Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 9: Music Shifting Subject To Anti-Circumvention Limitation

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday July 03, 2008
Having reviewed the format and time shifting provisions, I now turn to the music shifting provisions (Section 29.22).  Industry Minister Jim Prentice has heavily promoted these provisions as he assures Canadians that they can now shift music from CDs to their iPods. The provision has faced significant criticism from all sides, however.  The Canadian Private Copying Collective is livid at the change, arguing that it will "rob creators of their rights, denying them compensation for this use of their work."  In what sounds a lot like consumer group complaints, the CPCC adds that they were not consulted on the issue and that an open consultation is needed.

From the consumer perspective, the provision does not go far enough.  I think it is fair to say that most consumers believe that if they have paid for a song, they should have the right to listen to it on the device of their choice without further compensation (CRIA seemingly agrees).  Such uses should be considered fair uses and the value of listening to a song on multiple devices can be built into the initial purchase price.

Yet the music shifting provision is subject to some significant limitations that undermine their fairness. 
First up - as with the other shifting provisions - is the fact that it is subject to an anti-circumvention limitation.  In other words, the right to shift music to your iPod is not a right that you control.  It is a right that is effectively dictated by the record label who can easily remove the right by including copy-controls on the CD release.  In fact, the anti-circumvention limitation even applies to private copies onto blank CDs.  This means that consumers pay for the CD and pay the levy on a blank CD that nominally gives them the right to make a personal copy, yet violate the law if they circumvent a copy-control in order to do so.  If these provisions are to strike a genuine balance, the law should stop treating paying customers like criminals by giving them the right to legally shift their music to the device of their choice.
Comments (39)add comment

a guest said:

...
More than that, the law must not try to limit copy protection circumvention, because otherwise practically every vendor will just try to lock consumers into dealing only with their products to format-shift their copy-protected works, and in some cases it may not even be possible to install more than one manufacturer's method at one time... causing vendor lock-in. "Whoops, looks like you bought a non-mainstream mp3 player... which we don't support, so you can't format shift songs to it, nyah nyah nyah! (what we don't mention is that we are getting paid by company [X] to not support other players so that you have to buy their stuff to format-shift songs on our CD's)"
July 03, 2008

Yee-Haw Republican said:

Gun Control?
How do you anti-"made in amurica"-copyright-bill folks feel about gun control?
July 03, 2008

Windsong2 said:

Gun Control
I live in Ontario (from New Orleans originally) and I believe law abiding citizens should be able to own a gun, provided no criminal records exist. Sub-machine guns (mafia style) and RPGs..no. :)

Handguns, shotguns, rifles...not a problem to me but I believe criminals shouldn't be the only ones to have them.

Generic answer, but, thats my viewpoint. And FWIW, the whole "copyright bill" deal is neither liberal nor conservative. Its more about BIG Media vs. Law abiding citizen.

[ link ]
July 03, 2008

Alexey said:

...
I do not think guns are a useful tool for opposing the bill. Unless...
July 03, 2008

Scott said:

Isn\'t copy protection part of all audio
If brought to court, couldn't they argue that ALL CDs are copy-protected? Ever open one up and try to do a straight copy? All you get is a .cda file which is less than 50 bytes. They have to be ripped which requires special software. This seems like copy protection circumvention to me.
July 03, 2008

a guest said:

...
"...the only way we can beat these creeps is to BOYCOTT OR STEAL ALL MEDIA ...."

You are advocating the principle that bad or unethical behavior justifies, and somehow makes ethical, unethical behavior intended to counter it. The logical extension of this fallacy is the abandonment of all ethical standards. It does not bode well as a long term solution.

"... AND DONATE DIRECTLY TO CREATORS."

And doing something wrong for the "right reasons" is a solution? As romantic and noble as a Robin Hood mentality might appear on the surface, it's actually only a hair's breadth away from the view that the ends will always justify the means, regardless of what those means are, and the latter is only a polite way of referring to the "terrorist's standard". Again, it's not a solution.

The real solution is to educate the people who advocate this, and hopefully bring them to a realization that there are real consequences to the passing of this bill which run entirely counter to the very purposes that it claims to uphold, which is that of a balanced and fair copyright for Canadians in the digital age. Whether the current advocates of this bill are, in fact, genuinely too set in their already existing views to be dissuaded is not a decision that you or I can make unless or until this bill actually becomes law. Write your MP, and let him or her know what you think of this bill and why you think it is so flawed. Advocating anarchy as a solution to fixing a problem even before the democratic process has actually failed is, at the very least, jumping the gun, and at the worst case only aggravates the situation by causing proponents of this act to believe that the problem is in even more immediate need of control.
July 03, 2008

a guest said:

...
"couldn't they argue that ALL CDs are copy-protected?"

The Sony/Phillips digital audio compact disc standard has audio tracks as completely unencrypted PCM data. However, there is no requirement that all future CD's must conform to this standard... particularly if the manufacturer is unconcerned that it would not play properly on older CD players. If this bill is introduced as law, virtually every manufacturer will lock down their media from then on so that consumers will always have to go through them in order to exercise what the bill claims to be explicitly authorizing Canadians to do, which is the ability to copy for personal and private use or format-shift.
July 03, 2008

a guest said:

Gun control...
Though this has nothing to do with the copyright issue, I will reply that there is a reason we have far fewer accidental gun related deaths in this country. Criminals and law enforcement should be the only people with guns, as it greatly reduces the likelyhood of accidental death, especially with children.

If you want a gun in Canada, you can have one. You just can't carry it around with you. If you could, then you may as well let everyone have swords, shields, knives, armored vehicles and the whole bit too - to protect themselve from the idiots carrying guns. I'm sorry, but the average intellect and level of responsibility of my fellow humans is far too low for me to agree to letting everyone roam around armed.

Accidents never happen, however idiots do. Always wear a condom. Thank you.
July 03, 2008

ENO said:

Gun control...more
In my country we say "the mother of idiots is always pregnant" :)
I was born in Italy and nobody there is allowed to carry guns but police and criminals (who get the guns illegally since there are no legal places where to buy them). I never missed them since I never felt threatened by anyone. I think it is because of the mainstream catholic education to not fear your neighbored but to love him. By the way I'm Buddhist and for me there is no point to carry guns since I'm not allowed (and I do not want) to kill anybody. Life is sacred (also the one of your enemy).
July 03, 2008

BCDD and music lover said:

If you can hear it
Just on a side note if you can hear it you can record it

I can take a Sony Rootkit infected disk put it in a Pro CD deck

Take the Optical output of it to my DAW and use on of the optical inputs on my audio interface that can handle 28 in and 28 out of analog and digital signals and make a perfect recording of the CD minus the DRM crap

But if I do that will my Hi
end audio interface and DAW be considered as DRM circumnavigation tools ?

The same equipment allows me to record bands as well in my studio.

Food for thought
July 03, 2008

Exploder said:

CPCC Nasties
Apparently I used a dirty word? (kinda rhyms with Nasties) Seems like my comment wasn't welcome.

I said: "...the only way we can beat these creeps is to BOYCOTT OR STEAL ALL MEDIA, AND DONATE DIRECTLY TO CREATORS."

Please note, BOYCOTT first. That's not only ethical, but neccessary, IMHO. If we keep funding these factions, they will use our money to take away our rights. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, I did not suggest outright theft without some attempt at compensation. Without pretending that everybody will just magically stop stealing IP tomorrow, I think that it is prudent for us, the public, to make sure that content creators get paid, and if that means donating money directly to them, then we should do that. It would also go a long ways towards healing the trust of creators for the public, who rightfully could use some evidence that we are on their side. It might in fact encourage them to evolve to new business models, that leave out the abusive and repugnant drive to strip us our rights and a free and empowered future.

When I read the CPCC's "Proposed Copyright Amendment Hurts Music Creators", I realized that if their attitude actually represents "songwriters, composers, music
publishers, recording artists, musicians and record companies", then we need to make better friends with some of those parties, and do whatever is neccessary to not support the others.

I won't pretend to know the answer to this, but I have to ask: Which does more harm? A boycott that leaves artists completely unemployed, or a "steal" & donate scheme?

Finally, I strongly object to the notion that all copying and sharing is stealing. It is not so clear cut, and our freedom is profoundly threatened by the dogmatic assertion that it is. With that in mind, I for one simply feel that we must act ehically, and not support those who mean to do us harm in the name of GREED. At this juncture in history, our current laws are obsolete. We need real reform before the "rules" that govern intellectual property can again act as a usefull guide for what is right and wrong.

I think Lore Weaver at The Atheist Conservative blog [ link ] does this some real justice.
July 03, 2008

Beaver said:

Here is another remix of Prentice
Download it from this page (Click on filename after the page has loaded):

[ link ]

Artist: Upset Canadian
Title: Made Worse in Canada (feat. Jim Prentice)
Description: This clip is about the controversial Canadian Copyright Bill C-61, recently tabled in the House of Commons...

It's mostly Jim Prentice and Charlie Angus, but also Howard Knopf (with his "Made Worse in Canada" name of this bill) and many other MPs from the House of Commons as well as some artists.
July 03, 2008

Jean Naimard said:

What if
What if the “lock” is broken, what if it doesn’t work?

What if the lock depends on the computer it is “played on” to automatically execute some stealthy program, but the computer won’t execute it, either because it is configured not to execute anything automatically, or simply does not recognize the executable as being able to be executed?

What does the law says about that?


When a criminal act is judged, it is not sufficient to consider the act itself; the intent is judged. The court has to ask the important question “is the intent criminal?”.

If someone buys a copy-protected CD, and endeavours to rip it on his computer, and the computer does not act upon the copy-protection (“the lock”), if the someone intends to legally exercise his legal right to format-shift his CD, and the “lock” happens to not work on his computer, is he liable?

His intent certainly wasn’t to violate the law, since the law gives him the right to format-shift, he has the expectation to be able to lawfully format-shift his CD, and the computer dutifully format-shifted the disk, as intended by the computer owner.

Has the law been broken because the lock was defective?



If you go at someone’s house, and are able to enter by turning the door handle and opening the door, can you be charged with breaking and entering because the door lock was already defective?

In order to charge you, the court would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you had the criminal intent of breaking and entering.
July 03, 2008

Exploder said:

MUST READ
Here is what our very own Industry Canada says on their web site:

The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada
[ link ]

- ...there is a strong positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file-sharing increases CD purchasing.

- we find no direct evidence to suggest that the net effect of P2P file-sharing on CD purchasing is either positive or negative for Canada as a whole.

- our analysis of the Canadian P2P file-sharing subpopulation does not uncover any relationship between P2P file-sharing and the purchasing of electronically-delivered music files.

I guess this study must have seen the light of day at some time on this site, but in the face of C-61, it's a very worthy re-read. Just how bad is P2P file sharing (somtimes mistakenly called "stealing")? How many rights, freedoms, and privacy should we give up, and at what cost, to solve a problem that is not so clearly a problem?

Also see P2P, "Online File-Sharing, and the Music Industry", by Rufus Pollock [ link ] . He suggests that P2P causes at most 20% to 40% of the total decline in media sales (the rest of the decline being caused by other factors).
July 03, 2008

BCDD and music lover said:

support the local acts
There is a way and thats go to local shows and if they sell there music.

Buy a disk !!! Support them !!!!

I will be recording some acts and running off the CD's for them.

For some bands in my area but lots of details to sort out before saying were.

There is lots of good local talent out there.

Just look and enjoy !!!!
July 04, 2008

Beaver said:

Is Prentice an infringer under C-61?
On contact page [ link ]

a Google map is being used, without attribution and without copyright notice. But the terms do not allow this:

[ link ]

"For individual users, Google Maps, including local search results, maps, and photographic imagery, is made available for your personal, non-commercial use only. For business users, Google Maps is made available for your internal use only and may not be commercially redistributed..."

"You may not delete or in any manner alter the copyright, trademark, or other proprietary rights notices appearing in map information, including photographic imagery."

So, is Prentice now liable for $20000 for uploading this map to his site? He is clearly violating the license given to him by Google (unless he entered into a separate agreement, which I doubt).
July 04, 2008

Beaver said:

So, is Prentice an infringer?
[ link ]

Here is a screenshot of his page, just in case.
July 04, 2008

a guest said:

Prentice infringing..
That is a sweet example!
July 04, 2008

Exploder said:

^ funny but sad
The google map with the ©'s stripped out is funny as heck, and a very appropriate comeback. Good eye Beaver.

But it's sad that we should even have to care, sad to be fighting our own government officials over policy this bad, to need to be sticklers back to them.
July 04, 2008

a guest said:

...
"Without pretending that everybody will just magically stop stealing IP tomorrow, I think that it is prudent for us, the public, to make sure that content creators get paid, and if that means donating money directly to them, then we should do that."
I agree with you on that point... but that still doesn't justify ignoring copyright.

And yes, I do now notice that you mentioned boycotting first... which is perfectly ethical and reasonable. I think perhaps that the fact that you paired it with the idea of stealing the media sort of overshadowed it.
July 04, 2008

a guest said:

...
'Just how bad is P2P file sharing'

The phrase "epidemic proportions" is not an understatement. However, I would compare Bill C-61's approach to going after a building's serious flea infestation with automatic weapons. Both overkill and ultimately ineffective.

'(somtimes mistakenly called "stealing")?'

Perhaps you are referring to the notion that copyright infringement isn't theft because the owner still supposedly has his original property? If so, this is actually mistaken... copyright infringement actually _does_ take something away from the copyright holder that they once had, and that is the level of exclusivity that copyright was supposed to provide. Since exclusive means that nobody else is supposed to do it, by the very definition of the term, the copyright holder is being deprived of it. Exclusivity is also compromised by fair dealings and private use, but these are explicit exemptions to copyright and concessions that a copyright holder implicitly agrees to anyways, so such activities are technically not happening without the copyright holder's consent.

"How many rights, freedoms, and privacy should we give up, and at what cost, to solve a problem that is not so clearly a problem?"

Oh, but it is very clearly a problem. This is just the wrong solution, however. A much more effective and long-term solution would be to try to educate people about how copyright infringement poses any measurable sort of harm to society, and in particular, it's cumulative effects on our culture if left unchecked. This wouldn't stop people who are intent on breaking the law, but it would stop what is currently a majority of people from wanton copyright infringement, as long as they could be convinced of the truth of the premise. How much would it take to convince most people of the truth to that premise, however, is another question entirely, although I think I can safely say that it would not be easy. But then, nothing worthwhile ever is.
July 04, 2008

Holy Macaroni said:

Prentice Caught Stealing!
My goodness, what a good find! Prentice's government website stealing Google's copyrighted map utility - not only No attribution, but removal of their copyright claim!

So, what to do?

Well, I think an E-mail to Google would be a good start ... I'd hate for the infringement to continue. I think a letter to the G & M, Toronto Star, etc., might be in order, too! Lets see if it gets any traction? Maybe someone will ask the Minister at his BBQ event why his department is flaunting the proposed legislation? God forbid, maybe somebody will ask what his teenage daughters have on their iPods and was it legally acquired or copied without circumvention to their player of choice?

Yeah, its a thorny issues ... lets see if Prentice gets the prick (get my drift?) or comes out smelling like a rose.
July 04, 2008

Frank said:

Prentice\'s copyright violation
I e-mailed Prentice about that very issue, and of course haven't heard back. Presumably copyright is something we peons have to worry about, but which is beneath our lofty politicians.
July 04, 2008

Not my primeminister! said:

governmental copyrightinfringement by hy
...
and it seems to be up quite some time given the picture filename:

"20080205-Prentice-Con-Map.jpg"
July 04, 2008

Let\'s Publicly bust Prentice said:

...
"Well, I think an E-mail to Google would be a good start ... I'd hate for the infringement to continue. I think a letter to the G & M, Toronto Star, etc., might be in order, too! Lets see if it gets any traction?"

DOOO IIIIIITTTTT!!!!

Politics is played by making opposing views uncomfortable. Let's see if we can get the press to show how Mr. Prentice barks about technology and copyright, yet actually ignores copyright laws altogether on his own website, and see if he takes any heat for it.
July 04, 2008

Exploder said:

Is P2P theft? epidemic?
"The phrase "epidemic proportions" is not an understatement."

Well, if epidemic can be a positive thing... just fooling. Do you work for the music/movie industry? Check my MUST READ post above, and read what Industry Canada, and others, have to say about the impact. It's not nearly as bad as the IP industries tend to make out. Really. I also think we need to admit that there's a VERY wide margin of uncertainty, indeed wider than studies can pin down, and far too wide to claim that P2P is "the plague", and so must be eradicated at any cost to our privacy and freedom.

I thought the most interesting quick takeaway points were:
1. the data shows an apparent NET GAIN to society, of 3 to 4 times the apparent losses to the music industry.
2. there is a strong effect of greatly helping the 75% less popular artists through increased exposure, while harming the top 25% by slightly reducing how extremely much they sell.

Those sound like desirable outcomes for "stealing", if you ask me.

"...exclusive means that nobody else is supposed to do it, by the very definition of the term, the copyright holder is being deprived of it."

And please remember, we contrived copyright law to grant exclusivity rights, BY DEFINITION, as a privelege and protection. Exclusivity is by no means a natural human right. I note that no semblance of copyright is included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we should remember that when our rights may hang in the ballance. We now seek copyright reform, because the current laws are no longer work. To presume that the principles of our old copyright law still have some exclusive authoritative moral force seems like flawed logic to me. Many people in Canada, as yet unasked, feel very strongly to the contrary, and we should welcome a deeper evaluation of our situation. While I recognise the desirability of abiding law for its own sake, I must point out that laws are often forced to fall by painfull transitions, where they cease to function, are not abided, and are therefore replaced or repealed.

We are in an age where the general public now owns our own media duplication and distribution facilities, an unprecedented and very young situation in the whole history of IP laws. We need to emphasize our public rights to use these tools freely, especially when it saves us money and increases our efficiency. We cannot afford to let these myriad opportunities pass us by, only because old principles are taken for granted when new laws are drafted. Exclusivity must be questioned along with everything else. We might well decide that P2P is beneficial sharing, and it seems like greed is the main hinderance to honestly asking the questions.
July 04, 2008

Holy Macaroni said:

Bad Mr. Prentice
Well, just for shits 'n giggles I sent the following to The Star, the Globe and Mail and of course, to Google - the wronged party and copyright holder of the precious Minister's Constituency location map! ***

The Honourable Jim Prentice, Canadian Minister of Industry, has introduced bill C-61 and opened much debate related to copyright issues.

His governmental website includes directions to his Constituency Office (this is the link: [ link ] ). This page includes a Google map, reproduced on his website without attribution to Google and having any/all copyright/trademark indicators removed. While this appears to be a minor matter, if one gives consideration to his draconian proposals in Bill C-61, his reproduction of this map and its UPLOADING to a website, creates an infringement that could be penalized by a $20,000 fine.

Google may wish to contact the Minister or his representatives to ensure they understand the appropriate uses of their copyrighted materials. He is clearly violating existing and proposed copyright provisions!

News organizations may wish to note that the Minister is blindly unaware of the unfair impacts of his proposed legislation. Questioning minds might like to know what digital offences the Minister is/has committed with his Blackberry or his teenage daughters may have committed with their iPods vis-a-vie his proposed legislation? Have they format or time-shifted digital content? Did they circumvent any digital locks to do so? Do they have more than one legal copy on their devices? Can and will their Internet Service Provider divulge their last 6 months of on-line activity, uploads and downloads and any indications of peer-to-peer sharing?

Most folks only want what is fair. Copying a Google map without attribution - that's a fair mistake. Criminalizing the majority of Canadians for fair use is not a fair mistake ... it is a stupid mistake which panders to special interests and will result in a horrific backlash for the government.

Kindest Regards,
***

I doubt that it will get any traction, but damn, I feel better for having sent the message!

Mac & Cheese
July 04, 2008

kriminal said:

In Prentice\'s defence
Give him a break. Everybody knows he didn't wrote that bill (and he didnt read it either).
July 04, 2008

Ed said:

So?
so what if he didn't write, has Minister of Industry Canada, the buck stops with him and is ultimately responsible for any legislation introduced , that can be attributed to his ministry.

He has plenty of minions at his disposal to give him briefings and summaries as to the actual text in the legislation.

July 04, 2008

Don H said:

Off Topc
Guns are totally off the topic but I'll point the writer who talks about lower crime due to law abiding citizens not having guns to a town in Georgia nicknamed "Guntown, USA" where municipal bylaw requires every hosehold to have a firearm. They have the LOWEST incidence of burglary, B&E, muggings, murder and gun related crimes in the entire US, an amongst the lowest in the world. All anti-gun legislation does is arm the criminal (who doesn't care about breaking the law anyway) and make the general populace helpless victims. Hell you can't even use pepper spray mace or a stun gun to defend yourself in this country. Just cross your arms and let them beat you or kill you.
July 04, 2008

Glen M said:

Day 9: Music Shifting Subject To Anti-Ci
So, I run linux at home and at work. If I put an audio CD into my computer up will pop rythymbox and I have the option to rip the media or listen to it. Since I am running linux and not Windows, any drm will not activate. Is this considered circumvention because I have an OS that ignores windows applications on the data portion of the cd?
July 04, 2008

BCDD and music lover said:

Linux
Good point
Glen M
Interesting point but if I disable the auto run in windows
so I will not get infected by a DRM'd disk is that circumnavigation to ???
July 04, 2008

a guest said:

...
"Interesting point but if I disable the auto run in windows so I will not get infected by a DRM'd disk is that circumnavigation to ???"

Yes. Yet another example of the insanity behind this bill.

"And please remember, we contrived copyright law to grant exclusivity rights, BY DEFINITION, as a privelege and protection. Exclusivity is by no means a natural human right."

Owning a car isn't a natural human right either, yet there is no doubt whatsoever that a car can be stolen. Just because the exclusivity in copyright is an artificial construct doesn't mean it can't be taken from somebody.

"Do you work for the music/movie industry?"

Absolutely not. I advocate consumer freedom and rights of the general public and those of copyright holders. However, I also recognize that not respecting any one copyright, regardless of who governs it, actually weakens the effectiveness of the promise of exclusivity that copyright offers to ALL copyright holders, which is why I am just as strongly opposed to rebelling against this bill with acts that are illegal.

I've already written my MP a full page letter outlining in detail why I think this bill is so bad, and I would encourage absolutely anybody else who can spare the perhaps 20 or so minutes it would take to write up their own letter to do so also.
July 04, 2008

Beaver said:

Prentice removed the map
Prentice removed the map, but _the evidence is here_:

[ link ]

I posted that link above already.
July 04, 2008

Beaver said:

Prentice\'s zero tolerance on innovation
Michael Geist posted a map too, and he used Google Maps API to do it.

But no one in Prentice's team is competent to post the map using Google Maps API, which allows posting interactive maps. So, Prentice just removed the map. Ridiculous.
July 04, 2008

Exploder said:

why break the law
"Owning a car isn't a natural human right either, yet there is no doubt whatsoever that a car can be stolen. Just because the exclusivity in copyright is an artificial construct doesn't mean it can't be taken from somebody."

Yeah, a car is certainly a physical item, and unlike IP these days, if someone steals your car, you no longer have it. Note, that's the IP itself that the owner still has, even though the "exclusivity" is surely no longer. I would love to hear an actual thought on the merits of this "exclusivity", and how it can be justified as if so bloody sacred that protecting it is worth funding those who would RAPE Canadians of our rights, freedom, and prosperity. It is clearly the case that at present, reform or none, there is little practical reality to this ideal "exclusivity", and that the ethics of how, why, and to what degree it should be granted are completely at issue here.

"...actually weakens the effectiveness of the promise of exclusivity..."

Good. Amen. Exactly what we the public need and deserve. That's what I told my MP, on day 3 (A.C61.) Time to fire up Emule and enrich my community.

With such an abject failure of our government to represent the public as is C-61, it could well be left to us to strike a fair ballance IN SPITE of the legal system. The rule of law can be corrupted. Wish that we can maintain a civil and lawfull society, but this bill raises very deep and fundamental doubts for me and many others.

If C-61 passes as is, will you willingly forgo Linux simply to uphold the law, or what it enshrines as "rights" or "ownership"? If not, then what is so special and worthy about copyright protections, that make you so stridently defend their arbitrary worth, and strongly oppose breaking these laws?
July 05, 2008

Exploder said:

why break the law
"Owning a car isn't a natural human right either, yet there is no doubt whatsoever that a car can be stolen. Just because the exclusivity in copyright is an artificial construct doesn't mean it can't be taken from somebody."

Yeah, a car is certainly a physical item, and unlike IP these days, if someone steals your car, you no longer have it. Note, that's the IP itself that the owner still has, even though the "exclusivity" is surely no longer. I would love to hear an actual thought on the merits of this "exclusivity", and how it can be justified as if so bloody sacred that protecting it is worth funding those who would RAPE Canadians of our rights, freedom, and prosperity. It is clearly the case that at present, reform or none, there is little practical reality to this ideal "exclusivity", and that the ethics of how, why, and to what degree it should be granted are completely at issue here.

"...actually weakens the effectiveness of the promise of exclusivity..."

Good. Amen. Exactly what we the public need and deserve. That's what I told my MP, on day 3 (A.C61.) Time to fire up Emule and enrich my community.

With such an abject failure of our government to represent the public as is C-61, it could well be left to us to strike a fair ballance IN SPITE of the legal system. The rule of law can be corrupted. Wish that we can maintain a civil and lawfull society, but this bill raises very deep and fundamental doubts for me and many others.

If C-61 passes as is, will you willingly forgo Linux simply to uphold the law, or what it enshrines as "rights" or "ownership"? If not, then what is so special and worthy about copyright protections, that make you so stridently defend their arbitrary worth, and strongly oppose breaking these laws?
July 05, 2008

Steve said:

Media Shifting
If the wish to keep Bill C-61 in the same format as it stands now then I belive that entertainment industry should held responsible for replacing lost or damage legally purchased media.
As it stands now I am responsible for looking after any media that I purchase. To me that means making copies of CDs or DVDs to be used in the car or any media hostle enviroment. That way when the copy is scratched or become unplayable I simply replace it with another copy from the original. If I have to circumvent a digital lock to do so, so be it.
In the post C-61 world I will no longer be able to do this. If the industry does not want us making copies for our own use, then they must be willing to take responsiblity for replacing media that is no longer usable.
July 30, 2008

a guest said:

Bruce Reynolds
"The Canadian Private Copying Collective is livid at the change, arguing that it will "rob creators of their rights" The CPCC are experts at robbing creators as they have been doing it for years now. I use blank CDs for photo work. I do not copy or download music. yet I have to pay to these crooks to be able to preserve my art. Where is the benifit to Canadians who require media for other reasons I hope that these crooks are dealt with and the CPCC is eliminated
October 01, 2008

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: