Must Reads

IFPI: Bill C-32 Doesn’t Go Far Enough

The IFPI, which is the global recording industry association, has provided its first take on Bill C-32 and is unsurprisingly looking for more.  While it welcomes the digital lock provisions, the IFPI says the bill doesn't go far enough, presumably a reference to the absence of three strikes and you're out approach and the inclusion of a YouTube-style remix provision.

Tags: / /

8 Comments

  1. Andrew Butash says:

    Of course they do. No matter how much they get, they’re always going to look for more. Let me explain something to you, Big Content. Copyright is a two way street. It’s an agreement of mutual respect between the public and the content producers. One side of this agreement stopped respecting the arrangement when it stopped anything made after the 1920s from entering the public domain. This worked for a while, because the public lacked the tools to break down the barriers set in place. Now these tools are readily available, and technology has come back to bite you in the ass. Guess what happened? The other side stopped respecting the agreement too. We need some serious reform if the mutual respect and balance is going to be restored.

  2. if the bill does’nt go far enough we should may agree to that and set the term for copyright to 1 full year, after that it’s public domain
    there’s a saying french “on ne peut pas avoir le beure et l’arfgent du beure” (can’t have the butter and it’s monney).

    This kind of expectation will continue untill the general public understands very well that the products that these people are offering are not the least essential, we can live without them ..
    I say let theme have it what their way and simply stop consuming and see how that goes for them …..

  3. A Programmer says:

    Can I ask non-programmers to first talk to a programmer before they make globally enforceable rules about software?

    Bill C32 is totally ignorant of the realities of software and the flexibility of software. Had they spoken to anyone who writes code they’d soon learn that C32 makes the profession of software development a very dangerous one.

    I wish media corps would stop trying to control all software.

  4. Software
    @A Programmer

    Dangerous is a little melodramatic, isn’t it? Do you mean “difficult to profit from”, or do you mean “threatening to your person”? Or something else?
    I also wish the media cartel would stop trying to become the masters of the internet. Perhaps the IFPI rep is right, the bill doesn’t go far enough : maybe we need to push them back even further – at least far enough, so that they remember they are SERVING a market, and that demand is what motivates them.

  5. @Danux
    A little melodramatic perhaps, but think about it. If you develop software that implements a file sharing system, even for private use, and it makes it into the wild… Heck, even Microsoft et al could be held liable for an unprotected network share.

  6. Of course it doesn’t go far enough. If you want to save the big record labels, you need to stop trying to sell luxury stuff to people who hate you and start putting in legislation that just forces them to pay you money no matter what. Digital locks protection is a step in that direction, but not nearly far enough or fast enough to save them I think.

    It’s definately dangerous and irresponsible. Digital locks are a tool of secrecy and of deception. What is behind the “virtual door” protected by the digital lock? Could be hiding a rootkit, a backdoor into your computer, or could be protecting copyright, or they could be (insert anything digital locks could be used for in the future). You won’t know what they are hiding unless you (or someone you trust) can open the door and take a look inside.

  7. Chris Brand says:

    A sad truth
    “Of course they do. No matter how much they get, they’re always going to look for more.”
    If only our government would realise that. They clearly believe that if they can enact C-32, the US will stop pressuring us to “modernise” our Copyright Act.

  8. They want more? Things are already unfair.
    Well, if the government wants to “get with the times” in regards to copyright bills, maybe they should work on “getting with the times” in regards to digital media distribution. I believe half of the reason copyright infringement is so prominent is because people don’t really have another choice to access things just as easily. Just to note a few: The United States has many different types of distribution to choose from. Netflix, Hulu, Google TV and Pandora are only available in the States. Practically every American TV station has their content viewable online, in HD, for free. This content is blocked in Canada.

    Not to mention that going to the movie theater with a family of four costs about $80. Highway robbery. And, if a person REALLY wants to talk about what’s “fair”, maybe we should take a look at the US/Canadian exchange rate. It blows my mind to see Americans buying items for 30% less than Canadians. The last time I checked, the Canadian dollar was around 0.95 the USD. I think everyone needs to work out this preliminary stuff before anyone can even begin to complain about losing money due to copyright infringement. I’m all for making copyright infringement illegal! Just do it fairly; make media affordable and MODERNLY accessible.

    This bill isn’t going to fix anything… If it’s passed, people aren’t going to start buying ridiculously priced software; they’re going to start going open source. Which of you is going to fork out a thousand bucks to buy software, when you can use another open source program for free? Sure, businesses will purchase the software, but they’re the one’s who are supporting these companies right now anyway.