C-61: Copyright legislation **UPDATE**

[Hemi-Cuda]

i've never liked Harper, but i HATE Stephane Dion. the last thing i ever wanted to see was him as leader of this country and swore i would never vote until the liberals got someone half decent to lead their party. but now when the next election comes, i will vote for him just because this is crossing the line from the conservatives. and i can't be the only one who feels this way, screwing with people's personal freedoms this badly will make people vote for the other party no matter how terrible their leadership is

if they pass this bill it will mean the end of the PC government as soon as the next election rolls around

[Azure]

Yeah, it'll be sad if the Liberals win back the government despite having a very poor leader.

Oh well....the conservatives could have been looking at a majority government right now if they didn't come up with this stupid bill.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, it'll be sad if the Liberals win back the government despite having a very poor leader.

Oh well....the conservatives could have been looking at a majority government right now if they didn't come up with this stupid bill.

Or we could end up with the Liberals and thier carbon tax

Seriuosly i think we'd get srewed at both ends. we'd never win with either in power

[Shawnski]

OK, having read the bill in regards to the music issue, it appears that if you own four computers and two iPods, it IS ok to reproduce a recording on each of those devices (if you legally own the original). Unless the original work had DRM...

The vast majority of this bill appears to try to curtail illegal distribution *cough Bittorent, etc cough* and those that are profitting from it. I am OK with that.

I don't like the catch all that is DRM in this though. However the marketplace (read, your dollars) should sort that out. IF products you buy are not clearly and unequivatibly labelled as "DRM content, not to be copied", then no foul should occur. Consumers should know before the purchase of their options.

Don't buy DRM protected content... period.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I'll write a letter directly to the artists themselves, to let them know that I went to a store to buy their CD but decided against it when I saw it contained DRM.

Sending a letter to Blah Blah Records won't have much affect, but sending a letter to The Trews might.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Contact the artist directly and tell them you won't be buying their music when you otherwise would have. Eventually they'll bail on the record company and do things their own way.

I don't know if there is an example yet, but one day soon there will be a "recording artist" that becomes famous (and rich) without ever having signed to a traditional record label.

Ironically enough, Metallica might be the best example of getting famous just through word of mouth. They were selling a hell of a lot of records and filling arenas before they got any radio time or made a video.

They wouldn't have their mansions, Ferraris and life-coaches if not for smoke-scrounging bangers "ripping" cassettes of Kill 'Em All, 25 years ago and giving them to their friends.

[peter12]

Is there a list somewhere that shows the labels that use DRM protection? I think a lot of the posters here are right, just boycott albums with DRM.

Thankfully, a lot of the artists I listen to are on pretty small labels and probably know the benefits of having their music copied and distributed for free.

[photon]

I disagree, having the ability for companies to be able to arbitrarily control the content you buy on their whims isn't a good law. Everyone can say they'll vote with their dollars and make the market place change, but that doesn't do anything for people who already own things, doesn't do anything for the people that don't fit the mold.

I buy a movie (all movies are DRMed), and want to play it on my computer because I don't own a DVD player. Except the built in DRMed player that has to be installed has no linux version. So I rip it and play it with a linux player, except oops I am now a criminal and deserve a $20,000 fine.

The law should have good provisions for people to be able to format shift (for example), despite any DRM.

I want to use a flash cartridge in my son's nintendo DS so that we can travel and he can have his legally purchased games there without having to carry around 10 cartridges. Oh except I can't, that's illegal, I now have a fine for $200,000.

This has nothing to do with stopping people from copying things off bittorrent, it has everything to do with bowing to the big corporations in the US. It has everything to do with restricting fair use and freedom to use the things I buy the way I see fit. The end result that these companies want is you never actually own any content, you pay for it every time you use it.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

OK, having read the bill in regards to the music issue, it appears that if you own four computers and two iPods, it IS ok to reproduce a recording on each of those devices (if you legally own the original). Unless the original work had DRM...

The vast majority of this bill appears to try to curtail illegal distribution *cough Bittorent, etc cough* and those that are profitting from it. I am OK with that.

I don't like the catch all that is DRM in this though. However the marketplace (read, your dollars) should sort that out. IF products you buy are not clearly and unequivatibly labelled as "DRM content, not to be copied", then no foul should occur. Consumers should know before the purchase of their options.

Don't buy DRM protected content... period.

That is really the Key here. IT better be labeled and if it is not then I can copy it as I see fit.

But how about the PVR thing. What if NBC puts a tag that does not allow me to PVR a show. Cable companies (NBC etc..) need to let us know that too BEFORE I invest 800 bones in a PVR.

[MarchHare]

I buy a movie (all movies are DRMed), and want to play it on my computer because I don't own a DVD player. Except the built in DRMed player that has to be installed has no linux version. So I rip it and play it with a linux player, except oops I am now a criminal and deserve a $20,000 fine.

Along those same lines, how about this example:

You buy a DVD and want to rip it to your laptop's harddrive to watch it while on a flight (a constantly spinning DVD drive eats battery life like nothing else, but playing the same film off the HDD saves a ton of energy). Oops, you can't do that! In order to rip the DVD you paid for, you'd have to circumvent the DRM, which would make you a criminal who deserves a $20,000 fine.

It's all well and good to say, "Vote with your dollars and boycott products with DRM", except with movies, that's impossible! All DVDs and Blu-Ray discs contain DRM -- it's built right into the media format.

Or how about this one:

For whatever reason, the copy protection schemes used by some PC games prevent those games from being played properly on certain hardware configurations. It's a relatively common problem that can be solved by downloading the no-CD crack from a site like GameCopyWorld. Note that I'm not talking about an illegally downloaded copy of the game here -- this often applies to people with perfectly legal software. But oops, if you install a crack to get your legally-purchased game to run properly on your PC, you're a criminal who deserves a $20,000 fine for circumventing DRM.

[photon]

Hey, it's actually less risky to go out and download an illegal copy of that movie than it is to legally buy it!

I can download Iron Man of the net and the fine is only $500, where if I buy it and rip it so I can watch it it's $20,000.. lol.

What about someone who's got an HD-DVD collection? Their HD-DVD player breaks, they can't move those movies to another format.

Or even someone who has VHS movies and wants to put them on DVD, can't do that either since you'd have to get around the macrovision protection.

Not to mention all the cases already pointed out where digital content has been purchased and then the provider decides that it doesn't want to let you view it anymore.

Archaic law designed to benefit a few select people while sacrificing everyone else.

[Barnes]

It's fine and dandy to say don't but copy protected content. The problem is, only a small percentage of the population understands what that means. DRM doesn't hurt us, almost everyone in this thread knows how to circumvent it or at least know who to ask.

DRM hurts people like our parents. Trying to explain that the CD they bought cannot be put on their iPod because the record label has put copy protection on there AND the Canadian Government says you can't do anything about that even though they bought it and want to take it with them on their holiday. But, their other CD's should be fine.

To a person who thinks that pirates are privateers whom were the problem of the British government a hundred years ago and Bit Torrent is a salted snack, this probably seem a little ridicolous.

[peter12]

Is this law even enforceable? How does the government know if you are circumventing DRM and ripping DVDs/CDs onto your computer's HDD?

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is this law even enforceable? How does the government know if you are circumventing DRM and ripping DVDs/CDs onto your computer's HDD?

By invading your privacy and monitoring what you do.

At the top of that list would be compelling ISPs to track you and then give that information to them.

Other ways would be when they shut down some place they deem as selling illegal materials (software to rip DVDs, mod chips for consoles, etc), they take the customer lists and go from there.

It's not going to stop the real pirates of course; they'll just encrypt their connections, use TOR, do other things to stay under the system, it'll just punish everyone else.

[photon]

Other countries are being more rational, not bowing to pressure from the US:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...55131385.shtml

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

By invading your privacy and monitoring what you do.

At the top of that list would be compelling ISPs to track you and then give that information to them.

Other ways would be when they shut down some place they deem as selling illegal materials (software to rip DVDs, mod chips for consoles, etc), they take the customer lists and go from there.

It's not going to stop the real pirates of course; they'll just encrypt their connections, use TOR, do other things to stay under the system, it'll just punish everyone else.

From what I've read and heard this bill is absolutely embarrassing. If true, the Conservatives have certainly lost my vote for good. Too bad there aren't any decent alternatives.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by photon

At the top of that list would be compelling ISPs to track you and then give that information to them.

This is actually one of the points of C61 that annoys me the most. The Supreme Court ruled that ISPs giving out personal information was an invasion of privacy, and now the Conservatives trying to reverse that ruling through new legislation compelling ISPs to give out the information to the RIAA or MPAA. And as long as the ISPs get the provision that they can't be held responsible what users do on their network, they'll agree to anything else.

The idea of a company being able to demand my personal info from my ISP just because they're big, powerful and politically connected rubs me the wrong way. If any other company tried to call up and ISP and ask who was using a particular IP address, they'd surely tell them to eff off.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

This is actually one of the points of C61 that annoys me the most. The Supreme Court ruled that ISPs giving out personal information was an invasion of privacy, and now the Conservatives trying to reverse that ruling through new legislation compelling ISPs to give out the information to the RIAA or MPAA. And as long as the ISPs get the provision that they can't be held responsible what users do on their network, they'll agree to anything else.

The idea of a company being able to demand my personal info from my ISP just because they're big, powerful and politically connected rubs me the wrong way. If any other company tried to call up and ISP and ask who was using a particular IP address, they'd surely tell them to eff off.

The second logical step after this would be the government forcing ISPs to not allow certain things across their network. This would essentially make them content publishers and allow them to not only block types of traffic but traffic to specific locations. Bye Bye net neutrality.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

the Conservatives trying to reverse that ruling through new legislation compelling ISPs to give out the information to the RIAA or MPAA.

Is that really what they are going to do? Those are American entities. They can't just give our stuff to some Yank shysters. Can they?

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Is that really what they are going to do? Those are American entities. They can't just give our stuff to some Yank shysters. Can they?

There are Canadian equivalents.

Here is the pecking order in terms of importance for who demanded this legislation:

1. MPAA, RIAA, US lobbies
2. U.S. Ambassador to Canada
3. Jim Prentice







4. Canadian Citizens

You begin to see the problems with this so called Made-in Canada update to the Copyright Act.

[psicodude]

Meh, I am not too worried. First of all, good luck enforcing this law. Second, this is the type of bill that is screaming for a supreme court challenge. My guess is that this bill will be torn to shreds in 5 years.