Comments for Copyright Lobby Demands Rollback of Recent Canadian Reforms in Secretive Trade Deal at http://www.michaelgeist.ca , comment 1 to 17 out of 17 comments http://www.michaelgeist.ca Thu, 23 May 2013 13:58:08 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49310 http://www.ukthenorthfaces.com/ good nice...look an websiz thankyou - www.ukthenorthfaces.com Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:31:33 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49164 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/free-trade-deniers-threatening-canadas-economic-future-fast/article4585090/ Yes there will likely be trade benefits, but the critics are also concerned with the costs. What effect will this have on prescription prices? What about harsh laws, restrictions and penalties to our digital economy. Yes we have vast natural resources but we need not sell our ability to innovate in new technology. The CETA negotiations are in secret, there is no public input. Worse than that when Canada finally was invited to the table they had to accept everything that was already agreed upon by the other countries ... everything ... without being able to raise any concerns on effects to our economy. The question is not what are we selling, but what are we buying? - Crockett Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:24:56 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49142 Can someone please give a more detailed explanation of the $5000 non-commercial cap, in layman's terms? Here are a couple of sections I find interesting: (1.12) If the copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) with respect to a defendant’s infringements that are for non-commercial purposes, they are barred from recovering statutory damages under this section from that defendant with respect to any other of the defendant’s infringements that were done for non-commercial purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made. (1.2) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) with respect to a defendant’s infringements that are for non-commercial purposes, every other copyright owner is barred from electing to recover statutory damages under this section in respect of that defendant for any of the defendant’s infringements that were done for non-commercial purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made. The first thing I wonder is if the $5000 cap is per infringement, per copyright owner, or just a flat cap? From reading these two clauses, it seems as though the infringer can only be fined $5000 for non-commercial infringement regardless of the number of infringements or number of copyright owners involved?? Is that correct? - Confused Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:56:24 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49128 So glad to see you were elected to the CIRA board. Looking forward to new directions and initiatives. - Crockett Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:04:08 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49121 That doesn't imply these are involving poor quality due to cheap laid-back dresses. - www.cheapnorthfacejacketssale.co.uk Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:29:33 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49075 Michael, you are indeed one of my Mondo Canuck (Hey Kidz... Read da Book!)... But I can't not toss my tiny Zeppelin o' Rage and Rancour over the fact that THE VAST MAJORITY of brain-dead, Droid Candy-addicted Zomboidz out there' don't give a Fiddler's Fug nor Fart About copyright issues... as long as they can download whatever Eye Candy their Junk Junkie App Addictions crave... And why every image, song, thought or potentially lucrative form of creativity or expression will gobbled up and Cheez Wiz processed by the corpulent but ever-hungry Congloms we collectively spread our cheeks to... - Jack Robinson Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:57:30 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49072 It seems as though we are allowing the extremists to frame the terms of the debate, in this topic and many others. On various national and international levels. As a result of allowing this, rational voices tend to be ignored, labeled as the opposite extreme, or pushed to the opposite extreme. It's past time for policy makers to ignore the various players (and their vested interests) in the debate. Discount the extreme views and weigh the issues on merits to society. - oldguy Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:16:38 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49069 They want to make Canada out to be a pirates haven to pass regulations that failed to curb piracy in their own country. According to the Musicmetric Digital Music Index, Americans downloaded 96.68 million music files via BitTorrent in the first half of 2012. - Rob McIntyre Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:47:32 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49061 guy: They can always shove it into their next omnibus "budget" bill, and pass it before anyone has time to read it. In fact, I fully expect them to do this. - AWJ Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:22:16 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49060 yeah right, the conservatives will get right on that, right after they shoot themselves in the foot. why would they go out of their way to amend a bill that JUST PASSED (isnt active yet) in a way that would cause protests and public alarm? we thought they would make c-11 like that initially but they didnt, because they like votes more than money. - guy Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:28:53 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49059 One wonders if decrying the British/Canadian embassy cost sharing fiasco wouldn't work here against this constant US push to dictate Canadian copyright rules. I have never seen Baird and his party members so scared as when important opinion makers began associating such cost sharing with Canada taking a less than independent role as a sovereign country. Just a thought. - margaret beresford Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:29:31 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49054 The only way we will see a counter movement against the copyright lobby is to put the digital age firmly on the political agenda. Right now our "representatives" (ha, ha!) can get away with this because only a small group cares. - Byte Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:34:12 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49052 You have to ask, what is their endgame? What is the goal? If they demand "reform" (a change), and they criticize the change once made, what did they actually want? Is the answer "everything"? If it is, would you change anything for them? - necessary Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:55:37 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49048 I thought Bill C-11 is not in effect yet - meaning it is waiting for Order in Council? - Joe Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:35:23 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49046 It seems the copyright lobby is set & determined to impose harsher restrictions on user rights and more draconian measures of redress. This is their world view with the purpose to protect (or increase) their livelihoods. I do not begrudge them that as we all will work towards the same end goals in our own domains to one degree or another ... the key word is degree. The prevailing mindset, at least in the mainstream lobby circuit, seems to be modeled after the harsh schoolmarm. Do not stray outside the box, stand in the corner and bare your knuckles for the strap. The thought being if we scare the user enough they will be too timid to do anything but buy $20 CDs like in the good old days! Now don't take me wrong, I have always advocated for supporting artists by paying for what you use, but the 'residential school' model of distribution and control is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the populace. The 'bad blood' between those who selfishly just take from the creative sector, and the equally harsh response it has entailed needs to be addressed rather than digging the wounds deeper. I don't have all the answers but trying to roll back C-11, which others think did not go far enough, is not it. - Crockett Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:11:02 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49045 What happened to innocent until proven guilty. I guess Canada is no longer a free country, more like a police state, just like the United States. - Andrew Stifora Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:45:27 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/#comment-49044 Give them an inch and they take a mile. No surprises here folks. Made in Canada copyright my arse, the whole TPP thing is intended. Thank you Harper! - Spike Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:17:52 +0100