 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Way To Stop It Make all Canadian MPs watch "Canadian Bacon" and "South Park - Bigger, Longer & Uncut" all weekend long.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|  | 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
edit:
June 13th, @12:19PM
| Re: Way To Stop It Dear Canadians:
Truly sorry, your $%#@&*
Eh? | |
| | Warez_Zealot
Mr. Misanthrope
join:2006-04-19
St Catharines, ON
| said by pnh102  :Make all Canadian MPs watch "Canadian Bacon" and "South Park - Bigger, Longer & Uncut" all weekend long. Whats worse, child porn or this? Seems like all the sick child porn downloading freaks get off on a limited probation while this will throw decent Canadians in the slammer or fine them ridiculous amounts of money. I hope this never even makes it to Senate. Fucking twisted. | |
| | | 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR I'll have to read that again, thought it said $500 per song max fine.
What I find more annoying are provisions against ripping CDs to media players. That's total crap. | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
edit:
June 13th, @10:37AM
| Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR said by GlobalMind :I'll have to read that again, thought it said $500 per song max fine. What I find more annoying are provisions against ripping CDs to media players. That's total crap. I'm no lawyer, but these 2 paragraphs in the bill seem to me to limit the damage to $500 max.
(1.1) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1), a defendant who is an individual is liable for statutory damages of $500 in respect of all the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes and that are involved in the proceedings.
(1.3) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) in respect of a defendant referred to in subsection (1.1), no other copyright owner may elect statutory damages in respect of that defendant for the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made. Also further explanation at this Canadian web site:
»www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.···62e.html
What the proposed statutory damages provision would allow
* A court could only award $500 in statutory damages against an individual for all private use infringements identified in the lawsuit.
For example, if you downloaded five movies without authorization:
o Under current law, you could be liable for up to $100 000 in statutory damages
o Under the proposed bill, you would be liable for $500
* Once a copyright owner decides to sue an individual for $500 in statutory damages, all other private use infringements preceding the lawsuit may be compensated only by actual damages (even if these infringements involve the copyright material of others).
Limitations
* For infringements that are not for private purposes, the current range of statutory damages (between $500 and $20 000 for each work infringed) would remain available. For example:
o Posting music using the Internet or peer-to-peer (P2P) technology.
o Posting a copyright-protected work, such as a picture or video, onto a website such as Facebook or YouTube.
o Selling, renting or giving away a device (e.g., iPod) that contains copies of music that were originally copied onto the device by you for private purposes. --
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | 
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Trenton, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
edit:
June 13th, @11:47AM
| Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR Ah, but there are a few little things that make that 500 dollars limit useless.
1) Most music downloaded (the most likely source of the infringements) are likely the result of bypassing some form of copyright lock (Most CDs after 2002). In that case, the penalty is increased to 20,000 dollars per infringement as the infringement now falls under a different section of the act and 21.1 no longer applies.
2) Ripping anything to a device that bypass a holders lock is subject to the same 20,000 dollars fine.
500 Dollars? right. | |
| | | | |
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
edit:
June 13th, @03:44PM
| Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR @mazhurg,
And thus all the rights holders place DRM on the CD so that to rip it you're bypassing and thus you're infringing.
Great how that works. | |
| | | |
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Yea what I see there is that statement "all the defendant’s infringements" which I would bet you mean each file. Each file would be considered an act of infringement and thus subject to the $500 fine.
Just my read of it, but legislation like this is usually somewhat vague. | |
| | 
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | Actually according to Geist that would depend on the number of copyrights the item has.Say it has 3 copyrights then the fine is 1,500. | |
| | basquiat
join:2008-04-04
Montreal, QC
·Bell Sympatico
| I'm not sure but I believe that provision only applies if you don't break any copy protection "features". The fine is much more otherwise. This means that you can't back up DVD's or rip music from a copy-protected CD or even play a CD with Windows-only copy protection on a Linux or Mac box.
This is a ridiculous bill that caters solely to business interests and will hopefully never become law. | |
| | | | 
adisor19
join:2004-10-11 |  Mail your MP !
Adi | |
| | | | Warez_Zealot
Mr. Misanthrope
join:2006-04-19
St Catharines, ON
| Re: Mail your MP ! the email I sent that pethetic peice of garbage called jim prentice.
quote:
Hey Jim,
Assuming you are even smart enough to use email I thought I would send one. I just recently saw your media release on media shifting. As a Canadian citizen it looks like you are in the back pocket of content providers. I was wondering how much money they paid you, and if you are serious about it being a win win situation for Canadian. As an appointed official from democratically elected government, how can you seriously claim that private Canadians should support this bill? As it stands, it seems like downloading and getting caught with child porn would be less of an offense compared to downloading "copyright" materials. It seems to me that this bill on the table for legislation is nothing but a cop out from elected/appointed officials who took a bribe from lobbyists pushing American interests.
You Make me Sick,
| |
| | |
mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Trenton, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Enforcement... From what I read so far; notice to notice, then you (ISP) have to hold the customer records for 6 months, in case the holders go to court and request (via courts) for this documentation.
.. At least it is my understanding from reading the amendment. | |
| | elwoodblues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON
| Rocky,
Being an independent ISP,(rather then a media giant like Bell or Rogers), you aren't as concerned about Intellectual property (that you might be able to make buck off) being "downloaded"
I can see the Rogers and Bells doing even deeper DPI to find out what you are doing then "report" you to the necessary people who carry the ball from there.
That would be your enforcement. | |
| | | | | 
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | Re: Enforcement... That'd be one way I suppose! | |
| TFArchive
Premium
join:2003-02-03
Gloucester, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| This will be fun. Correct me if I'm wrong but I read in the forum that the proceeds from the lawsuits for the RIAA/MPAA do NOT go back to the artists, and presumably stay within the RIAA/MPAA to feed more accusations.
If we get a new law we have to ensure it will benefit Canadian artists, if all these fines just end up going back to the US then let the existing law stand and leave us alone.
So, I can't rip DVDs to my ipod, good luck getting into my house to prove that.
Another interesting thing is to prove I'm downloading something, these 'copyright police' will have to upload to me directly to prove it went from IP to IP. I'm pretty sure that is entrapment and would be thrown out of court pretty quick.
Plus, how are we going to pay for these ISP's to collect/store this personal information? If I ran an ISP I would demand a fee for every report.
And of course there will have to be 1000's of new cops hired to handle the investigations.
Sounds like the most costly bill in history, $1+ Billion to protect mainly US companies, sign me up for that tax hike.
I'm all for reform but we can't let a US style system come in where companies can randomly sue people who may or may not have done anything.
Bottom line is piracy has been around since we could dub records to tapes and some silly law will never get rid of it. The only part of piracy we should focus on is profit from selling pirated materials. Adobe has yet to prove they lost $5 billion last year to piracy (random number), people that pirate either do it for it's true purpose (try before you buy) or simply to steal as they can't/don't want to pay for it.
BTW, anyone notice Conservative radio ads are on some radio stations? Wonder if we are in for another election.
/end rant  | |
| | 
disconnected
@snet.net | Re: This will be fun. This is all part of the big push toward Collectivism, according to G. Edward Griffin.
When you think about it, all the illogical decisions by these governments starts to sound logical, when the agenda is revealed. | |
| | 
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
edit:
June 13th, @07:08PM
| said by TFArchive :Another interesting thing is to prove I'm downloading something, these 'copyright police' will have to upload to me directly to prove it went from IP to IP. I'm pretty sure that is entrapment and would be thrown out of court pretty quick. last time i checked, there is no entrapment law in Canada. | |
| 
Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
·Shaw
| ISVs As an ISV I loose money to internet piracy, but I'm not getting anything from the government, no slice of taxes collected off of blank media etc, so these laws are really purely for the big media companies and only because they can lobby them into place for their own benefit.
So who is going to pay for enforcement of these new laws, apparently we will through increased taxes whatever. So not only are the media giants going to benefit, but we will have to pay to enforce their laws, sweet deal for them for sure and considering how much they are paying out to the artists (ie none), really sweet deal.
Zune was unable to swing any kind of deal with the Canadian labels (ie like the x bucks a month unlimited access deal they have state side, you don't own the music but are leasing it which was OK by me, but not everyone's choice), so I'm thinking the labels are not exactly willing to change with the times, but ultimately that will be their problem to deal with as I would think at some point independent labels will be more willing to work with the new lay of the land then them and slowly start gaining market share.
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool | |
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Welcome to our Nightmare.... Welcome to the Nightmare.
My advice to our northern neighbors:
You as Canadian citizens should do everything possible to shoot this down NOW before it becomes law because once it does, you're $%#@*!... and it will be "Upgraded" with increasing levels of tyranny every few years.
So fight it now, don't join us in our fate!
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| id_deleted
join:2003-05-01
Salt Lake City, UT
edit:
June 14th, @04:53AM
| If not this then it will be something MUCH worse. The IIPA has been pushing the US government for a blacklist of Canada since 2007. This type of legislation is about the only way to circumvent that from happening, and it is likely a last ditch effort by the Canadian government to prevent the ban from occuring.
A blacklist means Canada will be banned from obtaining commercial movies and music, as well as some very popular commercial software, including Microsoft's operating systems.
So, go ahead and vote the legislation down if you really hate all those blockbuster movies and hit music titles made in the USA! | |
| | 
MrMoody
Under the black helicopters
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC
·Embarq
| Re: If not this then it will be something MUCH worse. Yet another trust organization that shouldn't be allowed to exist under antitrust law.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Voice your complaints with your wallet The problem I see here is, people buy the product but still complain about it thinking that the company will change. Most times a company will not change unless the consumer changes there buying habits. If you don't like the new Copyright laws, show your complaints and anger with your wallet.
It's really simple economics. If people stop buying a companies product because of one reason or another, The company will have to change because they will lose money and may go out of business. Companies have to sell products that people will like and buy or else they fail. Right now the music company has a avenue to complain about which is P2P. If P2P was gone all together, then the music companies would have no one else to blame except themselves.
Another point to talk about. I always here people say that the musicians aren't getting the money they deserve, that the music companies are cheating them. If the musicians were so worried about it, you would hear a lot more of them speaking out. If a musician don't like a contract, you don't sign it. If you don't like a current contract you don't resign. The whole point of signing with a big record company is to get your name recognized. For popular musicians they get the big sign on bonus. Then a musician makes the bulk of there money from concerts and memorabilia. I use to hear complaints about how much a CD costs and how 1 or 2 songs on a CD are good songs. Do you think musicians care about that? Musicians thinks or there songs on a CD are good songs whether you think so or not.
People are hooked to music just like they are hooked to movies and the record companies knows this. They know no matter how much people complain, they will still listen and buy the music. They know people will do anything to listen to there favorite musician or band. The record companies could charge $50 for a CD and there would be people who would pay it. They would complain about it but they would still pay it. It amounts to stop listening to your favorite band or going broke doing it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with all the restrictions placed on music and movies. I think the restrictions are anti consumer. If I buy music I should be able to transfer the music from one device to another without having to buy the same song again. I should be able to make backups of the music I buy so in case something happens I don't have to spend a boat load of money to purchase the music again. What happens if I buy music of a musician and I can't buy the musicians music again because the musicians music is out of print?
The way I voice my distrust is through my wallet. I will listen to the music on the radio rather than buy the music. The record companies don't make money when people listen to the radio, they make there money when you buy the music. The radio is like one big music advertisement that gets you to buy the music. I currently have 813 music CD's, so it's not like I never purchased them. The money I payed for all that music I could put towards a down payment on a new car or a house. | |
| | id_deleted
join:2003-05-01
Salt Lake City, UT
edit:
June 15th, @12:59AM
| Re: Voice your complaints with your wallet said by viperpa33s :The record companies don't make money when people listen to the radio, they make there money when you buy the music. The radio is like one big music advertisement that gets you to buy the music. I currently have 813 music CD's, so it's not like I never purchased them. The money I payed for all that music I could put towards a down payment on a new car or a house. Actually, here in the states they have what is called HD Radio. Its digitally broadcast for free at or near CD quality, and most HD Radio stations are also commercial free. The caveat being that we can record the songs broadcast on HD Radio to mp3 using this software with a specific HD Radio receiver and interface to a PC.
You obtain a much better quality mp3 file than you would if you had purchased it from Itunes. The real kicker is that recording any radio broadcast that uses US public airwaves is completely legal for personal use, your rights are protected by laws created before digital radio broadcasts were even possible. It's something that the RIAA would rather you not know about since they shot themselves in the foot due to their own greed on this one.
I dont need to spend my hours trying to locate songs to download, I just click a button in the morning to record my favorite channel, and when I check back that evening I have hundreds of new high quality mp3 songs recorded for that day to choose from. I have recorded "thousands" of mp3's now and all of them were free. Maybe you Canada guys should just move? | |
| | | |
|
|
Canadian DMCA May Actually Be Worse
Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR
Enforcement...