Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • The Copyright Lobby's Astroturf Campaign in Support of C-32

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

The Copyright Lobby's Astroturf Campaign in Support of C-32

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Wednesday June 16, 2010
The copyright lobby, almost certainly led by the Canadian Recording Industry Association, has launched a major astroturf campaign in which it hopes to enlist company employees to register their support for Bill C-32 and to criticize articles or comments that take issue with elements of the proposed legislation. The effort, which even includes paid placement of headlines on Bourque.com, is still shrouded in some secrecy.  A member list, which featured many record company executives, has now disappeared from public view.  Requests to identify who is behind the site have been stonewalled thus far, with both ACTRA and AFM Canada explicitly stating they are not part of the site (this is no surprise since most creator groups have been critical of C-32).

The heart of the site (which requires full registration) is a daily action item page that encourages users to "make a difference, everyday."  Today's list of 10 items is a mix of suggested tweets, blog comments, and newspaper article feedback.  Each items includes instructions for what should be done and quick link to the target site.  For example, users are asked to respond on Twitter to re-tweets of an op-ed by Dalhousie law professor Graham Reynolds.  The suggested response is "As an employee in entertainment, this Bill will protect your livelihood" or "The discussion around DRMs is largely fear mongering." Other suggested twitter activity includes twittering in support of James Moore and his comment that the Chamber of Commerce represents the best interests of consumers or to start following MPs on Twitter (in the hope they will follow back and later see astroturfed tweets).

The site also encourages posting comments on a wide range of articles and interviews.  For example, users are encouraged to comment on a Torontoist article on C-32 with the following points:
  • The article completely overstates the expected prevalence of DRMs
  • DRMs have faded quickly from the music industry- why would producers/artists hide their work?
  • There are a whole list of exceptions in the Bill, none of which Michael Geist and his Bit Torrent followers acknowledge
A Calgary Herald op-ed on the concerns with C-32 generates the following suggested response:
  • Artists, other content creators, and the people who invest in them deserve a law that protects their work from theft and unauthorized use on the Internet;
  • Canada has become a global destination of choice for the operators of pirate websites;
  • Bill C-32 is a good first step in creating balanced copyright laws for Canada;
There are suggested responses to audio interviews as well.  For an interview CRIA's Graham Henderson did on CBC Radio, users are encouraged to "listen to the interview, share it with your friends on Facebook, link to it on your Twitter account and post a comment in the comment section underneath the audio file."  As for Industry Minister Tony Clement's interview on Search Engine, users are encouraged to post comments on the TVO site stating:
  • TPMs are used to help creators of digital content – books, games, movies, software and music – to protect their creations from unauthorized copying;
  • TPMs also enable innovative new digital offerings that give consumers more choice in how they buy digital content;
  • For about $10 a month, music fans can access literally millions of songs on streaming music services. But they don’t own the songs;
  • Other fans prefer TPM-free a la carte downloads for about $10 an album. Without TPMs, it simply would not be possible to offer new choices to consumers;
  • The measures in Bill C-32, the government’s copyright reform legislation, add a measure of legal protection against breaking “digital locks.” Without these provisions, digital content would effectively lose all protection, and innovative digital offerings would disappear. The creators of music, books, games, movies, and software – and their investors – would be left high and dry.
All of these are just today's instructions, with new activities promised on a daily basis. This secret astroturf effort is unlikely to fool many people, but it is worth monitoring and serves as a useful reminder that Canadians seeking fair copyright in Canada will need to ensure that their voices are heard and not drowned out by this organized, shadowy campaign.
Comments (174)add comment

Gene said:

Turnabout
You can hardly blame them for playing your game, Michael.
June 16, 2010

Jeff said:

...
You're right, it's a shame that someone had to organize a response to your own army of puppets but at least it was finally done. Hopefully you won't be able to spread your misinformation without opposition anymore.

BTW, what I'd your personal goal?
June 16, 2010

Scott said:

Hmm...
It appears as though they've been instructed to hit here, first.
June 16, 2010

Jeff said:

...
Nope, but your leader sent this link out via his own Twitter account. Again, I pose the question. What is the goal? To have free, unrestricted access to content?
June 16, 2010

Dave taylor said:

Predictably
Copyright lobby astroturfers respond by portraying themselves as victims. It practically writes itself.
June 16, 2010

Bob said:

...
Well, I don't know about Michael, but my goal is the preservation of property rights. If I buy it, I own it, and I use it how I wish.
June 16, 2010

James said:

Let's dial down the scare words, please.
"Secret astroturf effort"? "Organized, shadowy campaign"? Let's dial down the scare words and focus on content, please -- not sure a Twitter feed or wide-open Facebook page can be terribly "secret".
June 16, 2010

AWJ said:

@Jeff
So where's the "misinformation"? It's true that the TPM provisions in the bill will negate most fair dealing rights--the bill explicitly says so! It's true that the circumvention device provisions will effectively create state-enforced monopolies on hardware and software. Under C-32 if you want to make a device or an application that plays TPM-protected content, you have to get permission from the creator of the TPM, or else your gadget or program is a "circumvention device" and becomes illegal to sell. For the TPM vendor it's as good as having a patent, only without the filing fee, requirement of originality, or expiry date!

It's funny that the C-32 apologists keep insisting that because TPMs on music are (for the moment) on the wane, the TPM provisions are No big deal, nothing to see here, move along home. If they were so unimportant than why are the apologists so loath to see them amended?

Also, it's worth mentioning that TPMs on digital works other than audio are well-nigh ubiquitous--just try and find a commercially-distributed video game (on any platform), movie (either disc or download), or e-book that isn't protected by some kind of TPM.

Captcha: "marketer state"
June 16, 2010

Jeff said:

...
@bob But you don't OWN it. You purchased a copy of it for use within the terms layed out by those who made it. Nobody MADE you buy it. Besides, there a number of personal use exceptions laid out in the bill that let you make personal copies, etc. What else would you like to do that the bill doesnt permit?
June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@Gene @Jeff
Michael's game? Funny I don't recall ever seeing him tell people they should engage in newspaper or blog commentary. I don't recall him ever giving people talking points or instructions on what to say. Sure he has told people they should write their MP, but he never put words in their mouths.
June 16, 2010

freshwatermermaid said:

puppets can't discuss
...your leader? guys, seriously. Dr. Geist is a lawyer, talking about the law. If you look at the actual discussions on the fb group(s) and other websites, you'll see differing opinions, ideas and yes, even suggestions for Canadian copyright law. If many of us seem to agree on one item such as DRM or on a particular strategy, it's because we shared our opinions freely and made a decision. I don't need some corporate "activist" writing tweets for me, and I suspect others who freely and openly disagree with Bill-C32 feel the same way.
June 16, 2010

end user said:

...
@Bob = The Canadian view but apparently were not knowledgeable enough on the subject so average Canadian citizens wishes are less important then US corporations.

Funny how DRM never works as the pirates don't care how many brain dead DRM schemes you come out with but the regular consumer is always shafted. Oh well let the underground economy thrive, wait wait actually there will be none as most people don't care to spend money on pirated music and movies as they're worthless.

Oh well back to downloading Creative Commons licensed music for free and its amazing how good tons of it is compared to commercial releases that cost 13x more and lock me in.
June 16, 2010

AWJ said:

@Jeff
"You purchased a copy of it for use within the terms layed out by those who made it"

This seems to be something copyright maximalists have trouble wrapping their brains around, but when you sell something, you don't get to dictate how the purchaser uses it afterward. Toyota doesn't get to tell me what roads I can drive my car on or what brand of CD player I'm allowed to install in it. So why the hell should Apple have the right to tell me under penalty of law that I can only use my iPod with iTunes, or that the only software I can run on my iPad is Apple-approved applications from Apple's App Store?
June 16, 2010

BuddyRich said:

Please answer AWJs questions...
Please answer his questions Pro c32 supporters.

He hit the nail on the head.

I have no problems with TPMs, but I should be allowed to break them if I own the physical media to exercise my fair dealing rights as outlined explicitly in this bill, other than the TPM trumping my rights.

I noticed the slick turn of words used as well. Theft and "unauthorized use". The two are not equivalent things though passing this law would make it so.

All I want to do is transfer my legally bought and paid for collection of 300 DVDs to my htpc. If this bill passes I will not legally be able to do so. I will not buy the same content twice because you only "authorised" me to use the disc directly in a player. What's next only using the disc on Fridays? Gotta pay more to use it on Tuesdays...

Without TPMs overriding fair dealing I wouldn't have to put up with bs line above but this law implicitly endorses it.





June 16, 2010

Jeff said:

@Captain Hook
"Sure he has told people they should write their MP, but he never put words in their mouths."

But that's just the problem. Even if it's not explicitly, by being an authority and an educator by taking a very specific position he is putting words in mouths. Take a look at the arguments coming from copyright reform opponents and you'll see the same, repeated arguments, in the same language.

As a label employee, I can assure you that my beliefs have not been forced upon me by CRIA. Is the introduced legislation perfect? Far from it, but it's a start.

My question is this... I know what my personal interest in in this matter. What do opponents to the legislation have at stake? I find it hard to believe that anyone can invest so much of themselves without some personal vendetta.
June 16, 2010

notfred said:

my goal
First off, this article is critical of disguised astroturfing - something only one side of this debate has done.

My goal? To ensure I can continue to rip my legal CD library to my ipod. To be able to back up my legal dvds to my hard drive. To be able to play my legal foreign dvds in Canada. To be able to move my legal ebooks from kindle format to epub format, so I can read them off my pc. To be able to excerpt short segments of media for review purposes, legally.

Also, to ensure due process when accused of file sharing or DRM circumventing, and not have prison sentences longer than that of a murderer.

It's called "fair use", and it's what people expect from the law.

June 16, 2010

Danux said:

Ownership
@Jeff - Frankly, if I'm paying for what you're peddling, and I don't own it after the transaction, then I'll do without. Digital entertainment is just not important enough to warrant a limitation on my consumer rights. It is too trivial a market to deserve the creation of a special "artist class" of citizens. "Unnecessary" is the word that comes to mind, within the context of this whole circumstance.
June 16, 2010

Jeff said:

@notfred
Thank you sincerely for actually answering my question... I had to pose it three times but it was worth it.

Do you honestly believe that it is the intent of the recording industry to prevent you from putting your legal CD on your ipod? Or the publishing industry to keep you from putting a copy of your kindle ebook on your ipad?

There are flaws with the current bill, but unless we get something on the books and get the torrent sites out of our country, there will be no music, film or books to try and protect.
June 16, 2010

Thiago said:

...
@ Jeff

Now that's fear momngering. I mean, you do know there was music before record companies, books before big publishing houses, films before Hollywood. And there are, today, books, music and films outside of these so called "protected environments".
June 16, 2010

Chris said:

@Jeff
Yup. If they didn't want to do that, what's the problem with having exemptions for breaking TPM in the case of legal fair use?

You last point is more or less a non-point since there are still things being created and sold in this country, and other countries, even without this clause the way it's currently described in the bill.
June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@Jeff
Dude, by your rational, the same could be said for newspaper articles or books or even other respected individuals with an opinion. And I hate to say it, but it would also go for employers too. So you cannot say that Geist is putting words into other peoples mouths without accepting the same criticism for yourself.

Opponents of this legislation have a lot at stake. Leaving aside the copyright collectives who have particular issues from a creator point of view, most people here I would expect to have similar consumer rights points of view.

Personally I an an avid Linux user and programmer and want to be able to choose my hardware and software. I don't want hardware that I can't control. I don't want media that is controlled by software that I don't control. The fair use changes to this bill is great. It almost brings it up to date with our social norms. The DRM provisions takes all that away again, and tells me that I am not even allowed to control my property.

How would you like it if you bought a new appliance only to be told that it is locked and you don't get the key? The seller instead give the key to someone they trust and tells you that in order to use the appliance you have to get permission from this other party first. That is what DRM is all about. I could even live with this if the DRM publishers and vendors were up front about and told you via an explicit contract that you were not buying this device, but merely renting it.

Instead, these DRM provisions allow them to apply terms that would normally only be acceptable in a rental agreement, but now they get to apply them and call it a sale. Legal protection for DRM is dishonest, just like locking cell phones.
June 16, 2010

mckracken said:

jeff's question
My question is this... I know what my personal interest in in this matter. What do opponents to the legislation have at stake? I find it hard to believe that anyone can invest so much of themselves without some personal vendetta.

...........

i have my own personal freedom and cash on the line in this, just like you. the essence of my 'vendetta' however comes down to this: if i 'buy' an album/dvd with tpm on it, then what recourse do i have to listen to/view it legally outside of my home on a personal device? oh, that's right, i don't. i'd need to buy it again in a 'suitable' format. so suddenly my ipod touch becomes nothing more than a paperweight, unless i turn it into a primary device and attempt to stream lower quality media via itunes, at the same price or more than the cost of a physical disc.

but wait there's more, your bosses claim that piracy is rampant and creators just need to get paid... so why not pay them then? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/
did your leaders forget to mention this little issue?

or how about all those exceptions that were made for educational purposes? i'm sure it was all a big misunderstanding that the luggage lock to be applied would criminalize fair use? at least those av club folk will get some much needed camera experience by using the analogue hole to film needed media for lesson plans.

we could go on and on like this, but i'm sure your coffee is getting cold, mine is ;p

June 16, 2010

Jeff said:

@Thiago
And spreading the message that Canadians will all go to prison if they rip a movie to put on their iPod isn't fear mongering? Come on... the other side has been trying to scare the masses into opposition for years now since the beginning of this debate.
June 16, 2010

Jeff said:

@Danux
Great, that's precisely my point. Remember, we're not the ones that started this argument. It's a few citizens that somehow feel they're entitled to limitless rights that made an issue of this when we first started to go after p2p.

"But, it's my God-given right as a Canadian to deprive you of income!"

Sheesh.
June 16, 2010

cndcitizen said:

More distractions from the PMO's
Wow, they really are loosing the support of the people to try and get puppets to spread coorporate disinformation. As more and more public information and discussion is coming out on digital locks (TPM) the majority of the masses that are not technical are starting to relize the implications to their wallet of implementing the TPM protection racket. I think that if people can just keep it to facts of the implecation of TPLM to the consumer and list the industries affected, the only people pushing for TPM are the US lobyist. TPM only hurt the actual comsumers and don't affect piracy as circumvention of TPM is broken relatively quickly, so in effect, the only people hurt by DRM/TPM/Digital locks are the paying public. Digital locks have no business in copyright laws. It should be taken out and if they need to implement it into a law for another reason then the debate for TPM should be stand alone.

At least IMHO,

Canadian Citizen
June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@Jeff
"It's a few citizens that somehow feel they're entitled to limitless rights that made an issue of this when we first started to go after p2p. "

And do you honestly think that DRM is going to make the slightest different to p2p filesharing?
June 16, 2010

Thiago said:

...
@ Jeff
The point in question is not wether the opposing side of the law is engaging in fear mongering. The point in question is you saying that without the current bill music, books and movies will disappear.

Plus the bill states quite clearly that infringers may be put i prison
June 16, 2010

Chris said:

@Jeff
"But, it's my God-given right as a Canadian to deprive you of income!"

You do know that most of the people you are arguing against are not trying to do this, but they want a bill that allows them to do the things that the bill is suppose to allow us to do, but we can't because of some arbitrary, over the top lock protection. Or do you assume that the ability for me to legally move a DVD from disk to my computer automatically means that I'm going to give it away to anyone and everyone?
June 16, 2010

Kier said:

...
@Jeff - I honestly believe that the recording industry wants to do the same thing as all companies do; make money. That's why businesses exist. Protecting their existing methods of business has become paramount, as they see no other way to maintain previous income levels.

The business I work in, printing social stationery, has been gutted over the last 10-15 years by the advent of inexpensive high-quality home publishing systems. We're not arguing for locks on these devices, we're changing our business model to provide services that customers can't get do at home. And we're trying to be flexible and responsive to our customers.

To quote: 'The times, they are a changing'. Current reward systems for artists and production companies are not longer going to work, and trumping consumers rights (and wishes) by ill-thought out controls will not re-create the previous business climate. Provide a good product at a good price and the world will in fact beat a path to your door.

BTW - One of the common refrains brought up here is that the USA sees us as a haven of (digital) criminals and scofflaws. I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia thinks we're a bunch of deluded infidels, and my reaction is the same to both. I don't care. Go fix your own d**m countries, and keep your nose out of mine.
June 16, 2010

IsTheTurfGreenerOverThere said:

@jeff

C-32 states that you can only copy something if you do not circumvent any locks. Ripping a DVD circumvents the lock so one would be breaking the law.
June 16, 2010

cndcitizen said:

...
@JEff - "entitled to limitless rights that made an issue of this when we first started to go after p2p"

What does P2P have to do with DRM/TPM, also who is WE that you stated above, are you part of RIAA, as I am not aware of any Canadian companies going over P2P sites yet, actually the reverse, with ISOhunt sueing CRIA preemtively.

@Jeff - "And spreading the message that Canadians will all go to prison if they rip a movie to put on their iPod isn't fear mongering?"

Actually that is what the law as it is written says and if someone had a beef with you they could "check your ipod" and say, hey movie xyz had a digital lock, you broke it as it is not licensed for your ipod so here is a $5000 dollar or 50 days in jail fine.

The above is not fear mongering, but how the law is written. Please everyone keep in mind that this does NOT JUST APPLY TO MUSIC AND MOVIES. This will affect every consumer product that a digital lock can be applied.

As stated above, with this new rule, what happens if company A created a new awsome comsumer product, except it has a digital lock so any maintenance and supplies have to come from a registered supplyer. The companies sell the device cheap (actually only license it) and the supply and services for the product are expensive. Since they have eliminated all competition for after market supplyers or service men, a lot of buisness models would be forced out of business as almost everything has digital components in them now. For example, Car Repairs ($85/h at Dealer compared to $45/h at CT)....well I suppose CT could get a license to break the digital locks on the cars computers for maintenance (and turning off that warning bulb) but would force them to apply for each store to each different car manufacture. This again reminds me of the license and lease agreements that IBM forced in the early years. You lease from us, all service is done by us and you can only use paper stock for the punch cards that is supplied by us. Any breaking of the above we will reposes your punch card.

Imagin that today in the contract world...doesn't happen, so why should we hurt all business by bowing to one small division of the business complex as TPM again, don't help consumers only hurt them and do nothing for p2p piracy that people seem to always try and bring up. They have nothing to do with each other.


June 16, 2010

Joe Smith said:

Dev
As a content creator and artist myself, I have always found the notion of protectionist measures for creators absurd. I am a creator. I invest countless hours in my work, but yet I do not EXPECT that people will pay for it. That is for the market to decide. If my work garners attention, I am appreciative.

But to create laws for out dated businesses and to have those middle men gather up all their resources to lobby and bring people in the law professions down on non-commercial infringements is laughable.

The fact of the matter is, I realize that no matter what laws you put on the books, people will continue to sample and share information. It will go on forever. There is no stopping it. So I don't bother.

Instead I focus on my core audience and the people who ARE interested in my work and supporting my work. That is what the industry should have been focusing on. But in stead they have taken the direct opposite approach. Encumbering their media with "digital locks" or DRM for those of us keeping score. And proverbially spitting in the face of their users. It is no surprise to me, then, that people would look elsewhere for their kicks.

What creators should ask themselves is if a user on the Internet can get your work for free and free of locks and encumberments, what incentive have they got to buy from you? That is what you focus on. Give them something for their money.

But again, I think we're seeing again and again, old outdated businesses headed by incompetent old people who do not understand technology; attempting to influence our politics for their gain. It simply will not stand. You cannot expect to buy up "intellectual property" and then hoard culture to yourselves. The idea of "Fair Use" and the "Public Domain" have been largely overshadowed in recent years.

I'll save you all from reading more of my blabber. But know that no matter what happens, sharing will continue unabated. If you are a business reliant on IP or Copyright, you are doomed. You MUST offer tangibility to be relevant. End of story.
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

astroturfing
Gene and Jeff,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Read it. Understand it. Pretty well anyone can see the differences between what Michael does and what the site he references does. Nobody is being fooled, not even the politicians.

It's easy to identify such activity. Lots of "potshots" and no honest engagement. The subtle variations of thinking individuals are missing.

June 16, 2010

JJ said:

Read some crypto theory
"TPMs" (DRM as it's more commonly known) is based on cryptography. The theories and algorithms used are much the same -- with one important difference. The person you're trying to send an encrypted message to is also the person you're trying to prevent from decrypting that very same message. It's the technical equivalent to putting a sticker over the seam of a CD jewel case that says "Your fair dealing rights are belong to us.", or a label on a computer saying "Windows only -- Linux users unwelcome.". In other words, it is ineffective and cannot be 'fixed' in any technical way without also rendering the entire product utterly, literally unusable.

I think it is absurd for the government to try and pass a law that props up a terrible, technically unfeasible idea, and a failed business model. As has been pointed out, a lot of music has gone DRM-less... What does this mean? It means *DRM has failed* as a means of increasing profits, and that consumers have rejected it. Ever since iTunes Music Store has gone DRM-less, their sales have increased -- and increased at an incredible rate. Obviously DRM is not, cannot be, and never is a solution. A law to 'enforce it', and to turn myself, any other free software users, and anyone who believes in fair dealing, into criminals is not the right thing to do.

In fact, it's exactly the wrong thing. "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." -- the spirit of this quote applies here. The government has no right to tell me what I, personally, can or cannot do with devices and media I have purchased -- and to try to do so would be both wrong and require a massive invasion of my privacy and freedoms.
June 16, 2010

Danux said:

A Few Citizens?
@Jeff - Actually, this argument has been going on, pretty much since the creation of the home entertainment market (and the media market was doing OK with the home entertainment market, BTW). It started with analog recording devices. It's an old argument, and was started by the corporate media suppliers. Also, a "few" citizens is negligible loss, it does not justify locking down the whole market. A few speeders wouldn't justify speed governors on all the cars in Canada.

Let's be clear here, the goal of the corporate producers (the group that initiated this whole campaign with our government) isn't to enhance the market, but to re-entrench their supply-controlled position. Like you, I am all for an artist getting paid; patronage of a competent artist is of the utmost importance, but it would seem that artists, especially independent artists, are being pushed into a corner where they are arguing that every instance of their work must be fiscally and logistically accounted for.

I suspect any independent band that promoted itself, prior to P2P, would attest that getting exposure of any sort was a grueling task - the single biggest obstacle being the corporate control of all significant avenues to revenue and exposure. In order to sell a tour, or an album (in its various technological forms), people had to know about them. So either the band subscribed to the music cartel, or remained in relative obscurity. But the advent of P2P, of independent internet "radio" stations, gives musicians a real alternative to the (highly profitable) controlled media market. It also means that the distributed product, in this case, has devalued - primarily because it is no longer supported by the supply-side market controls. Where one person sees "deprived income", another sees "unlimited advertising". If a band's income is derived entirely from touring, then the goal with the digital release of an album should be 100% market penetration/awareness, and accumulating any income from the release is pure gravy.

What I see, from this push to lock down the digital medium, is an oligarchy's fight to maintain a controlled market which has been devalued, and opened, by natural market forces. I've said this many times : if the big players don't like the direction the home entertainment market is going, then they should withdraw from that market to their own controlled environments, and let the smaller, willing, competitors fill in the void they leave behind. This move would allow both their, and the consumer's, rights to be maintained, without giving one group control over the other.
June 16, 2010

Andrew said:

It's mine, simple as that.
If I buy media, or a media player, it is mine. Simple as that, I will do what I want with it, simple as that.

If I'm going to be treated as a licensee of a product, then I expect to pay a steeply discounted rate. If Blu-Ray players were $10 I wouldn't have a problem with my usage rights being dictated by the manufacturer, but until that time I do not expect to be told what I can and cannot do with the device I have purchased at full price.
June 16, 2010

... said:

Pattern
Anyone else notice a pattern here? Most people supporting (flawed) copyright reforms like C-32's DRM portions seem to have an uncanny knack for ignoring the arguments they can't counter and consistently replying to those they (think they) can... Not the best way to argue a point at all.

Could we have a REAL discussion maybe? You know: One presents an argument, the other refutes. If you can't refute an argument, it is pretty clear your stance is incorrect.
June 16, 2010

... said:

@Andrew
"If I buy media, or a media player, it is mine. Simple as that, I will do what I want with it, simple as that."

I would add that this should be limited to private use... as much as I dislike C-32's DRM portions, I can't see anything right about being able to share / resell what you bought
June 16, 2010

Neo (The Matrix) said:

imaginary property
Putting digital locks on digital content it is like putting digital condoms while having virtual sex.
We are now mimicking the Matrix movie mistaking virtuality for reality.
No matter what, the next business model is the sharing model.
When more than half of the world population is engaged in sharing nothing is going to change that. The new wave can only be surfed but not stopped. In USA there are still millions of infringer despite 10 years of DMCA. IP (imaginary property) is going to disappear and customers are going to donate their money directly to artists skipping the overhead costs that are good only for the surviving of obsolete parasites. Good riddance to all the businesses which are not going to survive the brave new world.
June 16, 2010

Jean-Marc said:

Digital locks only affect people who pay
In the end, digital locks will only affect people who pay for the media. People who download their music or movies from peer to peer networks are never affected by it. In essence, they get a better product: it is more readily available, usually available in advanced of the official media, it is unencumbered by restrictions, it's cheaper and will transfer between formats much easier. DRM is very short sighted by the media companies.

I have two cases which to me are pretty offensive:

1. You buy Avatar on Blueray to play in your Blueray player. You have every reason to believe that it will work when you get home. When you try to play it however, it turns out that your player needs an update which isn't available yet. You had no way of knowing this when you bought the disk. You are now at the mercy of your hardware manufacturer. They may or may not decide to update your player to allow playing the movie which you purchased. If they do update your player, they could decide to break compatibility with your old disks - who knows? Since you had the balls to unwrap the disk, you can no longer return it to the store. If only you had downloaded the movie, you could have watched it weeks ago. (http://www.digitaltrends.com/entertainment/avatar-blu-ray-not-working-for-many/)

2. Alice and Bob each have a cell phone they are quite content with. Itis a Rogers HTC Dream. Both of them are happy with their phones and have bought hundreds of apps for them. A security issue is found on the phone and Rogers needs to provide an update for it. To encourage everyone to apply the update, they prevent the phone to send data
until the patch is applied. This patch also removes important features from the phone as a side effect.

Alice was already running a third party firmware on her phone which had fixed the security vulnerability months prior. She applies the update from Rogers and then breaks the lock once again to gain access to the features which Rogers removed.

Bob is screwed. Either he gives up on the data feature of his phone o rhe gives up other features.

In this case, the consumer COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN that Rogers would remove features from the phone using digital locks. In case you think this is a made up scenario, please see: (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/26/rogers.html)


DRM/TPM are fine, just don't turn people into criminals for breaking them.
June 16, 2010

Steve said:

Why Am I "Astroturf"?
So, how is my contacting an MP in support of Bill C-32 any different than you or the folks here calling an MP against it? So, because its my livelihood at stake, I'm now "fake"?

This bill impacts REAL people and REAL jobs. Folks are using online tools to organize. So what? How is that different than your Facebook group? Because one person is front and centre?
June 16, 2010

James said:

Locked or unlocked: a choice of business models?
Danux and Neo, you're kind of arguing against yourself here. If the next business model is the sharing model, then presumably those who want to survive will choose a business model that does not put digital locks on what they sell, or else consign themselves to irrelevance.
June 16, 2010

bawheid said:

Who's policing the iPod's?
Who exactly is going to have the right to rummage about in the innards of your laptop or iThingy looking for pirate swag? Random stops by police? Home raids? Border inspections? How is c-32 going to be enforced?
If any of the above are the case, why are Federal or Provincial funds being spent on protecting the income of media companies with a market cap larger than our GDP?
Yet another dimension of the vast suckage of this Bill.
June 16, 2010

RK said:

...
As said above, astroturfing is a fake grassroots movement. Fake in that it is lead by non-human entities (businesses, etc) not individuals. I would have no problem if the CEOs of whatever businesses wanted to write their views on their personal blogs (like Michael does). It is when an organization mimics the actions of individuals that it becomes a sad and scary imitation of real leadership and grassroots movements. To those that would support the astroturf campaigns of a business: do you truly believe that the business cares about your welfare, that the business has any "thoughts" besides it's own survival?

To Jeff and and the other copyright industry employees, it is hard to accept this but the distribution and publishing side of that industry was developed to spread culture as far, wide and cheaply as possible. To make culture as accessible as possible to as many as possible. Those fundamental goals are the same as those that now wish to use an even better, cheaper and more accessible way of distributing (digital) culture: the Internet. To castigate those that want free access to culture is to be against your own industry and institutions like libraries. Don't let your own financial security blind you to the fundamental challenges that the copyright industry has been trying to solve. It is hard to adjust when a new technology solves your problem better than you ever could, but that is why we invent new technology.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" ~Upton Sinclair
June 16, 2010

MikeB said:

It's Already Against the Law
@Jeff,

I believe under the current Copyright Act, it is already illegal to distribute copyrighted materials (ie p2p). I don't see where this bill will make it more illegal. the problem is that the content providers don't want to spend the resources to track down individuals or obtain sufficient evidence of distribution. You haven't "started to go after p2p" with exception of the CRIA's one weak attempt which was ruled not a bona fide claim and without admissible evidence (again, not wanting to put forward the effort). Hell, the appellate court pretty much held their hand in walking them through what they needed to make a proper claim and the CRIA acted like a lazy teenager (You mean I have to do all those things?!? ppttthhh).

Unless I'm horribly wrong, there is nothing in this bill making the act of p2p more illegal than it already is. Even the inducement clause appears to target internet services, not actual participants. As such, the cries of people "stealing" and "theft" have no bearing in the discussion of this bill.
June 16, 2010

bawheid said:

'"Who's policing the iPods?"
iPlod.
(Sorry to answer own question.)
June 16, 2010

strunk&white said:

...
industry spokespeople = lobbyists and corporate shills
creators asking for strong copyright = lobbyists and corporate shills
anyone who disagrees with an opinion over here = lobbyist and corporate shill
any organized campaign to express these views = astroturf

Geist's army, including modchip makers, admitted pirates and uninformed copyright abolitionists = concerned Canadian consumers

As always Dr. Geist, your principled, unbiased, scholarly leadership on this issue is appreciated.
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

TPM/DRM and customers
I echo JJ's perspective on the technology.

TPM has never stopped infringement in the entertainment industry. By design it can't be expected to do so. But it does interfere with legitimate customer uses.

Take a common, and growing, example. The advent of the home media server. Customers that adopt such innovations are typically the industry's best customers, and TPM measures are nothing but a hindrance to them. Now you want to enact laws that turn them into "infringers" for bypassing TPM/DRM. Likewise people that simply want to format shift their content to portable devices.

These actions will go on, regardless of the legalities. Legally restrictive TPM is helping to build an attitude of disrespect for the law among your best customers. If you make TPM measures tougher to bypass for the average customer, they will turn to P2P to "get a copy for the media server", increasing usage of the very thing you are most afraid of. Is that really something that is desired?

The attitude I most often see in C-32 advocates is "we have to control the infringement, and this is how we have decided to do it." Ignore the fact the techniques they have settled on are ineffective. Lobby to obtain "legal protection" for inappropriate technology.
The answer to the problem isn't technology, it's business models, and fairness to your best customers. To do that you have to understand your customers, and their changing needs and desires.

Keep in mind that P2P sharing and DRM removal is a social response to a changing world. They are simply tools, not the "problem". What the industry is doing is akin to trying to control graffiti by outlawing paint cans. You have to figure out what the real problem is.

I am not against TPM measures as a technology. There are places where their use might be appropriate. I am against legal protection of ineffective TPM measures. Effective ones don't need legal protection.

June 16, 2010

Marion said:

...
Jeff said:
...
@bob But you don't OWN it. You purchased a copy of it for use within the terms layed out by those who made it. Nobody MADE you buy it. Besides, there a number of personal use exceptions laid out in the bill that let you make personal copies, etc. What else would you like to do that the bill doesnt permit?
--------------------
Actually, the media industry wants to convince us we don't own it. In any case, we should be entitled to use legally acquired media in any of the personal use exceptions laid out in the bill. But the presence of any DRM whatsoever negates those rights and turns perfectly reasonable behaviour into an illegal activity. That's my main beef with this bill.

As to what else I would like to do: Someone else already pointed out ripping your DVD collection to a media server. Personally, I would also like to watch DVDs purchased outside of Region 1 without a feeling that I'm breaking the law while doing it.

I am not kidding. A DVD region marker is a TPM/DRM, and therefore, using my multi-region DVD player to view my DVDs from Regions 4 and 2 will be an illegal act if the bill passes as is. Never mind buying a replacement for the DVD player if it breaks.

I don't know about you, but I don't like doing stuff that I know is illegal. And while I don't think the "entertainment police" will be knocking on doors to verify compliance, do you think it is a good idea to have people getting used to willfully breaking the law? That would make them more accepting of file-sharing stuff they haven't legally acquired...
June 16, 2010

emdx said:

It is pointless
It is pointless to argue with astroturfers themselves; they are paid sockpuppets and they will post their drivel regardless.

What has to be done is simply shooting down their “arguments” (and it’s not that hard to do at all) to show people that they are wrong.
June 16, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@jeff
"But that's just the problem. Even if it's not explicitly, by being an authority and an educator by taking a very specific position he is putting words in mouths. Take a look at the arguments coming from copyright reform opponents and you'll see the same, repeated arguments, in the same language."

The the way to avoid that is to read the actual proposed legislation. That is not something everybody has time to do. You have to pick your interests. I have read it, but not in context of the existing legislation, so I may be missing some of the more subtle implications.

It looks like Jeff may have given up, but I would like to point out I disagree with Micheal Geist: He thinks the proposed legislation is "flawed but fixable" while I think Canada should pull out of the 1996 WIPO treaties instead (because they are literally evil).

I understand where Mr. Geist is coming from: compromise is important if such copyright reform is inevitable.

Mr. Geist may also understand where I am coming form, but has not said so directly. In my 2009 Copyright consultation submission I explain that any legislation based on Article 11 of the 1996 WIPO copyright treaty (and a similar article in the performances and phonograms treaties) must be (literally) evil. The reason is that the requirements are contradictory: Contracting parties are required to impose "effective legal remedies" against the circumvention of "effective technological measures." Note the word "effective" is used twice in apparently rivalrous* roles.

*word choice is a reference to the "IEEE P1817 working group" covered by arstechnica.com yesterday.

June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@S&W
Whitey you forgot informed property and privacy advocate as members of Geist's "army" who I would imagine make up the bulk of its ranks.

You also didn't get the definition of astroturfer quite right either.

"any organized campaign to express these views [and have them appear come from usassociated but like minded individuals]."

There. fixed it for ya. I seem to do that a lot for you these days all over the place.


June 16, 2010

Marion said:

...
@ Jean-Marc: Thank you for that link. I had no idea Rogers had removed features via a firmware update.

Sony did the same thing in April: The PS3s of the "Fat" model had an option to install a second operating system (OtherOS). There were several Linux distributions that could be installed on it, and you could use it as a computer as well as a gaming console.

However, firmware update 3.21 released on April 1st removes the OtherOS option, and locks you out of the Linux partition if you have it installed. If you don't update, you lose access to the PSN (including any pre-paid subscriptions to content), as well as playing newer games which require FW 3.21, like Red Dead Redemption, and newer Blu-Ray discs.

These are all features that were included in the system that I purchased, but now I have to give up one or the other.

@ Jeff: If you were wondering, the above has greatly reduced my respect for DRM...
June 16, 2010

Dave said:

@phillipsjk
How can one circumvent "effective technological measures". Does that not seem contradictory? If they were effective, they would not be circumvented, only ineffective measures have ways to circumvent them.
June 16, 2010

Andy Kaplan-Myrth said:

"effective technological measures"
The phrase "effective technological measures" is interpreted to mean "in effect, technological measures". It does not mean "technological measures that are effective".
June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@Dave
You want to read this.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/05/effective-technological-measures-it-means-what-it-says-says-finnish-court
June 16, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@Dave
"Effective" can mean "in existence and in place", such as: "This policy is effective immediately."

Interestingly, the conflict is not as strong if you assume a weaker definition of "effective. Though, the weaker definition of "effective legal remedies" could imply small fines rather than Jail-time.
June 16, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Steve said:
Why Am I "Astroturf"?
So, how is my contacting an MP in support of Bill C-32 any different than you or the folks here calling an MP against it? So, because its my livelihood at stake, I'm now "fake"?

This bill impacts REAL people and REAL jobs. Folks are using online tools to organize. So what? How is that different than your Facebook group? Because one person is front and centre?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~


@ Steve & Jeff and all other CIRA etc supporters

Actually C32 / dmca / acta etc are all very poor attempts to protect a dying business model.

What you are trying to do is the equivalent of trying to lock down a transportation method.

ie: Your job is to drive a bus from A-B-C.
Someone invents a new bus that you do not control and cannot drive that goes straight from A-C skipping you completely.

Since you are not obsolete you want laws forcing people to still use your old ABC route only and make A-C illegal.


Sounds like a good time for you to GET A NEW JOB and adapt..

The world will not stand still for you no matter how much you have a tantrum about it.
June 16, 2010

WP said:

...
When all is said and done. This is nothing more than industry taking away consumers rights. How can you have government give consumers rights, only to allow business to make that right illegal when they decide?

That's not a right you have given the consumer, it's a privilege.

Music industry for years have been trying to take away rights consumers already had. Right of first sale comes to mind.

If industry really wants things this way, I say the government should make them strictly state on any items sold with a disclaimer of the rights consumers have.

Include a sticker on CD/DVD's (Like ratings warnings) that the consumers is not in fact buying a product and therefor have no rights to do with the product as they please.

While they are at it. The government should make it illegal to share any tangible product or resell it in these industries. Since industry is getting it done in the digital world.

The mind boggles at some of these people.

My family ran a fairly well known record business in the city of Toronto for over 30 years. Everything from retail stores to distribution to print media all to do with the music business. When we decided to finally shut down operations a few years ago. We never once thought about blaming consumers. We realized the industry was changing and the old business model way of how things worked was over. You either had to change with the times or move on. Since we realized that in 30 years we hardly ever got any support from the music industry, we knew they wouldn't be there in the future so we ended that period in our lives.

I still have yet to see the industry do anything to compete even just a little with the massive changes that have happened in the last 10 years.

Go into a record store (If you can find one). CD's are still selling for $15-20+. Check out itunes... A digital copy of many cd's are selling for higher than a physical copy.

Record stores are not closing strictly due to piracy. They are closing because labels still want stores to pay the same price they did wholesale 10+ years ago.

The question should be this. Industry states we have nothing to worry about with this bill. What many don't realize is this is just a beginning for many. They will get this passed and then through the next 10 years, work to passing stronger and stronger laws.

I have zero problem with all the laws needed to stop people from making money off of other people's works. But the idea of making criminals of consumers for person use is just wrong.
June 16, 2010

Gene said:

Licence vs. ownership
"If I'm going to be treated as a licensee of a product, then I expect to pay a steeply discounted rate."

You DO pay a steeply discounted rate. What do you think it would cost you to own the master copy of your favorite movie? You could either try to buy it, or make the movie yourself, either option would probably cost you hundreds of millions of dollars (cue posts about how much everybody's favorite movie cost to make).

Copyright is the exclusive right to make or authorize the making of copies. You don't acquire that right when you buy a DVD, you only acquire a limited right to use the recording of the movie (subject to a certain amount of leeway for 'fair' forms of infringement of that right). TPMs are a different subject, but this is the reality of copyright law. If you object to it, then unless you can make a persuasive case for completely changing the way copyright law works, you will have very little credibility in the debate over C-32.

Start by explaining why you should be able to appropriate others' property without compensating them (cue posts about how intellectual property isn't property, which will dig you an even deeper credibility hole).
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

@phillipsjk

Hmm.. So a part of this discussion might boil down to the definition of the word "effective"? I would suggest that the variability in it's meaning should be taken from it's context.

Can I ask how you would define the word "effective" when used in the context of "effective technological measures"?

Perhaps we should hear from some lawyers on what the legal definition of "effective technological measures" would be. How would a lawyer interpret that context?
June 16, 2010

Dohn Joe said:

Professor Geist Upholding "Freedom of Speech" is Hurting Him
Groklaw recently published an interesting article on building a community with a GREAT section on dealing with trolls, asstroturfers, and saboteurs:
http://www.groklaw.net/article...034659206

"The purpose is to destroy your project and make sure it never succeeds."

It would seem the professor is unwilling to delete these destructive comments and has been therefore had his blog victimized by these "disruptors". If it were me I would heed the advice "There is nothing to do with a troll but delete his comments when you are sure trolling is the purpose. If you are weak in the knees and can't bring yourself to do that, trolls will destroy your open group project. It's that simple and clear. They enjoy destroying what you want to do".
June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@Gene
"Start by explaining why you should be able to appropriate others' property without compensating them"

Gene, let me ask the same of you. Why should it be illegal to root my cell phone, my xbox. or run whatever DVD or other software I damn well please on my computer. You (or the government) telling me I cannot do these things in the privacy of my own home is a significant infringement of my tangible and very real property rights. To hell with the whole intellectual/imaginary property debate.

With regard to restrictions on copying. There should be no such restrictions on any copying which is NECESSARY to access the product.

June 16, 2010

Dohn Joe said:

Clipped Link?
It seems my link was clipped. That middle part replaced with "..." is actually:
.php?story=20100614
June 16, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Gene said:

Copyright is the exclusive right to make or authorize the making of copies. You don't acquire that right when you buy a DVD, you only acquire a limited right to use the recording of the movie (subject to a certain amount of leeway for 'fair' forms of infringement of that right). TPMs are a different subject, but this is the reality of copyright law. If you object to it, then unless you can make a persuasive case for completely changing the way copyright law works, you will have very little credibility in the debate over C-32.



Start by explaining why you should be able to appropriate others' property without compensating them (cue posts about how intellectual property isn't property, which will dig you an even deeper credibility hole).


@ Gene

Actually you made most of that point for us.

Quote:
(subject to a certain amount of leeway for 'fair' forms of infringement of that right)
Unquote

TPM's as C-32 is trying to get passed supersede / trump those RIGHTS and make them effectively null and void.

It's so nice to see C-32 supporters show all of the "granted exceptions" so proudly... but fail so miserably to point out that ALL of those and more are thereby trumped completely by the digital lock provisions. Take C-32 with the entire digital lock section out and it's not as bad.. but as it stands it's an even bigger disaster than the DMCA has proven to be.

Oh and DRM will not work ever. Reality is it's fundamentally flawed and only punishes those actually paying for a product. I personally use "cracks" on every game I buy.. and bypass the "DRM" etc completely so that crap never gets installed on my computer. Not to mention DRm has been proven to not deter piracy in any way at all.

Your precious TPM's are more for fake market control such as the infamous "region coding". We all know it's a load of crap done just to try to gouge for more $$$ and protect dying business models.

June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

effective measures
Perhaps we should hear from some lawyers on what the legal definition of "effective technological measures" would be.

IANAL but I would suggest it all depends on whether the word 'effective' is a qualifier for 'technology', in which case as soon as it is cracked, it is no longer effective; or if it is a qualifier for the word 'measure', in which case, as long as the people can keep industry manufactures in line so as to minimise the prevalence of the hack, then it will remain effective against most people, even if it is not technologically effective any more.

Just my 0.02$

June 16, 2010

Bytowner said:

...
Same kind of dog-piling going on here as happened at insidethecbc.ca in response to pro-CBC postings on whether or not the network's news arm is biased, looks like.

"Our sheer volume and numbers MUST and WILL overwhelm your mere facts!"
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

...

..."cue posts about how intellectual property isn't property, which will dig you an even deeper credibility hole"

OK.. If, only for the sake of argument, I accept your premise that IP should be treated the same as "physical property", then lets explore the other aspects of how it should be compared.

First off, what other kind of property would you like to compare it to? Land or housing? A hammer? A business?
There are different aspects and responsibilities to property ownership within our society, depending on exactly what kind of property it is.

Please describe a valid comparison to show at least one other form of "physical property" where a copy is just as good as the original. We will need this as a valid starting point in our discussion.

If you are in the "property sales business", I'd like to know exactly what the "property" (under property law) is, that you sold to me?

While you are doing all this, I want you to carefully consider "who's property you stole" while doing it. Where do you get your ideas? Who did you quote?

June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

Clipped Link?
Here's a hint. Put at least one space at the beginning of the line that contains the link. It may still shorten the link in the displayed text, but the whole link will be usable.
June 16, 2010

cndcitizen said:

Wiki Pedia on IP - IP is a general term for a bunch of different laws, Copyright is only one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the free culture movement, point at intellectual monopolies as harming health, preventing progress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of the masses,[21][22] and argue that the public interest is harmed by ever expansive monopolies in the form of copyright extensions, software patents and business method patents.

Some libertarian critics of intellectual property have argued that allowing property rights in ideas and information creates artificial scarcity and infringes on the right to own tangible property. Stephan Kinsella uses the following scenario to argue this point:

[I]magine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy—let’s call him Galt-Magnon—decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights.[23]
June 16, 2010

WP said:

...
@ oldguy.

Well see, if I build and sell you a house and have a lock on it. I refuse your right to make a copy of the key to allow access to anyone else other than you with said key. Unless of course a fee is paid to me.

Further more, I want it to be illegal for you to change the original lock I have placed on the house!!!


@Gene
I guess you would fully support if I buy a DVD and it doesn't play on my dvd player, I get a full refund correct?

Or if I buy an mp3 and my computer crashes and I loose that mp3, I should get another mp3 right?
June 16, 2010

Bentley said:

Man..
Wish i could get paid to comment on blogs about how good US style DMCA would be for Canada.
June 16, 2010

WP said:

...
Amusing that one of the main guys who wrote the US DMCA states it was a big mistake.
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

@WP

Further to your comment to Gene, I suspect you might also want to return and demand a refund simply because you didn't enjoy what was in the sealed container after you bought it. The argument could be made that the product didn't "perform as advertised", the advertisement being your measure of enjoyment. Gene might argue that you have already "consumed it", but it's perfectly obvious that it is still in pristine condition minus the plastic wrapping.

Applying classic "property laws" to so called "Intellectual Property" is a slippery and error prone exercise. There is a good reason that these topics each have their own separate category under law. And anyone that falls into the trap of attempting to equate them to classic property laws really hasn't thought things through.

But I'm willing to let Gene try, once again. Sometimes there is an interesting perspective that emerges. Most times they realize they are into circular arguments fairly quickly. Or realize they don't really like where the comparisons eventually lead.

June 16, 2010

end user said:

...
@Neo - is going to disappear and customers are going to donate their money directly to artists skipping the overhead costs that are good only for the surviving of obsolete parasites. Good riddance to all the businesses which are not going to survive the brave new world.

I already do this by donating to Linux Mint for their great distro and to net labels when I take their Creative Commons Licensed music to play on my shoutcast station.
June 16, 2010

end user said:

...
@ Jeff @bob Besides, there a number of personal use exceptions laid out in the bill that let you make personal copies, etc. What else would you like to do that the bill doesnt permit?

Hmm strange how we won't be permitted to do anything with in the law since we'd be breaking DRM which is against the law soooo please tell us your step by step way of making a personal copy that doesn't break the law from a cd/dvd that has DRM on it.
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

@Captain Hook
"effective technological measures"

... "whether the word 'effective' is a qualifier for 'technology', in which case as soon as it is cracked, it is no longer effective; or if it is a qualifier for the word 'measure'"

Even so. I would still might quibble over the meaning of how the qualifier "effective" applied to the noun "measures".

IANAL and IANAET (English teacher) either. But the way I see it, the meaning doesn't change either way.

June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

effective measure or effective tech.
"But the way I see it, the meaning doesn't change either way."

Sure it does. A access control measure will be effective if it succeeds in limiting access to the content. Therefore, as long as the DVDCSS is able keep the supply of region free players off on the market to a very low value, the meassure can be deemed effective, even if it is technologically impotent. The effective part of the DVDCSS measure is not so much the technological aspects as much as it is the vendor licensing aspect.

It actually makes all the difference in the world. Is it an effective measure, which is also a technology? Or is is it an effective technology which is used as a measure?

June 16, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

Why acta,c32,etc... are being put into place...
http://www.infowars.com/music-...-collapse/
Radiohead's lead singer has the answer.MAFIAA is already dying fast,that's why they are desperate to put these laws into place(to save themselves).
June 16, 2010

Dinosaur for PM said:

Only purchasers of legitimate content will be punished.
What's nuts about this is that pirating content will be less of a crime than "digitally unlocking" something you own. So if you want to hold on to your digital media collection throughout the years the best option is to pirate it.

How stupid is that?

Don't even get me started about the myriad ways you can hide from your ISP. I hate leaving a drive by post like this but who are they kidding... they want to further punish their clientele by making it even harder to buy their products?

I'm sure that eventually folks will be spooked enough to stop pirating, but that doesn't mean the backlash won't push folks towards "true free" instead of "pirate free" if I did get that spooked, I certainly woudln't start buying their content, I'd just start getting media from the WFMU blog, Jamendo, and archive.org to name a few.

June 16, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@oldguy
"Perhaps we should hear from some lawyers on what the legal definition of "effective technological measures" would be. How would a lawyer interpret that context?"

I ask Michael Geist about it. His response (probably not a formal legal opinion) was that it was for the courts to decide.

Neither the WIPO treaties nor the proposed legislation define "effective (technological measures)"
June 16, 2010

Jonny said:

...
personally, I see this bill as long overdue - and finally it has some fair provisions we have been waiting for.
Bit Torrent sites that make a lot of money off advertising and donations need to be held accountable... they take money and give NOTHING back to the artists.

While the bill is far from perfect, lets discuss the ways it needs to be improved instead of dismissing the entire thing. It's going to be a bit of give and take from BOTH sides. What needs to stop is this sense of unlimited entitlement.

I am not scared of DRM. If a cd or movie has DRM I will not buy it AND I will not steal it either. That is the correct statement to make. As soon as the companies see the sales are down AND there is virtually no piracy of that product they will have no choice but to see it without DRM.

Ultimately you have to agree it's the creators product and they should have the right to protect the content or not.

If you dont like this don't buy it, AND DO NOT download it either - it just adds fuel to that argument. Simply let them know IF there were no locks, you would happily make the purchase.

Rights are a 2 way street and most of what I read in here is one way or the other. There needs to be compromise.


June 16, 2010

IamME said:

...
Jeff seems to have dissasmeared, but he said,

"Do you honestly believe that it is the intent of the recording industry to prevent you from putting your legal CD on your ipod? Or the publishing industry to keep you from putting a copy of your kindle ebook on your ipad?"

Absolutely!! They would love this, it sets them up for eternal rentals. Under this law, due to TPMs, we no longer own rights to the content we buy, can't reuse the content, can't format shift it, can't copy the content and since we can't back it up, would have to rebuy it if our hard-drive crashes. SPEND!! SPEND!! SPEND!!

It raises an interesting question in my mind. How does this legislation affect RAID-1 (Mirror) drives since I effectively am maintaining two useable copies? Each drive could be removed and used separately. I believe this effectively makes RAID-1 mirrors illegal. :-P

The danger is that such legislation is not only totally unenforcable, it's laughable and WILL create a blatent disregard for it while at the same time pushing people who would normally be totally law abiding to be completely complacent with breaking copyright. Unenforcable laws set up dangerous precedents and can undermine the entire justice system.

Hackers and crackers break TMPs for the fun of it and they don't care about the law. On top of that, they're more driven and generally smarter than those creating the TMPS. TMPs and strict copyright laws will NEVER stop pirates, they won't even slow them down, DMCA shows this all too plainly. They only hurt the average law-abiding citizen.

@Gene
"You DO pay a steeply discounted rate. What do you think it would cost you to own the master copy of your favorite movie? You could either try to buy it, or make the movie yourself, either option would probably cost you hundreds of millions of dollars (cue posts about how much everybody's favorite movie cost to make)."

Comments like this make me crazy. For many years the recording industry and movie industry claimed the reason the cost of CDs NEVER comes down is due to a large portion of the cost being the production of the physical tape/CD/DVD/BD/etc and packaging along with the associated shipping costs. If I pay to download music or a movie, YES, I damn well expect to pay less, substantially less. There is no packaging, no physical product, a loss of quality (Compared to the original), there is a substantially larger danger of file corruption and loss due to disk failure, there should be very little distribution cost, there should be no store taking their cut and I'm already paying to use my own bandwidth. There are none of those barriers which they previously, for years, said were the reasons they couldn't lower the price. On top of that, I expect the same usage rights as I get with a physical copy. I would pay no more than 99 cents for an individual song or TV show and absolutely not more than $10 for a first-run movie, and that would only be a rare case, in reality, I would be expecting more in the $3 - $5 range for older releases. Any more than that, between the cost of the movie + the cost of used bandwidth, I might as well get a physical copy.
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

@Captain Hook

..."The effective part of the DVDCSS measure is not so much the technological aspects as much as it is the vendor licensing aspect."

Ahh.. How we managed to shift from copyright law into government mandated vendor/manufacturer contracts is still beyond me. But I can see how a lawyer might try to argue that point.

So how do we "untwist" the words so it unmistakeably means what it is intended to mean? What is it really meant to mean? :-)

When I read a contract, everything is within the context of that contract. Obviously this bill (and this topic) covers quite a bit more that a typical contract, it's context is wider. It can be interpreted in a wider variety of ways. Ways that can be conflicting to various readers.

June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
"How we managed to shift from copyright law into government mandated vendor/manufacturer contracts is still beyond me."

Well, it shouldn't be, because that is what WIPO, DMCA, ACTA, Bill C-61 and Bill C-32 have all been about from the beginning.

This is all about tied selling, and who's tech gets to be tied to who's content so that the poor users get to be controlled within these closed ecosystems.
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

@phillipsjk
... "I ask Michael Geist about it. His response (probably not a formal legal opinion) was that it was for the courts to decide."

Although I am not adverse to the courts determining the legal definition of "effective technological measures", it certainly would be helpful, to everyone, if the law itself gave some guidance.

Certainly a TPM that can be defeated with some fingernail polish or a black marker would not be considered "effective", or would it? Where is the legal low end of "qualified" TPM?

Perhaps that is something that needs to be added to C-32 amendment recommendations?

June 16, 2010

Abu said:

Thanks for the Streisand Effect, CRIAA
By trying to cover up your 'turfing campaign, you've drawn way more attention to yourselves as the shameless, insidious profit mongers you are. Mostly I feel sorry for the PR interns you employ to constantly troll message boards and blogs regurgitating your nonsensical arguments.
June 16, 2010

PW said:

...
Speaking about Right of first sale.

What are the rules on re-selling mp3's?

Could one in theory resell digital media if it was purchased legally? Either with DRM or without?

Anyone?
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

@Captain Hook
... "This is all about tied selling, and who's tech gets to be tied to who's content so that the poor users get to be controlled within these closed ecosystems."

While I won't deny this seems to be the effect of these laws, I don't (yet) believe it was the original intent. That industry has exploited these laws to achieve this effect I agree fully.

Policy makers are often misguided and naive about technology, which is why such measures manage to slip into law. They gloss over the implications or viability purely out of ignorance. We end up living with the consequences.

June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
"What are the rules on re-selling mp3's? "

That's easy. You have no such right. To do so would require making a copy. Making a copy is a protected right of copyright, which you don't own. Therefore, unless the copyright holder says otherwise. You own nothing.

That is why a general exception within copyright law that specifically exempts any copying that is performed as part of the normal interaction with the work, should be exempt. THat way, the copyright holders would still be able to keep their traditional controls, and users would be able to keep their traditional usage rights and we could all be happy. Naaa, that ain't going to happen any time soon is it.
June 16, 2010

Bovine Reload said:

This will bring down the Harper Government
Since there are so many bad issues that Canada faces like a huge deficit and high unemployment and a war in Afghanistan and all kinds of baddies out there that supposedly want to kill us the Big Media lobby groups think that they have found their moment where our distractions overwhelm us and they want to slip this under the radar.

Boy are they mistaken! This issue is the greatest threat to Canadian culture that we have ever faced and I believe that this is the only issue that should matter in the next election. This new internet power that we the citizens of Canada have inherited is our trump card against these sociopaths in the media and government and we should exercise our power and show the world how to take out an overwhelming powerful bully.

That's what it's all about, not that downloading an album is important compared to other things but that if we win this one seemingly unwinnable war there will be reverberation around the world and we will show that no matter how evil and powerful the enemy is we can always beat them if we pick one important issue at a time and smash them over the head with it until we win.

Thank you so much Mr.Geist for your excellent and intelligent work on this issue.
June 16, 2010

PW said:

...
But what say if I was a DJ and I bought all my MP3's legally and I originally downloaded them to an external HD. If I decided to get out of DJing and sold my whole HD with totally legal bought MP3's and never made a copy. Is that not legal under Right of first sale?

No copies were ever made...
June 16, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@Jonny
"If you dont like this don't buy it, AND DO NOT download it either - it just adds fuel to that argument. Simply let them know IF there were no locks, you would happily make the purchase.

Rights are a 2 way street and most of what I read in here is one way or the other. There needs to be compromise."

The reason I hold my view that the legal protection of TPMs is evil is that you are affected, even if you refuse to buy DRM'ed software and movies. Assuming this is all about copyright infringement leads me to the conclusion that the Drafters of the 1996 WIPO treaties *knew* (and still know) that DRM does not work and can never work.

If I was to pull out my tinfoil hat, I would have to say this is all about censorship. If you walk into a computer store these days, you won't find many "general purpose" computers anymore. Because they have built-in DRM restrictions down to the hardware level, they are best described as "computing consoles." We are told the consumer benefits from this because now we can watch "premium content" on the computer.

The problem is that those of us that would rather stay with DVD resolution than encrypt the video signal to the display loose economies of scale. The more expensive, power-hungry, and less reliable standard becomes cheaper because most the "sheeple" (for the lack of a better word) don't know any better.

@PW: if you want to respect Copyright laws while selling your copy of an MP3 download, you would have to delete your local copy to complete the transaction. The Goal of the "IEEE P1817 working group" is to make that automatic, though that project suffers from the same design flaws *all DRM* suffers from.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...er-drm.ars
June 16, 2010

grassroots said:

...
the astroturfing site is the work of one Brett Bell from http://grassrootsonline.ca/about

Perhaps Mr. Bell will be able to answer some of the questions we have here.
June 16, 2010

end user said:

...
@captain hook That's easy. You have no such right. To do so would require making a copy. Making a copy is a protected right of copyright, which you don't own. Therefore, unless the copyright holder says otherwise. You own nothing.

Except if I had all of my mp3's/videos/software that I purchased downloaded directly to a hard/flash drive and then sold the hard drive along with the track never once making an additional copy of the original download. The originals are now transfered to someone else and I don't posses the original download anymore.
June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@end user
Yeah, but the problem is you had to create that first copy. The only way you could make that first copy was with the copyright holders permission. To get that permission you had to agree to some sort of conditions. Those conditions trump everything in copyright.

The bottom line is, even without this Bill, you only have the rights that the copyright holder is willing to give you. If he says you can't sell your hard drive or MP3 player with these tracks then you can't, because you agreed to those conditions.

That is why, and I'll say it again, copyright law HAS TO stipulate that any copying of the work that is an integral part us personal use of that work must be considered an exception to copyright holders rights. Until that happens, users of purely digital content will have no rights, as is the case right now.
June 16, 2010

Everyday Pirate said:

No Compromise from me.
@Jonny You are absolutely free to do that, and the rest of will keep breaking an unworkable law ad neuseam, of course none of the regular pirates will get caught only thirteen year olds using sloppy methods to achieve their goals.

June 16, 2010

end user said:

...
@Captain Hook

Yes I bought the original copy which has to be downloaded from the music/video website to some kind of a storage device which is usually a hard drive. Since I sell the hd and all the files I loose possession of the files an someone else gets them. I don't see it any different then selling all of my dvd's/cd's so to someone. Since this probably hasn't been address in a court of law I'll be the first test case. Just got to find a service that will sell mp'3 to a Canadian location. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10120951-93.html

Since selling the storage device destroys my possession of the digital data I no longer own it and someone now has possession.
June 16, 2010

PW said:

...
@Captain Hook

So technically if I download an mp3 legally to my laptop. Make no copies what so ever and I give my laptop to a friend. I must delete the mp3 or I'm breaking the law (Technically)?

Labels must get huge boners thinking there is no such thing as a Right of first sale law in a digital age.

They no longer have to worry about bringing out music in different formats every 10 years to get people to buy the same thing over again.
June 16, 2010

music lover said:

DRM and TPM's
I find TPM's and DRM are bad period.

Any CD with DRM on it is not a red book standard CD and cannot call its self a Compact Disk

There needs to be the following.

Any CD DVD etc that has a TPM or DRM on it needs to be put on the cover to let the consumer be aware of what is on the disk.

At the same time if a CD is put in a computer it does not load with out the user of said PC say yes or no to install.
To do so is just the same as a virus writer. Jail them.

A means of the producer held responsible for badly written DRM or TPM... IE Sony Rootkit for one or any that will cause loss of data on a users PC or other device or any other damage.

A TPM or DRM is not applied with out the consent of the artist.

Any device cannot lock a artists own songs or music.
That he and she has performed and recorded on a device.
the Ipod does this and so does the MS Zune and the Sony software for the Mini disk players and there are probably more out there or the devices mentioned may have changed the TPM/DRM settings not sure but I am sure you get the point.

Any DRM or TPM updates on a device has to be known to the owner of the hardware and cannot change the way a device operates (deleating features etc)

No manufacture can lock out third party devices or ink cartrages etc.

Plus if a company goes bankrupt or shuts down any locked down content that the consumer owns will have all locks removed or the code released so those who bought the Video game are stuck with a coster.

This should apply to any place a DRM or TPM is used

The fact is that bill C-32 does nothing to protect the end user of bad DRM's or TPM's supplied by the industry any recourse of action to protect them selves as well as stop shoddy code in DRM's or TPM's

This has to be looked into.

PS. Is turning off auto start on a computer CD/DVD rom drive circumnavigating a auto loading DRM or TPM.

I have been doing this since the first audio CD's started using DRM or TPM's after I heard of a few peoples computers crashing and not working again.

My 2 Kw's



June 16, 2010

lon said:

...
The government does not care about a artists, composers, writers etc. They are useful idiots being used to push Harper's 'hidden agenda'. Think about it, digital made their 'professions' semi-obsolete so they have nothing to lose.
June 16, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@Captain Hook: Temporary Reproductions for Technological Processes
"That is why, and I'll say it again, copyright law HAS TO stipulate that any copying of the work that is an integral part us personal use of that work must be considered an exception to copyright holders rights."

Is this close enough?
30.71 It is not an infringement of copyright to make a reproduction of a work or other subject-matter if


(a) the reproduction forms an essential part of a technological process;


(b) the reproduction’s only purpose is to facilitate a use that is not an infringement of copyright; and


(c) the reproduction exists only for the duration of the technological process.
June 16, 2010

"I can't believe it's not totalitarianism" said:

...
Harper does not care about 'writers' and their intellectual property, residuals, etc. If he did, he would be an advocate of free speech. "Free Speech" is something that Harper, time after time, has been against.



"For a country to have a great writer is like having a second government. That is why no regime has ever loved great writers, only minor ones." -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@phillipsjk
Close, but no. Perhaps I also have not found the best expression for what I mean either.

The problem is that to acquire the copy in the first place required the making of a copy. As well to format or time shift requires making copies that persist beyond the term of the "technological process", as would reselling that copy.

So while it is a step in the right direction it still does not exempt all copying that would be required for end users to maintain their traditional rights under copyright law.
June 16, 2010

oldguy said:

...

Considering some of the other potential misunderstandings surrounding phrase definitions, is there a definition of "technological process"?

Even within the computer/device industry there are lots of ways to view that term, depending on exact context. There are cases where a "process" is something very short lived, or simply a descriptive term for a set of actions, even a long running "process" that spans multiple systems and doesn't have a defined "life". And more.

I am starting to see where terms like this can mean something quite different to someone skilled in the field, and an outsider whose background is simply using the product as a tool. When those terms make it into law, they should be clearly defined.
While it might be true that non-lawyers don't understand law, it is equally true that lawyers, and policy makers, don't usually understand technology. Yet they are bandying around terms as though they do.

Suggest they put a few geeks/nerds (young *and* old ones) on the reviewing committee for C-32. Their job will be to make sure ambiguous or inaccurate "technical terminology" is clearly defined or removed from the bill.

June 16, 2010

Marion said:

@Captain Hook
I don't know why you think downloading a song onto your computer from a server owned by someone else is different from "downloading" a CD from a physical store by purchasing it. In either case, I'm not really making a copy. I'm obtaining one.
June 16, 2010

Marion said:

...
@Jonny said:
"I am not scared of DRM. If a cd or movie has DRM I will not buy it AND I will not steal it either. That is the correct statement to make. As soon as the companies see the sales are down AND there is virtually no piracy of that product they will have no choice but to see it without DRM."

But how will you know beforehand, if CD publishers don't have an obligation to disclose it?

Also, what about DVD regions? They are DRM as well. Why should I not be able to watch DVDs I might purchase from Europe or elsewhere, particularly if they are unlikely to ever be published in our region?
June 16, 2010

Captain Hook said:

making vs buying a copy
@Marion

Technically these are two very different things. In the first case you are creating a brand new instance of the work. A copy created from the 'original' which was on the server you downloaded it from. The copy on the server still exists, and when you are done, one more copy will exist in the world. This is an action that copyright law give full control to the rights holders, and you none. Therefore any demands they make of you in exchange for giving you permission to make the copy, they are fully within their rights to make. They could demand that you stand on your head and sing Oh Canada from the roof of your house, and you would be duty bound to do so. More likely however, they will simply use this as a means to strip you of all your fair dealing and privacy rights instead.

In the second case you, the copy has already been made by the rights holder and has been offered to you for sale. Since they made the copy instead of you, you do not need to seek permission. You only need to give them your cash and you will own the copy and the media it is on. In this case, no new copies were produced and you get to keep the rights copyright law gave to you since you were not involved in making the copy.

Get it?

Sadly no one in Ottawa ever speaks up for the poor consumer, so these laws get made and then everybody wonders why no one respects copyright any more.
June 16, 2010

Roguesupport said:

Digital Lock Exception = CRIMINALIZING MATH
WTF, people?

Islamic society was the most advanced until someone in authority said "Math is the tool of the devil". We see today the ignorant remnants of THAT societal structure.

How far away is it in time, before people with a computer science degree become a "low-life MATH-er"?

I break digital locks because I like to see how they work. NOT A CRIME. It's a logical process, like algebra (tool of the devil).

This is a FAR LARGER issue than people are discussing. THIS is social engineering.
June 17, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@Captain Hook
I understand what your are saying, but I'm not sure EULA's are enforceable contracts unless specific conditions are met. (INAL, in case it not obvious). For example, for the Windows 7 EULA, I have come to the conclusion that the "stick" is not Copyright Law, but trademark law.

That is, when you get the computer, Windows is pre-installed (for some definitions of pre-installed). I have determined that the "by using this software..." section is preamble (so, by itself has no effect; it only advises you what the license does). As far as I can determine, you can use Windows without agreeing to the license without violating copyright law (unless you use Windows Update). However, patent law allows Microsoft to dictate how their patents are used. So if you are using Windows without agreeing to the license, Microsoft can accuse you of violating their patents without a license (that would be the EULA). I am leaving aside the question whether any of Microsoft's (software) patents would be enforceable in Canada.

Incidentally, I think the prospect of patent expiry is the *real* reason publishers want TPMs to be protected by law: Currently, patent and Trademark law is used to dictate the design of "authorized players." However, if the patents on making a DVD player expire (within 20 years) and I decide to forgo the DVD Forum's logo, I can make a DVD player with any features I want. DRM relies on the "authorized players" having a narrow feature set (read: enforcing the DRM scheme). With the legal protection of TPMs, they can last longer than 20 years (in theory). I will leave it to the real lawyers to decide if TPMs no longer apply when the copyright expires.

Back to the original discussion, you seem to be claiming that any "click wrap" agreements on the server you are downloading the MP3 from are legally binding. How do you know you are making a "true" copy, and that the copy on the server was not a temporary copy created when you made the purchase? The Canonical "Ubuntu One" Music store seems to be set up this way (the fixation is transferred to your personal web space). https://one.ubuntu.com/

As for format shifting, I think you can consider it a transfer if your delete the original (but would not want to do that after a lossy conversion).

For greater clarity, that MP3 file on your hard-drive can be considered "temporary" if you delete it after selling a copy to somebody else. The "Technological Process" can be simply storage. Not sure how many Judges would agree with me though.

June 17, 2010

phillipsjk said:

oops
should read: "...the "stick" is not Copyright Law, but *patent* law. ..."
June 17, 2010

Crockett said:

The Truth ... all posturing aside.
Ok, here is the reality of the big media conglomerates (MC) world view in five easy steps ...

1) The MC don't really care about stopping copyright infringement because they know they can't.
2) The MC use the excuse (and misrepresentation) of losses to copyright infringement to push for laws with digital locks.
3) Digital locks do not stop copyright infringement, only inconvenience the legit consumer.
4) The real reason for digital locks is to impede fair use so as to monetize extra revenue streams for the same digital content in mutiple formats.
5) The MC won't admit to this because ...
a) it makes them look bad
b) they believe the general public does not have the ability to see through their deceit.

So there it is, plain and simple. The money has been good, and hey, who would want that to end? But the continual tick of technological advancement has put many an industry on the ropes or out altogether. Did they all have the ability or the balls to philander politicians into legislating their out of date business practices into law? Obviously not. Change or die is the awkward reality that is dawning on the minds of those who have had it so good for so long. Some are grasping that, others are having their private tantrums. In the end, as in the laws of evolution, only those who can adapt will survive.

June 17, 2010

Cody said:

What's Easiest
Under bill C-32 it's illegal for me to play DVDs because of the lack of offical DVD support for linux.

I've had CDs that have copy protection built into them making it impossible for me to copy them to my iPod. Great, so now what? No I won't rebuy something I already bought, I'll either circumvent the copy protection or get it via torrents.

I buy a game, and it has DRM. The DRM locks me out of playing the game. This happens all the time to legitimate users. What can I do? Circumvent it or get a DRM-free version from a torrent site.

I buy music from an online store, but it goes bankrupt and the DRM servers go down, unfortunately, with that goes my ability to play the music. That'd be like if you had a car and it had to call Ford to start the car, except in this scenario Ford went bankrupt and doesn't any longer exist. What can you do? Well remove that functionality.

Unfortunately, all of these scenarios are illegal under DMCA and bill C-32. It castrates a person's ability to legitimately enjoy media that was legitimately purchased. Until companies can provide EASY and DRM-FREE access to media through online distribution, they will have this fight because for the vast majority of cases, it's orders of magnitude easier for both 'getting' and 'using' software and media than to legitimately buy it.

I personally love the iTunes store. It makes it incredibly easy for me to buy music when I want. I don't need to go find a record store, and hope that it's open. If it's 3am and I want that song I just heard in the club, well I can get it RIGHT then. Apple and the iTunes store have definitely done things right, and the example needs to be picked up by other industries as the RIGHT way to do business.
June 17, 2010

spate said:

Only large companies will benefit
In the games industry where I work, we've already realized the futility of using digital locks to protect content. It's there as a nuisance to make piracy more difficult, nothing more. If you look at the big publishers, many of them are transitioning to models which require over-the-internet authorization of some sort to use their triple-A game products. At the entry level, new developers are using the absence of digital locks as a selling point for their titles.

My thought is that this legislation is only going to help you if you're a big company, or have a lot of lawyers of your own. Cops don't care about small-scale infringement, and most smaller companies don't have the legal firepower on staff to deal with this sort of thing directly. So unless we become too big to fail at some point in the future, this simply isn't going to help us.
June 17, 2010

strunk&white said:

...
"Sadly no one in Ottawa ever speaks up for the poor consumer..."

Hook, where have you been? All Michael Geist (who probably has more connections in Ottawa than Stephen Harper) does is speak for the consumer. If his arguments have been less than convincing over many, many years of trying to influence legislation, I'd say that's on him.
June 17, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
Whitey. It is true that Geist does speak to consumer interests among others. He is however only one person and judging by the number of private meetings with ministers he gets compared to what the CRIA and various creator groups get, he can hardly be said to have strong connections.
June 17, 2010

RWB said:

Some thoughts from a music fan
For a group of people who boldly stand behind 'facts', there are a lot of assumptions being made about the goals of “C-32 supporters” that are outright false. As someone who works in the creative industry I wanted to offer some general sentiments here that might offer some clarity. I can only speak from the perspective of the music community, which unfortunately does often become the centre of these discussions – I guess it’s fun to bash “record labels” without any real knowledge of what current beliefs throughout the whole industry are (of which record labels are only a part of).

I've worked in all aspects of music - as an artist, with artists, booking shows, indie labels, major labels - you name it. And I hate to break it to many of you folks, we are all living, breathing Canadian citizens with our own free-thinking opinions on Copyright - and (shock!) sometimes we don't always have the same view! The assumption that we are blindly following some 'astroturf' campaign, and we are “shameless, insidious profit mongers” is truly sad. Do you know anyone in these industries? Anyone who uses that ‘astroturf’ website does so freely with their own voice.

@Bentley who suggested content industry people are paid to do this - not only is this totally untrue, it's laughable.

Anyway, on the raging debate on locks - everyone assumes content owners want to restrict consumer behavior. @WP who said “This is nothing more than industry taking away consumers rights”. With respect to music, I'd love to see consumers being able to do whatever they personally want with the music they legally purchase, or pay for access to (when cloud services start to become more common). In many ways, music is far ahead of other forms of content in terms of allowing DRM-free content. And while I totally accept that it's extremely difficult to use policy to stop outright illegal theft/distribution (P2P or other private methods), we have to at least make a stand at the Government level, so we can ENCOURAGE innovation, not stifle it. Yes, that's right - encourage. How? I can tell you first-hand that many next-gen music services that consumers are raving about abroad (Spotify, Rdio, Pandora, etc) are not in a rush to launch in Canada for many factors, but one of the biggest is a perceived difficulty of our market from a legal standpoint - we just don't appear to be a market where consumers are encouraged to pay for anything. The industry doesn’t want to “punish” consumers. It doesn’t want to “make it harder” to buy music products – quite the opposite on both fronts! I’d love to see a music market thriving with consumer choice - downloads, physical products (hell, even vinyl if you want it!), streaming/cloud access services, etc – all accessible from whatever device(s) I prefer, currently or ones developed in the future. All of which flows money into the economy and to the artists who create the content in the first place, as well as their representatives, from independents right up to the majors.

Does the bill accomplish this? Of course not! This is why it needs to be discussed and amended so that it works for as many people as possible - yes, including content owners.

Thanks for letting me share my opinion, even though “Dohn Joe” seems to think my post should be deleted. Is that a way to have an open discussion? It's sad that opinions of music/film/etc employees don't seem to be valid to many of you. Would a Microsoft employee's opinion be invalid in a discussion about Linux? It’s just a circle-jerk otherwise. I'd like to hope that open dialogue continues. The craziest thing about all this is that these discussions can get so catty so quickly, and at the end of the day, we all actually share many of the same views about consumer rights and the right for content creators to monetize content! I am sensible enough to realize that most of you aren't of the 'freetard' camp who want to 'liberate' all content for free. Let’s try and focus on the parts of the bill (especially TPMs) that need to be clarified and fixed so that they really work for Canadians.
June 17, 2010

Wemgadge said:

Almost 90,000 people on Facebook alone want fair copyright for Canada.
But less than 300 people "like" the fake fair copyright page set up and orchestrated by http://www.adsnational.com/socialmedia
June 17, 2010

Crockett said:

Being Catty
@RWB I appreciate your measured response and discussion. I will admit my last post was, as you say, "catty" but that is the anger against the falsehoods and bullying being put forward by most industry representatives. The whole notion of a download = a lost sale is logically unsound, and the huge loss numbers being used are based on that. Reports showing that downloading in many cases actually helps those industries is either ignored or ridiculed, while many of us who do so know it to be true. So in actuality there is cattiness from both camps.

Take Pandora for instance, I have discovered or rediscovered music that I quite enjoy and gone onto purchasing it. Now, apparently, Pandora is no longer available in Canada so now it's back to sampling by torrents. Can I watch Hulu from Canada, no .. again back to P2P. The scarcity model just does not work anymore, and locking things down tighter is not the solution.

It is obvious there is mistrust on both sides, but I agree that open civil discussion is the better way to find a solution. Thanks for reminding me of that.
June 17, 2010

TPMs for PM said:

TPM debate =! the Piracy Debate
I don't know if this has been said already but, here goes... I'm assuming the whole point of TPMs is to deter piracy, hence the harsh laws surrounding the breaking of them.

However folks who pirate will not have to deal with TPM only paying consumers, also where's the incentive for a long time pirate to stop pirating if there's better value in a pirate product than in a legit one.

We're not only talking price tag here, we're talking freedom to use the file(s) as you see fit.

Not only are we encouraging folks to continue pirating by establishing a TPM regime, but we're also creating another grey-market for TPM busters. If its that risky, why not pay someone else to take the risk for me. (the all those $40 GSM unlockers from back in the day)

Me thinks the means being taken to protect legitimate art would create greater value for pirated goods than legitimate ones.

Some economic assessments would probably help all the pro-TPM artists make more educated decisions about their careers.
June 17, 2010

Crockett said:

and one more thing ...
I also understand that those who work in the creative industries need to earn a living just like anyone else. It is the perception of the greed in the media industry (a stereotype not to be applied to all) that gets people upset. I have monthly expenses just like anyone else, and while I don't expect to get things for free I also do not have a endless entertainment budget. I do not have a cable subscription but I buy many TV/DVD and movie sets, I support what I watch. If I want to watch it on my TV, computer or Ipod then I should be able to do that. This proposed legislation prevents that unless I pay for content more than once. Some may disagree that I have that right but the reality is that the population at large agrees with that position. Passing laws to make what the majority sees as fair illegal has always been proven to be ineffective.

When I was a kid, the vinyl 45 single was popular and I bought my music that way. With the advent of CD technology people desired to upgrade their collections which resulted in increased profits. Also, no one produced CD 'singles' so albums where the only real option. Profits for this period were very, very good for the industry and they got used to that, technology in this case was a boon for them. Now with the advent of digital media and distribution the Album has lost some of it's popularity. With the single now available and popular, profits have decreased while the number 'sales transactions' have actually increased. This has led to lower profits and income for the labels and distributors, and that is what has them upset, and understandably so. But it is not "piracy" that is main cause of these lower profits, and to say so is neither rational or true.

I do not know what the real solution are to these issues we have today. I think most people would agree that artists deserve to be compensated, and obviously neither the freebie or scarcity models will work, but the days of the big media distributors are done. People, I think, will have respect for artists who produce good works and will want to reward them for that. How that system will evolve, we'll have to see in the years to come.
June 17, 2010

RWB said:

...
@Crockett - Indeed, Pandora and piles of other services *should* be here, and believe me, I'm in the music industry and trying to make this happen :)

@Wemgadge - but that Facebook group existed already, and the other one is new? I'd hope that we're not basing too much on the number of people clicking Facebook 'like' buttons, which can be done by anyone (including non-Canadians!)

@TPMs for PM - agreed that TPMs vs piracy is really the thorniest part of all this. What CAN be done to deter widespread piracy? Lots of varying high-quality legal services being made available to Canadians is obviously the best way to do this, but legal services need *some* sort of system to allow access to the paying customer only - essentially we need "consumer-friendly" TPMs, which I don't think is an impossible goal! And even if all this wonderful consumer choice is out there, there will still be people who just simply don't want to pay for anything - can anything be done about them? Is the answer really "nothing"? Honest question...
June 17, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@RWB
The rational discussion about changes to the bill can found here:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5117/125/
Well, maybe not, but that is where I put *my* constructive criticism.
June 17, 2010

RWB said:

...
@ Crockett
You're quite right about the boon in sales during the CD era, and the challenges of the internet era. And while I don't think piracy is the sole cause of lost sales, it doesn't take a math expert to look at the Canadian sales volume (let's say units, not dollars) decrease versus P2P traffic increase during the same period. TONS of people not paying for TONS of content = less money in the system, simple as that. What the exact correlation is, I can't say, nor would I profess to.

Again, at the end of the day I'm on side with any consumer concerns about being able to do whatever you want with what you've bought - for personal reasons of course (backup copies, device shifting, etc etc)
June 17, 2010

Crockett said:

People wanting stuff for free?
QUOTE .. "And even if all this wonderful consumer choice is out there, there will still be people who just simply don't want to pay for anything - can anything be done about them? Is the answer really "nothing"? Honest question..."

In reality? Probably not. Some people have always taken things for free and will continue to do so, human nature. No matter how many laws are passed it will not likely change their behavior.

On the other hand it is also human nature to want to support what you value, and that I think is the key going forward. Rather than the adversarial approach the industry is taking against the consumer (suing infringes, TPM), they should instead be rewarding people for their loyalty. Right now there is so much bad blood that many feel justified in their actions. If we can flip that around then I think it could be a win-win situation. A difficult task to accomplish, and a long road to figure it out, but in the end I think the only way.
June 17, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Captain Hook said:
...
Whitey. It is true that Geist does speak to consumer interests among others. He is however only one person and judging by the number of private meetings with ministers he gets compared to what the CRIA and various creator groups get, he can hardly be said to have strong connections.


@ Captain Hook
Forgetting the wallet padding groups like MPAA/RIAA/CRIA are infamous for? (And we all know there is no such thing as an honest politician)





@ RWB

@Bentley who suggested content industry people are paid to do this - not only is this totally untrue, it's laughable.

No.. the avg person probably is not paid.. but the creator behind the astroturf campaign sure is getting paid big $$ and many unwitting pawns are putting $ in his pockets
( Brett Bell from http://grassrootsonline.ca/about )



As for the rest the reality is that artists will not have "control" but the conglomerates will
and we all know the only thing they give a shit about is $$$ and that above all else is their goal. At the expense of consumers and artists.

June 17, 2010

RWB said:

...
Actually Glenn, that's not true w/r/r "control" - we have strict rules around what we can do with our artists' content - they actually ultimately have the control! Do we care about sales? Sure - this is a free market economy. But as hard as it is to believe, there are no "suits" where I work, and we all love music more than you can imagine. I could easily make far more money in an identical role in another industry, as could any senior exec in a music company - but we do it because (gasp!) we do want to evolve the industry!

You want to know who the REAL fat cats are? Look no further than the technology sector - the guy from megaupload.com just bought the most expensive house in New Zealand:
http://blog.mx510.com/2010/06/07/the-mega-money-world-of-megaupload-com/

Thanks philipsjk - will check that post from now on ;)

@Crockett - I think you're quite right in your last post. It will take time to build trust and woo people to legal services.
June 17, 2010

Bruce IV said:

Proposal
So, this would likely never fly with the content industries, but here's my $0.02 on how law regarding multimedia should work.

If I buy a CD, I'm allowed to put it in my CD player, and listen to it. I think I'm even allowed to have some friends over, and play it in the background while we hang out. However, I'm not allowed to put up signs saying "Public performance of X new album in City Park Friday at 9", then bring my stereo to the park to play the CD, even if I don't make any profit on the performance. It goes without saying I'm not allowed to make 1000 copies in my basement and sell them. IANAL, but I'm under the impression this generally outlines "fair use", and is the current state of the law.

My idea would be to take these existing rights, and divorce them from the distribution media, so I end up with exactly the same rights to the CD I buy at the store, and the album I download off iTunes, because the rights are tied to my possession of (a copy of) the bits forming the music, not the distribution media. That way, if I want to rip my CD to mp3 so I can listen to it on my phone, I can - if I want to run the tracks off it through some sort of upsampling music-inference program that infers a higher-definition surround-sound track from the original CD stereo, I can. However, if tomorrow the record label releases some high-tech new surround sound, high-def version of the track, i don't have the right to download it from P2P, because I didn't buy a licence to those bits, I bought a licence to the bits that came on the original CD. (Incidentally, I'd also be able to sell my copy of the downloaded album, or the mp3s I rip from the one I got in the store - I'd be transferring my rights to the bits to a new holder, and would be breaking the law if I retained a copy once I transferred the rights.)

Now, such a scheme would likely also need a second sort of licence, for things like streaming radio - a kind of "you may listen to this exactly once, exactly within the timeframe it's streaming." - just because I can listen to a track the artist put up on something like Purevolume doesn't mean I own it, and this wouldn't forbid the existing streaming licence models. I'd just like to see a default that says, in the absence of an explicit licence to the contrary, I would have the sort of rights I detailed in the above paragraph to content sold to me. I think market forces would be enough to get the content industry to sell things under this sort of licence, if it was the legislated default.
June 17, 2010

IamME said:

@RWB
"I can tell you first-hand that many next-gen music services that consumers are raving about abroad (Spotify, Rdio, Pandora, etc) are not in a rush to launch in Canada for many factors, but one of the biggest is a perceived difficulty of our market from a legal standpoint - we just don't appear to be a market where consumers are encouraged to pay for anything."

While I sympathize with anyone trying to make a living in the music industry...prehaps one of the most corrupt businesses in the world. I don't necessarily think your statement is true. We have a relatively small piracy rate compared to many countries, especially compared to Europe and Asia, I would argue we're even less than in the US. The largest problem with establishing these services in Canada is the relatively small market. We have approximately 10 time less the population than in the US. In reality the sellable market is even smaller than that since we have many in remote and Northern areas who do not have adequate Internet infrastructure to make these services usable. They don't want to go through the licensing process because Canada offers a considerably smaller profit margin...all about the bottom dollar. I would be surprised if ANY of these premium services get offered in Canada. It's simple, people resort to torrents because the services aren't here, and those that are are often outrageously expensive compared to those offered in the US. People notice...do price comparisons between Amazon.com and Amazon.ca, espeically for movies...it can be shocking. If Canada had 300M people, like the US, we all very well know they'd be breaking down our doors to offer services. If you've worked in all aspects of the industry, as you say, then you'd know this legislation does very little to help actual artists. If anything I would argue it hurts artist by limiting circulation. This legislation is all helping big-business media and about gaining control to support a dying business model.

I do not support bootlegging entertainment and buy all my media. I only download what I cannot buy...usually missed TV shows (Because I don't own a PVR) or forgein movies not released here.
June 17, 2010

Napalm said:

June 17, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ RWB

Sorry but megaupload generates it's $ from subscribers and advertising. That has nothing to do with C-32 / DRM / TPM. While I won't argue the owner is a definitely a rich man to condemn him for that would be on the same level as saying Google is evil because they make $ from advertising etc etc. This is not about making money and is for another discussion entirely.


One of the huge differences is the infamous rip off of both consumers and artists the music industry is very well known for for decades. Now you and the proponents of C-32 / DMCA etc want us to effectively hand over "control" of TPM / DRM which would then legally supersede consumers rights to those KNOWN to screw people over?

Anyone with even half a brain should know that is blatantly stupid. (DMCA once again everyone is yet more proof of this. Even one of it's original creators says it is a total failure.)

Not to mention enacting laws to apply DRM does not do squat to prevent piracy. It just screws over the actual paying consumer which has been proven time and time again already. And such not only could but undoubtedly would be used by the same industry to "increase revenue". Again common sense screams that this would happen every time based on already documented history.

Reality is the "business model" of the music industry (and others to a different extent) is a dying beast... like it or not.

The artist no longer needs "YOU" to reach the consumer and the RIAA etc are all po'd since that means no $ for them.

Want proof? How about the labels that tried suing their own artists for freely giving away their music to the fans. (Tom Petty for example)..

Oh and funny how all of the effort from the same people goes into useless crap like DRM under the claim to "stop piracy" and make sure the artists get paid.

Meanwhile the same people have been ripping off the same artists for years on end blatantly. (plenty of links in this forum alone to give ample proof of this never mind via Google etc)

Reality check... instead of worrying about "DRM will ensure I have an income and protect my out dated business model" and trying to claim it's "for the benefit of artists" etc etc... how about honestly instead. If you are really concerned about the benefit of artists / consumers etc get out of this industry completely... it'll be doing us all a favor including yourself (based on your own prior statements)

C-32 and ACTA are doomed because it is fundamentally flawed and all the pushing from US corporations will not force us to go by their wishes. I for one refuse to be a sheeple.
June 17, 2010

TPMs for PM said:

MegaUpload
@RWB

Although I really have no opinion of MegaUpload, having never visited the site, its popularity is outerworldy. It makes the old guard pale in comparison.

Lessons that could be learned by content producers are as follows:

People will visit your site if they can get free stuff. If you
host advertising on your site, people are likely to click that advertising and visit your sponsor's sites as well. Yes you are "giving away" your content, but you're being paid to host a site with your content instead.

Now this is an over-simplification of switching business models, but at it's core that's where Mr. MegaUpload makes his money, in advertising.

Artist could do the same, either individually or as part of label-like organizations, the only folks that would be "cut-out" would be the existing bureaucracy which neither artists or consumers want anyways.





June 17, 2010

IamME said:

...
"Want proof? How about the labels that tried suing their own artists for freely giving away their music to the fans. (Tom Petty for example).."

Same thing happended to "Prince" a few years ago. He pre-released one of his CDs packages in some magazine in the UK if I remember right.
June 17, 2010

IamME said:

...correction
"...'packaged' in some magazine in the UK if I remember right. "
June 17, 2010

Glenn said:

...
IamME said:
...
"Want proof? How about the labels that tried suing their own artists for freely giving away their music to the fans. (Tom Petty for example).."

Same thing happended to "Prince" a few years ago. He pre-released one of his CDs packages in some magazine in the UK if I remember right.

@ IamME

Indeed.. and Trent Reznor, Morissette and others..



But wait.. the "Labels" are looking out for consumers and artists best interests! We should trust them and surrender our rights since they will look after us!

(For those whom do not get it Google sarcasm)
June 17, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Oh and to clairify.. it is not just the RIAA.. but the CIRA, MPAA, and many others whom will undoubtedly not only support C-32 and ACTA but will abuse it to their own ends at any opportunity. (Same as they have with the DMCA) So it's not just about music / artists but corporate greed in general.
June 17, 2010

RWB said:

...
@IamME - "We have a relatively small piracy rate"
In volume, sure (we are a small market as you say), but per capita - we have a lot of 'priates' (although you're right that Asia is a different matter). And while we do have a small population, we are a good size market to launch in! There's tons of next-gen services in Scandinavian countires with a fraction of our market size.

@Glenn - you're right that the Megaupload guy is a sideshow here, and I admit I was being provocative. But it's an illustration of the frustration content owners have when faced with tech developers saying "our service is legit, it's the USERS breaking the law by uploading copyrighted materials", yet everyone agrees that attacking consumers is the wrong approach. Quite a dilly of a pickle! And to condemn his is actually quite logical - he's a criminal (and has been convicted in the past).

And you have repeatedly missed my point - did you not get the memo that music companies have abandoned DRM? I totally understand debate around video games, Blu-rays, etc - but music companies have responded to consumer demand. And I wouldn't want to "control" consumer behaviour - we've moved past that in our industry! And the "business model" isn't a dying beast at all - just changing dramatically, and with new players. Hey, that's the free market!
June 17, 2010

Luke said:

My goal
I'm an academic researcher.

My rights to use various copyrighted works are covered under fair dealing.

My goal in terms of copyright reform is to ensure I don't end up breaking the law to make perfectly legitimate, non-infringing, fair-dealing use of copyrighted works.

I presume you wouldn't want to make it illegal to break into your own car if you lock yourself out?

That's basically what I'm getting at here: I want the right to break locks to make perfectly legal use of copyrighted works.
June 17, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ RWB

...
@IamME - "We have a relatively small piracy rate"
In volume, sure (we are a small market as you say), but per capita - we have a lot of 'pirates' (although you're right that Asia is a different matter). And while we do have a small population, we are a good size market to launch in! There's tons of next-gen services in Scandinavian countries with a fraction of our market size.

World wide we are a very small market. In many aspects we get an allocation of "product" of less than 4% vs the US market at most. Add to that the added costs to operate legally in another country (sometimes nil but most often not) and that can be a determent.

As for piracy yes there are pirates in Canada.. by the definition usually tossed around by the aforementioned groups they would call me a criminal and want me put in prison for many years.
(I not only crack every game/app etc I have but I bypass region coding of DVDs etc as well as auto skip forced commercials built in etc etc.. all of which they consider "illegal" etc)

However they also try to claim that DRM etc helps stop mass piracy / counterfeiting etc etc... which is a total load of crap and while doing that with one hand the other is trying to sue a grandmother in NJ for thousands of dollars w/o even having any proof of "downloading" (And she did not even own a computer)

Case in point... I have only ever once been sent a "DMCA infringement" notice.. Which I of course laughed at for many reasons.

#1 This is CANADA and the DMCA has no legal backing here at all and therefore was a pointless waste of everyone's time.

#2 The accused infringement was for downloading an episode of "Sex In the City" which I not only can't stand (from what little I've ever seen) but no one else with any access to my "IP" cares one bit about either. (Even my wife thinks it's total crap).

#3 The IP of the infringement as outlined in their DMCA notice was not even MINE... it was not even for the right ISP!

#4 The "security department" of Cogeco (former ISP now) was so unbelievably stupid they didn't even understand how to read an email header properly. (Long story)

And those in some parts of C-32 and/or ACTA would be the people "in charge" of TPM/DRM etc... hardly confidence inspiring!







@Glenn - you're right that the Megaupload guy is a sideshow here, and I admit I was being provocative. But it's an illustration of the frustration content owners have when faced with tech developers saying "our service is legit, it's the USERS breaking the law by uploading copyrighted materials", yet everyone agrees that attacking consumers is the wrong approach. Quite a dilly of a pickle! And to condemn his is actually quite logical - he's a criminal (and has been convicted in the past).


Sorry but no... that is again irrelevant. Much the same as the arguement about torrent sites. There is NOTHING illegal at all about torrents. Hence why ISOhunt is preemptively suing the CRIA. You cannot punish or assume guilt by those standards.

Otherwise Google would be "inducing copyright infringement" along with Yahoo, MSN etc etc.
Not to mention as well as the ISBN card catalog of a library would be the same thing by those standards. (It could be used to locate something and then copy it w/o permission.)

It's the same bullshit logic as all of the "gun control" laws and their totally infective results other than a massive waste of time and money. The gun does not kill people.. people do. To try to blame the gun is pointless. If there was no gun there are tons of other ways to kill.

If there was no torrents which in and of themselves there would still be piracy.

Ineffective and pointless crap like DRM does nothing to stop piracy at all. It just is a BS smoke screen for what is really wanted which is control. More for them and far far less for the consumer.. to which would make them more profits.

June 17, 2010

Glenn said:

...
(Part 2... message was too big apparently.)

Quote
And you have repeatedly missed my point - did you not get the memo that music companies have abandoned DRM? I totally understand debate around video games, Blu-rays, etc - but music companies have responded to consumer demand. And I wouldn't want to "control" consumer behavior - we've moved past that in our industry! And the "business model" isn't a dying beast at all - just changing dramatically, and with new players. Hey, that's the free market!
Unquote


I did not miss your point... However the music industry only backed off DRM after learning the hard way it was pointless and the backlash from the public esp from BS like the infamous Sony root-kit. (I know.. I was involved in part of the process of exposing that pathetic display of stupidity. And No I am not a Lawyer,.. just an long time IT expert. If I had my way on that one I'd have seen Sony hauled into court for creating a Trojan.)

That does not mean they would not jump right back onto DRM the instant some executive thinks it is a legal way to increase profits.

You also fail to state that a big part of what the "RIAA / MPAA / CRIA" etc want is to change the laws to make breaking DRM a criminal issue instead of a civil one. Therefore making the government into the "bad guy" (and offloading costs as well to tax payers)

By allowing legal protection of DRM/TPM we not only give up virtually all consumer rights we do so at our own expense while protecting the obsolete business models and "fat cats" so afraid of change.


Not to even touch on other aspects of the flawed C-32/ACTA etc such as DVD region coding and *nix ect

There is a huge amount to this beyond just the music industry.. though that will continue to be a focal point for obvious reasons.

This also does not even touch on other aspects of digital locks such as generic printer ink, car ECM modules, garage door openers.. hell even a "smart coffee" maker for that matter could and would be impacted by the farce known as C-32 as it stands now. (See DMCA failure for examples)


Oh and as for artists... I bypassed the dying business model already several times.. for the little music I have here I downloaded and instead of buying the CD I gave $ straight to the actual artists.

June 17, 2010

IamME said:

@RWB
"There's tons of next-gen services in Scandinavian countires with a fraction of our market size."

Yes, but cross-boarder trade regulations in Europe are more lax and with both Sweden and Finland being part of the European Union, that only opens their boards more. It's like coparing apples to oranges.

DRM is not dead, it has only shifted focus and we'll see more prevalence in hardware. Once it becomes illegal to break DRM, that only opens the doors for propietary devices where you can only get music from a certain artist if you own a certain device. Before you laugh...it's already happened with Amazon's Kindle. If you don't have a Kindle, you can't get certain books. This law will make it illegal to change the format to ePub so that it can be viewed on other devices. I guarantee we'll start seeing a lot more of this if this gets passed as is. In short this legalizes corporate monopoly.
June 17, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@RWB
"And you have repeatedly missed my point - did you not get the memo that music companies have abandoned DRM?"

I have missed the memo. Nokia offers their DRM-free music service in only one country: China. When Telus offered their DRM-Free music service, they discovered that many of their phones did phones did not support DRM-free music. I am not even sure how that is possible; my guess without following up is that Telus was mindful of the CPRM build into every SD card.

The last time I was in music store, I did not see the "Compact Disc; Digital Audio" logo (A $2 CD at a stationary store did have the logo). If you are not selling Red book compliant CDs, why should I assume they are DRM-free?

Know that "Quake 4" box I mentioned in the comments for the other blog post? I immediately stopped reading the box when I saw that hint of DRM in the fine print. This was despite the fact I was reasonably sure I could get the game to run DRM-free. If is not an isolated incident. When I made a donation to a local radio station, I was reluctant to accept extra Sample CDs they were giving away because none of them had the CD;DA logo (so may not have been CDs).

My brother disregards my advice and plays DRM-encumbered games. When something inevitably goes wrong, I have a hard time determining if the problem is overheating hardware, buggy software, or maliciously designed software (DRM) causing the problem. Game DRM in particular assumes you have a dedicated computer for gaming. You can not install most games without administrative privileges.

Copyright does cover software, so discussing software is very relevant to the discussion. You probably use software while producing music. It is my understanding the Qbase uses an intrusive dongle that does not always work properly. Do you want legislation passed encouraging such behavior? Do you like your suppliers dictating what kind of computing hardware you have to use?

Consumers don't like Movie, game and music publishers dictating what kind of computing hardware they can use.
June 17, 2010

WP said:

...
@RWB

It's good to have an open and friendly debate.

I was in the music business for a major portion of my life. I do indeed know how things work.

Little known fact by the consumer. But artist and labels have been getting paid by giving away free music for many many years. As we all know, it's called promotion.

Record labels have promotional depts set up to hand out thousands of free copies of each single or album to DJ's, record pools, etc. The idea is that as an artist music becomes popular, money will follow. This can still hold true in the music business today. Artist can still make money through things like performance and licensing, etc... The kicker was that labels handed back those costs to artist to recoup their money. Which in the end, made less money for artist from their sales.

Labels were not only giving away music for free. But they charge artist back those cost to recoup their money...


When all is said and done. This is my main problem. The industry sees this as something they've been trying to get for years. To stop the consumer from sharing their products (Can't share an Mp3, like everyone has been able to do since media formats have been around), stop the re-sale of those products (No more first sale rights) and the list goes on...

DRM is just another step to get these industry wants.

It does absolutely nothing to stop piracy. It only takes away rights consumers have always had.

I have zero problem making it illegal and huge fines for any commercial profiteering from peoples works. But all these idea's about taking away consumers rights on products they paid for or the idea of going after people for personal use is ridiculous IMO.
June 17, 2010

IamME said:

@WP - RE: Giving Away Music
"Record labels have promotional depts set up to hand out thousands of free copies of each single or album to DJ's, record pools, etc."

This is not giving it away, these are licensed public performances by approved individuals. This is vastly different than giving it to Joe Public for their own private use. Other than that, I agree with most of your position.

"Labels were not only giving away music for free. But they charge artist back those cost to recoup their money..."

A polite way of saying they're screwing the artists.
June 17, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@IamMe
"This is not giving it away, these are licensed public performances by approved individuals."

Those radio stations get more demo CDs than they know what to do with. They do end up being sold or given away to the general public.
June 17, 2010

WP said:

...
@IamME

Throughout much of the 90's and most of the 00's you could just show up on servicing days and get free music. Didn't even really have to be a proper DJ. Many dudes ended up selling these things to stores.

Anyways, wayy off topic. I was just throwing out examples.

All labels are setting up is trying to take away rights they've been trying to do for the last 20 years. In the name of piracy is how they are now going about it.
June 17, 2010

David said:

DRM prevalence
Saying that C-32 digital lock provisions won't impact moral citizens much because there won't be much DRM in the future is like saying we can throw out the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because our government is comprised of trustworthy honourable individuals who would never cause any injustice to the populace. This is a notion that comes as second nature to people who are studied in law.

The MAFIAA wouldn't spend millions lobbying for these provisions if they didn't have plans to use them.
June 17, 2010

Glenn said:

...
David said:
DRM prevalence
Saying that C-32 digital lock provisions won't impact moral citizens much because there won't be much DRM in the future is like saying we can throw out the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because our government is comprised of trustworthy honourable individuals who would never cause any injustice to the populace. This is a notion that comes as second nature to people who are studied in law.

The MAFIAA wouldn't spend millions lobbying for these provisions if they didn't have plans to use them.



@ David Very well said IMO!
June 18, 2010

IamME said:

@David
"The MAFIAA wouldn't spend millions lobbying for these provisions if they didn't have plans to use them."

I also agree...well stated. I think the industry is trying to lull us in to a false sense of security by temporarily backing off on the use of DRM. Once there are anti-circumvention laws in place to protect the DRM, they will use them with a vengence.
June 18, 2010

ABarlow said:

...
@Captain Hook

How do you see this as being different from a physical book? The text of the book is property of the rights holder, and copies of the text are made by the publisher and distributed to the end user. Yet, I am free to sell the book I own to friends, read it aloud in the middle of the street, loan the book out to friends, quote selected passages for academic purposes, etc. without any reference to the rights holder. What, in your mind, is the fundamental difference between the book and doing all of those same things with a single, legally purchased E-book, piece of music, or movie, saved to an external flash drive?
June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
@ABarlow.

That's just it. It shouldn't be. But by the law it is. Due to a side effect of the whole digital media technology. The fact that in order for you to engage in any typical use behaviour (not to mention acquiring a copy in the first place in the case of downloaded media) requires the creation of a copy. The copy is what is different. You did not have to make a copy of the book in order to read it, but you do with an ebook, and copying is a protected right (hence the term copyright).

Now Bill C-32 is pretty good in this way in that it exempts most copies which are required for normal interaction behaviours. It does not however exempt them when digital lock are involved, or when acquiring the initial copy, which means that a license will be required. This license can totally undermine each and every right you ever thought you had.

June 18, 2010

RWB said:

pointless
I really find it frustrating that no-one is seeing that I'm agreeing with many of you: consumer behaviour related to the personal consumption of any legally-aquired content/media should not be a criminal offence - isn't that the core of the issue here? Well, we agree on that! The TPM elements in C-32 needs to be discussed!

Yes, you all hate record labels. I get it. *golf clap* You know what? I used to work in a couple tech-music startups and had issues with labels too. But you know what I did? I engaged them directly and eventually found a way to achieve something mutually beneficial. Fancy that! And that was 10 years ago. Pretty much everyone at labels now in Canada has a much more open and entrepreneurial attitude towards the digital market (even though you will refuse to believe it), so please stop dragging up the past - it's not helpful.

And I'm sorry Glenn, I have to respond to the IsoHunt example... P2P is a HUGE can of worms I realize, but all I can do is make my point which is based on logic. So you say Torrent sites aren't illegal. But everyone knows the vast majority of material traded is copyrighted and being shared without compensation to the creators or permission. So if the Torrents aren't illegal, then it's the users, right? You said it yourself, guns don't kill people, people do. If a person kill someone, they go to jail, not the gun. BUT WAIT - message #1 I hear over and over is that consumers using P2P should NOT be sued. So tell me - what do we do? Please try and answer that conundrum. Someone who trades guns on the street where 99% of them are used are murder weapons isn't guilty of murder, but they facilitated, and they should be stopped. A gun shop owner selling guns in a method compliant with local/federal law, different story. Torrents are the 'street' vendor in that analogy, and unfortunately that's the only option in Canada, as there aren't really any good legal services. But that doesn't change the fact that admins have a responsibility to ensure that their users don't trade copyrighted material, or they should be stopped. Yeah, I know it's a game of 'whack-a-mole', etc, etc - I've heard it all so spare me. But I really can't accept any argument that defends the creators of Torrent sites who profit from a service built almost exclusively on Copyright infringement. Have a solution? Please do tell - I'm all ears.
June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@RWM
"Have a solution? Please do tell - I'm all ears."

Maybe it is time we begin considering the possibility that there isn't one, and start to ask ourselves what strategy we should develop in that case.

I contend there isn't one because any feasible solution will require a level of civil surveillance which I am not comfortable with. As well, it would require a significant erosion of private property rights which I am also not comfortable with.

There is a huge discussion we can have once we come to terms with (what I consider) that fact, but from all outward appearances I would say we are a long way from there, and it's looking to be quite a painful trip to get there.

Until then, it's whack-a-mole time! I'm going to to get my mallet. Be right back....
June 18, 2010

RWB said:

...
That's my concern, is that's easy to just say "there's no solution, oh well, let's give up, lock the doors and find a new business". Which I hear often. Many big typewriter makers gave up and faded into oblivion, but some didn't, and are still around in a totally new form. There IS a viable business model that can exist around music - people have always been happy to spend money on content they like. Yes, I'm being incredibly optimistic, but I do believe there will be "music companies" - yes vastly different businesses from what "record labels" have historically been - but that's part of the fun! We have an opportunity to build something new!
June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
RWB,

It all depends what what you see as the problem. Is the problem online filesharing? To which I will maintain there is no viable solution. Or is the problem that the financial compensation system for creative works is broken? To this there is a solution and filesharing is but a symptom.

Decide what the problem is first then we can work on the solution. The identification as file sharing as the problem is based on a lot of assumptions which are no longer true. You need to dispense with those assumptions and concentrate on what the core of the issue is. The need for a functional capitalist type system within which creative industry can function.

Sadly, it may be a long time yet, before we actually start addressing this question directly.

June 18, 2010

IamME said:

@RWB
"There IS a viable business model that can exist around music - people have always been happy to spend money on content they like. Yes, I'm being incredibly optimistic, but I do believe there will be "music companies" - yes vastly different businesses from what "record labels" have historically been"

And this is what most of have been saying here. The business models must change. It's counterproductive and useless to change laws to try to support a business model which is no longer viable and that many consumers no longer want or support. They're trying to fit a square peg in to a round hole. Change is painful, and often costly, and I get that, but what they're doing will only drive even more consumers away, which will ultimately be more costly in the long run.

You used typewriter makers as an example, yes some are still around because they changed their business model/focus to adapt to the climate, they didn't try to change the laws to force people to use their equipment...which would have ultimately failed. You made our point for us.
June 18, 2010

IamME said:

..
ninja'd on the 2p2 stuff. Thanks Hook. ;-D
June 18, 2010

ABarlow said:

...
@Captain Hook

But the book is a copy! The author wrote the original, and the publisher/distributor mass produced it by copying what the author had written. If a buy a book, then there's a physical copy of that book in my possession created by some publishing company. If I download a song off ITunes, it's because there's a digital copy made by the music company or it's licensed distributor (Apple). The only difference is, arguably, that the copy digital copy is made instanteously when I order it, whereas the copy of the book is made in advance.
June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
ABarlow,

Really it is pretty simple. You bought the book. Someone else printed it (newspeak: "made the copy"). Generally someone who is licensed by the author to do so. If they didn't have a license to print the book, then that is piracy.

When you download the song from iTunes (i.e. make a copy). That is the same as printing the book, and just like the publisher, you need a license.

Now a book you can read, loan, give away, sell, etc, and none of those activities require the printing of a new book (making a copy) Unfortunatly it is not the same with a digital file. Every time you transfer your mp3 from your computer to your mp3 player, what you are really doing is making a copy. And guess what? For that you need a license.

get it?

Of course C-32 does go part way towards addressing that, but then takes it all away again with its DRM measures [sigh]

June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@James

"So what is so different between DRM copyright protection and a video game which uses a proprietary cartridge format?"

Absolutely nothing until you tell me that I am not allowed to modify one of them.
June 18, 2010

Crockett said:

...
I hear your frustration about P2P. There are two arguments for the harm/good of file sharing and I suppose it's what side of the fence you are on determining which one you lean towards. I think both are valid but most assuredly not to the degree that each one claims. Ok here goes ...
Argument #1 - P2P costs the creative industry astronomical losses.
a) First lets dispense with the hyperbole of a "download = a lost sale" and move on past that.
b) Next, realizing that, let's cut the amount of loss say in half (some say losses are higher/others lower, who is to say?)
c) Still this is a theoretically significant amount of loss to the industries.

Argument #2 - P2P is of benefit to creative industries
a) People like to try before they buy. Radio, sampling in a music store, listening/watching at a friend's house are just a few examples.
b) If people are downloading music, then they probably will download more than they could ever afford to pay for on an average monthly income. So a majority of that is not really lost sales.
c) A majority of people who download, generally do so because they like what they are downloading. When exposed to something that really resonates with them they will be wanting to support that so there will be more of it, by purchasing or renting it. Anyone who thinks they can consume everything for free is delusional and self-absorbed. You would probably never get any money out of them anyways.
e) Studies have shown that people who download media actually go on to purchase more media on average than those who do not download.
Ok, so those are the opposing views, and truthfully both are somewhat self-serving but the reality of the situation is bouncing around in there somewhere. Some will take stuff for free and not care, others will discover new things to enjoy and go on to purchase them. Where is the balance between the two? Does it come up even or slew to one or the other? I don't think we will ever really have a accurate answer to that.
The other reality is that the distribution infrastructure for media has irrevocably changed. Just like you used to see rooms full of secretaries creating of documents on typewriters, that has passed to databases and electronic printing. Now for artists, there is a different and possibly more lucrative way (for them) to distribute their music to the masses. The need for the old guard "labels" is going the way of the typewriters and they are not happy about it. The general view of the educated consumer is they don't need the labels anymore and see them as inflating the cost of media as well as trying to controlling/directing the consumer in what they should be consuming! Now this is good for consumers, most likely better for artists and no so good for the labels. But wishing the spilt milk back into the box is not going to make it happen, and making it illegal to spill milk is unenforceable (not the greatest analogy but you get what I mean).
Change is here, go with it or not. Yes, some people who want to ride along with the way things were will likely lose their jobs. Others who are more inventive will make a boat load of cash. There will be some pain, and for that we should be sympathetic, but such experiences are not limited to employees of media companies. Crying to politicians to make it all go away is not a way to endear respect.
Finally, it is not fair to say that P2P is the sole cause of the lower profits the industries are experiencing right now. As I have mentioned in some of my other posts, the swing of technological cycles brings time of boom and bust. The advent of the CD album brought great profits .. the advent of the electronic single has brought those profits significantly down. The VCR was feared to gut the industry, it actually had the opposite effect. We live in a changing world, legislating old business models in not just ineffective, it is short sighted. Yes, I feel sorry for the people in the industries that are facing unemployment. Rather than getting upset about it, use that energy to give the consumer a product they can value and they will beat a path to your door.
June 18, 2010

tom said:

Deletions won't give me laughs
> It would seem the professor is unwilling to delete these destructive comments and has been therefore had his blog victimized by these "disruptors"...

If they're deleted, I (and maybe others) wouldn't have anything to laugh at. Besides, deletion is another form of censorship, and this site is about freedom of speech. We need to see their ludicrous arguements and counter with the truth and, of course, laughs.
June 18, 2010

ABarlow said:

...
@Captain Hook

I think where we differ is that I'm not convinced that in downloading from ITunes, I would be the one making the copy. It seems to me that in order for me to make a copy of something, I need access to an original (or another copy), which I don't have. Thus Apple must be providing the copy, and hence is responsible for licensing the product from the rightsholder. Now, it is certainly true that if I were to then take the copy given to me from Apple, and burn that onto CD, that would be infringement under our current scheme. If I were to sell my hard drive with the original "copy" on it, that would not be infringement because of the doctrine of first sale. I admit, I could be mistaken--copyright law is not my expertise. I don't know how much the subtlety actually matters.
June 18, 2010

tom said:

A call to astroturfers
RWB, this is all hogwash!

>In many ways, music is far ahead of other forms of content in terms of allowing DRM-free content.

Music may be free of DRM for now, but can you guarantee it will be free of DRM forever? If you're proud of the fact music is free of DRM now, then why do you need protection in law, the anti-circumvention of DRMs? Why even mention of DRM at all in any law or treaty? DRMs aren't designed to work technically, but designed to work socially in conjunction with anti-privacy laws.

> And while I totally accept that it's extremely difficult to use policy to stop outright illegal theft/distribution (P2P or other private methods), we have to at least make a stand at the Government level, so we can ENCOURAGE innovation, not stifle it.

You may start your sincerity by ending your portrayal of copyright Infringement as theft and stealing. Moreover, the DMCA is 12 years old; and ever since its inception, it was never used to innovate, only to impede or destroy competition. As an excercise, I challenge you to find examples of DMCA legal threats, and find examples of DMCA legal threats furthering innovation. I highly doubt you will even try to find one, and I totally doubt you will find one respectively.

> - we just don't appear to be a market where consumers are encouraged to pay for anything

Obviously, people aren't encouraged to pay for anything anywhere. However, we are paying extorted prices for cell-phones, internet, cable, TVs, food, computers, you name it and we've paid the extorted price for it. It's Canadian culture to pay collusive prices.

> The industry doesn’t want to “punish” consumers. It doesn’t want to “make it harder” to buy music products – quite the opposite on both fronts! I’d love to see a music market thriving with consumer choice - downloads, physical products (hell, even vinyl if you want it!), streaming/cloud access services, etc – all accessible from whatever device(s) I prefer, currently or ones developed in the future.

Obviously, you don't want to punish your customers, if they Obey Your Rules. Remove your rules first and oppose DRMs because your rules and DRMs punish your customers. It's funny, since you're representing the labels, of course, you want your customers to access your music in the "device(s) I prefer." DRMs help you achieve your goals by locking them into your approved devices.

> All of which flows money into the economy and to the artists who create the content in the first place, as well as their representatives, from independents right up to the majors.

Artists never needed representatives to own artists' contents for them. So, why should some represenstatives own contents for artists, when they already own their contents themselves? In other words, why should artists waive their rights to their contents that they created?

> I am sensible enough to realize that most of you aren't of the 'freetard' camp who want to 'liberate' all content for free.

"the right for content creators to monetize content" for 50 years after the death of the last author? How are you any different from the 'freetard' camp?

> Let’s try and focus on the parts of the bill (especially TPMs) that need to be clarified and fixed so that they really work for Canadians.

What's in C32 needs to be clarified? How should DRM be fixed in C32? As you say, you're a "living, breathing Canadian citizens," so C32 should really work only for you, a label representative?

You've chosen your words carefully, but fooling nobody! Have you posted here before, or just after this astroturf's call for astroturfers?

ha ha ha
June 18, 2010

David said:

@RWB
You're comparing a weapon to a means of communication. One kills people the other puts a few people out of a job.

Guns don't really have a positive future as far as anyone can presently tell. Efficient data transfer protocols (eg bittorrent) may today be used largely for immoral means, but it is shortsighted to think that this will always be the case.

If we were to make it illegal to transfer data efficiently over the internet, we would likely dramatically hamper technological progress.
June 18, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@RWB
"I really find it frustrating that no-one is seeing that I'm agreeing with many of you: consumer behaviour related to the personal consumption of any legally-aquired content/media should not be a criminal offence - isn't that the core of the issue here? Well, we agree on that! The TPM elements in C-32 needs to be discussed!"

The point of disagreement is that you seem to think TPMs are OK in principle, but they just need to be "tweaked." You should read or watch Cory Doctorow's "Microsoft Research DRM talk" from June 17, 2004. Summary: "In DRM, the attacker is *also the recipient*." http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

Essentially, you can't put something "out there" without giving people the means to copy it. My more cynical interpretation of encryption-based DRM is that you (the content industry) want to be able to sell artistic works without actually publishing them. You could argue nothing is published unless released in an unscrambled form.

"Pretty much everyone at labels now in Canada has a much more open and entrepreneurial attitude towards the digital market (even though you will refuse to believe it), so please stop dragging up the past - it's not helpful."

The past informs the future. As far as I know, all of the examples I used in my last post happened in the past 5 years; and at least half are still happening. How far are we allowed to go back? Stuff that happened yesterday is in the past as well.

In the long term, I don't think TPMs will really hold back the computer industry. However, I am of the view that computer is a disruptive technology that will take about 300 years to mature. What TPMs may do is create a "gap" in human history around the beginning of the 21st century. Copyright now lasts longer than the media the fixation is printed on. When copyright was invented in response to the printing press, it only lasted for about 14 years.


June 18, 2010

tom said:

Word games for word games
Part 1
HAHAHAHAHA
There you go again, RWB, playing with words.

> I really find it frustrating that no-one is seeing that I'm agreeing with many of you: consumer behaviour related to the personal consumption of any legally-aquired content/media should not be a criminal offence - isn't that the core of the issue here? Well, we agree on that! The TPM elements in C-32 needs to be discussed!

It's obvious there's no issue for "consumption of any legally-aquired content/media;" and copyright was never a criminal offense but a civil offense, so we're not agreeing to anything to your false statement. You keep saying C32's DRM provisions needs discussing, but discussing about what? What do you want C32 to say regarding DRMs? If you agree with us on DRMs, why did you wait until Moore released the bill to talk about DRMs now? It's quite too late for you to return to negotiations on the public rights; thus, you're here to play with words trying to defend the indefensible.

> I engaged them directly and eventually found a way to achieve something mutually beneficial.

Good for you, "*golf clap*." What was the problem you wanted to engage them directly? We've been trying to engage them directly for years, but all they do is bribe politicians behind closed doors. How are we to engage these politicians directly without giving them cash incentives, like your labels do?

> Fancy that! And that was 10 years ago. Pretty much everyone at labels now in Canada has a much more open and entrepreneurial attitude towards the digital market (even though you will refuse to believe it), so please stop dragging up the past - it's not helpful.

Obviously, labels have a better attitude now, given that anti-circumvention is in the bill. Now, you and your labels are better equiped to commit outright theft of the public's fair dealing rights. Moreover, you want us to "stop dragging up the past," but just now you dragged or bragged about your experience 10 years ago. You should take your own advice, for starters.

> P2P is a HUGE can of worms I realize, but all I can do is make my point which is based on logic.

You should base your point on the truth because your logic is all about playing with words.
June 19, 2010

tom said:

...
Part 2
> So you say Torrent sites aren't illegal. But everyone knows the vast majority of material traded is copyrighted and being shared without compensation to the creators or permission.

If that is true, you wouldn't be sitting here defending your indefensible points, for you'd be working anywhere else not representing labels due to their demise. You have no proof people do not go and buy content after they get it from the internet because it's in your best interest not to find such proof. However, the proof exists, so I challenge you to find such proof, but again highly doubt you will try.

> BUT WAIT - message #1 I hear over and over is that consumers using P2P should NOT be sued. So tell me - what do we do? Please try and answer that conundrum.

Do Not Do Anything!!! You have done enough to damage the public's fair dealing rights, and now you want to Steal them all via anti-circumvention and anti-privacy laws. The truth is internet distribution is very efficient and very inexpensive; thus, anyone who wants to distribute their work digitally Do Not Require Representives to Own their Rights for them. Authors own their rights to their works and can distribute their works themselves. Label representatives are Obsolete, and has been Obsolete for at least a decade, if not much much longer. You want to revive the controlled distribution of the past by creating false distribution scarcity using DRMs, "so please stop dragging up the past - it's not helpful." I see no conundrum, where your monopoly is Obsolete. Get out of the label and the label representative industry before they all collapse!

> But that doesn't change the fact that admins have a responsibility to ensure that their users don't trade copyrighted material, or they should be stopped.

Internet admins' main responsibility is to ensure the network is working efficiently. This means identify network problems and address them; admins are not your personal copyright cops, although, you'd love them to be such. Privacy laws exist to establish personal freedoms, but making admins your personal copyright cops undermine public freedoms under Canada's Charter.

> But I really can't accept any argument that defends the creators of Torrent sites who profit from a service built almost exclusively on Copyright infringement. Have a solution? Please do tell - I'm all ears.

If Torrent sites make lucrative profits, then your next logical thought for anyone sane would be to make Torrent sites and profit from them. A Torrent site full of legal contents and free of DRMs will destroy other similar Torrent sites full of illegal contents that are free of DRMs.

Obviously, you're all ears, but since there's no sound in these text/visual posts, I am basically typing to deaf ears anyway. Thanks for playing with words. These word games provide me much amusements, even better than spending time consuming your contents.
June 19, 2010

Ray said:

Jeff says...
"There are flaws with the current bill, but unless we get something on the books and get the torrent sites out of our country, there will be no music, film or books to try and protect."

What utter and total BS. Sharing copies of all of the above has been widespread on the internet for years, and there's still music, films and books. And of course, there was music and books before copyright laws existed at all (films did not exist). The free software movement has also proven that useful programs will be made regardless of copyright laws. The movie industry has had record setting profits in recent years, right alongside the widespread use of torrent sites and other p2p applications. Stop lying to everyone with scare tactics and false doomsday predictions.

The non-commercial sharing of copies among average citizens (such as torrents for one example) is and should be their right. It is neither appropriate nor the job of government to take away the freedoms of average citizens make copies and share them with each other in order to maximize the profits of the "content industry", and those who push for it to do so are acting only to use the force of law to attack the public in order to enrich themselves. They are enemy of the public and deserve to see their evil plans fail.

June 19, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@Ray
Most Free and Open Source software relies on copyright law. The GPL is a "copyleft" license. The License grants you certain rights if and only if you agree to grant those same rights to other people when you redistribute the work. If you don't agree to the license, and distribute the work anyway, you are violating copyright law.

The simplified BSD license may be able work without copyright law: Trademark law would have to be modified to support the attribution clause.
June 19, 2010

Russell McOrmond said:

Differentiating allies and opponents in the Copyright debate
I wrote a blog article for those creators confused by the debate. http://BillC32.ca/5162 This is both for supporters of C-32 that don't understand the opposition, and opponents who don't understand the support.

Not written from the perspective of a "consumer", but as a creator who is strongly opposed to specific provisions in C-32.
June 20, 2010

Ray said:

...
@philipsjk:
"Most Free and Open Source software relies on copyright law."

Yes, i was aware of that, but the manner in which it relies on copyright law (to extend the 'free' conditions onto subsequent copies or modifications) is really beside the point. The point I took issue with was the notion that unless copyright laws can be made to eliminate non-commercial sharing of copies of music, books, films among the general public ("torrent sites"), there would be no such works made. This is an absurd notion on many levels, but free software is just one example I used to illustrate this. Free software abandons that aspect of copyright law. It explicitly allows and even encourages such sharing, and it continues to be produced. So too would music, books and films.
June 20, 2010

phillipsjk said:

How much does copyright law really encourage innovation?
I understand art won't cease without copyright protection. However, copyright proponents have a plausible argument: why should I be a writer instead of a dishwasher if the dishwashing job pays more?

I doubt the GPL-licensed ecosystem would be as successful without copyright law. One thing GPL supporters don't like is the concept that their work (possibly unpaid) can be "closed" by inclusion in a proprietary product. Without copyright law, there may be more smaller, closed-sourced, "freeware" programs. That said, the BSD model hints there would still be usable free Operating systems available.

The problem with copyright law is that the copyright terms have been over-extended. Protection for 50 years after the author's death is well past the point of diminishing returns. I have read that copyright (brought in in response to the printing press) originally lasted for about 14 years, with the possible exception of works protected by "crown copyright."
June 21, 2010

Rubel Bogra 01746944555 said:

I know Facebook requires a personal account


Even though this was done on twitter, I know Facebook requires a personal account to become
an admin. I am not defending the comment, but good policy only goes so fabrand succeed
October 12, 2012

Write comment
smaller | bigger

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