Canadian DMCA to be introduced in June

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Chill...



You can do this once a year.

I just did that this week on my account. Was going to load a disney digital copy onto my daughters iPod touch, it wouldn't let me. I knew I was at the 5 computer limit, but I only know of 2 computers that really need to be on that account, so I deauthorized all the computers.

Re the discussion:

If all DVDs/ Blu Rays would come with a digital copy, or come with a code to buy a digital copy for really cheap (say $2), that might be fair. When you have to pay 25 bucks for a physical copy, and another 20 bucks to have it on your computer, that's too much money.

What do we do with movies and stuff that will never have digital copys released? Are we forbidden from ever watching them on our portable devices? I suppose so.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

I think that you've obviously got a point - people aren't going to like having to pay for something that they have had for free for years. The anti-circumvention provisions, however, aren't really going to sway pirates in any way. That's where an important distinction is lost - not everyone is a pirate, and particularly not those that bought the disc in the first place.

I'm all for throwing the book at the "real" pirates, but do we really have to take out all of the legal customers at the same time? Collateral damage, I guess, but the industry is using an atom bomb approach when a little more precision would do more to stop piracy while maintaining their integrity with their customers.

The funny thing is that studies have been done to show that piracy actually increases sales of a certain product.

The majority of people who illegally download music aren't going to start buying it simply because they might face a fine. They'll just find other ways to circumvent the laws.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Azure

The funny thing is that studies have been done to show that piracy actually increases sales of a certain product.

The majority of people who illegally download music aren't going to start buying it simply because they might face a fine. They'll just find other ways to circumvent the laws.

Correct. When companies cry foul about losing sales to pirates, they technically aren't. Pirates aren't going to buy it anyways, so how can a company assume they had a sale with them in the first place?

Radiohead made 5 or so million from their completely free online album. Basically they said you pay what you think it's worth.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by Barnes

So you've never dubbed a cassette, borrowed a book from a friend, photocopied something at the library, taped something from the radio, recorded a show on your VCR without deleting it 48 hours after, played music in public without paying ASCAP/BMI royalties?

Pretty impressive if you've never committed any of these copyright violations.

The industry is not getting screwed, the public, artists and content creators are.

I thanked the other two posters who responded to my post. I thanked them because they gave their honest thoughts while keeping it nice and civil.

To answer your questions. I have never dubbed a cassette. I have never borrowed a book from a friend. (I like to have my own books). I definitely have not taped something from the radio. (Seems too complicated). I have recorded a show on a VCR and then not deleted it within 24 hours. I have not played music in public without using head phones. (That would be noise pollution to some people so I respect their rights)

I am an IT guy. I create software. I decided a long time ago that I would not compromise the industry that I work in. So yes, I do not use pirated software either.

I do understand under these new rules that they are talking about that I probably have violated some copyright laws somewhere/sometime. Watching a DVD at a friend's house.

Anyway, I agree 100% with your statement about the public, artists, and content providers getting screwed. The industry is getting screwed too. But they are big brother and they should be screwed. Right?

It would be great if everybody who created the content go properly compensated. Including the 'industry' that distributes the content. etc etc ..

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Azure

The funny thing is that studies have been done to show that piracy actually increases sales of a certain product.

The majority of people who illegally download music aren't going to start buying it simply because they might face a fine. They'll just find other ways to circumvent the laws.

I agree with you on both points. A friend of mine is the kind of guy who boasts that he can find any movie, any time - even if it is still in theatres. He also has the largest DVD and Blu-Ray collection I have ever seen. Thousands and thousands of dollars worth - way more than I could every justify spending.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Anyway, I agree 100% with your statement about the public, artists, and content providers getting screwed. The industry is getting screwed too. But they are big brother and they should be screwed. Right?

It would be great if everybody who created the content go properly compensated. Including the 'industry' that distributes the content. etc etc ..

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I think that all parties should get paid, even the big media companies. I just feel that this legislation should be a little more focused on the problem at hand (piracy) while preserving the rights of the end user.

And civility is indeed nice - this is a hot topic, and two-way discussion is an important part of it.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

I thanked the other two posters who responded to my post. I thanked them because they gave their honest thoughts while keeping it nice and civil.

To answer your questions. I have never dubbed a cassette. I have never borrowed a book from a friend. (I like to have my own books). I definitely have not taped something from the radio. (Seems too complicated). I have recorded a show on a VCR and then not deleted it within 24 hours. I have not played music in public without using head phones. (That would be noise pollution to some people so I respect their rights)

I am an IT guy. I create software. I decided a long time ago that I would not compromise the industry that I work in. So yes, I do not use pirated software either.

I do understand under these new rules that they are talking about that I probably have violated some copyright laws somewhere/sometime. Watching a DVD at a friend's house.

Anyway, I agree 100% with your statement about the public, artists, and content providers getting screwed. The industry is getting screwed too. But they are big brother and they should be screwed. Right?

It would be great if everybody who created the content go properly compensated. Including the 'industry' that distributes the content. etc etc ..

Didn't mean to be uncivilized, just trying to prove a point. Copyright rules have gone from making sure that rights holders and artists receive a fair compensation and keeping others from profiting from their work to large rights holders trying to force legislation to bend rules in order to generate more revenue by limiting the way in which works can be used even though the copyright breaker is not profiting from breaking copyright.

They industry has more than enough existing tools to ensure no one else profits from their works but they are grabbing at the chance to increase revenues by forcing this type of legislation and suing those who break these new laws.

As someone who designs commercial software for a living and has a side project where my work is licensed under a Creative Commons, I completely understand the reasons why works should be protected and why they should be allowed to used in a fair manner. My illustrations get thousands of views a day and are spread all over Facebook, forums and blogs.

New copyright legislation NEEDS to protect rights holders and allow users to use content fairly not to be heavy handed in order to try and stop downloaders. They wont stop. Only honest and mostly honest people will be hurt by this.

I support fair copyright changes. These changes are not fair.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

I say that the people who have been stealing media off the internet are the ones who have screwed everybody. It is also my impression that these same people are the ones who are crying the most about it. What is that saying? Payback is a bitch. So now you all are just getting the pay back because you have cheated the system for so long.

Yes, the system they are proposing has so many flaws but what else are they supposed to do? The industry is getting screwed by these issues.

Now, if you are not one of the whiny smelly cheating stealing downloader people my post is not about you.

You're operating under the assumption that this legislation will stop people from illegally obtaining copyrighted material and that "people who cheated the system for so long" are getting "payback". I can assure you, it's not going to work like that; all we need to do is look at the USA as an example (whose 12 year old DMCA is the basis for this proposed Canadian law). Piracy is rampant there just like it is in Canada. Useless laws created by legislators who have little clue about the facts of the matter will do virtually nothing to curb piracy. What it will do, is make criminals out of regular people doing benign things such as making backup copies of their DVDs, transferring their media from one format to another, etc., in an effort to extract more money from honest consumers.

Laws going after individuals and consumers virtually never work. Underage drinking and smoking pot are both illegal, yet both are so common that they're the rule rather than the exception among most people. Do you think more laws would change that behavior? I don't.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by opendoor

You're operating under the assumption that this legislation will stop people from illegally obtaining copyrighted material and that "people who cheated the system for so long" are getting "payback". I can assure you, it's not going to work like that; all we need to do is look at the USA as an example (whose 12 year old DMCA is the basis for this proposed Canadian law). Piracy is rampant there just like it is in Canada. Useless laws created by legislators who have little clue about the facts of the matter will do virtually nothing to curb piracy. What it will do, is make criminals out of regular people doing benign things such as making backup copies of their DVDs, transferring their media from one format to another, etc., in an effort to extract more money from honest consumers.

Laws going after individuals and consumers virtually never work. Underage drinking and smoking pot are both illegal, yet both are so common that they're the rule rather than the exception among most people. Do you think more laws would change that behavior? I don't.

My point was that if we didn't have all of this pirating in the first place then we would not need this elaborate system in place.

I wasn't getting into the details of the 'solution' to the problem. That in its self sounds like an absurd solution.

So, two wrongs are not making a right. I think both sides are wrong.

[anyonebutedmonton]

I just have a hard time ever seeing this affecting anyone but the people downloading from torrents and other typically pirated methods. No one is going to break into your house on the suspicion that you ripped a legally purchased DVD to your iPod. How would they ever know?

What you will see is a crackdown on torrent users. They will be able to track you through your IP and sue you for damages.

This is actually something that has got me thinking about how I view media that I download. I'm from the generation that grew up using Napster, then Kazaa, then Limewire and finally torrents and I can honestly say I have, until now, never had a problem pirating material. The more I think about it the more I can see the error in my way of thinking. It is always hard to accept that you have to pay for something that you are accustomed to getting for free (ahem parking at c-train lots), but in the end if you are using the media you should be forced to pay for it.

I guess the conclusion I have come to is that I am against most of this legislation in that it has the potential to punish the wrong people, but am for some sort of legislation that targets the pirating of copyrighted material.

[Azure]

Thats the thing. The police would need a warrant to search your house for illegally ripped DVDs, and I don't think a judge is going to grant a warrant based on whatever the police will have.

How will provide enough evidence for a warrant?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

No one is going to break into your house on the suspicion that you ripped a legally purchased DVD to your iPod. How would they ever know?

Someone sees you watching a movie on you iPod. You either downloaded it or cracked a DVD.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Someone sees you watching a movie on you iPod. You either downloaded it or cracked a DVD.

You can't download movies from the iTunes store to watch on your iPod?

[The Ditch]

I pay for all my content now, been doing it for quite a while here. If I think something is too expensive I will wait for the price to drop or I won't buy it. I used to illegal download content but I've found over the years I don't like the attitudes everyone who does it, they always make it seem like it's their god given right to do it, or they are these poor victims. People deserve to be compensated for the work they do.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thats the thing. The police would need a warrant to search your house for illegally ripped DVDs, and I don't think a judge is going to grant a warrant based on whatever the police will have.

How will provide enough evidence for a warrant?

How about provisions in the new Canadian copyright law that would allow random compliance checks of media devices like your iPod or iPhone? I'm not saying those kinds of provisions would be in the new law but that kind of thing is already being bandied about in the ACTA: http://boingboing.net/2010/03/23/sec...-fights-o.html

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by fredr123

What we all fail to understand is that when you buy a DVD or a streaming version of the same film on Apple TV, you're not buying the movie. You're buying a bundle of rights which in most cases include only watching the movie in prescribed ways.

It's different from buying a car or a chocolate bar or some other physical good. Ford can't (and isn't) telling you what roads you can drive on with your new Fusion. Cadburry isn't telling you you can't use that chocolate bar in the production of 'smores on the campfire.

I'm fine with this concept in theory. However, I think the rights we are purchasing are GROSSLY over-priced. There is no meeting of the minds when you assume you are purchasing the latest Taylor Swift album and are allowed to convert those songs for use on any media player you want. That's not what you're being sold.

And again, I would be fine with this if the rights you are buying are priced fairly and are priced in accordance with that model. If people knew you had to buy the same song five times for each of your five devices, the price would have to reflect that. Pennies a song would probably be reasonable. Ninety-nine cents is not.

I very much agree with what you have written here.

For television and movies, I don't mind buying the rights to watch the content in a restricted way. For television series, I really don't need to own the content, I just want to watch it, once.

And I'd be happy to pay to watch TV on demand, but only up to a certain price point.

For example, let's say I wanted to watch the series LOST, from the beginning. And since I saw the episodes for free in HD when they were originally broadcast, I'd like to rewatch them in HD. Looking on iTunes, to download this, it would cost about:

56.99 * 6 seasons = 341.94

Yes, that is a lot of hours of entertainment, but that is just too rich for what I value.

So if I rule out paying this much to download the show, the options are:

* Forget about it. Disney gets no money from me, I do something more productive with my time.
* Borrow the DVD sets from the many people I know who have it. Disney already got it's money, and my friend subsidized my viewing.
* Buy the "complete series DVD/Blu-Ray set" in a couple of years, when the price is 1/4 of what I would pay now. Disney gets 1/4 of the money from me.
* Pirate it, Disney gets nothing.

The option I want:
* Pay 1/4 of the price now for the rights to watch the episodes once, but not own them.

Or even better:
* Pay a monthly fee for the ability to stream many movies/TV shows on demand (a la Netflix)

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Someone sees you watching a movie on you iPod. You either downloaded it or cracked a DVD.

... or bought it through iTunes or loaded a digital copy that came on your dvd.

[Barnes]

Copyright is already a very tricky thing and there needs to some flexibility when deciding what's fair.

An elderly user of my site emailed me last week asking if she could download some user submitted images of ships from our site so that she could print them and put them with other memories from her travels. Technically the photographer retains the rights to the images and she can not do this.

I could never tell her not to do it or in good conscience say that she was violating copyrights. It does not harm the rights holder, us, or her.

At work over the last few months I have been watching Stargate from an illegal streaming website while working on tasks that require little concentration. I would never spend the money on purchasing all nine seasons but it has gotten me interested in the new series, Stargate Universe which I watch on TV as well as the getting the new SG1 and SGA movies when they are released.

Had I not been watching the stream, I wouldn't have paid for the series DVDs but I also wouldn't be watching SGU or bought the new movies. I think that it's fair to say the creators would be happy I am into their new stuff and have caused them no financial harm.

Metallica wouldn't be the band they are if And Justice for All had not been dubbed and passed around so much.

Giving away the first hit will get them coming back and paying for more.

[wpgflamesfan]

For me the only thing I download anymore are tv episodes. I pay for satellite every month but due to school, work, etc, I can't always watch what I want when it airs. Often times I don't even have time to sit down on my couch and watch it off my pvr so I put it on my ipod and laptop and watch during the bus ride to school.

I don't see anything morally wrong with this as the creators are still getting compensated for what they do and i'm able to consume my media in a fashion that works for me. It really bugs me when the broadcasting industry basically forces me to consume media in a way they see fit. If the industry really wanted to be forward thinking, why not offer those who subscribe to their stations high quality downloads of their favourite shows (complete with comercials) so that people could watch them when they want.

[mykalberta]

No matter what the law says about ripping your own DVD for personal use, if they even tried to fine someone that would go to the courts to decide if someone else can tell you what you can or cant do with something you legally purchased.

Also, how would someone tell if you ripped your DVD rather than downloading it.