C-61: Copyright legislation **UPDATE**

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Again, this does not apply to only TV, music and movies.

I'm aware of this but, like I said already, I was only responding to the points that were made concerning music (and extending them to movies and TV).

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by HOOT

What else is there?

Lots. Works that are in the public domain, works about to enter the public domain, research material, library material, course material, non commercial publicly funded works, commissioned works......

Here's a fun one.

You're getting married and leave disposable cameras on the tables for guests to take pictures of the big day and collect them at the end of the night.

You get the pictures developed, scanned and post them to your blog. What you just did is illegal. Under C-61, you are only the the author of the work. The copyright holder is the guest who takes the image and will be for 50 years following the year after their death. 25 years after the year following your guests death, the estate holder of the guest may claim the rights to your wedding photos.

You could of course ask all your guests to sign a contract in the first place.

Fair and balanced, made in Canada solution.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

For the record, it will not be illegal for you to copy your CD to your iTunes library. It will only be illegal to circumvent copy-protection in order to copy that CD into your iTunes library. This gives you the right to make the copy, and the content provider the right to prevent you from making that copy, if they wish to use it.

It gives you the right to make a copy as long as the CD isn't protected, which some are.

What about those CD's from Sony that installed rootkits on computers? It installs a digital lock on my computer and I can't even remove it without breaking the law!

Some CD's are tweaked so they won't even play on a computer without special software installed, and that of course works only in Windows, too bad if you want to listen to your music on Linux.

And that's just music, which as you point out is fairly easy to rip.

Now I buy a DVD and want to watch it on my iPhone. Impossible without becoming a criminal. So I buy it on iTunes as well. It's found out that Apple uses slave child labour so I switch to a new phone, now I either become a criminal again by breaking the lock on the movie from iTunes, or pay again to buy my movie. Except the new movie gets locked out because the vendor goes out of business. I have to buy the same movie again and again for various reasons, which is exactly what the companies want. Plus the resale market becomes zero.

If enough people choose not to purchase it, I'm willing to bet that it gets re-released without copy-protection.

I don't see any problems with that, whatsoever.

Baloney, that's what's causing this to begin with; the industry perceives that the digital age is a threat to their industry so rather than change to adapt to the market, they "lobby" the governments around the world to enact laws which give them ever increasing power to limit what a person can do with what they purchase.

Edit: To be clear... I'm not saying that I like any of this legislation, I just don't see it as the problem everyone else is making it out to be. To be perfectly honest, I'd much rather the Government spend their time, resources and our money on changing the media industries themselves so that the whole process makes more sense... but I'm not sure that they can do that even if they wanted to.

That's the thing, is there are great examples of countries with draconian laws like the US which ignore the consumer, and there are other countries out there with laws which have fair use clauses in them.

The examples are already there, it's entirely possible to write in fair use clauses that give exemptions for personal use for things like format shifting, time shifting, place shifting, unlocking cell phones, reflashing your XBox to use it as a media player, or whatever. Other countries do it already, why is it so difficult for Canada to do? (Well I think because they're bowing to influence from the US, but that's a different topic).

[MarchHare]

If enough people choose not to purchase it, I'm willing to bet that it gets re-released without copy-protection.

What a logical consumer says:
"I don't like that companies are putting digital locks on my content, preventing me from playing media I legally purchased on devices of my choosing. I'm going to vote with my wallet and boycott any DRM-protected content. That will teach a lesson to the companies, and they'll re-release the content free of copy-protection."

What the media companies hear:
"SALES ARE DOWN! IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF THOSE DAMN INTERNET PIRATES!! WE NEED STRONGER DRM AND MORE DRACONIAN COPYRIGHT LAWS ASAP!!!!111"

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

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




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

Copyright is held by the originator, not the distributor. Typically the distributor will take charge of litigation for infringement though.

Actually, many artists DON'T benefit. I know that sounds strange, but think of it this way. Record labels are only interested in the artists that they can get to market fastest to make them the most money in the shortest amount of time. Plenty of artists get hung out to dry by their record company because it takes too much money to develop them where as they can make a quick buck on the newest fad band or pop-tart.

[Flamesguy_SJ]

the newest xkcd webcomic is pretty in-tune to this:


STEAL THIS COMIC

http://xkcd.com/488/

[Barnes]

Here's a great article on fair use and what these new copyright laws are doing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html