# Internet piracy crackdown.



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

> The Government could suspend the internet accounts of illegal downloaders after a challenge to new laws was overturned in the High Court.
> .
> .
> Today’s High Court ruling is a victory for record companies, film studios and other rights holders who have seen falling profits due to illegal downloads.
> Measures of the Act are now likely to be introduced, with warning letters sent to persistent offenders, and the threat of reducing broadband speeds or even suspending internet accounts.


Internet piracy crackdown approved after appeal against Digital Economy Act fails | Mail Online


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

This is in the UK....


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

screature said:


> This is in the UK....


Indeed, I know that.  But the internet is global - these things have a habit of proliferating....


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

I don't see how UK law applies to Canada, but I'll be a sport and say good find !


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'm sure this will trickle to our side of the pond. The Feds have been hard at work trying to find new ways to crack down on piracy… the U.S. certainly has been vocal about "modernizing" our copyright laws. :lmao:


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Garry said:


> I don't see how UK law applies to Canada, but I'll be a sport and say good find !


That's not the point. I know well British (actually EU) law does not apply. However the concept on which the law is based could be taken up by other jurisdictions. Any anyway any restriction anywhere on the internet should be of interest to users.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Yeah, But the armchair internet is slow to respond because they are too busy trying to balance ripping off their customers and offering mobile t.v. to really care about things they can't control.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

This should definitely be of concern to Canadians. It is coming.
Look at what just happened in Spain a few weeks ago. Thanks to a Wikileaks document, it was discovered (or the public found out) in the 11th hour, that the draconian copyright bill about to be passed into law was completely written by US media corps- not a thing to do with what was good or right for the people of Spain. Without the document leak, the law would ave been passed.

And expecting your elected reps to know what these laws mean?
NZ MP votes for anti-piracy law hours after tweeting about her love of pirated music - Boing Boing


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Probably the only thing preventing it has been a minority government. Given free rein I am sure either Harpo or Ignats would already have let the music/movie industry write new copyright laws.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I don't believe this will come to Canada any time soon, at least if the Cons are in power. Bill C-32 comes nothing close to this. What they are doing in the UK is the state having power over the internet. The government here believes that piracy and illegal downloading is a civil matter and it would be policed by the copyright holders in conjunction with the ISPs, they don't want to get involved with the policing of copyright.

The UK is notoriously and historically much more invasive into the lives of its citizenry than is the case in Canada. If you want to be afraid of it when there is no indication of it coming our way go right ahead, I will get worried when there is something to be worried about. 

I try to live by the adage, Don't trouble trouble until troubles trouble you.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Dennis Nedry said:


> **** 'em all.
> 
> I'm so sick and tired of this ****, being told by corporations that our rights are worthless because their profits are going down the toilet and their CEO can't afford another private jet.


Nice to know people live in fantasy land. It has nothing to do with private jets. A movie made, a song produced is _property_. It's the producers property, and their right to sell if someone else wants to view it/listen to it. Why is this so incredibly difficult to understand?



Dennis Nedry said:


> Here's a fantastic idea: make stuff I want to buy.


If you _don't_ want to buy it, why do you pirate it? Just for fun?



Dennis Nedry said:


> Protip: pirates aren't lost sales. They're potential customers. Treat them like that and they might buy your stuff, if it's worth buying.


I don't buy this argument for a second. Potential customers? Yeah, right - everyone I know pirates movies and music that they thoroughly enjoyed and never, ever ended up forking cash over for it to possess it legally. Pirates are not potential customers at all -- they steal because they're cheap. I've been guilty here too. End of story.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

This piracy thing has been beaten to death. Cheaper prices are not the solution.

And let's be frank: Avatar wasn't a great movie. It was highly derivative and formulaic. There was nothing original about that movie.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

Lars said:


> I don't buy this argument for a second. Potential customers? Yeah, right - everyone I know pirates movies and music that they thoroughly enjoyed and never, ever ended up forking cash over for it to possess it legally. Pirates are not potential customers at all -- they steal because they're cheap. I've been guilty here too. End of story.


Study: pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right

Pirates Are The Music Industry’s Most Valuable Customers | TorrentFreak

This is an anecdotal argument. My anecdotal evidence proves the exact opposite. I buy more music than the average person.I have traded music with people for decades. I buy what I like from the things people present to me, and I buy more of that artist, and I buy more of other artists I discover from following the thread (could be from liner notes, producers, guest artists who played on an album etc). I have purchased a lot of music I would otherwise not have had the opportunity to be exposed to if not for lending, mix tapes/cds. Ditto the people I have traded with. Ditto for movies/dvds.

I can think of one artist in particular (though certainly not the only one) who I have contributed to into the hundreds and hundreds of dollars over the years (records, cds, box sets, digital, 4 concerts, concert merchandise), and have caused others to contribute to this artist- all from one pirated mix tape and the enthusiasm of one person to spread the word. I would never have heard this artist any other way originally.

The music industry has no one to blame but themselves. The internet did not sneak up on them.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Actually brings up an interesting side issue. The other day I was looking for a particular song, not too interested in who played it but was hoping to find a bit of a parody on the original. Found 30 different versions in iTunes. Needless to say; 30 second clips cannot and did not help in the slightest. Nor was I going to spend $30 on a whim. 

Still working my way through various YouTube entries, looking for a winner. Of course YouTube songs are considered piracy even though they probably do more than radio play to generate sales in this digital era.

Did get me thinking that an iTunes jukebox would be a great idea. Charge a-dime-a-tune or three-for-a-quarter. Have an electronic DJ talk over the intro but not too loudly as sometimes one is looking for a particular opening riff. The money brought in could be used to partially repay artists who were ripped off by various recording companies or producers.beejacon


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> This piracy thing has been beaten to death. Cheaper prices are not the solution.
> 
> And let's be frank: Avatar wasn't a great movie. It was highly derivative and formulaic. There was nothing original about that movie.



I liked it better when it was called "Ferngulley"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fellfromtree said:


> I can think of one artist in particular (though certainly not the only one) who I have contributed to into the hundreds and hundreds of dollars over the years (records, cds, box sets, digital, 4 concerts, concert merchandise)


Actually, my bet is that well over 90% of your contribution went to record companies and NOT the artist.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Actually, my bet is that well over 90% of your contribution went to record companies and NOT the artist.


More than a few artists saw far less than that. But that of course is not the sort of piracy the recording labels wish to see ended.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

Piracy is theft no matter which way you look at it. In some peoples way of thinking it would be perfectly acceptable to walk into a store and take a pack of gum off the rack to "try" it. An artist makes a product to be consumed just like a manufacturer does.

With that said I do it, but I do feel a tad bad for doing it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Actually, my bet is that well over 90% of your contribution went to record companies and NOT the artist.


They paid for the recording, packaging,distribution, promotion, and support... Of course most of it went to the label. But it didn't stop recording artists from profiting.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Until recently most major labels paid the artist 2% which was split between writers and performers. In many cases they deducted all pre-production costs out of that meagre payoff, kept the masters and registered copyrights in the labels name. Many artists especially in the R & B world saw absolutely no return on some their earlier recordings.

Seems to me the ones being ripped off were indeed the artists. There is a good reason why the Beatles finally established their own label.

Despite the internet having changed the rules, the big labels still attempt to deal with artists in the same old way. Those artists that signed contracts pre-iTunes, seldom see more than 3 or 4¢ from a 99¢ iTune sale.

Given that the labels profit from dozens or even hundreds of groups and modern recording costs have plummeted, artists really should be seeing at least half of the proceeds from sales.


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

And let's be frank: Avatar wasn't a great movie. It was highly derivative and formulaic. There was nothing original about that movie.[/QUOTE]

Like Star Wars? I still liked it anyway.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Dennis Nedry said:


> College students pulling two part time jobs inbetween school aren't going to run out and fork over two week's worth of food cash for a $69 game. If they can't pirate it, well, then they're simply going to borrow a friend's copy or not play it at all.


This is an entirely different issue. Students pulling two part time jobs not being able to afford a movie or song isn't a valid reason. If you can't afford it, you can't have it. Simple, direct logic. The reasoning that the producer/company/record label wasn't going to get their money in any case is irrelevant. In the end, it's still stealing. Let them borrow a friend's copy.

I can't have an Audi A6 because I don't earn enough in a year to afford one -- that doesn't mean I can steal one because Audi wasn't getting my money in any case. The fact that movies and music are an electronic item versus a physical one plays no role in this.

Let's just all agree that piracy is theft of property.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> Found 30 different versions in iTunes. Needless to say; 30 second clips cannot and did not help in the slightest. Nor was I going to spend $30 on a whim.


I hear you on this issue -- I've encountered this before, too. What a pain in the ass.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Lars said:


> ...Let's just all agree that piracy is theft of property.


Yep and many record labels are the biggest thieves.beejacon


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> Yep and many record labels are the biggest thieves.beejacon


That's another thread.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> Until recently most major labels paid the artist 2% which was split between writers and performers. In many cases they deducted all pre-production costs out of that meagre payoff, kept the masters and registered copyrights in the labels name. Many artists especially in the R & B world saw absolutely no return on some their earlier recordings.
> 
> Seems to me the ones being ripped off were indeed the artists. There is a good reason why the Beatles finally established their own label.
> 
> ...


The artist is culpable for what terms they accept. You act like all artists have the same agreement. They don't.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> Yep and many record labels are the biggest thieves.beejacon


Yeah. Except it's not stealing when you agree to their terms. 

I used to work with a designer who constantly complained that he felt he didn't get paid enough. We negotiated our own salaries based on what we felt is appropriate for our experience and skills.

If you accept their terms, it's all on you.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Every time a new book of mine comes out, I get myself worked up about piracy.

It's pretty bad when Google ranks your book below its pirated counterpart. But it's alright… nobody wants to pay exhorbitant prices for crappy books anyway. Am I right? High five! Screw corporations! beejacon


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Dennis Nedry said:


> **** 'em all.
> 
> I'm so sick and tired of this ****, being told by corporations that our rights are worthless because their profits are going down the toilet and their CEO can't afford another private jet.
> 
> ...


Not sure if I follow your logic here...
If something sucks, you should be allowed to have it for free?

If that were the case we'd all have Zunes.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

While copyright laws do need to be re-written to account for the digital age, it is idiotic to allow publishers, recording companies and the movie industry to write those changes.

Save the Draconian punishments for those that attempt to profit by selling pirated work. 

If someone claims a youtube copyright infringement at least make them prove they own the copyright, otherwise it becomes a backdoor method of censorship.

Thousands of nuances here but trying to gouge a high school kid out of $million$ for down loading music is no better than saying it is legal or right.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> While copyright laws do need to be re-written to account for the digital age, it is idiotic to allow publishers, recording companies and the movie industry to write those changes.
> 
> Save the Draconian punishments for those that attempt to profit by selling pirated work.
> 
> ...


I agree about copyright takendowns, there are so many instances of abuse and nobody bothers to ensure it falls under fair use.

Downloaders, IMO, shouldn't be punished… it should be uploaders who are targeted (especially the larger outfits that serve and distribute large numbers of files en masse) that lawyers need to target. Going after single mothers with a legal dream team for thousands of dollars because their children download songs is plain wrong -- they aren't the problem--they didn't hurt the music industry (although they certainly didn't help it, either  )


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> While copyright laws do need to be re-written to account for the digital age, it is idiotic to allow publishers, recording companies and the movie industry to write those changes.
> 
> Save the Draconian punishments for those that attempt to profit by selling pirated work.
> 
> ...


I don't know how many times I have to say this here on this Forum *Bill C-32 reduces statutory damages to a one-time payment of between $100 and $5000 for all personal infringements that took place prior to the lawsuit.*

We are *not* the US here when it comes to the penalties that are assessed.

Piracy for commercial gain is a completely different story where the penalties are much greater because it is a criminal activity as opposed to a civil matter and for commercial piracy jail time can be part of the equation.

This is the right balance and what the government was trying to do before the lame ass election was called.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> I don't know how many times I have to say this here on this Forum *Bill C-32 reduces statutory damages to a one-time payment of between $100 and $5000 for all personal infringements that took place prior to the lawsuit.*
> 
> We are *not* the US here when it comes to the penalties that are assessed.
> 
> ...


Even $5000 is too steep for personal download infringements. I favour two initial warnings then a maximum $500 fine not per offense but total. If after that activities continue then heftier fine could be considered. Under no circumstance should this be considered criminal activity, nor should searches or search warrants be issued to counter this activity.

OTH volume uploaders and those that make and sell pirated copies of CDs, books or movies should be treated much more harshly. Again I view someone that uses a favourite tune to illustrate a personal slideshow in an entirely different light than someone that puts an artists entire discography up on youtube or any similar media. Even here some caution is required as more than one wireless connection has been compromised.

That said only activities after the passage of the bill should fall under the bill. Someone that has a copy of whatever dream concert recorded on their VCR in 199x should be exempt as it was legal or at least not illegal at the time they did the deed.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> Even $5000 is too steep for personal download infringements. I favour two initial warnings then a maximum $500 fine not per offense but total. If after that activities continue then heftier fine could be considered. Under no circumstance should this be considered criminal activity, nor should searches or search warrants be issued to counter this activity.
> 
> OTH volume uploaders and those that make and sell pirated copies of CDs, books or movies should be treated much more harshly. Again I view someone that uses a favourite tune to illustrate a personal slideshow in an entirely different light than someone that puts an artists entire discography up on youtube or any similar media. Even here some caution is required as more than one wireless connection has been compromised.
> 
> That said only activities after the passage of the bill should fall under the bill. Someone that has a copy of whatever dream concert recorded on their VCR in 199x should be exempt as it was legal or at least not illegal at the time they did the deed.


Sweet! So I could steal 2 cars before any real punishments?! As long as I'm only joyriding and not selling them...
I'll be sure to tell your employer that he can keep 2 of your paycheques with slight "warnings" before he has to pay you for YOUR work.

Man, listening to people defending theft (of any kind) makes me think Human kind deserves a big fuggin Facepalm.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Dennis Nedry said:


> If a company sells me a broken product, are they allowed to have my money for free?
> 
> Bad things are bad things. Movies, music, games. Whatever. I'm paying to be entertained/enjoy it. That's why these things exist. If they fail at that, why do they deserve my cash?
> 
> ...


Take 10 minutes out of your busy day and read reviews, research something before you buy it...

Hell, today you can GOOGLE IT, takes literally 10 seconds, not minutes...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> *Even $5000 is too steep for personal download* infringements. I favour two initial warnings then a maximum $500 fine not per offense but total. If after that activities continue then heftier fine could be considered. Under no circumstance should this be considered criminal activity, nor should searches or search warrants be issued to counter this activity.
> 
> OTH volume uploaders and those that make and sell pirated copies of CDs, books or movies should be treated much more harshly. Again I view someone that uses a favourite tune to illustrate a personal slideshow in an entirely different light than someone that puts an artists entire discography up on youtube or any similar media. Even here some caution is required as more than one wireless connection has been compromised.
> 
> *That said only activities after the passage of the bill should fall under the bill. Someone that has a copy of whatever dream concert recorded on their VCR in 199x should be exempt as it was legal or at least not illegal at the time they did the deed.*


C'mon if you have downloaded thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software of movies or music the fine should suit the infringement. Obviously if the penalties start at $100 and max at $5K you would have had to have been a constant and repeat offender.

Why should you only get a slap on the wrist for thousands of dollars worth of infringement??

You also have to bear in mind that this will not in any way be policed by the state it would be up to the copyright holder in conjunction with ISPs to even bring a case before the courts and as I have already said for PERSONAL use it is not a criminal case it is civil.

Why should no search warrants be issued...? IF there is evidence then how else can a case be built... what kind of free loading world do you think we should live in??

Obviously there could only be action taken by the copyright holder for activity after the legislation is passed, you can't retroactively file a law suit against someone when that activity occurred *before* it was against the law... The example you cite is just plain silly... the copyright holder would have no way of knowing what you had done at such a point in time.

People who cite such considerations make me wonder what they are worried about when it comes to their own individual activities... sounds to me like they are looking to protect themselves and not the average citizen.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Dennis Nedry said:


> If a company sells me a broken product, are they allowed to have my money for free?
> 
> Bad things are bad things. Movies, music, games. Whatever.


Bad things aren't broken things. They're only bad to _you_ because 'bad' and 'good' are both subjective at best.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> You also have to bear in mind that this will not in any way be policed by the state it would be up to the copyright holder in conjunction with ISPs to even bring a case before the courts and as I have already said for PERSONAL use it is not a criminal case it is civil.
> 
> Why should no search warrants be issued...? IF there is evidence then how else can a case be built... what kind of free loading world do you think we should live in??


Search warrants are generally not issued in civil proceedings, as there isn't an actual crime taking place (in civil law, it's considered liability for damages). A civil suit would require that the plaintiff gather all the evidence against a defendant, including enough evidence to procure a court order to compel the ISP to release customer information.

To get a search warrant in a civil suit, the plaintiff must have a strong prima facie case, and must also be able to prove that the defendant has incriminating files, as well as the motive/means to destroy them. On top of those requirements, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions (actual or alleged) were very serious.

The burden of proof for a civil suit is significantly less than that of a criminal proceeding as well - in a criminal action, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In a civil action, the plaintiff must only convince the judge or jury that their story is more believable than the defendants. There is no presumption of innocence in civil law.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> Search warrants are generally not issued in civil proceedings, as there isn't an actual crime taking place (in civil law, it's considered liability for damages). A civil suit would require that the plaintiff gather all the evidence against a defendant, including enough evidence to procure a court order to compel the ISP to release customer information.
> 
> To get a search warrant in a civil suit, the plaintiff must have a strong prima facie case, and must also be able to prove that the defendant has incriminating files, as well as the motive/means to destroy them. On top of those requirements, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions (actual or alleged) were very serious.
> 
> The burden of proof for a civil suit is significantly less than that of a criminal proceeding as well - in a criminal action, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In a civil action, the plaintiff must only convince the judge or jury that their story is more believable than the defendants. There is no presumption of innocence in civil law.


All very good and true points JC but nothing you say negates the fact that if a search warrant is issued it would have to be for a *very* serious situation and should be available to the plaintiff as a legal mechanism.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Lars said:


> Let's just all agree that piracy is theft of property.


Piracy is not theft of property. Period. End of story.

While it is copyright infringement, it is not theft.

Theft involves taking something from someone. When you download a movie, song, whatever, it's not being taken from another party. It's being duplicated.

This isn't even remotely close to stealing a physical product, where there was actual parts/labor/time that went into the creation of the physical media. With piracy, there is no physical media produced.

I have no issues with piracy in general. I'm happy to buy music, but in the format that I want. Paying for a low quality MP3 or AAC file, such as from iTunes, isn't going to happen. Some artists are now selling high quality (lossless format) music from their websites, and I happily buy those to support the artists and their future endeavors.

Generally speaking, if I can't download something, I live without it. There's no lost income on the part of the content creator, simply because it's not something I would have bought in the first place.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> All very good and true points JC but nothing you say negates the fact that if a search warrant is issued it would have to be for a *very* serious situation and should be available to the plaintiff as a legal mechanism.


Search orders are available to the plaintiff - but the infraction would have to be very serious. A few MP3s isn't serious, and I can't see a court issuing a search warrant for such a situation. If a search warrant *was* issued, I could see that case easily ending up in the SCOC as it would be a defining case in Canadian law.

To get to the point - I don't think there are any circumstances that would justify a search warrant being issued in a civil copyright infringement suit. It's simply too minor, and far too common. If you look at the limited statistics available, something like 10% of the US population has admitted to pirating music. It's likely higher in Canada.

The biggest selling point of the iTunes Store is the convenience - not the quality and certainly not the legality.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> Search orders are available to the plaintiff - but the infraction would have to be very serious. A few MP3s isn't serious, and I can't see a court issuing a search warrant for such a situation. If a search warrant *was* issued, I could see that case easily ending up in the SCOC as it would be a defining case in Canadian law.
> 
> To get to the point - I don't think there are any circumstances that would justify a search warrant being issued in a civil copyright infringement suit. It's simply too minor, and far too common. If you look at the limited statistics available, something like 10% of the US population has admitted to pirating music. It's likely higher in Canada.
> 
> The biggest selling point of the iTunes Store is the convenience - not the quality and certainly not the legality.


And in such cases a warrant would not be issued, it *is*up to a judge to decide. It doesn't mean it should not be available as a legal mechanism where warranted.

It depends on the nature of the copyright infringement as to whether it could be warranted. You mention some mp3s... what about in the case of thousands of dollars worth of software which is not hard to do these days?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

John Clay said:


> Theft involves taking something from someone. When you download a movie, song, whatever, it's not being taken from another party. It's being duplicated.


If I post a professionally done photo of my car to my album and then another individual copies that photo for their eBay listing of their own car that looks like mine, I won't appreciate it, nor is right. Technicalities aside, it's my property - that I produced. Digital or not. If you want use what I produced, you ask me.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> And in such cases a warrant would not be issued, it *is*up to a judge to decide. It doesn't mean it should not be available as a legal mechanism where warranted.
> 
> I think we are on the same side in this debate as a legal mechanism for very serious cases.


Perhaps we are, but I don't think a search warrant should be an option in a civil copyright infringement case - not where it's only personal use.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> Perhaps we are, but I don't think a search warrant should be an option in a civil copyright infringement case - not where it's only personal use.


See my edit...  just to keep things rolling...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> *Piracy is not theft of property. Period. End of story.
> 
> While it is copyright infringement, it is not theft.*
> 
> ...


+1. 100% agree I presented a very similar argument in the "piracy" poll that ehMax presented a while back.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> You mention some mp3s... what about in the case of thousands of dollars worth of software which is not hard to do these days?


What about it?

Personal privacy should only be infringed in copyright infringement cases if the accused is selling the stuff. If it's for personal use, then I really don't care what people do.

Privacy always trumps profiting.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Lars said:


> If I post a professionally done photo of my car to my album and then another individual copies that photo for their eBay listing of their own car that looks like mine, I won't appreciate it, nor is right. Technicalities aside, it's my property - that I produced. Digital or not. If you want use what I produced, you ask me.


If you post a professionally done photo of your car online, without a watermark, then you're essentially inviting it to be taken and used elsewhere.

I would liken it to baking a sheet of cookies, and leaving them in public. Except the plate never runs out, and doesn't cost anything to refill.

If you're concerned about infringement, then watermark your photos and provide a clear licensing path to potential users.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

John Clay said:


> What about it?
> 
> Personal privacy should only be infringed in copyright infringement cases if the accused is selling the stuff. If it's for personal use, then I really don't care what people do.
> 
> Privacy always trumps profiting.


On this front we will have to agree to disagree... if my infractions are so egregious as to have a judge feel that there is sufficient evidence to justify issuing a search warrant then I must be doing some pretty heavy duty bad s**t and my "privacy" should not trump the legal copyrights of the holder.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

John Clay said:


> If you post a professionally done photo of your car online, without a watermark, then you're essentially inviting it to be taken and used elsewhere.
> 
> I would liken it to baking a sheet of cookies, and leaving them in public. Except the plate never runs out, and doesn't cost anything to refill.
> 
> If you're concerned about infringement, then watermark your photos and provide a clear licensing path to potential users.


Oh, of course, but regardless, it doesn't make it right. We're really discussing if it's right or wrong, not if proper protocols are set in place to prevent duplication. (Strangely enough, some photographs are copied despite a watermark on them any case...)


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law

Interesting read.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

Luckily the bill was killed, mostly thanks to the public and publicity around the crashing of Prentice' office on his 'open house' day. 
Harper basically told the Minister- I don't care what's in it, just get it done.

If you recall, around that time, there were a rash of 'news' stories in the press about rampant piracy in Canada, piracy of feature films, and the recording of films in theatres for purpose of piracy. Stories planted by the US media lobby. I think they (US media lobby) had Canada ranked #3 in the world for movie piracy (with Montreal being the capitol of movie piracy). Canadian press ran their 'stories'.

The best thing to happen with the previous minority gov't is that C32 didn't pass. Hopefully there will be another minority. So far neither the Liberals or Cons seem to understand or care about copyright law for the 21st century.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law
> 
> Interesting read.


Nope it does not say that anywhere in the cable... nice editorializing. What it does say is:



> -- the Prime Minister told the President last August that
> Canada would pass copyright legislation;


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fellfromtree said:


> Luckily the bill was killed, mostly thanks to the public and publicity around the crashing of Prentice' office on his 'open house' day.
> Harper basically told the Minister- I don't care what's in it, just get it done.
> 
> If you recall, around that time, there were a rash of 'news' stories in the press about rampant piracy in Canada, piracy of feature films, and the recording of films in theatres for purpose of piracy. Stories planted by the US media lobby. I think they (US media lobby) had Canada ranked #3 in the world for movie piracy (with Montreal being the capitol of movie piracy). Canadian press ran their 'stories'.
> ...


Based on what do you say this? What in your estimation would copyright law for the 21st century look like?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Nope it does not say that anywhere in the cable... nice editorializing. What it does say is:


I didn't do any editorializing. That's what Wikileaks posted on their twitter feed (their words).

I also didn't editorialized this, either Latest Wikileaks Release Shows How US Completely Drove Canadian Copyright Reform Efforts | Techdirt

or this:

U.S. diplomats needle Harper Conservatives over stalled legislation, Senate-stacking

or this:

Wikileaks Diplomatic Cable: US Pulled the Strings in Previous Canadian DMCA


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> I didn't do any editorializing. That's what Wikipedia posted on their twitter feed (their words).
> 
> I also didn't editorialized this, either Latest Wikileaks Release Shows How US Completely Drove Canadian Copyright Reform Efforts | Techdirt
> 
> ...


In the link you posted no where that I can see does it say: *Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law*

If you can show me where it does I will retract my statement.

As for your other links, they are all relative to the original "leak" nothing new in any of them of than saying that the legislation was designed to protect American interests and not Canadian interests. 

Really? What Canadian interests vs. American interests? The US is our largest trading partner and as such in many ways our interests are tied to their interests. Obviously there are and will be differences but to suggest that the US would not or should not try and influence our copyright legislation is simply naive.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> In the link you posted no where that I can see does it say: *Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law*
> 
> If you can show me where it does I will retract my statement.


I said it was from their Twitter feed and I didn't say it was _in_ the link.

But for the record, this is the tweet I got the link from: Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/02/08OTTAWA311.html

Further to that, another link regarding the push: Michael Geist - Wikileaks Cables Show Massive U.S. Effort to Establish Canadian DMCA


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> I said it was from their Twitter feed and I didn't say it was _in_ the link.
> 
> But for the record, this is the tweet I got the link from: Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/02/08OTTAWA311.html
> 
> Further to that, another link regarding the push: Michael Geist - Wikileaks Cables Show Massive U.S. Effort to Establish Canadian DMCA


This is nothing new nor is it news, obviously the US was putting pressure on Canada to be more in line with their copyright laws... If anyone thought otherwise then they weren't keeping up or don't understand how a globalized economy works especially when we are each others largest trading partners. This kind of thing is the norm not the exception.

The fact is their was opposition here to C-61 and it died on the Order Paper. New legislation was drafted in the form of Bill C-32 and it was much improved even Michael Geist acknowledged that, so really who cares, the points in these articles are moot it didn't happen. Next.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Nice retraction.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Nice retraction.


What retraction....?? 

I never said the US wasn't putting pressure on Canada as far as copyright legislation is concerned. That is patently obvious. I merely disputed your statement: Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law, for which you have not produced one shred of evidence.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> What retraction....??





screature said:


> In the link you posted no where that I can see does it say: *Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law*
> 
> If you can show me where it does I will retract my statement.


I showed you where it said it, now where's the retraction? :lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> I showed you where it said, now where's the retraction? :lmao:


Nope because you didn't link to that in your initial post, I said if you can show me where it says in the cable you linked to it says: Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law, I would retract. You couldn't, you didn't... post fail. No retraction.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Nope because you didn't link to that in your initial post, I said if you can show me where it says in the cable you linked to it says: Harper promised Bush to introduce US style copyright law, I would retract. You couldn't, you didn't... post fail. No retraction.


Don't hurt yourself. 

You're making a lot of assumptions.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

You can't stop the forces of evil.

If you could then evil would no longer exist.

If evil no longer exists then the forces of good no longer serve a purpose.

No good, no evil = no nothing.

So, in order to survive somebodies need to stop piracy while others need to keep pirating. 

Pick a side, it's all good.....or evil.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Based on what do you say this? What in your estimation would copyright law for the 21st century look like?


C-32 has two big problems. 
Digital Locks. The digital lock gives the (US) media corps the power over the consumer rights granted in the bill.
Even the draconian US DMCA has a provision that requires regular (3 or 6 years, can't recall) review to see that the legislation is keeping up with the times (the mechanics of process makes this almost ceremonial, but it is there). Without provision for review, it will take years of negative harmful result before there would be any consideration for reopening a bill.

The history of C-60, C-61 shows that gov't (either Lib or Con) was barely interested in how copyright affected individual Canadians, they were interested in appeasing the US Gov't, via the US Media Corps lobby. It wasn't until public intervention (thanks mainly to a very few vocal individuals like Geist, Jesse Brown, Cory Doctorow) that the gov't decided it had to feign interest in Canadians. The cross country consultations with Canadians was a publicity whitewash (with few Canadians getting to voice), the recommendations of which were totally ignored in the third draft of the bill.

I suggest you read through the archives of Geist and Jesse Brown (Search Engine- TVO), it's all documented. The last link provided by MannyP is a good concise review.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

More interesting (cautionary) notes from New Zealand. Sounds a lot like Spain... and Canada?
US media corps offer to write the law and fund the enforcement.
Michael Geist - Wikileaks on New Zealand Copyright: US Funds IP Enforcement, Offers to Draft Legislation


----------

