying don't worry about the law because they won't prosecute because it's not worth their while. Whee!

Just what we need from the "unofficial Deputy Prime Minister" (which is apparently what his staff tried to have included in his Wikipedia article).

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=59023


Why do I get the feeling he doesn't really understand why people are getting upset?

[Barnes]

Why do I get the feeling he learned everything about technology by reading an old airline inflight magazine.

[Bobblehead]

Friday's Herald had good piece by Catherine Ford. I think she described the situation very well.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...16f501144d&p=1

While the purported beneficiaries of the new act are those artists, the real beneficiaries will be the companies who publish, control and market such work. With the possible exception of an original piece of art, all intellectual property are copied and distributed by someone other than the creator. It is these middlemen who will profit from digital locks, regardless of the hype about copyright protection.

[SebC]

Facebookers!

Jim Prentice's Stampede BBQ Protest Page
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=17795093906

Fair Copyright For Canada - Calgary Chapter Group
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7146413223

Fair Copyright For Canada - National Group
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6315846683

For those of you not on Facebook, here's the invitation to Prentice's Stampede Breakfast.
http://www.jimprentice.ca/media/2008...-Breakfast.pdf

July 5th, 9AM-11AM, Osteria de Medici parking lot (corner of Kensignton Road and 10th St NW).

Bring a donation for a the charity this event is supporting (Children's Cottage Society), keep it classy, but let's all show up and let him know we don't support his bill.

[Shawnski]

For the record, as some of you know, I have been dabbling in the DJ business lately (legitimately, with full licensing). I joined a DJ association and the first newletter from them included pending verbage for release that was endorsing this bill, for various reasons that on their own right were valid.

Even though I was a member for one day, I spent several hours emailing back and forth on this issue, in particular how DRM would impact their industry.

This weeks newletter indicated "Some of our members show an excellent understanding of what these changes are and what they mean to us as commercial users. The release will be corrected and prepared for submission now ."

CP strikes again!

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

For the record, as some of you know, I have been dabbling in the DJ business lately (legitimately, with full licensing). I joined a DJ association and the first newletter from them included pending verbage for release that was endorsing this bill, for various reasons that on their own right were valid.

Even though I was a member for one day, I spent several hours emailing back and forth on this issue, in particular how DRM would impact their industry.

This weeks newletter indicated "Some of our members show an excellent understanding of what these changes are and what they mean to us as commercial users. The release will be corrected and prepared for submission now ."

CP strikes again!

So, will they still be endorsing the bill?

[Shawnski]

I don't think so. At least not as it stands. I will let you know when they provide us an updated press release.