C-61: Copyright legislation **UPDATE**

[corporatejay]

Well with a conservative minority this won't pass because the NDP and Libs won't go for it.

Anyway, I pretty much listen to my CDs now anyway, I'm starting to get old and only like a few bands here and there, who I don't mind supporting.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Well with a conservative minority this won't pass because the NDP and Libs won't go for it.

Anyway, I pretty much listen to my CDs now anyway, I'm starting to get old and only like a few bands here and there, who I don't mind supporting.

Why won't the Liberals and NDP go for it?

I honestly don't know what reasons they have given.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Why won't the Liberals and NDP go for it?

I honestly don't know what reasons they have given.

Probably out of principle..

[kevman]

With a second straight minority government no party will want to be the party that force ANOTHER election... Why wouldn't the Libs or NDP go for it? All things considered (economy, environment, Afghanistan, health care, etc.) Bill C-61 is peanuts and is of little relative importance!

Do you really save THAT much money by downloading music? I've got about 10-15gb's of mp3's in my iTunes, most of which is purchased. My roomate has 100+gb's of music, most of which is garbage and even more of it does not even have a single listen. Do you really need that much music? With services like Pandora and Last.fm one can very easily find new music these days and with .mp3 purchases it is easy to buy singles if the rest of the albums are terrible. I think it's in the artists best interest to make songs available for free download but don't alot of artists already do this? Bill C-61 does not prohibit this does it?

Kermitology, if I wanted to download your free album I'd still be able to under C-61 correct?

Maybe I'm out of touch but I really don't see the big problem with the bill...

All other political partisanship aside I think one would be naive to change their vote based on this bill and ignore the other issues currently facing us!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by kevman

With a second straight minority government no party will want to be the party that force ANOTHER election... Why wouldn't the Libs or NDP go for it? All things considered (economy, environment, Afghanistan, health care, etc.) Bill C-61 is peanuts and is of little relative importance!

Do you really save THAT much money by downloading music? I've got about 10-15gb's of mp3's in my iTunes, most of which is purchased. My roomate has 100+gb's of music, most of which is garbage and even more of it does not even have a single listen. Do you really need that much music? With services like Pandora and Last.fm one can very easily find new music these days and with .mp3 purchases it is easy to buy singles if the rest of the albums are terrible. I think it's in the artists best interest to make songs available for free download but don't alot of artists already do this? Bill C-61 does not prohibit this does it?

Kermitology, if I wanted to download your free album I'd still be able to under C-61 correct?

Maybe I'm out of touch but I really don't see the big problem with the bill...

All other political partisanship aside I think one would be naive to change their vote based on this bill and ignore the other issues currently facing us!

Thank you.

That was much more eloquently said than I have been able say it, but it certainly echoes my thoughts to a T.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by kevman

All other political partisanship aside I think one would be naive to change their vote based on this bill and ignore the other issues currently facing us!

I could not agree with that sentiment more.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by kevman

With a second straight minority government no party will want to be the party that force ANOTHER election... Why wouldn't the Libs or NDP go for it? All things considered (economy, environment, Afghanistan, health care, etc.) Bill C-61 is peanuts and is of little relative importance!

Do you really save THAT much money by downloading music? I've got about 10-15gb's of mp3's in my iTunes, most of which is purchased. My roomate has 100+gb's of music, most of which is garbage and even more of it does not even have a single listen. Do you really need that much music? With services like Pandora and Last.fm one can very easily find new music these days and with .mp3 purchases it is easy to buy singles if the rest of the albums are terrible. I think it's in the artists best interest to make songs available for free download but don't alot of artists already do this? Bill C-61 does not prohibit this does it?

Kermitology, if I wanted to download your free album I'd still be able to under C-61 correct?

Maybe I'm out of touch but I really don't see the big problem with the bill...

All other political partisanship aside I think one would be naive to change their vote based on this bill and ignore the other issues currently facing us!

My opposition to C-61 has nothing to do with pirating music. It's about my right to format-shift or time-shift as I see fit with content that I've legally purchased. If I pay for DRM-protected songs on the iTunes store and want to stream them over my wireless network to my PS3 or Xbox 360, the only way I can do that is by cracking the DRM and converting Apple's files to mp3 format. If C-61 became law, that would make me a criminal subject to a $20,000 fine.

Likewise, if I purchase a DRM-protected CD but want to rip the songs to iTunes so I can upload them to my iPod, the only way that is possible is by cracking the DRM, which would again result in me becoming a copyright criminal subject to a $20,000 fine.

For another example, consider the following: last weekend my father called me looking for tech support. He had won five free song downloads from a contest promotion at Subway. He was able to download the songs, but he couldn't copy them to his iPod and wanted my help. Since the songs didn't come from the iTunes store, they were using a DRM format that isn't supported by Apple; thus they weren't compatible with his iPod. I walked him through the process of cracking the DRM, but I also explained to him that if C-61 (which he had never heard of and wasn't familiar with the issue) were passed, doing what we just did could result in him being fined $20,000.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by kevman

I think it's in the artists best interest to make songs available for free download but don't alot of artists already do this? Bill C-61 does not prohibit this does it?

[k]ermitology, if I wanted to download your free album I'd still be able to under C-61 correct?

Maybe I'm out of touch but I really don't see the big problem with the bill...

All other political partisanship aside I think one would be naive to change their vote based on this bill and ignore the other issues currently facing us!

My album is released under creative commons license, I don't know what other artists other than Trent Reznor release under. Basically free to distribute, just don't change it.

For me it's the last straw when it comes to the Conservatives. I was on edge about them, and this bill infuriates me so much because it shows how little any Conservatives actually LISTEN to their constituency.

[Barnes]

It's become really clear that a lot of people don't understand the implications of this bill. Coupled with ACTA, and royalty negotiations and other things being pushed through by the likes of the RIAA and MPAA the end result is to shut down services like Last.fm and Pandora.

People assume that that this bill is only about stopping people from downloading mp3s. It has implications for much more. The public domain and fair use are things that benefit everyone and allowing this bill to pass will make it illegal to do a lot of things that artists, content creators, teachers, photographers, students and librarians do everyday by letting large organizations set the rules and have them enforced by various federal enforcement agencies.

As a content creator that has nothing to do with the recording industry, I already have and can enforce copyright violations for my content through Creative Commons. I don't need this bill.

[Bobblehead]

Because this bill does nothing other than pander to major labels. It puts limits on things far beyond music. The new external hard drive Bell is advertising for their PVR. That would be illegal. Every recorded a TV show on your VCR? If you didn't watch it and erase it, that is illegal. Want to unlock your cellphone or jailbreak your iphone? (I'm lookin' at you, FanIn80) That is illegal. There are lots of insane issues like that written into this bill. I'd be willing to be that if this bill passes, 80% of people are going to be violating it, and that isn't hyperbole. But then the Minister has been quoted as saying they aren't going to enforce it! What sort of stupid legislation are they going to implement and then say they aren't going to enforce? That is stupid.

They need to adapt the current Act to account for the way the world is changing. That should be looking forward to encompass and foster the growth of new industries. This will perpetuate the current big media monopolies and create serious barriers on new industries and ideas. The DMCA has been widely criticised for the chilling effects it has had on many areas. This is worse.

It isn't simply, "people want to download free music", and if you simplify the bill to that then you deserve what the bill is going to give you.

[photon]

Originally Posted by kevman

Maybe I'm out of touch but I really don't see the big problem with the bill...

Another scenario would be when purchased music providers decide to not support their products any more.. this has actually happened already, where company sells music or videos or whatever, then decides they're out of the business and takes all their servers and such down.. now you're left with a song that you can only play on your computer where it already is.. heaven help you if you reformat or buy a new computer, you can't move it or redownload it since the DRM servers are gone. So you break the encryption, congratz you are now a criminal.

Basically the issue is that this bill and its ilk give companies permanent rights to decide when and where you can use the stuff you purchase, forever. Imagine finding a tape at a garage sale, buying it, but you can't play it because the company that made it is out of business. Or they don't give permission to you because you run Linux and they only support Windows. Or it's only authorized to play in 3 different tape decks ever.

[Barnes]

And here is a look at what the future holds courtesy of the US border patrol.

Still think this won't affect you?

http://www.pressrepublican.com/homep...278220015.html

[Azure]

Well, there goes my vote for the conservatives.

....now I might not even make an effort to vote.

Nobody to vote for.

[Barnes]

This election is going to have a low voter turnout. I always feel bad when I don't go out and vote so I think I am going to spoil my ballot. At least there's an effort in that.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by photon

Another scenario would be when purchased music providers decide to not support their products any more.. this has actually happened already, where company sells music or videos or whatever, then decides they're out of the business and takes all their servers and such down.. now you're left with a song that you can only play on your computer where it already is.. heaven help you if you reformat or buy a new computer, you can't move it or redownload it since the DRM servers are gone. So you break the encryption, congratz you are now a criminal.

Basically the issue is that this bill and its ilk give companies permanent rights to decide when and where you can use the stuff you purchase, forever. Imagine finding a tape at a garage sale, buying it, but you can't play it because the company that made it is out of business. Or they don't give permission to you because you run Linux and they only support Windows. Or it's only authorized to play in 3 different tape decks ever.

and the companies you mention taking down their servers potentially rendering your legally purchased DRM tracks useless isn't limited to small time upstarts or shady companies that might go out of business any day. WalMart recently took down their DRM servers.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Except for one thing.. it's not the artist making that decision,

i suppose they contractually assigned those rights to the record companies in exchange for $$ and distribution of their work. no?

Originally Posted by kermitology

... nor benefiting from it

they dont benefit by having their music distributed through the marketing and supply chain channels developed by the record company?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

What's wrong with DRM? Does the artist who makes the music not have a right to decide how you get to listen to their music?

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.

For the record, I listened to Prentice talk about this legislation. He stated that the language of it gave people the wrong impression, and that the spirit of the law is to, in fact, give consumers the rights to use their iPods, Apple TVs, etc etc... and to protect those rights.

Whether or not they're fixing the language to be more clear, I have no clue. They cut to commercial and I got to where I was going, so I stopped listening to the radio.

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.

What is so bad about DRM? Well other than the limiting of your rights that has already been mentioned, look up the whole mess with Sony's DRM scheme that installed many many rootkits on people's computers.

DRMs are so flawed right now from a technical standpoint that its sad that there are companies that want to use them. Even if they didn't have the massive technical problems, there's still the issue of consumer rights.

edit: btw, trying to reintroduce this legislation cost the conservatives my vote. i was willing to (eventually) forgive and assume they had learned their lesson the first time it was defeated.

edit2: now that i take a closer look, there's nobody really good to vote for this time around. writing in rick astley it is then

[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...

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

and the companies you mention taking down their servers potentially rendering your legally purchased DRM tracks useless isn't limited to small time upstarts or shady companies that might go out of business any day. WalMart recently took down their DRM servers.

Customers of the Yahoo Music Store lost access to the music they had purchased when Yahoo shut down their licensing servers on Sept. 30.

MSN Music has announced they are shutting down their servers (although due to outcry, the date was extended to 2011).

Google Video Store shut down their service at the end of 2007. They offered refunds to buyers, but the media was all locked.

Major League Baseball sold footage, but then took down their servers and the video could no longer be watched (no refunds from MLB).

[MaDMaN_26]

Well whining on the internet does nothing for any of us. Have an opinion go here: http://www.elections.ca/home.asp

Put in your postal code and on the next page find the link under "Candidate" that will tell you who is running in your area and call him or her. (or find an email address)

I plan on letting Jason Kenney (kennej@parl.gc.ca) know that if there was not so many other important issues aside from this one he would have lost my vote based on Bill C-61's proposed resurrection. I intend to let him know that even if I vote conservative supporting this bill is not supporting my will or interests as a citizen in his riding. That its obvious copyright laws need to be revisited for todays world but this bill is not in the best interest of anyone except large companies who would like nothing more than for all of us to pay 6 times for 1 item.