# Draconion copyright laws? iPod searches, $500 per illegal file



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

In Canada we've long enjoyed pretty lax consumer copyright laws. If the Conservatives have their way, this era will soon come to an abrupt end. Soon, security officials may be free to inspect your iPods for illegal music, resulting in up to a $500 fine PER illegal file (may not seem like much, but multiply that by a few thousand songs and you're in the millions). I'm all for copyright-enforcement but I think this stuff is pretty Draconian.

Highlights:



> Reports suggest that the updated Canadian legislation, which Ottawa insiders say is likely to surface either Tuesday or Wednesday next week, could lead to consumers facing fines of as much as $500 for every illegal file they download from the Internet. It could also make it illegal to unlock cellphones, transfer music from CDs to digital music players such as iPods, or copy time shifted television programs.


And a separate international agreement


> would allow border guards and other security officials to inspect devices such as laptops and iPods for music, videos and other media that violates copyright laws. Any devices found to contain copyright-infringing material could be confiscated, or even destroyed, leading to fines for their owners.


Source: globeandmail.com: Copyright bill faces obstacles

Granted, the article states that it's unlikely the Conservatives will succeed in implementing much of this as a minority government, but it's interesting to see where we may be headed.

What do you guys think...are these proposals fair? Besides inspecting people's iPods, how will (or can) some of the other restrictions be enforced and will they alter how people use the internet?


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

How would they prove the music is illegal in the first place?


----------



## StageDive (Feb 8, 2008)

I know a few people, who are anal about their music, that even find all the lyrics and album art for all the songs they get off limewire, etc.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

> *Reports suggest*..*Ottawa insiders say* is* likely* to surface... *could lead *to..


That's 4 degrees of separation from actuality. Wait and see whether the real legislation bears any resemblance to the potential impact of a suggestion of a possible implication from a putative rumor...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

While they are at it - they should ban all locked cellphones, rootkits, and any DRM schemes that impede the enjoyment of legally procured items, as well as any "proprietary" schemes that the Evil Empire places into their programs without the permission of the user in order to exclude any kind of competition. This government is nothing short of daft, and the faster we get rid of these lo$er$, the better.

They don't get it at all. The reason most people pirate music is not because it is free, it's because there are so few record stores left, and the handful of HMV stores that still exist are staffed by people that have no clue about music. Any kind of "inspection scheme" is bound to fail because there are not even enough customs agents to even scratch the surface of the drug smuggling industry, the line ups at the borders are five and six hours long on the weekend now (wait until they have to inspect each individual song on every iPod), and the fine money will just be put into general reserves in order to support the system of graft and corruption that is currently in place. Then, if they stopped me and inspected my iPod (or whatever), then I would challenge them in court on a song by song business. If everyone did that, it would bust the bank and they'd have to drop the charges because of the statues of limitations.


While they are at it, why not draft some legislation to abolish the drunkards and glad handlers in the Senate? Or are the Cabinet Ministers too busy rogering the former girlfriends/squeezes of various Mafiosos, or too busy looting the treasury with their filthy hands.

They should just leave the music industry alone before they ruin it, because if they continue, twenty years from now all of the main acts will be from Japan!


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I'd like to know who these absolutely moronic people are, specifically, the ones that actually come up with these ideas. They should be fired, as the amount of ignorance they display with these proposals is enough to make me want to puke, and aim it directly it at them.

Totally absurd.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I am no lawyer or anything but do not police and other government enforcement agents have to have probable cause to search you. By me having an iPod certainly does not equate to me utilizing illegal music and infringing copyright law. If anything iPod users would be singled out as being less probable as Apple as soon as you plug in your iPod for the first time asks you to create an iTunes account.

I doubt this will pass. Just another lesson though as to why we should NOT be voting conservative in the first place. Harris and Harper, what next!


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

This is at least the third thread on the subject.

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/65123-secret-copyright-deal-may-affect-macs-ipods.html.

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else...cretly-negotiating-big-brother-agreement.html.


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

Actually, neither of these threads discuss the Canadian copyright legislation that is likely to be tabled next week (specifically, the proposed $500 fine per download, making it illegal to unlock cellphones, transfer music from CDs iPods, copy time shifted television programs) but only the apparent secret international agreement. So yes, there's some overlap, but it's not the same thing.



> This is at least the third thread on the subject.
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-...acs-ipods.html.
> 
> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-...agreement.html.


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

You're right to emphasize this, though I reject the premise that we must wait for legislation to be tabled before discussing it. As citizens and potentially interested parties, we have every right to discuss potential legislation (as far as our limited knowledge allows) rather than just reacting to it once it's tabled in the Commons. What's more, this isn't some idle speculation about something in the distant future, as the legislation could be tabled as early as next week.



> That's 4 degrees of separation from actuality. Wait and see whether the real legislation bears any resemblance to the potential impact of a suggestion of a possible implication from a putative rumor...


I would tend to agree with those who think enforcement would be very difficult (marijuana laws, anyone?), but I think rights holders are banking on the fact that a few high profile lawsuits/fines may be enough to deter people (as it appears to have somewhat in the US) from illegal downloading. Still, I find it scary that the government appears willing to contemplate giving so much power to the entertainment industry at the expense of citizens' rights (e.g. privacy when it comes to iPods, online activity, etc.).


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

I have an iPod. I have some music on it. None of this music is downloaded from the net; all of it comes off CD's bought in Japan, U.K. and Canada. Now I read this in the Globe and Mail:



> It could also make it illegal to unlock cellphones, transfer music from CDs to digital music players such as iPods, or copy time shifted television programs.


So I'll a criminal for buying music and moving onto a device that allows me to take my music with me. I also record TV shows that play late at night so I can time shift them. Am I going to end up in the Kingston Pen for behaving rationally?

I think not...


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Bell will be instructed to turn on the deep packet inspectors to catch all the song sharers. Then Bell will get permission to throttle, or outright stop, Apple's new video service because there is a slim chance of people copying the material. This is going to be great. beejacon


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> Send A Letter To Harper, Prentice & Verner And Stop The Canadian DMCA
> 
> To: Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister
> To: Hon. Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry
> ...



Direct link to the form letter: 


Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights » Send A Letter To Harper, Prentice & Verner And Stop The Canadian DMCA


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

sent


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

I'd still like to know how they intend to claim the legitmacy of the song on an ipod or such. If they want to claim that all unprotected files are automatically assumed illegal, then I'll go shove the CD ripper software the same company might have sold me over a decade ago to convert CDs to standard Mp3s. LOL. 

But its stupid in my opinion, maybe they can try to figure out if any of my koda kumi or hayashibara megumi songs are legit or not...


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

bgw said:


> I have an iPod. I have some music on it. None of this music is downloaded from the net; all of it comes off CD's bought in Japan, U.K. and Canada. Now I read this in the Globe and Mail:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think some companies have having delusion of grandeurs thinking that every time you buy an albumn or a song that you are only purchasing the license to use it in that capacity, and by greed alone, wants you to pay additional money for songs you already have, but rather to obtain a license to use them in another format. Honestly, its pure greed thats driving that.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

kb244 said:


> I think some companies have having delusion of grandeurs thinking that every time you buy an albumn or a song that you are only purchasing the license to use it in that capacity, and by greed alone, wants you to pay additional money for songs you already have, but rather to obtain a license to use them in another format. Honestly, its pure greed thats driving that.


I agree. And that greed will kill the goose that lays the golden egg!


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

There's some interesting info on that website. Thanks for posting it. Letter sent!



> Direct link to the form letter:
> 
> 
> Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights » Send A Letter To Harper, Prentice & Verner And Stop The Canadian DMCA


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2008)

If this happens I predict there will be a HUGE revolt from the music indsutry .. not the record companies, but the performers. Can you say copyleft music anyone? I certainly can, and will.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Copyleft... Nothing 'left' of the music industry!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

powz said:


> You're right to emphasize this, though I reject the premise that we must wait for legislation to be tabled before discussing it. As citizens and potentially interested parties, we have every right to discuss potential legislation (as far as our limited knowledge allows) rather than just reacting to it once it's tabled in the Commons. What's more, this isn't some idle speculation about something in the distant future, as the legislation could be tabled as early as next week.
> 
> I would tend to agree with those who think enforcement would be very difficult (marijuana laws, anyone?), but I think rights holders are banking on the fact that a few high profile lawsuits/fines may be enough to deter people (as it appears to have somewhat in the US) from illegal downloading. Still, I find it scary that the government appears willing to contemplate giving so much power to the entertainment industry at the expense of citizens' rights (e.g. privacy when it comes to iPods, online activity, etc.).


Certainly you have the right to discuss anything. But until legislation is tabled it is all purely academic and speculative. I for one would rather not be a chicken little. Let's wait and see what reality is before we start running around yelling the sky is falling.


----------



## kb244 (Apr 23, 2002)

screature said:


> Certainly you have the right to discuss anything. But until legislation is tabled it is all purely academic and speculative. I for one would rather not be a chicken little. Let's wait and see what reality is before we start running around yelling the sky is falling.


It's not crying chicken little to discuss a legislation that is already being discussed by the lawmakers as we speak. By discussing it we can form our own opinion of the positive and negative impacts of such a bill, and with that reflection in mind present our own cases to our represenative. 

If we do not discuss things which are to come or could come, then most of the legislations we don't approve of might have happened without resistance because we figured , its not a law yet... no need to protest it yet...

Kinda like that orphaned works bill thats being 'discussed' in the US, the paper work is pretty much drafted for discussion in the senate, but it doesn't meet the level of protection that a lot of copyright holders would desire. And most of those in approval keep bringing up the kids trying to get copies of grandma's wedding pictures duplicated scenario (tugging at the heart strings anyone?)


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

This is legislation and an international agreement that has been discussed in both national newspapers. Yes, it is somewhat speculative in so far as the legislation has not been tabled, but this is hardly some crazy, hysterical issue we're imagining here. It is not "purely academic" insofar as citizens we may be able to shape the debate or even the proposed legislation by, for example, writing letters to our MPs or ministers who can then gauge public reaction to different possible approaches to copyright legislation. In general, by waiting for legislation to be tabled before reacting, we lose an important window of opportunity to shape legislation, simply because it is easier to change proposed legislation before they are written than through things like opposition amendments after they are tabled. So yes, such discussions are imperfect without all the facts, but we are certainly not chicken littles by discussing the issues here.



> Certainly you have the right to discuss anything. But until legislation is tabled it is all purely academic and speculative. I for one would rather not be a chicken little. Let's wait and see what reality is before we start running around yelling the sky is falling.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

powz said:


> This is legislation and an international agreement that has been discussed in both national newspapers. Yes, it is somewhat speculative in so far as the legislation has not been tabled, but this is hardly some crazy, hysterical issue we're imagining here. It is not "purely academic" insofar as citizens we may be able to shape the debate or even the proposed legislation by, for example, writing letters to our MPs or ministers who can then gauge public reaction to different possible approaches to copyright legislation. In general, by waiting for legislation to be tabled before reacting, we lose an important window of opportunity to shape legislation, simply because it is easier to change proposed legislation before they are written than through things like opposition amendments after they are tabled. So yes, such discussions are imperfect without all the facts, but we are certainly not chicken littles by discussing the issues here.


Well said.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

From the article:



> The government is under pressure from foreign governments and a number of lobby groups to update the aging Copyright Act of Canada with legislation that would make it easier to track and punish consumers who infringe copyrights by burning CDs...


Burning CDs is now infringing on copyrights? Does that mean they scrapped the blank media levy when they scrap personal copying?


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Canada does need copyright legislation but it needs to be clear. Here's what I think it should be:
- escalating fines for downloading content you do not have the right to use. Note per song, but first offence $500, second, $1000, and go up steeply after that.
- explicit fair use clauses:
- right to move work from one medium to another for personal use
- right to use within family unit/household, provisions for academic use, parody, journalism, etc.
- right to make personal backups
- no more blank media/player levies. Criminals should pay for their crimes, not innocent people

It's a shame copyright laws are ambiguous and getting worse. Though technically not illegal right now, I still don't agree that we should continue to be able to download media without paying for them. Where did this self-righteous notion that we deserve entertainment for free come from? Fair and explicit laws will do a lot to improve this.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I have no idea how they could expect to "track and punish" those who burn CDs. I think this legislation is just a big lead balloon that is going nowhere. They can't even administer the current laws, let alone new laws that will be entirely unenforcible. What, are they going to hire enough cops to break into each house and check each file on every machine and disk to see if it is pirated or not? The clueless government can't even get a handle on the known drug peddlers and grow-ops, let alone trying to figure out if every citizen actually owns every MP3/AIFF/AAC/OGG/FLAC/LAME/M4P/AVI file in existence...

They promised us that they would "reform" the Senate, so that bunch of losers would actually have to hustle with some work if they wanted to be elected - now they cram throttled ultra-slow high-speed mega-high-cost Internet down our throats, as well as allowing the maintenance of the world's most retrograde and expensive cell phone system. Time to vote these turkeys out, and if they don't stand for election, it is time to burn them out, like one would burn the rats out of a granary.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Andrew Pratt said:


> How would they prove the music is illegal in the first place?


They don't have to , you have to prove that you own the music.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> They don't get it at all. The reason most people pirate music is not because it is free, it's because there are so few record stores left, and the handful of HMV stores that still exist are staffed by people that have no clue about music.


Yeah ok, LOL :lmao: That's the reason why.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Adrian. said:


> I am no lawyer or anything but do not police and other government enforcement agents have to have probable cause to search you. By me having an iPod certainly does not equate to me utilizing illegal music and infringing copyright law. If anything iPod users would be singled out as being less probable as Apple as soon as you plug in your iPod for the first time asks you to create an iTunes account.
> 
> I doubt this will pass. Just another lesson though as to why we should NOT be voting conservative in the first place. Harris and Harper, what next!


I doubt it will pass either, but it would not be linked to an apple product but any music/video device. As long as you own a device as such you probably have music on it which willgive them probably cause to search the music to make you prove you own the music.

Oh yeah one other thing, I have yet to know of one person who does not have one piece of illegal music/video/software


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

hayesk said:


> Canada does need copyright legislation but it needs to be clear. Here's what I think it should be:
> - escalating fines for downloading content you do not have the right to use. Note per song, but first offence $500, second, $1000, and go up steeply after that.
> - explicit fair use clauses:
> - right to move work from one medium to another for personal use
> ...


:clap: I totally agree.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

screature said:


> Certainly you have the right to discuss anything. But until legislation is tabled it is all purely academic and speculative. I for one would rather not be a chicken little. Let's wait and see what reality is before we start running around yelling the sky is falling.


Because reality is to late and then the sky is already falling. What do you do then?


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

hayesk said:


> - no more blank media/player levies. Criminals should pay for their crimes, not innocent people.


Oy. Personal copying of music is explicitly permitted in copyright law. Who are you calling a criminal, and what crime should they pay for?



> It's a shame copyright laws are ambiguous and getting worse. Though technically not illegal right now, I still don't agree that we should continue to be able to download media without paying for them. Where did this self-righteous notion that we deserve entertainment for free come from? Fair and explicit laws will do a lot to improve this.


For sake of discussion, making a personal copy of music by downloading it should be covered by existing law. The problem is, someone to download it, someone else has to host it. Best way to clear up the problem is use existing law to penalize the people who are already breaking copyright as it exists today.

In the long run, if you give consumers what they want, in a format they want at a fair price, most of the problem disappears.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

polywog said:


> In the long run, if you give consumers what they want, in a format they want at a fair price, most of the problem disappears.


People will always want something for free. That is not going to change.

Ripping your CD to mp3 and using those mp3's to listen to is not illegal. 

What is illegal is after you ripped that CD, giving that CD to someone else without deleting the mp3's you just ripped or giving someone a copy of those mp3's. When you give someone something you own you are transferring ownership of such item. Therefore you should not have any of its content.

And another thing, when you purchase music/movies/software, you do not own it. You are purchasing the right to listen/watch/use, that's it period.


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

I don't think anyone's arguing that we should be free to download whatever we want. I think your proposals would be a lot fairer than what the government seems to be looking at. It's really a question of proportionality and balance and if what the article says is true, then I think the proposed legislation and agreement fails miserably on both counts. Where is the proportionality in charging up to a $500 fine for a $0.99 file? Where is the balance between copyright enforcement and privacy if border agents and other officials are allowed to inspect iPods and laptops for illegal music? 



hayesk said:


> Canada does need copyright legislation but it needs to be clear. Here's what I think it should be:
> - escalating fines for downloading content you do not have the right to use. Note per song, but first offence $500, second, $1000, and go up steeply after that.
> - explicit fair use clauses:
> - right to move work from one medium to another for personal use
> ...


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

There's no indication (thankfully) that such a reverse-onus situation would exist. If it did, that would be REALLY scary.



> They don't have to , you have to prove that you own the music.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> Yeah ok, LOL :lmao: That's the reason why.


You may laugh but many people actually used to like to head to the local record store to browse, sample, get opinions and purchase actual albums. But those stores disappeared, and you can't entirely blame Internet piracy because the vast majority of stores closed down before people were downloading music. It is pathetic that in a city the size of The Hammer there are no decent music stores left except for one discounter/used store that is in a creepy part of town, and one crummy HMV at the mall.

Part of the problem is cost. We all know a decent blank CD with crystal case is worth a dollar, and we all know that the artist makes a dollar on each CD - so where is the other $17 going? Distribution, store profits, oh, and the luxurious lifestyles of rich record executives that do everything they can to impede the musician with A&R people that know nothing, and gouge money out of the wallet of the customer.

Barring that, if there really was a "crisis" in music, then Nashville wouldn't be going whole hog. Perhaps the real problem is not piracy, but the fact that Pop music went bust years ago, and people really have gone off into their own directions to find music they like. That is something that would be difficult for record stores to cater to - and something that is more ideal for online stores like iTunes.

That said, I would use something like iTunes if I could download AIFF format files that haven't been compressed, using a download method that is robust, without rootkits or DRM or any of that junk.

But I think the paradigm will change, and more musicians will empower themselves by doing their own distribution of materials, free of the A&R people that turn every good act into commercialized junk - and the Internet can entirely facilitate that.

No need for the spank monkeys in Ottawa to draft bad legislation, it's about the market deciding, and what the market decided is that if one can not shop at a proper record store staffed by quality people, then it is easier to download such materials. Instead of more regulations, we need the infrastructure in order to support this paradigm.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> What is illegal is after you ripped that CD, giving that CD to someone else without deleting the mp3's you just ripped or giving someone a copy of those mp3's. When you give someone something you own you are transferring ownership of such item. Therefore you should not have any of its content.


No, that's incorrect. 

What you've described is legal, that is personal copying - it would be illegal for you to make a copy of a CD for someone else. Making a copy of a CD is specifically what the amendments to copyright law in 1999, and the levies address. In a nutshell, as long as you aren't distributing copyrighted music, it's non-infringing (with caveats.)


----------



## JSvo (Nov 12, 2007)

polywog said:


> In the long run, if you give consumers what they want, in a format they want at a fair price, most of the problem disappears.


*That* is the essential crux of the issue. Most people are willing to pay for things as long as the prices and terms are fair and reasonable. But, if you make your customers your enemies, all bets are off.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

polywog said:


> No, that's incorrect.
> 
> What you've described is legal, that is personal copying - it would be illegal for you to make a copy of a CD for someone else. Making a copy of a CD is specifically what the amendments to copyright law in 1999, and the levies address. In a nutshell, as long as you aren't distributing copyrighted music, it's non-infringing (with caveats.)


Please read my enitre post again before quoting just part of it. I said personal is legal. Read again and again.

Here it is for you.


Joker Eh said:


> People will always want something for free. That is not going to change.
> 
> *Ripping your CD to mp3 and using those mp3's to listen to is not illegal.*
> 
> ...


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> Please read my enitre post again before quoting just part of it. I said personal is legal. Read again and again.
> 
> Here it is for you.


I wasn't disagreeing with what you said in that one sentence. The problem is you aren't clear on what personal copying means. Here is the statement which I disagreed with, which by the way is why I quoted it in particular and not your entire post.



> What _is_ *illegal* is after you ripped that CD, giving that CD to someone else without deleting the mp3's you just ripped or giving someone a copy of those mp3's. When you give someone something you own you are transferring ownership of such item. Therefore you should not have any of its content.


That statement is FALSE. To clarify (Directly from the Copyright Board of Canada)

_"Before the Copyright Act was amended in 1998, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act *legalized private copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media - i.e., the copying of pre-recorded music for the private use of the person who makes the copy.* In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use."_

Read that again and again.

You didn't even need to own the CD in the first place to have made a copy of it.


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

*"A brief history of ©"*

This struggle over copyright law is nothing new and may be history repeating itself. An article I found in today's National Post titled "A brief history of ©" is a fascinating look into the history of the struggle over copyright. Apparently, none other than Mark Twain railed against literary piracy in Canada, while Ben Franklin was one of the first major transatlantic pirates. The parallels between the debate then and now is uncanny and the conclusion, the article argues, may be as inevitable now: "The owners and authors will win in the end."

Highlights:



> Despite frequent complaints from Scott, Charles Dickens and others, American copyright law had been designed specifically to permit transatlantic piracy. By refusing to acknowledge British authors' ownership rights, nascent American publishers were guaranteed a steady stream of free content and American readers got their books at a steep discount.





> Then, as now, two distinct views on copyright competed for policy supremacy. Book readers and populist publishers argued that copyright was merely a device to prevent the masses from gaining an education. Teachers and politicians argued that spreading knowledge cheaply and broadly was a goal that outweighed any claim authors might have to their work. And since before Confederation, Canadian parliaments had been trying to ignore British copyright laws in hopes of building up a domestic publishing business in the same manner as the Americans.


The bottom line:



> Regardless of soaring talk about how the current digital era is more democratic or interconnected than any previous time, money is still the ultimate motivator. The individual benefits of illegal downloads are small and widely spread. The potential losses to industry from the same activities are huge. So it comes as no surprise that Prentice appears to be moving closer to American-style DMCA protection for authors and owners with his new bill. While it may seem ironic that American has become the advocate for ruthless copyright defence after a long history of piracy in another era, this simply reinforces the truism that those with the most to lose have the greatest motivation to act.
> 
> The current copyright debate may again take decades to settle, and many issues of technology remain unresolved. Even the fate of Prentice's looming bill is unclear given the current minority government. Nonetheless, the story of the owners and the pirates is a familiar one. And the ending is likely to be familiar as well: The owners and authors will win in the end.


Source: A brief history of Â©


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

kloan said:


> I'd like to know who these absolutely moronic people are, specifically, the ones that actually come up with these ideas. They should be fired, as the amount of ignorance they display with these proposals is enough to make me want to puke, and aim it directly it at them.
> 
> Totally absurd.


probably the same ones who illicit prostitutes and drug dealers (as recently reported that some MPs engage in those activities)....now if i can only find the news snippet. I know it was out around that time the US senator was found to be banging that 'girls gone wild' callgirl.


----------



## ruffdeezy (Mar 17, 2008)

I doubt anyone would have the resources to search everyone's computer or phone or ipod for illegal files. It hardly easy to determine if a file is illegal or not since there are so many ways to convert files these days.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

CanadaRAM said:


> That's 4 degrees of separation from actuality. Wait and see whether the real legislation bears any resemblance to the potential impact of a suggestion of a possible implication from a putative rumor...


I agree with CanadaRAM. They are tabling this right before the break with little chance of passing it. It looks to me like it's a matter of being seen to do something, rather than actually trying to achieve the result.
...but then I might just be in denial. This gov't is pretty wacky, and highly prone to pandering to industry and foreign interests.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

ruffdeezy said:


> I doubt anyone would have the resources to search everyone's computer or phone or ipod for illegal files. It hardly easy to determine if a file is illegal or not since there are so many ways to convert files these days.


Actually I have a friend who works for an international consulting firm who says that they don't keep ANY files on their laptops now, hardly-because a number of them have had the customs agents at the US border take their notebooks "into the back" after demanding the password to access the drives.


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> Actually I have a friend who works for an international consulting firm who says that they don't keep ANY files on their laptops now, hardly-because a number of them have had the customs agents at the US border take their notebooks "into the back" after demanding the password to access the drives.


Another reason NOT to bother going to the paranoid Land of the Unfree ...
only time I now 'visit' is when I cross the boundary in Boundary/Haro Straits in my old Catalina 38 sailboat ....
pity, California did have some redeeming features in March, April....

Reminds me of the so called US Custom 'inspections', especially after Sept 11 2001 when they for awhile 'x rayed' the big rigs for a few weeks at the Blaine (Pacific) border crossing.
They also would stand at back with flashlight in hand and look into a loaded reefer with 21 skids of lumber. And then say, "off you go".
Of course, a few actually climbed up and in to have a real look.... and sometimes it was back into the dock where there would be a more thorough inspection.... I could have had "Binny Boy" and a few of his associates hidden in there....


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

Update: The copyright legislation we've been discussing will be tabled tomorrow (Thursday):
reportonbusiness.com: Ottawa to present new copyright bill

Interestingly, the article mentions "experts" who describe the legislation as "draconion"... Apparently, the reporter reads this forum


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

powz said:


> Interestingly, the article mentions "experts" who describe the legislation as "draconion"... Apparently, the reporter reads this forum


Perhaps the term is too insulting to the real Draconians - as this legislation, amongst others, is just plain stupid, worthless and unenforcible.

To think about it, the reporter is probably not only reading this forum - he is infringing on our copyright by stealing the very words we use! He should be fined $500 and not be allowed to pass Go! :lmao:


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

I just got this email...



> The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.
> What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?
> Specifically, it includes measures that would:
> •	expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;
> ...


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

polywog said:


> You didn't even need to own the CD in the first place to have made a copy of it.


That doesn't even make sense. So where did you get the copy if you never owned it?


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> That doesn't even make sense. So where did you get the copy if you never owned it?


It makes perfect sense if you take the time to read the law in question. You could get the original from a library, your friend, the ditch. So long as you personally make a copy for yourself only, for personal use only, it is covered under existing copyright law.

Copyright Board of Canada : Copyright Act

P.S. You never owned 'it' if you bought it from a store. You purchased the right to listen to it.


----------



## darrenlovesmac (Apr 29, 2008)

I am interested in seeing a customs agent open a computer, search a computer and find the "illegal" stuff. Line-ups now are hours long. Take a NON-computer savy individual and line up will stretch all the way down the I-5 to Mexico!!!!!!!!!!! :heybaby:


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

polywog said:


> It makes perfect sense if you take the time to read the law in question. You could get the original from a library, your friend, the ditch. So long as you personally make a copy for yourself only, for personal use only, it is covered under existing copyright law.
> 
> Copyright Board of Canada : Copyright Act
> 
> P.S. You never owned 'it' if you bought it from a store. You purchased the right to listen to it.


So if that is the way the law stands now, it would mean only 1 person has to purchased a Music CD, and the rest fo the country could make a copy of it and it would be legal?


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

Andrew, thanks for posting the letter from Jim Prentice. Unsurprisingly, it seems to highlight the positives but gloss over some other things. Here's a link to the article about the tabled legislation in today's Globe & Mail:

globeandmail.com: Ottawa tables copyright bill

Highlights:



> Under the proposed legislation, anyone caught downloading copyrighted material online could face a fine of $500. Individuals may still be liable for other types of damages or remedies





> Under the new legislation, Canadians would be allowed to record television programs using a personal video recorder to watch at a later date, a process the Industry Minster's news release refers to as “time shifting.”





> Also, as long as consumers don't attempt to circumvent the digital rights management (DRM) technology, they can transfer media files from their personal computer to their portable device without worrying. The new bill would make it illegal to provide market or import tools “designed to enable circumvention.”





> Under the new Canadian legislation, ISPs would be obligated to inform subscribers when a complaint has been launched against the consumer by the owner of a copyright, however they would also be obliged to keep track of that user's contact information for six months in case that data became necessary for legal proceedings.


In related news, the article also repeats earlier claims about a possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) treaty that may deal with inspecting iPods and laptops for copyrighted material.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> So if that is the way the law stands now, it would mean only 1 person has to purchased a Music CD, and the rest fo the country could make a copy of it and it would be legal?


Actually, no one would have to purchase it. 

But if everyone in Canada made a copy onto a blank CD that they purchased, the music industry would have collected just over $7M in levies, for just that album alone based on a $0.21 per CD levy.


----------



## webterractive (Jun 13, 2008)

*CDMCA (Canadian Digital Millenium Copyright Act)*

No that will never happen, this country can't even put away their criminals how the hell can they stop you to search your iPod. The only sure way will be to get warrent from the MPAA or RIAA and canadian equivalents from a complaint launched against you. So when you get the siez and decist notice from the ISP because you tried downloading that torrent. If you're smart you'll erase it and fully zero out your drive using Diskutil cause they'll be coming.


----------



## webterractive (Jun 13, 2008)

*Cdmca*

The fine is per infringment, now thats vague. Some see it as you being caught with 100,000 songs at that one time. Other's say that the music industry will attempt to make every artist that you have an individual infringment.

This move is applauded by Eva Avila that Canadian Idol loser who thinks that because some 5-12yrs download her music its making it impossible for her to sell her ****ty music from the "I'm a feely touchy person" cookie mold to adults. She doesn't realise that she sucks and only gets playtime on Much Music because of CRTC laws. I went to the states and they've never heard of her. Wide Mouth Mason who has more fans then Avila singing till 1000yrs will ever achieve says DRMing+C61 is only going to hurt music companies who forget that its PEOPLE who make you rich not YOU if PEOPLE don't want to listen to Eva Avila then she'll go back to working at Wendy's.beejacon


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Michael Geist's Early Reaction:
Michael Geist - The Canadian DMCA: Check the Fine Print

"As expected, the Canadian DMCA is big, complicated, and a close model of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act ...
...The digital lock provisions are worse than the DMCA. Yes - worse. The law creates a blanket prohibition on circumvention with very limited exceptions and creates a ban against distributing the tools that can be used to circumvent. While Prentice could have adopted a more balanced approach (as New Zealand and Canada's Bill C-60 did), the effect of these provisions will be to make Canadians infringers for a host of activities that are common today including watching out-of-region-coded DVDs, copying and pasting materials from a DRM'd book, or even unlocking a cellphone. ..."

And CBC's take ;
Copyright law could result in police state: critics


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

20 things you can do:

Michael Geist - The Canadian DMCA: What You Can Do


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The legislation is really just for show, since there is not much that they can actually do without an overhaul of the entire industry.

For one, DRM and Rootkits should be entirely banned. If you buy music, or a movie, you should have an unadulterated version. They are going to try to ban software that removes DRM, which is malarkey. I buy a CD to listen to music, and all that I want on it is music, in the standard CD Audio format, not encrypted junk that will require a proprietary Windoze only scheme. Rootkits mostly carry viruses or trojans, and serve no practical purpose except to allow corporates to destroy the customers data at a whim. 

I never liked the Region thing because we are supposed to be living in the free world, not some commie pinko Stalinist state where everything is entirely censored and filled with propaganda. When something comes out, it should just come out, rather than a little here and a little there. Consumers should be given the choice of what they want to see, and should be given the choice if they do not want to be limited to crummy Region 1 releases.

This legislation goes a long way to filling the law books with more unenforcible regulations that everyone will ignore. DRM will be hacked faster than can be imagined, and really, if I can't get high quality music digitally, I'll just go back to vinyl where they can not DRM anything.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

"The IT Nerd" has posted an article on this, including a link that allows you to send a letter to your local MP (with Prentice cc'ed) in a very easy manner:

Fight The New Canadian Copyright Bill…..Here’s How « The IT Nerd

I've already sent my letter.


----------



## webterractive (Jun 13, 2008)

*But How*

Yeah but how are the authorities going to find out if you're ripping music into your ipod? They don't have the legal authority to make you give them your device unless they have a legal reason too which in many cases won't amount to anything. RIAA hasn't tried doing this in the states, and its been ruled that only downloading can these groups really target you. Other then that there is nothing they can do as much as they don't like it.


----------

