Canadian Copyright Disaster?

[DementedReality]

interesting topic ..good business sense or not, why shouldnt the party who owns the property be able to dictate exactly when, how and in what form, you will use. they arent selling the hard disc, they are selling a license and you either agree to those conditions or do not agree and dont buy.if you dont agree to the terms of sale, then you are free to not purchase the product. just as they are free to dictate the conditions. i think it will drive it all underground too, but you have to believe these companies and lobby groups have built models on multiple different results before taking the position they have. they must figure it is in their best interest and thats their right to determine.i support the legislation on that basis.
edit: pardon my spacing, what happened ? i had paragraphs and everything

[MarchHare]

The gist of it is this: if I spend $15 and buy a CD, I should have the right to transfer that CD to other formats, such as ripping it to MP3 files on my computer, and then copying those MP3s to my iPod. What gives the record company the right to tell me on what devices I'm allowed to listen to my music that's been legally bought and paid for?

Likewise with DVDs; if I pay $20 for a movie, why can't I rip it to my laptop's harddrive, since watching a movie from the HDD instead of the DVD drive is much better for conserving battery life? That's very handy for watching a film on a plane, since most laptop batteries last less than two hours if the DVD drive is in constant use.

In neither of the above examples did I pirate the copyrighted content or distribute it to other people who haven't paid for it. How have I done anything wrong by using the media in manners that the copyright holders don't like?

It's no secret that the record and movie companies resist technology changes like no other. Back in the early 1980s, they were crying doom and gloom, saying that the Walkman and the VCR were going to kill their industries (ironically, both were products of Sony, which is now one of the biggest media companies and strongest proponents of this type of legislation). As we all know, though, portable music and home video both proved to be huge boons for the record companies and movie studies, opening new avenues of profit that didn't exist before.

[DementedReality]

i guess the way theysee it, the right was given to them when you paid for the product and agreed to the terms of sale which include the prohibition of copying it to any device?edit: ugh, what is wrong with the formatting ???

[gottabekd]

Intelligent take on the situation, DementedReality. I understand what you are saying, but I disagree.

I think the music business should be about more than the business of selling music. I think music is an important part of my well being, and should not be treated as a commodity. I understand the need for copyright holders to protect their property, but I fear too many restrictions on how I can enjoy my music will negatively affect how and when I listen to music. I would like the music industry to respect their unique and essential product.

It is an interesting story to watch, and I intend to follow it closely.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

Intelligent take on the situation, DementedReality. I understand what you are saying, but I disagree.

I think the music business should be about more than the business of selling music. I think music is an important part of my well being, and should not be treated as a commodity. I understand the need for copyright holders to protect their property, but I fear too many restrictions on how I can enjoy my music will negatively affect how and when I listen to music. I would like the music industry to respect their unique and essential product.

It is an interesting story to watch, and I intend to follow it closely.

you could be right in the result, but its the companies RIGHT to make STUPID business decisions with their property.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

Intelligent take on the situation, DementedReality. I understand what you are saying, but I disagree.

I think the music business should be about more than the business of selling music. I think music is an important part of my well being, and should not be treated as a commodity. I understand the need for copyright holders to protect their property, but I fear too many restrictions on how I can enjoy my music will negatively affect how and when I listen to music. I would like the music industry to respect their unique and essential product.

It is an interesting story to watch, and I intend to follow it closely.

also, what you think the music business should be is only relevent when you own a music company. they think it should be about protecting their right to make money on their product. cold, but true.

[MarchHare]

i guess the way theysee it, the right was given to them when you paid for the product and agreed to the terms of sale which include the prohibition of copying it to any device?

Where were those terms of sale posted? I certainly didn't agree to them, and nowhere on the packaging of a CD does it say that I'm prohibited from copying it to another device. I'm looking at a CD now, and the only warning it has on either the inside or the outside of the packaging is "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws." It says nothing about format-shifting (copying the contents of the CD to another format, such as MP3, for non-commercial use) being prohibited.

In fact, in the in RIAA vs. Diamond Rio lawsuit, it was ruled that format-shifting was legal. The Rio, if anyone isn't aware, was the first portable MP3 player, although it never came close to the popularity of the iPod. Naturally, the record companies tried to sue it out of existence, but they lost, paving the road for the current digital music player market.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

"The court has endorsed the point that it is entirely proper for consumers to make copies of digital recordings that they own or have acquired properly," said Andrew P. Bridges, a lawyer who represented Diamond Multimedia in the case. The RIAA has long denied that this privilege exists, he said.

Bridges added that under the ruling, consumers may, for example, legitimately transfer music from their audio CDs to their hard drive, convert the files to MP3 format and either play them on the computer or download copies of the files to the Rio or to other devices.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i guess the way theysee it, the right was given to them when you paid for the product and agreed to the terms of sale which include the prohibition of copying it to any device?edit: ugh, what is wrong with the formatting ???

At what point during the picking up of the CD, carrying it over to the cash register and paying for it did I sign any terms of service? Where were the usage rules? Was anything that backs up your argument visible and made clear during the purchase?

Most people who buy a CD expect the purchase transfered ownership of the media and it's contents to them. It is not unreasonable for them to have this expectation. Any label that expects me to purchase media many times over just to have the freedom to be able to use it on different devices will quickly lose a customer.

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

also, what you think the music business should be is only relevent when you own a music company. they think it should be about protecting their right to make money on their product. cold, but true.

Or, for sure. Despite what I think it should be, it is just a business. A business that, as a whole, have made some very poor decisions, and it looks like they haven't learned. Oh well, music WILL live on, even if record companies do not.

[DementedReality]

fair enough, i dont know if they are posted but they should be. i would suggest its probably somewhere on the jacket.then you all agree that IF the terms of sale were clearly stated PRIOR to purchase that you could not do this and that, then you agree with the legislation?i support the concept that the license agreement must be clear and agreed to and this should be the burden of the record companies to achieve.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

fair enough, i dont know if they are posted but they should be. i would suggest its probably somewhere on the jacket.then you all agree that IF the terms of sale were clearly stated PRIOR to purchase that you could not do this and that, then you agree with the legislation?i support the concept that the license agreement must be clear and agreed to and this should be the burden of the record companies to achieve.

No, I still wouldn't agree with the legislation in that case, since it was ruled (see above) that format-shifting of media is a legal right granted to consumers.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

No, I still wouldn't agree with the legislation in that case, since it was ruled (see above) that format-shifting of media is a legal right granted to consumers.

i am no lawyer, so i could be wrong. .... however, if prior to purchase you had to acknowledge you wouldnt copy it to any device, and you agreed to those terms, you should be bound by them.... if you dont agree, dont buy.... and i am not talking about legal or not, i am talking about contractual agreements...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i am no lawyer, so i could be wrong. .... however, if prior to purchase you had to acknowledge you wouldnt copy it to any device, and you agreed to those terms, you should be bound by them.... if you dont agree, dont buy.... and i am not talking about legal or not, i am talking about contractual agreements...

Yes, but in this case, the terms of the agreement would themselves be illegal. Whether I agree to them or not is irrelevant, since it wouldn't be legal for the record companies to try to impose those terms as non-commercial format-shifting was ruled as being a right protected for consumers.

[gottabekd]

I would guess the ruling about format-shifting wouldn't apply if the media were purchased with a clear license restricting format-shifting.

I agree that if you purchase (say, online) some media, and as a step to the purchase, you agree to a license that you will only use the media as specified, then you should be bound to the license. If you don't agree, don't buy the product.

[RW99]

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.../12/10/2357247

[MelBridgeman]

records companies are just diggin their own grave...they are soon to be a thing of the past...

[Hakan]

Dinosaurs will die.

[Bobblehead]

In my mind it all comes down to the purpose of copyright.

Copyright was NEVER intended to reimburse creators for their work. It was recognized early on that music, plays, books, and so on were public goods and the public was better off if these ideas, concepts and intellectual property could be used to derive future work. But it was realized that if people didn't have any control over their creations that it would diminish the amount of work created. If people couldn't afford to devote time and energy to their work, then those works would need to take a back seat to the rest of life. So, as a compromise, it was suggested that the creator be given a limited monopoly over the work they created just long enough that it would be worth their while to create the work.

The arguments were then how long to set the limits so that it encourages new work.

But now the argument has morphed into "It is something X created and X should have control over it as long as X lives". The desires of the creators (which is often now multinational conglomerates with large lobbying budgets) is now being pushed much further than the public's rights.

Technology has really blurred the lines, has made infringement much easier than it was 30 years ago and has strained business models that made many people wealthy for the last 60 years. These business models need to adapt, laws need to adapt, but the original purpose of copyrights should not be forgotten.

[mykalberta]

This thread should be autobumped every minute IMO

Check out Online Rights Canada's new action alert, "Support Balanced Copyright Reform":

http://www.OnlineRights.ca/get_activ...reform_action/

Here's what their website says about it:
"Copyright reform legislation may be on the horizon. Tell your MPs to keep it balanced!"

2910 people have already taken action. Add your voice today!

If what it takes is spamming your MP so that we dont have to ever bend over for the MPAA or RCAA then so be it. If I own a song I shouldnt be double dipped for convertng that to a ring tone.

If I own a DVD, I should have the right to rip it to DivX to watch it via my 360's media extender.

[Bobblehead]

ACTRA isn't pleased about the delay:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...copyright.html

ACTRA called the protestors a vocal minority and said that further inaction by the government to reform the copyright laws will cause reduced investment and innovation, plus job losses in Canada's "already struggling industry."