# Value of Software Theft in Canada Totals Nearly US$1.1 Billion



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

According to the 2010 *Global Software Piracy study* conducted by the Business Software Alliance. 

Oddly, the report says for Canada, "At 28 per cent, Canada's piracy rate is at an all time low, dropping six percentage points since 2006."

The opinion survey found strong support for intellectual property rights in Canada, with 68 per cent of respondents saying we should reward inventors for their creations to promote more technology advances. Strikingly, the global survey found that support for intellectual property rights was strongest in markets with high piracy rates.

The survey also found widespread recognition among Canadians that licensed software is better than pirated software when it comes to technical support (92 per cent), security (83 per cent) and reliability (81 per cent).

However, across the globe the survey found that many PC users lack a clear understanding of whether common ways of acquiring software, such as buying a single program license for multiple computers or downloading a program from peer-to-peer network, are likely to be legal or illegal. In Canada, a majority of respondents said that peer-to-peer, lending software and street markets are illegal, but 59 per cent believe that auction sites provide legal software. Almost two-thirds said installing multiple copies at home is legal.

Additional findings from the study include:


The commercial value of stolen software in Canada totalled US$1.066 billion. Globally, the value of software theft grew to a record $59 billion — nearly double that when the study began in 2003.
Half of the 116 geographies studied in 2010 had piracy rates of 62 per cent or higher, with the global average piracy rate at 42 per cent.
Emerging economies have become a driving force behind PC software piracy. Piracy rates in the developing world are 2.5 times higher than those in the developed world, and the commercial value of pirated software ($31.9 billion) accounts for more than half of the world total.
The most cited advantages of licensed software globally are access to technical assistance (88 per cent) and protection from hackers and malware (81 per cent).
Among the common ways people in engage in piracy is to buy a single copy of software and install it on multiple computers.
Strong majorities of PC users around the world believe intellectual property rights and protections produce tangible economic benefits: 59 per cent globally say IP rights benefit local economies, while 61 per cent globally say IP rights create jobs.

I'd be really interested to see a break down in this study from piracy among Mac users vs PC users. By gut instinct is that Mac users would have a lower piracy rate than PC users.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*I'm betting more on PC*

Mac users versus PC users piracy stats? - I'm betting less on Mac and more on PC just because there is less to steal and more functionality right out of the box for Mac.

This copyright piracy issue appears to be the issue de jour on all fronts. Piracy has happened forever with software, music, games, books etc. Yes initially there is lost revenue for a particular person. After awhile though, I don't buy it. It is like an unofficial adoption/promotion program. They start young and poor, pirating, but then spend money later as they get more settled or have more money or just have more to lose.

I think the current actions are on one side being driven by failing revenue models in the print and music sectors. It is carrying over to all things copyright.

The other side of the story is that the end game for these providers is to have you own nothing. Be it books, software, movies or music, the holy grail is a never ending subscription service tied to a single machine and a single person. People are looking to emulate iTunes, Netflix etc.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I always question the numbers as they assume someone pirating the software would indeed buy it. A great example is Adobe CS. For some strange reason a lot of people pirate a copy of PhotoShop CS. I believe the magic number for an outright purchase of CS is over $800 but am a bit too lazy to check at the moment especially as a new CS purchase is as complex as buying Windoze.

Now more times than not the individual would be as well or better served with PhotoShop Elements ringing in at $100 and maybe even free with the purchase of some scanners. So long story short Adobe is not out $800 but only $100. IOW in this case Piracy figure is being exaggerated by a factor of 8.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Nah, stealing software isn't theft. 
_
theft |θeft|
noun
the action or crime of stealing_
...
_In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent._


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Actually sounds like the woe is we drum pounding has begun and less than two weeks after the election. Insane software protection laws and even dumber copyright law revisions coming soon thanks to a Harpo majority.

I will be very surprised if such legislation does not include provisions to make it illegal to create a back-up copy of Software. Of course there will be no obligation whatsoever for manufacturers to replace damaged or stolen software disks.

Will be interesting to see how all this develops but I am not very hopeful.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

At least they're going to kill the stupid "iPod tax"


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

I don't think this would be easily implemented on a large scale; but I like thee whole try before you by approach some developers have used. Have a downloadable app, let it run fully or mostly fully for a set time based on what it does, then ask for a license before it will work. Though, I suppose a determined enough user can just remove the app and any files it may hide and reinstall it repeatedly to get it "free" Sadly its a loosing battle... imperfect solutions to an imperfect problem.


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2011)

I always take the BSA study results with a bit of salt personally, they've made some pretty grandiose claims over the years. At least now they spin it different and say that pirated software is "worth" X amount instead of saying that the software companies are _losing_ X amount.

The big question is how much of this stolen software is actually being used and how much is just being stolen because people can do it so easily. Lots of people in that sort of scene just download things because they can and likely never even use it :/


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

The BSA? Aren't these the clownboats who came up with "Warez the Weasel"* to warn kids of the horrors of software copyright infringement a while back?

These surveys that try to estimate the volume of unlicensed copies of software, and then multiply by the full retail price to estimate the "cost" of "piracy" to the industry are ridiculous. There is no way all the unlicensed copies of software
translate into lost sales for software publishers.

One possible consequence of more strict enforcement of software license agreements would be to further drive the adoption of Free and Open Source software. A previous poster suggested that many people running unlicensed copies of Photoshop CS would be well served by Photoshop Elements - I'll bet a significant chunk of these would find the GIMP meets their needs as well.

This could blow back on the software publishers - if users get familiar with the free tools, the paid tools will start to feel prickly and uncomfortable. These users would reach for their familiar (free) tools, even in an environment where the acquisition cost of paid tools was not a significant barrier.

For example, if people were unable to run an unlicensed copy of Microsoft Office at home, some of them would run OpenOffice.org instead. Once they became familiar with OpenOffice.org, they wouldn't like running MS Office as it would seem to them "difficult to use" or "missing an important feature". They might start to lobby for OpenOffice.org on their work computers as well, at which point their company would start to question the value of all those MS Office licenses...
___________________________
*Reg readers name BSA antipiracy weasel ? The Register


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> The most cited advantages of licensed software globally are access to technical assistance (88 per cent) and protection from hackers and malware (81 per cent).


This made me laugh. Most of the technical assistance I received was totally inadequate. I think you could find better help from the people who frequent The Pirate Bay.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Lars said:


> Nah, stealing software isn't theft.
> _
> theft |θeft|
> noun
> ...


So what you're saying, by using the _example_ provided by the dictionary, is that it's impossible to steal someone's idea. Right? beejacon

I love it when people use ellipses as if they're saving us from wasting time reading the entire entry and getting straight to the "point".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Actually sounds like the woe is we drum pounding has begun and less than two weeks after the election. Insane software protection laws and even dumber copyright law revisions coming soon thanks to a Harpo majority.
> 
> *I will be very surprised if such legislation does not include provisions to make it illegal to create a back-up copy of Software. *Of course there will be no obligation whatsoever for manufacturers to replace damaged or stolen software disks.
> 
> Will be interesting to see how all this develops but I am not very hopeful.


Did you ever read Bill C-32? Why spread FUD about something of which you seem to have no knowledge. Bill C-32 had provisions for backing up and format shifting of software and other media for personal use. Bill C-32 will be reintroduced basically unchanged. Even Michael Geist largely supported it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> So what you're saying, by using the _example_ provided by the dictionary, is that it's impossible to steal someone's idea. Right? beejacon
> 
> I love it when people use ellipses as if they're saving us from wasting time reading the entire entry and getting straight to the "point".


+1 How many times do we have to go over this.... Piracy is *NOT* theft, it is copyright infringement. Depending on whether or not it is for personal use or commercial profit it is not even a crime. For personal use it is a civil offence punishable only by a fine paid to the license holder, the offender will not have a criminal record of any sort. 

For commercial profit it can be punishable by fines and/or jail time so it depends on the scale of the operation and a judges ruling as to whether or not the activities are criminal.

Some people may not like this fact but it is a fact. Piracy is not theft.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder what the BSA really does - other than conduct studies and publish reports.

I've reported a really blatant web site (first linked to here and discussed here, BTW) that is selling pirated Apple, Adobe, Microsoft etc. software. I've reported twice to the BSA, twice to Apple and several times to other software companies among the pirated. All of this several months ago - plenty of time for something to have been investigated and pulled down.

The real irony? *The site, selling obviously pirated Apple software, is hosted on me.com.* And STILL Apple hasn't done a thing about it. 

So I have to ask, why do I even bother trying to help?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

So I wonder what people think of identity theft? You're not really losing anything per se. Right? It's just 1s and 0s. It's not like you wake up the next morning and everyone treats you like a stranger.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

screature said:


> Piracy is *NOT* theft, it is copyright infringement.


Agreed. I don't know why this is so hard for some to grasp.

Jaywalking is illegal.

Depending on how you park, parking can be illegal in certain circumstances.

Even though Jaywalking and Illegal parking are both against the law, they are not the same thing.

In a similar vein, copyright infringement is not theft - even though both may be illegal.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> So I wonder what people think of identity theft? You're not really losing anything per se. Right? It's just 1s and 0s. It's not like you wake up the next morning and everyone treats you like a stranger.


Interesting question, however the purpose of "identity theft" is to steal money and or acquire things using someone's financial data. I think the term is used more less colloquially as opposed to being an actual legal definition for the crime... but I would have to check for the statute on that which I don't have the time for right now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If someone were to walk around and pretend to be me, it would be fraud, not theft. Only when funds are withdrawn by the person and charged to me would it be theft.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Interesting question, however the purpose of "identity theft" is to steal money and or acquire things using someone's financial data. I think the term is used more less colloquially as opposed to being an actual legal definition for the crime... but I would have to check for the statute on that which I don't have the time for right now.


And piracy is the inverse. The money has been spent to produce something that people are downloading copies freely with no regard. Pay to play. There are plenty of free alternatives so being poor isn't a reasonable excuse.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> *And piracy is the inverse*. The money has been spent to produce something that people are downloading copies freely with no regard. Pay to play. There are plenty of free alternatives so being poor isn't a reasonable excuse.


No it isn't. 

No one is trying to rationalize or justify piracy, just stop calling it theft or stealing, it isn't and anlogies are pointless. Piracy (copyright infringement) is its own offence within in the law. Period.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> No one is trying to rationalize or justify piracy, just stop calling it theft or stealing, it isn't and anlogies are pointless. Piracy (copyright infringement) is its own offence within in the law. Period.


It's also not copyright infringement either since it expressly for (if I may take a page from Lars) "the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same."


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> It's also not copyright infringement either since it expressly for (if I may take a page from Lars) "the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same."


Wrong. Software is protected by copyright as it is a "literary work".

Software can be considered a written expression of ideas - same as a book.

Software "piracy" is copyright infringement, not theft. This does not make it legal or right, it is just not the same as theft.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

PenguinBoy said:


> Wrong. Software is protected by copyright as it is a "literary work".
> 
> Software can be considered a written expression of ideas - same as a book.
> 
> Software "piracy" is copyright infringement, not theft. This does not make it legal or right, it is just not the same as theft.


In Canada, yes it's considered literary. But it's not flat-out wrong since we are talking about GLOBAL piracy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> *It's also not copyright infringement* either since it expressly for (if I may take a page from Lars) "the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same."


Uhh yes it is, look at the statute.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> In Canada, yes it's considered literary. But it's not flat-out wrong since* we are talking about GLOBAL piracy*.


This is an argument? We live in Canada right.... other countries laws do not apply. What exactly is your point?

And no, actually based on the initial post, we are talking about piracy in Canada *and* globally. The only legal jurisdiction relevant to us is the one in which we live.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> In Canada, yes it's considered literary. But it's not flat-out wrong since we are talking about GLOBAL piracy.


I believe most countries consider software piracy copyright infringement. 
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ectual_Property_Organization_Copyright_Treaty


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> This is an argument? We live in Canada right.... other countries laws do not apply. What exactly is your point?
> 
> And no, actually based on the initial post, we are talking about piracy in Canada *and* globally. The only legal jurisdiction relevant to us is the one in which we live.


How about I just cut to the chase and tell you what you want to hear: You win. I'm wrong and you're right. Although, the OP's link was directed to a US site, but whatevs. 

Get hung up on the vernacular all you want. It proves nothing. :lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> How about I just cut to the chase and tell you what you want to hear: You win. I'm wrong and you're right. Although, the OP's link was directed to a US site, but whatevs.
> 
> Get hung up on the vernacular all you want. It proves nothing. :lmao:


I'm interested in your opinion if it is backed up with facts.... I'm not interested in winning. I know this area quite well. If you can demonstrate to me how what I am saying based on the wording of the law is wrong, I am interested... If you can't then what you say is just so much opinion without anything to back it up, which we all encounter everyday.

It isn't vernacular it is what the law says and how things are defined. It matters... try and defend a case to a judge by saying.... "Get hung up on the vernacular all you want. It proves nothing." See how far that will get you. Ohh, and here is a  for you seeing as you are so fond of them.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Sonal said:


> I believe most countries consider software piracy copyright infringement.
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ectual_Property_Organization_Copyright_Treaty


Not really. The prevailing Chinese attitude is pretty much laissez faire wheter it be software, music or videos.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Not really. The prevailing Chinese attitude is pretty much laissez faire wheter it be software, music or videos.


Did you really read what Sonal said and the link she referred to... *most* countries... China is a "renegade" on many fronts.... intellectual property is the least of them...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Did you really read what Sonal said and the link she referred to... *most* countries... China is a "renegade" on many fronts.... intellectual property is the least of them...


Yes.... that tricky 'most' word gets people every time.  

China is a pretty notable exception.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Did you ever read Bill C-32? Why spread FUD about something of which you seem to have no knowledge. *Bill C-32 had provisions for backing up and format shifting of software and other media for personal use*. Bill C-32 will be reintroduced basically unchanged.* Even Michael Geist largely supported it*.


.... you forgot to mention the elephant in the room- the digital lock provision, which tramples any consumer right, including time shift recording and back-up copying. If a device/content has a digital lock prohibiting copy for time shift or back-up, then you are not allowed to time shift/back-up.

Even Michael Geist largely supports? That's a generous interpretation, like saying you largely like the roofing job you had done (and not mentioning the small part you don't like is a 2' x 2' hole in the roof).


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

fellfromtree said:


> .... you forgot to mention the elephant in the room- the digital lock provision, which tramples any consumer right, including time shift recording and back-up copying. If a device/content has a digital lock prohibiting copy for time shift or back-up, then you are not allowed to time shift/back-up.


This is huge.

Not only does it trample fair dealing, it also promises to blowback in all sorts of strange ways. For example, will reverse engineering undocumented interfaces to communicate with industrial equipment become illegal?


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2011)

PenguinBoy said:


> This is huge.
> 
> Not only does it trample fair dealing, it also promises to blowback in all sorts of strange ways. For example, will reverse engineering undocumented interfaces to communicate with industrial equipment become illegal?


It's not necessarily illegal, but a lot of people in the linux world have gotten into trouble for reverse engineering certain hardware, but that all comes back to (supposed) IP (intellectual property) -- but that's a whole different ballgame so let's not get started on that one. At the end of the day I guess the answer is "it depends" on the interface you're reverse engineering and if someone has some (supposed) IP on it .. and sadly in the that world you can almost bet that _someone_ does in the indsutrial world. I've got buddies that work for pretty big companies in that field and it's scary how much proprietary stuff is involved (and often for the silliest of reasons). I'm waiting for the day when some IP patent troll steps forward and says "I have a patent on both serial and parallel communication protocols, you're all screwed, now pay up."

Copyright was originally created for and intended to protect the consumer ... but not anymore, it's been completely turned around and it now protects the authors.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> I'm interested in your opinion if it is backed up with facts.... I'm not interested in winning. I know this area quite well. If you can demonstrate to me how what I am saying based on the wording of the law is wrong, I am interested... If you can't then what you say is just so much opinion without anything to back it up, which we all encounter everyday.
> 
> It isn't vernacular it is what the law says and how things are defined. It matters... try and defend a case to a judge by saying.... "Get hung up on the vernacular all you want. It proves nothing." See how far that will get you. Ohh, and here is a  for you seeing as you are so fond of them.


The fact of the matter is copyright definitions were written long before there was such a thing as software. Thus it's lazily rolled under literary (which you could start another silly argument about how_ that's _bloody wrong, but whatever.)

Getting hung up on the use of the word theft is a strawman tactic and dodges the issue outright. Frankly, I think most people spew that nonsense to either justify their behaviour, or make themselves feel smarter.

Pirating software is wrong. Just be an adult and own up to it. The only person you need to convince is yourself.

And yes, you very much are interested in winning. You're conveniently the expert on all things so I bow to you, oh great contrarian.

 Right back at ya.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> The fact of the matter is copyright definitions were written long before there was such a thing as software. Thus it's lazily rolled under literary (which you could start another silly argument about how_ that's _bloody wrong, but whatever.)
> 
> *Getting hung up on the use of the word theft is a strawman tactic and dodges the issue outright. Frankly, I think most people spew that nonsense to either justify their behaviour, or make themselves feel smarter.
> *
> ...


Sorry you are wrong. It is the law and it has been acknowledged that pirating is obviously illegal, but calling it something that it isn't and making irrelevant comparisons does not an argument make. The law for copyright has been and is in the process of being updated to account for intellectual property so again your argument claiming that it is archaic and doesn't take into account new paradigms is simply incorrect.

You seem to think that by pointing out how the law defines piracy is somehow trying to rationalize it as being OK, again if you actually read and not just jump to knee jerk reactions you will see that it simply is not true.

As far as "being the expert on all" things far from it. I reply to topics that I have first hand experience with and knowledge of and in this case it I know the law very well. As I said before try and tell a judge that the legal definitions are strawmen arguments and see how far that will get you. 

At any rate you are obviously going to believe what ever you want despite the facts so go one your merry misguided way and we will considered this horse officially flogged to death.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Software piracy in Canada at record low


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fellfromtree said:


> .... you forgot to mention the elephant in the room- the digital lock provision, which tramples any consumer right, including time shift recording and back-up copying. If a device/content has a digital lock prohibiting copy for time shift or back-up, then you are not allowed to time shift/back-up.
> 
> Even Michael Geist largely supports? That's a generous interpretation, like saying you largely like the roofing job you had done (and not mentioning the small part you don't like is a 2' x 2' hole in the roof).


Digital locks are supported in the law yes and rightly so and is the last recourse for content producers to protect their work from large commercial scale piracy. However DRM measures are becoming virtually extinct in the music industry because of the public backlash. If the public votes with their dollars and only buys products without locks then that trend will hopefully move to other forms of content as well.

The fact also remains that there will always be means by which locks can be broken for personal use and the fact is that people will continue to do it and that so long as it is for personal use no one will know. Just like there are speed limits that if surpassed and you get caught you will be fined but that doesn't stop just about everyone from speeding at one point or another when they feel they can get away with it, but does that mean there should be no speed limits?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> ... Copyright was originally created for and intended to protect the consumer ... but not anymore, it's been completely turned around and it now protects the authors.


Correct but times do change as new paradigms are introduced...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In fact, what I see happening with copyright infringement is that a large component of society no longer sees it as wrong, or worth prosecuting it. If the program/movie/song meets their cost requirements, they'll purchase it, but if it is deemed too expensive, they'll copy it. Just as police will eventually stop going after people for smoking marijuana, I suspect the same will hold true for copyright infringement. Businesses will simply need to adopt a model which assumes that the consumer will be distributing the product on their behalf.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> In fact, what I see happening with copyright infringement is that a large component of society no longer sees it as wrong, or worth prosecuting it. If the program/movie/song meets their cost requirements, they'll purchase it, but if it is deemed too expensive, they'll copy it. Just as police will eventually stop going after people for smoking marijuana, I suspect the same will hold true for copyright infringement. Businesses will simply need to adopt a model which assumes that the consumer will be distributing the product on their behalf.


I tend to agree, especially with the current generation. However a couple of distinctions should be made.

Commercial for profit pirating will continue to be policed and prosecuted as it in fact can be ruled to be a criminal offence as opposed to personal copyright infringement which is a civil law matter.

In fact in the case of copyright infringement for personal use, the police are not involved in the "policing" of it any way. It is up to the copyright holders to police and protect their copyright (Canadian context). Obviously in the age of the internet this will be in conjunction with the support of ISPs to gather evidence against the offender, but the police will not be involved at all so it will be up to the copyright holders to turn a blind eye.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Commercial for profit pirating will continue to be policed and prosecuted as it in fact can be ruled to be a criminal offence as opposed to personal copyright infringement which is a civil law matter.


In the interim I agree. I suspect, though, that a future business model--one that I'm not smart enough to think of--will create profit at another point in the chain. Software, etc. will be freely distributed. Commercial pirates will be encouraged to do what they're doing because they won't make a cent off it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> In the interim I agree. I suspect, though, that a future business model--one that I'm not smart enough to think of--will create profit at another point in the chain. Software, etc. will be freely distributed. Commercial pirates *will* be encouraged to do what they're doing because they won't make a cent off it.


I think you meant to say* won't* be encouraged.... If I read what you are saying correctly.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In fact, what I see happening with copyright infringement is that a large component of society no longer sees it as wrong, or worth prosecuting it. If the program/movie/song meets their cost requirements, they'll purchase it, but if it is deemed too expensive, they'll copy it. Just as police will eventually stop going after people for smoking marijuana, I suspect the same will hold true for copyright infringement. Businesses will simply need to adopt a model which assumes that the consumer will be distributing the product on their behalf.


You left out the rampant copyright infringement on images. Some one, some where owns the copyright to the image in your avatar. 

What happens when you renege on your licensing agreement by installing legally purchased software on a second machine? Is it piracy, theft, copyright infringement or a backup? Some licensing schemes allow this, others just want your money.tptptptp

I, like many others will not pay for a second seat to the likes of Adobe for some of their overpriced apps. I'm the sole user and if I want to have it on a laptop and a desktop I'll do it. Same with MS Office.


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2011)

screature said:


> Correct but times do change as new paradigms are introduced...


But there's change and then there's a complete 180 degree reversal -- which this has been. Consumers have less and less rights every year. Next up ... thought crime!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I suspect, though, that a future business model--one that I'm not smart enough to think of--will create profit at another point in the chain. Software, etc. will be freely distributed.


Google seems to be doing ok these days, selling licenses for Android, Chrome, etc. doesn't seem to be part of that...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I think you meant to say* won't* be encouraged.... If I read what you are saying correctly.



No, I meant what I said. I believe 20 years from now consumer software will be free, and that money will be made on it in another fashion--advertising or something. Software pirates would be doing the maker a favour.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> You left out the rampant copyright infringement on images. Some one, some where owns the copyright to the image in your avatar.
> 
> What happens when you renege on your licensing agreement by installing legally purchased software on a second machine? Is it piracy, theft, copyright infringement or a backup? Some licensing schemes allow this, others just want your money.tptptptp
> 
> I, like many others will not pay for a second seat to the likes of Adobe for some of their overpriced apps. I'm the sole user and if I want to have it on a laptop and a desktop I'll do it. Same with MS Office.


I agree. My avatar may be fair use, may be infringement. Do you own a copy of the typeface used to generate the letter "k" in your avatar?

I'm also not willing to pay multiple times for software for which I am the sole user. Adobe gives me the "right" to install software on a second machine--then lost my registration. I took matters into my own hands.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

screature said:


> Digital locks are supported in the law yes and rightly so...


I disagree - there are many legitimate reasons to reverse engineer various protocols that could be considered illegal under anti circumvention laws.

For example: You own a piece of machinery, and want to get data off it for predictive maintenance. The protocols used internally in the machine are not published.

Right now you can reverse engineer these protocols yourself, or hire a third party to do it on your behalf. The manufacturer of the machine may not like it, but right now the prevailing opinion seems to be "you own the equipment, so you own the data". If anti circumvention legislation passes, this could change.

To paraphrase the gun nuts, "hacking tools don't infringe copyright, people infringe copyright". An activity or technology with substantial non infringing use should not be illegal.


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2011)

kps said:


> I, like many others will not pay for a second seat to the likes of Adobe for some of their overpriced apps. I'm the sole user and if I want to have it on a laptop and a desktop I'll do it. Same with MS Office.


Some manufacturers are getting hip to this finally and thankfully, most especially the newer companies and smaller devs. I've sent out a few emails to companies and devs in the not too distant past asking for clarification on these sorts of things and quite a few told me things along the lines of "it's a personal license, install your software on as many computers as you own and use and that's fine" which IMHO is the way it really should be. Also the whole approach of the mac app store is this way as well so I think that things are going to move into a better direction in the future. That and the fact that the mac app store pricing is typically being targeted at fairly low numbers, which is also only going to help curb piracy even more. People will be less inclined to pirate a $10 app than a $100 or even more-so with a $1000 app.

The Adobe's out there don't seem care and are unlikely to take this approach and in fact from their recent CS 5.5 release and the advent of "renting" their software seem to be going in a total opposite direction. It would be very interesting to know where the numbers actually are with all of the claimed $1.1 billion in piracy and I suspect that a large majority of it would be with those big companies that charge a small fortune for their software suites and are completely unyielding when it comes to licensing. If they dropped their prices and lightened up on their restrictions they may just end up making more money at the end of the day.

The software piracy world seems like it is currently a bit like the music piracy world was in the hay day of napster. People have high speed connections and pirated software is probably easier to find and obtain now than it has ever been, but hopefully it can end up following the same sort of path that music has. Now that there are easy and cheap ways to get music online (iTunes, amazon, etc etc) I suspect that overall music piracy is _way_ down compared to the Napster days and if the business model of things like the mac app store pick up and the pricing and licensing/terms of use becomes easier to swallow I think that the software world can end up going in the same direction.

There will always be exceptions of course, but I think that the days of paying huge dollars for large software suites are very numbered, and rightfully so. People want to pay less and have instant gratification, just like the "in app purchase" approach with all the iOS apps maybe traditional software will end up taking this route at some point as well. Instead of buying the full-on app with all the bells and whistles maybe you get the base app and then add on all the extras that you need. Wouldn't that be nice? I personally think it would be great, especially with the huge app suites ... like a nice base photoshop for cheap and then just add on the components within it that you need to use. It might put things into a much more affordable light (but again as far as Adobe goes I wouldn't hold my breath).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> But there's change and then there's a complete 180 degree reversal -- which this has been. Consumers have less and less rights every year. *Next up ... thought crime!*


C'mon now...

You can't deny that times have changed with the digital era and the internet... that is the very reason why we have these discussions. Things have changed and so the laws need to accommodate the new paradigms, it is only common sense.

It isn't the so much consumer who may be duped or exploited anymore it is the producer/content creator who can be easily ripped off for the hard work they do and don't benefit from it in a way that is equitable. Why should I freely benefit from the creativity of others without having to pay for it in some manner or another?

Such a scenario is an impediment to innovation and creation. Those of us who are creative will always create but there should be a reasonable expectation of some sort of benefit for doing so.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Just as police will eventually stop going after people for smoking marijuana, I suspect the same will hold true for copyright infringement. Businesses will simply need to adopt a model which assumes that the consumer will be distributing the product on their behalf.


This is not what is happening. Look at the UK, Spain. Look at NZ- Brand new laws written by US Media corps, funded by US media corps. US media corps offering yo fund the training of people to enforce the new laws, and fund the infrastructure and programs to implement and enforce the laws, including target levels for fines.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fellfromtree said:


> This is not what is happening. Look at the UK, Spain. Look at NZ- Brand new laws written by US Media corps, funded by US media corps. US media corps offering yo fund the training of people to enforce the new laws, and fund the infrastructure and programs to implement and enforce the laws, including target levels for fines.


You a big bit torrent user then....? Are you invested in keeping lax copyright laws?


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Digital locks are supported in the law yes and rightly so and is the last recourse for content producers to protect their work from large commercial scale piracy.


This is not about the little guy, the individual creator. C'mon.
Digital locks are not a last resort. That's Utopian. Where do get that from?
DRM is only one form of lock. 
What is the definition of a digital lock in C-32?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I agree. My avatar may be fair use, may be infringement. Do you own a copy of the typeface used to generate the letter "k" in your avatar?
> 
> I'm also not willing to pay multiple times for software for which I am the sole user. Adobe gives me the "right" to install software on a second machine--then lost my registration. I took matters into my own hands.


Nope, do not own the type face, but it was a freely distributed font with full usage rights. What I do own is what I did with it and as such my avatar would be fully copyrighted if we were in the US, don't know about Canada. I could realistically submit a copyright application to the proper authorities and legalise the whole matter, but why bother.

We're definitely in a state of flux when it comes to all of this. No one is clear on a lot of the issues surrounding copyrights and software licensing, least of all the courts and those enforcing it.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

screature said:


> You a big bit torrent user then....? Are you invested in keeping lax copyright laws?


No, I am not a bit torrent user period.

I am interested in laws that are written for the public for people by people, not laws written for corporate entities by corporate entities.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mguertin said:


> <snip>
> The Adobe's out there don't seem care and are unlikely to take this approach and in fact from their recent CS 5.5 release and the advent of "renting" their software seem to be going in a total opposite direction.
> <snip>


Agree. It boggles the mind, truthfully. Adobe can really **** me off at times, but I need their software.

Wanted to get Illustrator or InDesign to create albums, but they offered no decent and affordable upgrade path.


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2011)

screature said:


> C'mon now...
> 
> You can't deny that times have changed with the digital era and the internet... that is the very reason why we have these discussions. Things have changed and so the laws need to accommodate the new paradigms, it is only common sense.
> 
> ...


I don't deny that times have changed, and they changed WAY before the internet era did (think of the mass hysteria when Xerox introduced copiers and what authors thought of that), and before that the printing press, OMG the world is going to end because people can make 100 copies of this manuscript now ... the cassette recorder and people can tape songs off of the radio, the VCR and people can record things off of the TV ... but now we have to close the "analog holes" on things so people can't record anything unless we deem that it's ok (and the amount of "ok" vs. "not allowed" grows less and less all the time).

I just can't condone that direction of things. To borrow from something said in Men in Black ... "This new technology is going to change music as we know it," (as Tommy Lee Jones holds up some sort of little tiny disc like thing) "I'm going to have to buy The White Album again." ... I say, how many times does one have to buy the White Album? These days a change in medium also means an "upgrade" to the rules that restrict what you can do, and with each upgrade it gets more and more restrictive, not to mention the cost factor.

I just don't hold faith that because it's easier to infringe that we should have more and more rights taken away with the release of new technology. If things were all to be "fair" to everyone they should have instead used the technology not to restrict or lock down what you can do with the content (i.e. digital locks), but to _report_ infringement to the copyright holder, who would then have the option of pursuing or not.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fellfromtree said:


> No, I am not a bit torrent user period.
> 
> I am interested in laws that are written for the public for people by people, not laws written for corporate entities by corporate entities.


You don't seem to demonstrate an understanding of politics and the law... It is about balance... why should the end user's right's explicitly trump those of the content creator?

Laws are written (hopefully) to protect justice and what is right, not to support the status quo.... how is it right that individuals should *freely* benefit from the creation of others without some sort of compensation to the author?


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2011)

screature said:


> You a big bit torrent user then....? Are you invested in keeping lax copyright laws?


Question: What exactly do you find lax about the current copyright laws?? They are very explicit.

With things in place in the US like the DMCA content creators (and in fact anyone who wants to pose as one) can now sit back and just click a mouse and say "this is a copyright infringement", and regardless whether it is indeed an infringement and/or the complaint came from the valid copyright holder, because of the way it now works is that things must be taken down immediately. Guilty before proven innocent ... except the steps you have to jump through to prove your innocence and the steps involved are often beyond the end-user's ability to do so. This is a bad bad bad approach to take and this is exactly the type of approach that digital locks and heavy handed restrictions are taking. 

Going with the heavy handed "lock everything down" approach they are making the assumption that just because it might be possible to infringe that you, then end user, _will_ infringe and therefore must be technology prevented from the possibility of doing so at the cost of your rights to fair usage.

I'm saying this from experience. I do volunteer work for a non-profit and we had perviously posted some video to Youtube. Being a non-profit we completely had the right do post the video that we did but ... there was a complaint filed by one of the lovely copyright bots (the one's that fingerprint audio and video) and the content was instantly taken down. In order to prove that we could use the video would have literally cost us in the hundreds of dollars, requiring legal intervention, and taking most likely a good amount of time and effort on our parts to do so. Where did that leave us? At the end of the day it left us with ALL of our video pulled from Youtube because of the "3 strikes" rule ... the bot nailed more than 3 of our videos and therefore Youtube pulled our account and all of our video. How's that for fair use and/or consumer rights protection? Legally that's probably close to borderline extortion!!


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2011)

screature said:


> You don't seem to demonstrate an understanding of politics and the law... It is about balance... why should the end user's right's explicitly trump those of the content creator?
> 
> Laws are written (hopefully) to protect justice and what is right, not to support the status quo.... how is it right that individuals should *freely* benefit from the creation of others without some sort of compensation to the author?


No one's saying that people should be able to freely benefit from other's creations, and right now, according to the law, the content creators are in fact protected. I think that you're not understanding copyright law here screature. These laws are in place and are there to protect and no one is saying that they should be abolished. What we are saying is that we shouldn't lose the rights we are currently granted as consumers, which is where things are going. Corporations/content owners 100, consumers/content consumers 0 is the concern.

Also I don't think you seem to understand that the corporations are trying to push the "status quo" to being that consumers should lose rights they already have (like the ability to make backups or copies for personal use for example -- how does that hurt them at all and how is that not fair).


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

screature said:


> You don't seem to demonstrate an understanding of politics and the law... It is about balance... why should the end user's right's explicitly trump those of the content creator?
> 
> Laws are written (hopefully) to protect justice and what is right, not to support the status quo.... how is it right that individuals should *freely* benefit from the creation of others without some sort of compensation to the author?


I understand how (US) corporate lobby has infiltrated Canadian politics and Canadian news media.

We've had 10 years to watch our neighbours flush themselves down the toilet, and we can't wait to emulate them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fellfromtree said:


> I understand how (US) corporate lobby has infiltrated Canadian politics and Canadian news media.
> 
> We've had 10 years to watch our neighbours flush themselves down the toilet, and we can't wait to emulate them.


Pure FUD. Look at the proposed legislation... it doesn't even come close.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> No one's saying that people should be able to freely benefit from other's creations, and right now, according to the law, the content creators are in fact protected. I think that you're not understanding copyright law here screature. These laws are in place and are there to protect and no one is saying that they should be abolished. What we are saying is that we shouldn't lose the rights we are currently granted as consumers, which is where things are going. Corporations/content owners 100, consumers/content consumers 0 is the concern.
> 
> Also I don't think you seem to understand that the corporations are trying to push the "status quo" to being that consumers should lose rights they already have (like the ability to make backups or copies for personal use for example -- how does that hurt them at all and how is that not fair).


I think *you* don't understand existing legal precedent as it exists in Canada now...it is currently legal to share files on the internet in Canada... look it up... look at the the legal precedent... if after you have done so come back and make a post... I am not going to post the links for you as I have done it numerous times before and I am getting tired of doing other people's research for them as it is the week-end and I am feeling lazy... Google is your friend...


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2011)

screature said:


> I think *you* don't understand existing legal precedent as it exists in Canada now...it is currently legal to share files on the internet in Canada... look it up... look at the the legal precedent... if after you have done so come back and make a post... I am not going to post the links for you as I have done it numerous times before and I am getting tired of doing other people's research for them as it is the week-end and I am feeling lazy... Google is your friend...


It's not _legal_ to share copy-written files in Canada, the precedents that have been set don't nullify existing copyright law. The precedents set have just protected the privacy (however inconveniently) of people's internet usage and upheld the fact that an IP address is NOT a person, there's a big difference there. They haven't cleared the way to completely ignore copyright law. You're drawing conclusions that don't exist.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> *It's not legal to share copy-written files in Canada*, the precedents that have been set don't nullify existing copyright law. The precedents set have just protected the privacy (however inconveniently) of people's internet usage and upheld the fact that an IP address is NOT a person, there's a big difference there. They haven't cleared the way to completely ignore copyright law. *You're drawing conclusions that don't exist.*


I absolutely am not and it absolutely is legal to share copy written material via P2P in Canada. The legal precedent was set in 2004 and the law has not been changed since then. Seeing as you seem to be unaware of this:

Judge: File sharing legal in Canada



> *Sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, handing the record industry a sharp setback in its international fight against file swappers.*
> 
> Canadian record labels had asked the court for authorization to identify 29 alleged file swappers in that country, in preparation for suing them for copyright infringement, much as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued more than 1500 people in America.
> 
> ...


Even though the case was filed by CRIA Judge Finckenstein's ruling set the precedent that "placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution" therefore this applies to every manner of digital file that can be shared via P2P.

This ruling has not subsequently been contested because the legislation has not changed since then and one of the reasons why the push for copyright reform in this county.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2011)

screature said:


> I absolutely am not and it absolutely is legal to share copy written material via P2P in Canada. The legal precedent was set in 2004 and the law has not been changed since then. Seeing as you seem to be unaware of this:
> 
> Judge: File sharing legal in Canada
> 
> ...


Again read the actual ruling and NOT the article headline that the press invented. This does not nullify copyright law and it does not make file sharing legal in Canada. The precedent set is technically telling us that a user placing a file in a folder does not constitute distribution because they are not willfully distributing that file. Yes it might be a fine line, but it does NOT strike down copyright laws and it does not by any means make it "legal" to distribute files via P2P, it's a loophole yes and it gives the consumer the benefit of the doubt because they may not realize that by placing a file in a folder it is making it available to a P2P client to download, therefore they are not willfully sharing the file.

If you think it's legal to distribute copy-written materials in Canada try willfully uploading a copyright protected file, get caught, and see if the charges stick or not. I know this seems like a small distinction, but welcome to the legal system. 

Also note, what I commented about in a previous post...



> In his ruling Wednesday, Judge Konrad von Finckenstein rejected that request on several grounds. In part, he said the recording industry had not presented evidence linking the alleged file swapping to the ISP subscribers that was strong enough to warrant breaking through critical privacy protections.


This is the exact precedent I was talking about, in that it was protecting the consumers and that an IP address is not the same as a person.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2011)

screature said:


> This ruling has not subsequently been contested because the legislation has not changed since then and one of the reasons why the push for copyright reform in this county.


Also, they haven't contested this ruling because they don't have a legal leg to stand on. The judge's ruling was very clear and they couldn't find another way to try and push this sort of attack so they dropped it (even though the stated that they would be appealing).

This has nothing to do with copyright reform ... the push is to take away user's rights. If they did somehow make a "push" and get it passed for this type of behaviour you will lose rights. What happens when someone has an open wifi or someone hacks into their wifi and then shares files via P2P that way? What happens if a computer is infected with a virus and then it shares copy-written material that way? If this ruling was struck down you would no longer have any sort of protection against that sort of thing. I know that you will probably say that if they leave their wifi open or are infected they deserve it, but I would have to strongly disagree there. Ignorance, while irritating, is not illegal.

Lastly, don't get me wrong or take me out of context here, I'm not supporting piracy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do feel incredibly strongly about protecting people's rights. Things like the DMCA, which is basically the type of "reform" that they are trying to push on us, are not reform at all. It's a quick and dirty way to take away consumer's rights and treat them as guilty before proven innocent. See my previous examples for real world scenarios of this, both in previous posts (the takedown and loss of our youtube videos and account without proper cause) and in the previous paragraph ... the people that end up un-knowingly sharing files such as the grand parents and other family members who end up having kids installing and using P2P apps and getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars because they no longer have protection against this sort of issue. Do some googling for exactly this sort of thing, it's happened a bunch of times in the US since this whole DMCA came in and it's a serious violation of our rights as consumers.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> Again read the actual ruling and NOT the article headline that the press invented. This does not nullify copyright law and it does not make file sharing legal in Canada. The precedent set is technically telling us that a user placing a file in a folder does not constitute distribution because they are not willfully distributing that file. Yes it might be a fine line, but it does NOT strike down copyright laws and it does not by any means make it "legal" to distribute files via P2P, it's a loophole yes and it gives the consumer the benefit of the doubt because they may not realize that by placing a file in a folder it is making it available to a P2P client to download, therefore they are not willfully sharing the file.
> 
> If you think it's legal to distribute copy-written materials in Canada try willfully uploading a copyright protected file, get caught, and see if the charges stick or not. I know this seems like a small distinction, but welcome to the legal system.
> 
> ...





mguertin said:


> Also, they haven't contested this ruling because they don't have a legal leg to stand on. The judge's ruling was very clear and they couldn't find another way to try and push this sort of attack so they dropped it (even though the stated that they would be appealing).
> 
> This has nothing to do with copyright reform ... the push is to take away user's rights. If they did somehow make a "push" and get it passed for this type of behaviour you will lose rights. What happens when someone has an open wifi or someone hacks into their wifi and then shares files via P2P that way? What happens if a computer is infected with a virus and then it shares copy-written material that way? If this ruling was struck down you would no longer have any sort of protection against that sort of thing. I know that you will probably say that if they leave their wifi open or are infected they deserve it, but I would have to strongly disagree there. Ignorance, while irritating, is not illegal.
> 
> Lastly, don't get me wrong or take me out of context here, I'm not supporting piracy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do feel incredibly strongly about protecting people's rights. Things like the DMCA, which is basically the type of "reform" that they are trying to push on us, are not reform at all. It's a quick and dirty way to take away consumer's rights and treat them as guilty before proven innocent. See my previous examples for real world scenarios of this, both in previous posts (the takedown and loss of our youtube videos and account without proper cause) and in the previous paragraph ... the people that end up un-knowingly sharing files such as the grand parents and other family members who end up having kids installing and using P2P apps and getting sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars because they no longer have protection against this sort of issue. Do some googling for exactly this sort of thing, it's happened a bunch of times in the US since this whole DMCA came in and it's a serious violation of our rights as consumers.


Do you really think I only read the headline? I have read the ruling in its complete detail, not what is merely piece meal quoted in the article. I have been following and researching copyright issues for over a decade now.

Michael Giest and I and every lawyer I have talked to disagree with you. For all practical purposes the ruling made it legal to share files in Canada via P2P because of the current poorly written legislation and it has not been subsequently contested because the precedent has been set so any subsequent case would fall back to this ruling for precedent. We will have to agree to disagree.

I am fully aware of the situation in the US. We are not in the US nor will Bill C-32 provide for anything like the situations you refer to in the US. Bill C-32 doesn't even come close to DMCA. Have you read the Bill? The limitations for damages for personal infringement is $100 -$5000 dollars for all infringements prior to a claim being made and obviously to receive the highest fine would require serious and ongoing infringements. It will not be worth the copyright holders to pursue damages in the same way it is in the US not even close.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2011)

And here's Michael Geist's thoughts on what needs to be fixed in the bill in order to preserve our rights! Specifically look at what he considers issues with the Digital Lock Provisions (and the 5 part series he links to discussing some of the things that I specifically mention in my posts regarding our rights).

Michael Geist - Bill C-32: My Perspective on the Key Issues 

I still have to argue against the fact that the ruling made it "legal" -- It's still in a grey area but certainly it doesn't overturn the laws ... the ruling gave a loophole around being prosecuted but that doesn't change the actual legality of it. Yes it may be splitting hairs but A judge's ruling does not _change or supersede the law_ and cannot do so. It's not the way the legal system works. It provides defences for sure but again it does not make it "legal".

Lastly I'm not arguing about the amount that companies can sue for, I'm arguing the tactics. Just because it's less money doesn't make invalidating our rights "ok" by any stretch of the imagination. I'm also not saying that reform is not due, I'm saying that in it's current form it's not adequate. I've been following this for a long time too and have pretty strong feelings about it all (in case you didn't notice LOL). 

Even Michael Geist feels that the digital lock portion of things is specifically MORE restrictive than the DMCA.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> And here's Michael Geist's thoughts on what needs to be fixed in the bill in order to preserve our rights! Specifically look at what he considers issues with the Digital Lock Provisions (and the 5 part series he links to discussing some of the things that I specifically mention in my posts regarding our rights).
> 
> Michael Geist - Bill C-32: My Perspective on the Key Issues
> 
> ...


Well I can grant you that the ruling didn't change the statute but it effectively made it null and void in terms of P2P file sharing. Sure the law is on the books but if you go to court the case will be thrown out so what good is a law that cannot and will not be enforced?

Yes I read this Michael Geist article as soon as he posted it. I am well aware of his position on digital locks, I don't agree with them but I am very well aware of them.

I cannot support the notion that our "rights" are being contravened by a digital lock. We have the choice to buy or not to buy. If you don't want a product that has a digital lock don't buy it, buy something else instead. If enough consumers vote this way with their dollars, content producers will soon enough get the message and stop releasing their product with locks as has largely happened in the music industry.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2011)

screature said:


> Well I can grant you that the ruling didn't change the statute but it effectively made it null and void in terms of P2P file sharing. Sure the law is on the books but if you go to court the case will be thrown out so what good is a law that cannot and will not be enforced?
> 
> Yes I read this Michael Geist article as soon as he posted it. I am well aware of his position on digital locks, I don't agree with them but I am very well aware of them.


P2P file sharing is only a portion of internet based copyright violation, this is the point I was trying to make. If you willfully share material you shouldn't you can and will still be charged. I don't disagree that this needs to be addressed, but it shouldn't be done in a way that violates our rights, and that is the other point I was trying to make.

As for agreeing with Michael Geist or not, that is fine and is your right  I agree with him


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mguertin said:


> P2P file sharing is only a portion of internet based copyright violation, this is the point I was trying to make. *If you willfully share material you shouldn't you can and will still be charged*. I don't disagree that this needs to be addressed, but it shouldn't be done in a way that violates our rights, and that is the other point I was trying to make.
> 
> As for agreeing with Michael Geist or not, that is fine and is your right  I agree with him


Not according Giest, as I quoted previously in the article...



> Ottawa's Geist said this appeared to make uploading itself legal as well, since a peer-to-peer user--like a library--would be entitled to assume that the person on the other side of the connection was acting legally, since downloading was also legal in Canada.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2011)

I have to disagree with him there then  Try uploading and posting copy-written material to a website and make it freely downloadable/available and see what happens  I think that assumption is a pretty long odd to bet on and I personally wouldn't put faith in it. I've personally seen take down notices from Adobe and the like (not things that I posted!)


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

screature said:


> I absolutely am not and it absolutely is legal to share copy written material via P2P in Canada. The legal precedent was set in 2004 and the law has not been changed since then.


My understanding is it is legal to share *recorded music* via P2P in Canada; I'm not sure about the legality of other material, such as movies, software, etc.

Music is a special case since the record companies asked for, and got, a levy to compensate them for "lost" revenue due to private copying.

Since the government is not about to tax an illegal activity, private copying of *music* is currently legal in Canada.

"Uploading" songs to a P2P network in Canada is legal because you are not actually uploading them, but rather, making them available for others to download - which is legal, as it amounts to the person downloading making a private copy.

I doubt it would be legal to actually upload songs to an FTP site, or to use them in a way that was not in accordance with the private copying provisions of the Copyright Act.

It's interesting that it is legal to share music in Canada because the *Record Companies* requested a levy. Of course, the levy was set back in the days of taping LPs onto cassette tapes, these days it's possible to be rather more efficient than that. Blowback's a b!tch sometimes...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> My understanding is it is legal to share *recorded music* via P2P in Canada; I'm not sure about the legality of other material, such as movies, software, etc....


As was stated, the Finckenstein ruling effectively made it "legal" or at least not possible to prosecute file sharing via P2P as a breach of the existing copyright law in Canada...



> "The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."
> 
> Ottawa's Geist said this appeared to make uploading itself legal as well, since a peer-to-peer user--like a library--would be entitled to assume that the person on the other side of the connection was acting legally, since downloading was also legal in Canada.


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2011)

PenguinBoy said:


> My understanding is it is legal to share *recorded music* via P2P in Canada; I'm not sure about the legality of other material, such as movies, software, etc.
> 
> Music is a special case since the record companies asked for, and got, a levy to compensate them for "lost" revenue due to private copying.
> 
> ...


I'd have to agree with you on this.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

screature said:


> As was stated, the Finckenstein ruling effectively made it "legal" or at least not possible to prosecute file sharing via P2P as a breach of the existing copyright law in Canada...


The way I read this is the ruling makes it clear that putting a file where others can download it is not illegal. I believe there was a comparison to photocopiers in libraries at the time - the photocopiers are not illegal themselves, you can use them legally (e.g., as permitted by "fair dealing") or illegally, but the library is not doing anything illegal in providing photocopiers for the public to use.

The Copyright Act makes it quite clear that it is legal to make "private copies" of recorded *music*.

I don't see anything to suggest that it is legal to make a copy of material *other than* recorded music.

So as I would understand it:

Putting copyrighted material where someone else can copy it -> Probably not illegal.
Making a "Private Copy" of recorded music -> legal.
Making a copy of software, movies, books, etc. -> illegal, except to the extent permitted as "fair dealing".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> The way I read this is the ruling makes it clear that putting a file where others can download it is not illegal. I believe there was a comparison to photocopiers in libraries at the time - the photocopiers are not illegal themselves, you can use them legally (e.g., as permitted by "fair dealing") or illegally, but the library is not doing anything illegal in providing photocopiers for the public to use.
> 
> The Copyright Act makes it quite clear that it is legal to make "private copies" of recorded *music*.
> 
> ...



It is indeed a grey area... but seeing as the Finckenstein judgment has remained uncontested in Canada since the CRIA case in 2004 for *any* type of file sharing I think you can pretty safely assume that *no one* regardless of the file type being shared is willing to go there because the precedent has been set and it isn't worth the legal fees involved... either that or file sharing of *all* types have stopped sine 2004.

You decide which is the more likely scenario....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

screature said:


> It is indeed a grey area... but seeing as the Finckenstein judgment has remained uncontested in Canada since the CRIA case in 2004 for *any* type of file sharing I think you can pretty safely assume that *no one* regardless of the file type being shared is willing to go there because the precedent has been set and it isn't worth the legal fees involved... either that or file sharing of *all* types have stopped sine 2004.
> 
> You decide which is the more likely scenario....


I think there are a few things at play here:

The law is murky and grey, so as you mention nobody want to take the risk of going to court.
Enforcement is a practical problem. The ISPs have been unwilling to rat out their paying customers, and the invasion of privacy necessary to catch copyright infringement is arguably worse than the infringement itself.
Enforcement is a potential public relations nightmare. As we have seen from the US, the optics can be a problem when big media companies bringing legal action against destitute single mothers because of material downladed by their minor children.

It will be interesting to see how hard the tories push for copyright reform now that they have a majority. Taking this issue on can be a career limiting move for politicians - just ask Sam Bulte - and I suspect even Jim Prentice was surprised by the intensity of the reaction to C-61...


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

It's not just C-32. It will be C-32 coupled with the affects of Digital Economy policies and the Crime bill.

I really don't understand how an individual can be approving of the Digital Lock provisions. I understand how someone with a intensely vested interest in a software/media company can be in favour, and we all understand how these industries support DL, but I see no reason for any individual not to oppose Digital Lock provisions.


----------

