Canadian DMCA to be introduced in June

[NuclearPizzaMan]

I like how the Harper Government signed this surrender to the American Media Cartel on the 200th anniversary of 1812 War.


The Digital Locks provision eliminates all pro-consumer pieces of this legislation.

[Barnes]

In light of this news, I have deleted all of my decryption software and expunged all backed up DVDs in physical and digital format.





Not.

[freedogger]

Anyone else with better countermeasures?
http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-make-...secure-120419/
http://www.truecrypt.org/

[photon]

C-11 is now law.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6692/125/

Fourth, the digital lock rules are now also in effect. This was the most controversial aspect of the bill as the government caved to U.S. pressure despite widespread opposition to its restrictive approach. There are some exceptions to the digital lock rules (including for law enforcement, interoperability, encryption research, security, privacy, unlocking cellphones, and persons with perceptual disabilities), but these are drafted in a very restrictive manner. The government has established a regulatory process to allow for new digital lock exceptions, which creates the possibility of Canadians seeking new exceptions to at least match some of the U.S. exceptions on DVDs or streaming video. At the moment, Canada is arguably more restrictive than even the U.S., though the digital lock rules do not carry significant penalties for individuals. Under Canadian law, it is not an infringement to possess tools or software that can be used to circumvent digital locks and liability is limited to actual damages in non-commercial cases.

[polak]

Guess what.
This will change nothing.

[3 Justin 3]

Americans wanted Canada to do this. Canadians didn't want it.

Results in Canada doing it.

[Jimmy Stang]

My main gripe all along is that the digital lock provisions hinder the use of legally acquired content. Music and movie companies have long relied on consumers purchasing the same content multiple times as formats change, but in the past there was at least the added benefit of better quality, convenience, etc.

Unfortunately, the industries that lobbied hard for these provisions would rather spend their money on lawyers and lobbyists instead of adapting their business model.

[Caged Great]

people who downloaded stuff before will still do so. I don't see how this really changes anything.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

people who downloaded stuff before will still do so. I don't see how this really changes anything.

Well it adds some ways that companies can sue individuals, for sure. A few high profile lawsuits of single moms and grandmas might deter others from downloading. That worked well in the US, right?

[photon]

The penalties here should be much less though, so even the theory of "sue grandma's bloomers off to send a message" doesn't apply since the damages are a factor and the damages for downloading a $1 song are.. $1.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by photon

The penalties here should be much less though, so even the theory of "sue grandma's bloomers off to send a message" doesn't apply since the damages are a factor and the damages for downloading a $1 song are.. $1.

Although I think that the initial proposal was to have a range of $500-$20,000 per infringement (and one song/show/movie would equal an infringement), this was lowered somewhat. Now the range is $100 to a total cap of $5,000 as long as the infringement was non-commercial.

So under the old proposal, getting sued for 5 songs would cost you $2,500 for sure, and could set you back $100,000, and would continue to climb. Now 5, 10, 20, 50 songs would max out at $5,000 and the courts would hopefully take into account the level of piracy when deciding on the penalty.

http://balancedcopyright.gc.ca/eic/s...g/rp01184.html

Admittedly, I don't know what the actual text of the law says, and this link is from the government's own spin site, so take that for what it's worth.

The worst part is, and I've moaned about it enough already, but ripping my legally-purchased DVD to my computer would put me in violation of this law and the entertainment company could sue me for up to $5,000. Obviously, they'd probably never find out and would be unlikely to pursue it, but the law gives them the right to do so.

[Coys1882]

So what's the difference between using a PVR to record a show only to then download it later to watch it in bed on a laptop?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

So what's the difference between using a PVR to record a show only to then download it later to watch it in bed on a laptop?

Commercials

[polak]

So what you're saying is I could download every movie and song since the advant of media and as long as I don't get caught until after it's finished downloading and I don't try and sell it, the max fine I face is $5,000?

Also can old downloads that took place before the law be included?

[Azure]

Netflix utterly dominates online-video traffic, according to a new study by Sandvine, accounting for 33 percent of peak traffic in North America. Amazon, its closest rival, has only 1.8 percent, and Hulu has 1.4 percent.

The real alternative to Netflix is BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing protocol through which users upload and download copies of movies and TV shows. Because it's a technology for file sharing rather than a centralized service or piece of software, BitTorrent has proven very hard for movie studios to shut down.

But BitTorrent is down to 12 percent of all traffic in North America. It's easy to see why: With Netflix's wide selection, relatively low monthly price compared to cable-TV subscriptions, and speed of delivery, few people opt to wrestle with the complexity and delay of file downloads.

http://www.businessinsider.com/netfl...#ixzz2BaKRDR4d

But don't tell anyone.

[SebC]

I really don't know how people put up with Netflix. The image quality is terrible compared to a Blu-Ray rip.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by SebC

I really don't know how people put up with Netflix. The image quality is terrible compared to a Blu-Ray rip.

It is not terrible. I'm sure I could tell a difference by doing an a b test from 3 feet away. But it is pretty much on par with broadcast hdtv. It's pretty tough to even spot compression artifacts these days unless you are really looking for them.

I have a hard time believing Netflix content is good enough to take away a significant amount of pirates. Seems that current movies and premium cable shows are the most popular among pirates, and neither of those are on Netflix. I wonder if stats are down due to people encrypting their traffic and using usenet.

[polak]

There is some premium cable shows on Netflix. AMC, FX and Showtime all have some of their biggest hits on Netflix.

Netflix isn't a viable alternative to completely replace pirating/renting or the movie theater but it's nice to have when you're bored and definitely worth the $8 a month.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by polak

There is some premium cable shows on Netflix. AMC, FX and Showtime all have some of their biggest hits on Netflix.

Netflix isn't a viable alternative to completely replace pirating/renting or the movie theater but it's nice to have when you're bored and definitely worth the $8 a month.

Amc and fx are basic cable. The only Showtime series I see on Netflix is older seasons of weeds.

That article quoted above is grossly misleading with its headline. Bit torrent traffic is not fading away, it is up 40%. http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-t...a-year-121107/

[polak]

I need to get your basic cable.