Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • Copyright Lobby Astroturf Site Adds Mandatory, Uneditable Letter to MPs

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Copyright Lobby Astroturf Site Adds Mandatory, Uneditable Letter to MPs

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Friday June 18, 2010
The copyright lobby's BalancedCopyrightforCanada.ca astroturfing site has added a new mandatory requirement for all users that want to participate in the Take Action items. According to a site user, the site now requires users to send a form letter to their relevant Member of Parliament.  There are two letter options - one letter for entertainment industry employees and one general letter. 

Surprisingly for a site claiming to support creativity and copyright, the letters do not provide users with the opportunity to even use their own words - the form letter cannot be edited.  This is particularly striking given the earlier criticism from some of the same groups on a CCER form letter service that offered users complete control over the substance of their letter and merely served as a delivery channel. Notably, the site has already been subject to gaming from non-Canadians as a random search of members turned up at least one U.S. based record company executive with Warner Music.

The site user reports that the site briefly offered a third form letter for consumers.  That letter has apparently been removed, perhaps because it adopted positions expressly opposed by Canadian creator groups.  While the site purports to protect creator rights, the letter supported format shifting without levies (opposed by groups such as ACTRA) and educational reforms to fair dealing (opposed by writers groups).  The consumer letter included the following:


I believe the Copyright Act amendments proposed in Bill C-32 do a good job of balancing the right of artists and creators to benefit financially from their work, and the ability of consumers like me to make copies for non-commercial use and personal enjoyment. If Bill C-32 passes, it will give me the peace of mind of knowing that when I take music I've purchased and downloaded online, and copy it to my player, it's legal. There will be no doubt in my mind that the PVR copy of a movie or the episode of my favourite TV show that I've made for later viewing doesn't infringe copyright. And, I will know that my favourite singers, musicians, and film makers have been financially and fairly compensated for their work and creativity.

Also, I think Bill C-32 does the right thing in allowing schools, colleges, and universities to make copies for educational purposes. This is as it should be. Teachers and professors should feel free to make legal use of audio and video to broaden their students' cultural and intellectual horizons. Bill C-32 will enhance learning.

As it is now, the situation in Canada is embarrassing. The failure to modernize Canada's Copyright Act has made our country a destination of choice for virtual pirates of digital music, worldwide. Canada's reputation for upholding copyright and intellectual property rights is being reduced to the lowest common denominator of copyright rogue countries. Canada's brand is being compromised with our largest and most valuable trading partners, and their investors. Is that in Canadian consumers' interests? Is it in the interests of Canada's music industry? Is it in the interests of the Canadian Government and the Parliament of Canada? Is it good for Canada?

Bill C-32 is about fairness and balance: fairness to artists and other creators of content, balanced by fairness to consumers who get pleasure and relaxation from their work, and to teachers and students.

Samples from the employee and general letters are posted below:

Employee Letter

I support a balanced, modern and effective Copyright Act in Canada. The recent introduction of Bill C-32 is a starting point to achieve this long-overdue goal.

As the employee of a business that depends on sales of creative content, I urge your support in Parliament to enact the copyright reforms our country needs. My job, and many thousands of other jobs, depend on it.

Canada produces some of the best movies, music, TV shows, software and books in the world. Like many Canadians, I am proud of that. But the creative industries we have built are increasingly at risk in the face of widespread digital piracy.

I believe that artists, other content creators and the people who invest in them have the right to be compensated for their creations. People like me, who work in the creative industries and pay taxes, earn our pay as well. We all deserve a law that protects creative works from theft and unauthorized use on the Internet. Our customers deserve a law that respects and promotes the legal purchase and enjoyment of copyrighted works.

With the tabling of Bill C-32, Parliament has a real opportunity to bring our copyright rules into the digital age. With the right amendments, we can get there.

In the absence of clear rules, Canadian consumers lack a clear signal that downloading digital products from the Internet without payment is not allowed. The operators of Canadian-based websites that encourage and profit from much of the world's online piracy seem to act as if there were no law at all. As a result, Canada has become a global destination of choice for the operators of pirate websites.

It's embarrassing. Canada has been singled out on the international stage for its failure to uphold intellectual property rights, joining the ranks of copyright rogue countries. Our brand has been compromised with our largest and most valuable trading partners, and their investors.

Copyright reform is about fairness and balance: fairness to artists and other content creators balanced by fairness to consumers who enjoy and use their work.

General Letter

I support a balanced, modern and effective Copyright Act in Canada. The recent introduction of Bill C-32 is a starting point to achieve this long-overdue goal.

As a voter who lives in your riding, I urge your support in Parliament to enact the copyright reforms our country needs.

I believe that artists, other content creators and the people who invest in them have the right to be compensated for their creations. They deserve a law that protects their work from theft and unauthorized use on the Internet. The law should also respect and promote the legal purchase and enjoyment of copyrighted works by consumers.

With the tabling of Bill C-32, Parliament has a real opportunity to bring our copyright rules into the digital age. With the right amendments, we can get there.

In the absence of clear rules, Canadian consumers lack a clear signal that downloading digital products from the Internet without payment is not allowed. The operators of Canadian-based websites that encourage and profit from much of the world's online piracy seem to act as if there were no law at all. As a result, Canada has become a global destination of choice for the operators of pirate websites.

It's embarrassing. Canada has been singled out on the international stage for its failure to uphold intellectual property rights, joining the ranks of copyright rogue countries. Our brand has been compromised with our largest and most valuable trading partners, and their investors.

Copyright reform is about fairness and balance: fairness to artists and other content creators balanced by fairness to consumers who enjoy and use their work.

As a voter in your riding, I urge you to build on the start provided by Bill C-32's introduction, and to advance the passage of Copyright Act amendments that work for all Canadians.
Comments (796)add comment

Andy Dabydeen said:

...
The site is obviously counting on participants being too lazy. Maybe even too lazy to read, or educating themselves on the content of the bill.
June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

Not manditory
I just signed up. Sending the letter is not mandatory, but it can be fun!

It uses the name and address that you supply when you register. soooo......
here is the one it made for me

----

Dear Paul Dewar:

My name is Robot Atomiton controlled by the MAFIAA and I am a voter who lives in your riding. I am writing to express my support for robust copyright reform in this Parliament.

--cut--

As a voter in your riding, I urge you to build on the start provided by Bill C-32's introduction. I urge you to advance the passage of Copyright Act amendments that work not only for me and the many others who work in Canada�s creative industries, but for all Canadians.

Sincerely,

Robot Atomiton controlled by the MAFIAA
in a cage
in Graham Henderson's basement, Ontario K1P 5C4

June 18, 2010

Ryan said:

I can hardly believe that site...
Remember, it's all about the content creators and the entertainment industry. Other industries that might be affected don't count. No amount of collateral damage is too much. Save the entertainment execs!

/sarcasm
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
It seems to be a "call to action" or words to raise awareness. I don't neccesarily disagree with the form letter being pre-written. I think it gives people the opportunity to better understand the purpose of the bill. When the article uses terms like "embarrassing" I think they run the risk of losing applicants. It does force feed opinion a little aggressively.

Until now, I didn't truly understand what Bill-C32 meant to consumers but now I have a better picture. I'm sure it will raise awareness to consumers/employees as well.
June 18, 2010

Laurel L. Russwurm said:

legal or not
While writing a blog post yesterday, I was wondered if the istockphoto image on their mainpage was legally obtained or an example of copyright infringement. http://whoacanada.wordpress.co...bill-c-32/

So I asked, but although istockphoto wouldn't say, they indicated the photographer is not exclusive to them, and that they would check. I'm a mere blogger and not an investigative reporter, so that's as far as I can take it. If anyone else can get a more definitive answer I'd love to know if they licensed it or if they swiped it.
June 18, 2010

Matt Mastracci said:

...
Here's what you get after the form letter (I edited it with DOM inspector to hopefully send something else, but I don't know):

http://imgur.com/ANOmj&pKM8z&5Kkltl
http://imgur.com/ANOmjl&pKM8z&5Kklt
http://imgur.com/ANOmj&pKM8zl&5Kklt

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@ryan - There is more to an industry besides the artists alone. Exec, distributors, organizers, co-ordinators, ect... If you feel that a lawless state is the best state, why not hike it upto crown land and hang out with a motorcycle gang for a few weeks. Why you can play on your flute, grow mushrooms and perhaps learn the secret art of constructing a makeshift meth lab.

The best art is usually free, if more of it is behind a paywall, perhaps it will cause more people to seek out the best. Jmo...

/sarcasm
June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@James
No one wants a lawless state. We just don't want laws that support using theft as a business model. This is where we get into the debate about who the real thieves are, I guess.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@captainhook - It's a tough one. We're all "thieves" to one degree or another. The landscape is definitely changing with copyright crackdowns on Youtube, and the rise of new technologies like Canada's own tineye.com

My only argument is that for the art to get better, people need to support the artists. And major corporations need to start thinking about growing industries rather than crushing them.
June 18, 2010

Andrew said:

...
James, you do an excellent job of conflating having the freedom to use media we purchase as we see fit with piracy. And then you spiral off into idiocy. All most people want is the freedom to watch DVDs we own on the devices of our choosing, and to not have to worry about Sony root kits, or BMI's stupid CDs that won't play on Macs, or any other user-hostile measures that have done absolutely nothing to discourage piracy.

I really shouldn't be feeding the troll, should I?
June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
James

"My only argument is that for the art to get better, people need to support the artists."

I agree with this entirely, and that is why I see the direction we are going in with copyright so frustrating. It is more about supporting old business models rather than trying to find new ones that actually support the artist.

The paradigm has shifted and the copyright that has worked for the last 300 years doesn't any more. Rather than getting rid of the bits of copyright law that clearly don't function any more, and replacing them with new systems that do, they are simply trying to buttress the old system with stones quarried from my land without my permission. It is a recipe for conflict.
June 18, 2010

Andrew said:

...
It's also worth mentioning that as an actual, honest-to-goodness sovereign nation, we'd like to have our political agendas set by the people who live here. Not foreign corporations and their bought-and-paid for politicians.
June 18, 2010

mckracken said:

disingenuous at best
"In the absence of clear rules, Canadian consumers lack a clear signal that downloading digital products from the Internet without payment is not allowed. The operators of Canadian-based websites that encourage and profit from much of the world's online piracy seem to act as if there were no law at all. As a result, Canada has become a global destination of choice for the operators of pirate websites."


this ranks with the absurd accounting metrics used to suggest that limewire cost the recording industry $1,500,000,000,000 when 'actual' annual sales hover around 20,000,000,000 in total.

canada is not a haven for 'much of the piracy', canada is not attracting even a substantial portion of piracy, individuals in canada are not benefitting outrageously from 'much' of the profits derived from piracy.

consumers have a clear signal that downloading copyrighted property is not the best solution to an industry created problem. however the industry seeks to remove itself from blame by crying poverty when year over year profits continue to exceed analyst expectations.

and.yet.they.still.can't.pay.their.artists....
June 18, 2010

Wizard Prang said:

Meh
So what is yer average MP gonna think when they receive so many identical letters?
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@andrew - I don't know how attacking sarcasm with more sarcasm is idiotic, or troll like. /sarcasm - They cancel each other out.

@captainhook - Whether an industry robbed by the public is worse than an artist being robbed by the execs is debatable. I don't know.

If anything, the new industries which are growing by stealing the artists needs to take more responsibility for its actions.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
*stealing FROM the artists
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
@James - My only argument is that for the art to get better, people need to support the artists. And major corporations need to start thinking about growing industries rather than crushing them.

I do ,thats why when I downloaded from http://www.ektoplazm.com I donated to them and will be donating more as I download more from them. I've also donated to the Linux Mint project which runs on 4 of my computers. Hey $20 donated here and there saves me $1000 in licensing fees and the creators get more money then they would have from a label or distributor.

James please tell me how I'll legally be able to copy, for personal usage cd's/dvd that I own that have DRM on them when this passes.
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
-In the absence of clear rules, Canadian consumers lack a clear signal that downloading digital products from the Internet without payment is not allowed. The operators of Canadian-based websites that encourage and profit from much of the world's online piracy seem to act as if there were no law at all. As a result, Canada has become a global destination of choice for the operators of pirate websites.

REALLY I thought that paying the racket money whey I buy cd'r to backup my photos and burn distros allowed me to download all the music I wanted that a cd could hold and burn it to a cd. Its a pretty straight forward rule. Now if that money doesn't get to the artists thats not my problem, I already paid it.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@enduser - The creators of the Linux project is a collective. When they submit to that repository they aren't getting paid. Sorry to inform you. But your paying $20.00 to someone who is profiteering off the good will of it's supporters. Which is perfectly acceptable in some cases in which the linux distribution has branched and professional company supports it.

If you need to buy another hard copy of the DVD/CD material you purchased then it would be wise to purchase two copies. One for backup purposes should the other one fail. It's like scratching a record. If you didn't copy it to magnetic tape first you're out of luck.

Or go to the movies.
June 18, 2010

mckracken said:

@ james; wise?
"If you need to buy another hard copy of the DVD/CD material you purchased then it would be wise to purchase two copies. One for backup purposes should the other one fail. It's like scratching a record. If you didn't copy it to magnetic tape first you're out of luck."


so, which is it? is it like scratching a record that i should have copied first for back up purposes? or is it i should have bought 2 records to satisfy the industry?

consistent internal logic is a suggested requirement when it comes to law.
June 18, 2010

Kai said:

...
To throw my two cents in, as an artist I'm far more concerned with commercial entities than the general public. The general public and piracy is an entire debate on it's own, which seems to get bogged down in a lot of rhetoric, rather than fact.

What drives me up the wall however, is that there's usually only a whisper on how commercial entities steal, copy, or just generally treat artists like slave labor. Is the pending list so easy to forget? How about the lawsuits where the companies are accused of just slapping whatever they want, wherever they want, when they don't have the rights or permissions? Or that royalty rates get cut, extra charges are added to contracts, or that even mid-profile artists in all mediums are not so slowly being dropped?

Nothing in the new law helps protect artists further, nothing makes it easier for us to go after those who infringe upon on us for commercial purposes, hell, nothing even helps us ensure we get paid for the work we do. You know what happens when a larger business or corporation decides they're going to cut down what they pay me for my work retroactively, or take months or years to do it, or if they decide not to at all, even if I have a solid contract? Nada. Zip. I get an extra ulcer, but I can't do a thing. There's no way I can afford to fight them in the courts. And so they go giggling and skipping along in their merry way, while all the while crying about how poor they are and how much they're suffering and how sales are bad... while the money jingles in their pocket.

If you're not an artist, stop trying to speak for us or claim some moral ground on our behalf, especially in favor of things which have proven time and again to be ineffective, that sustain an industry approach which has been shown to be counter productive and pretending that any of the changes are somehow going to mean I can feed my family any more effectively. If recent events in the world have taught us anything, it's that companies can't control themselves in a proper manner, that they're seeking to control everything else is beyond ridiculous. And the best part being, that these new restrictions would make it harder to create art in the various mediums.

I'm sure you can tell how much I love this situation. Be well.

-------------

recaptcha "It's musician" =P
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@mckracken - Your ability to plagiarize the artists work is really only limited to your technical capabilities. No amount of copyright protection is going to prevent you from freely intercepting sound, or imagery for reproduction, storage or even distribution.

I am not fluent with this bill. I'm not really concerned with how easy you have it. I'm more concerned with Artists, and Industry getting along. If the public is stealing from the distributors, then it makes it pretty hard to pay the artists.

I don't have the answers. But if anything can prevent people from stealing copyrighted materials, I'm for it.
June 18, 2010

Matt Mastracci said:

The talking points from the CRIA/BCFC site [Cross-posted from boing-boing]
I took some screenshots of the astroturfing page and posted them on my blog:

http://grack.com/blog/2010/06/18/balanced-copyright-for-canadas-daily-astroturfing-points/

I'm beginning to suspect that this is a CRIA-funded operation. On the facebook page http://www.facebook.com/balancedcopyright, you'll see Graham Henderson himself liking posts. They've also posted a number of articles from the CRIA/recording industry-related McCarthy Tétrault law firm.
June 18, 2010

Anonymous said:

...
@end user, the levy on blank media you pay is for private copying privileges only. It stretches the notion of private copying considerably to presume that it is actually intended (although I realize it is how it is currently being interpreted) to permit the downloading of copyrighted content from sources that are themselves distributing unauthorized copies of the work.
June 18, 2010

Anon-K said:

@James
"But if anything can prevent people from stealing copyrighted materials, I'm for it."

The problem is we aren't talking about stealing here. We are talking about copyright infringement. If something gets stolen, then the person it gets stolen from loses access to it. That is not what happens here. Imagine if MC Hammer hadn't paid Rick James for the riff from "Can't Touch This". Would that be stealing? How about if the sampling had, in fact, driven up the sales of "Superfreak"?

Lastly, the idea that the artist doesn't get paid is false on two fronts. First of all, there is the assumption that the person who copied it would have bought a legal copy but didn't because of the copy... this is an out and out fallacy, nor does it deal with the people who make a copy in the same way as you listen to a record in a CD shop to determine if you are going to buy it, consumer research. Now, add in the recordable media levy and the artist is being paid for media which is NOT used to infringe. Some would call that theft, and in this case it would be real theft as the consumer loses real money. Personally I call it "tribute" in the same sense as one used to pay tribute to the leader. The very industry that wanted the levy now complains that the courts have given the "right" to Canadians to make those copies, specifically because the industry that complained the loudest is being paid for it.
June 18, 2010

Fact-checkin' Fan said:

Quote from Mr. Geist's original piece
"Notably, the site has already been subject to gaming from non-Canadians as a random search of members turned up at least one U.S. based record company executive with Warner Music."

Source? Names?
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@kai @Anon-K - If you are an artist, creative commons might get you more exposure at the cost of others profiteering off your work. It happens.

This is my last comment. I'm certainly not free of any wrong doing, and I don't have an ego the size of a planet, expecting to get huge rewards for the work I do.

Movies cost money to make. They are an experience. Watch it once and you never need to watch it again. Copyright protection is fairly crucial for that medium. Jmo...

Music has always been "free"... If someone wants the convenience of having it without advertisements, or wants to own a personal copy, preventing them from distributing it without the authors gaining recognition is reasonably criminal in my books. Even if it's just a overlooked shout-out during an hour long playlist...

Imagery, if it's not creative commons, taking it and it using it for reproduction is immoral. I've done it, and quite frankly the guilt carries with me. I have one place on the internet I still need to correct. This area needs better law enforcement.

Stealing copyrighted literature, that is a tough one, which I think needs to be protected better for the sake of writers, authors, and the overall health of the internet in general. Whether it's the public destroying an authors right to make money through a distributor, or one writer stealing credit from another. It's area which needs help. I am not a writer, I don't know too much about it.

Artists need to do it for themselves, as they always have, whether someone steals from them within an industry, or is robbed by the general public is sort of irrelevant.

If there is any other digital material art I have overlooked. I apologize.

I don't really know how to elaborate on my personal feelings towards the situation any further. I feel people are irresponsible as a whole. In general I think we all need a wake up call.
June 18, 2010

Matt Mastracci said:

...
@ Fact-checkin' Fan

This came from @JesseBrown on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JesseBrown

As soon as he revealed the member list was open, it was quickly shut down.
June 18, 2010

crade said:

...
"But if anything can prevent people from stealing copyrighted materials, I'm for it. "
Something can. Make computers illegal would really help. Cutting all the lines to the Internet would probably really help. Killing everyone would do the trick. The consequences don't matter right?

Unfortunately, with this bill, we get the bad consequences AND no help preventing people from "stealing copyrighted materials".

"I am not fluent with this bill."
Nor even familiar with it apparently if you think it will help combat piracy. This digital locks crap has been tried already for goodnesssake. It doesn't work. It only causes problems.

I'm more concerned with Artists, and Industry getting along.
Artists are the industry. Who says we aren't getting along? Being able to make a living solely off something that other people do just for fun should be difficult.
June 18, 2010

mckracken said:

@james
"I am not fluent with this bill. I'm not really concerned with how easy you have it. I'm more concerned with Artists, and Industry getting along. If the public is stealing from the distributors, then it makes it pretty hard to pay the artists."

but aren't we the same in this issue? doesn't what affect me in this bill also affect you?

i find it curious that you have no personal stake in this other than an apparent interest in the industry. further to this, the continued suggestion of poverty claims on behalf of the industry seems to belie the actuality of the issue, especially as it relates to the compensation of the artists. this is really starting to ring like a 'think of the children, they can't protect themselves' strawman arguement.

btw, i am enjoying the dialogue. take nothing in this as personal criticism, only as it relates to the issue at hand. :)
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@crade - The printing press has been around for quite a while. Blaming computers for the responsibilities of humans is amazingly far fetched.

@mckracken - Nothing in this bill really effects me. It effects everyone. I think it's a smart move to start thinking in terms of betterment of society rather than your own personal self interests.

Signed - Richard Dawkins
June 18, 2010

Kai said:

...
I'll just say, I don't have a problem with doing it all myself, I do and will continue to. I just don't appreciate having to go it alone and then being used as a political pawn to get moral sympathy for the desires of the same people who happily throw me under the bus when it suits them.

Digital locks trumping everything makes it harder to create art, takes legitimate rights away from the people I'm creating for, and allows for a reign of legal terror... and almost certainly won't change anything in regards to piracy. No artist I know supports it, they'd have to be masochistic to do so. Basically, all this bill does is make it worse for us, and there's a snowballs chance in hell of there being any changes to actually make it better.

Oh and I don't intend this in a mean way (I find it funny actually, though rather true), but in response to exposure I point you to Harlan Ellison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

=P It's how it is even for the top people in their fields.
June 18, 2010

Anarchist Philanthropist said:

...
Am I the only one that sees these letters as disgusting and useless, not even mentioning the need to change or get rid of DRM locks. How bout all three letters saying Canada is this big Pirate.

Fck it all, the gov't in this country is as useless and nipples on a bull!
June 18, 2010

Eric L. said:

RE: James
"@crade - The printing press has been around for quite a while. Blaming computers for the responsibilities of humans is amazingly far fetched."

Nice how you don't actually entirely what he said:

"Killing everyone would do the trick. The consequences don't matter right?"

Therefore, your point is completely irrelevant.

"Nothing in this bill really effects me. It effects everyone. I think it's a smart move to start thinking in terms of betterment of society rather than your own personal self interests."

And yet you appear to be siding with those whose personal self interests are dominating the vision and decision-making...

"Signed - Richard Dawkins"

...yes

Signed - James T. Kirk
June 18, 2010

crade said:

...
@James - who said anything about blame? You said you wanted results, not justice.
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
@James - @enduser - The creators of the Linux project is a collective. When they submit to that repository they aren't getting paid. Sorry to inform you. But your paying $20.00 to someone who is profiteering off the good will of it's supporters. Which is perfectly acceptable in some cases in which the linux distribution has branched and professional company supports it.

Nice spin there but Linux is free and was set free under GPL by the creator and people do contribute to it know they won't get compensated and do it for free or are paid but someone to add to the kernel. Linux Mint is a distro that is based on Ubuntu that uses the Linux Kernel and other user space programs to tie it all together these programs have all be licensed in a way that can be freely used as long as the code is set free. Yes there are people who are not greedy and enjoy give back to the world with out even wanting to be compensated. I know you can't accept that but thats reality.

Linux is not a Desktop system but the kernel. When I donated to Linux Mint I donated to the creator of Linux Mint Distro which in turn gives him more resources to create a better system which then can also be incorporated back to the Linux Kernel or another Linux distribution.
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
@James - If you need to buy another hard copy of the DVD/CD material you purchased then it would be wise to purchase two copies. One for backup purposes should the other one fail. It's like scratching a record. If you didn't copy it to magnetic tape first you're out of luck.

Thanks, your true motivations now has been recorded for the whole world to see. Basically even if copying for personal usage is legal under the bill you are showing us that your industry will still shaft the consumer by putting DRM onto media so the consumer can't make a copy or format shit their media.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
I don't understand you guys (That's why I referenced Richard Dawkins, his crowd is usually ripe attitude). You can't prevent people from stealing. Lets' get that straight. You can detour them or punish them. If people are going to steal they are going to do it.

Any measure that can be put into place to protect the redistribution of copyrighted materials to prevent illegal redistribution or profiteering, or even the devaluation of the works at the distributors or artists consent is reasonable, and I support it.

If they want to give it away freely. I support it to.

So lets get this straight. I support the rights of artists the distributors and the industry in general.

Nobody else. Consumers take a back seat. If they want it. They can pay for it or take what is freely and legally given to them.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James

Ah your true nature has been exposed more than enough for a nice BIG label to be tattoo'd on your forehead: SHILL
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@shill? - I am not getting paid to write this... I'm an independent. I have worked in the media biz for both production companies, and my own in the past. I work for other artists. I have also supported free events, and supported free artists, whether that is tearing down stages, loading or unloading cube vans or filling generators with gas.

I enjoy Art. When the right book comes along, I buy it. When I find music I love I donate to the radio station, promote it, or in some circumstances pay to go the event.

Who are you Glenn?
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
@James - take what is freely and legally given to them.

Oh and I have but I still donate to the creators of works that I decided to keep which saves me huge money and give them money - probably more then they would have gotten with a record deal.

People will be flocking to full independent artists and free music and its happening in droves right now and way more will do it the more you punish them.

Anyways I need to get back to ripping my dvd's. Got 150 more to go and 600 cd's to go. My htpc is waiting to get some usage.
June 18, 2010

Kai said:

...
Urm... I think perhaps James, theres a miscommunication somewhere here, as you may be unaware that the arguments here are based on what is meant to be legally given.

Consumers are meant to have rights, usually given broadly under the definition of fair use/fair dealing. The bill itself, in fact, lays out these rights further and in some ways brings it more in line with the rest of the world.

However, the issue is that in the same bill, these rights are then superseded by the inclusion of DRM. (And just as a sidenote, distributors almost always define if and what DRM is used). In other words, the problem is that this bill is trying to take away rights from consumers that they have and should have. To the point where it likely (and has in the past) causes problems for consumers to be able to even access their legally purchased product, or use it in the exact way it is intended to.

It's even been said that some of the language is so broad, it may take away rights in non-digital realms as well... as copy protection could potentially be classified as almost anything.

On that side of things, it's just another reason I dislike the DRM clauses. The consumer should have rights to do reasonable and legitimate things with what they purchase. Not only because, once they buy it, I shouldn't be able to dictate their life so long as they aren't doing something wrong. But also, because if I make their lives a pain in the ass, they're not going to want to purchase more pain in the ass. =P

Or to say it in the reverse way... it would be really weird if whatever you purchased, the producer had control over it's usage and had more rights than the consumer. Like a fridge that you can only legally open once every 8 hours. Or a car that can only legally make left turns. Or in this case, it would be a fridge that you are legally allowed to open whenever you want, but is trumped by the repeating 8 hour timer on the handle. Or a car which has a steering wheel that goes left and right... but turning right makes the manufacturer nervous. (Just for some quirky examples =)
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
LOL from their facebook page - SHARE THIS: Grammy award winning UK artist Imogen Hemp tells the Guardian about her struggles as an artist due to slumping record sales.

And from teh Guardian page So expensive to tour! Just had a rather depressing meeting with tour manager. Record sales low (across the industry) really impacting me."

SO she wants to get paid with out actually doing any work. LOL join the rest of the world, shouldn't have signed away all the rights to your music to the record labels. I wasn't aware that getting a record shaft deal meant getting a license to print money while sitting on your ass.

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
Guy... Like I said... I don't understand you.

You can't stop people from stealing. They will take a camcorder into a movie theater and rebroadcast it.

It is not the consumers right to bring a recording device into a theater and copy the movie.

It is the industries right to protect their property.
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
@james - You can't stop people from stealing. They will take a camcorder into a movie theater and rebroadcast it.

It is not the consumers right to bring a recording device into a theater and copy the movie.

Thanks for clarifying to us that you equate all consumers with .00001% of the population that brings in a camcorder to the move theater. Apparently were all pirates according to James and his employers.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@enduser - You can could copy music from the radio to magnetic tape in the 70's. You could Xerox written work in the 50's.

DRM, I don't care about. I only care about the rights of the artists, distributors and the industry.

Consumers have the choice to purchase the product or not. Plain and simple. They are free to spend their money where-ever they want.

If consumers don't DRM. Don't buy it. Easy.
June 18, 2010

Geof said:

Apparent form letter hypocrisy
Several months ago, members of the copyright lobby (e.g. Barry Sookman, James Gannon) criticized the copyright consultation, trumpeting an analysis by lawyer Richard Owens claiming that 70% of submissions were based on a single form letter written by the CCER. Owens wrote,

“Form letters are useful to some degree, but they are hardly the outpourings of hearts and minds filled by circumspect contemplation of the minutiae of copyright law. . . . A form letter can be sent from a position of complete ignorance so long as it seems to further some vague objective for the sender, such as the desire for free stuff, or to feed a sense of belonging to a community.

Owens has a point - carefully crafted submissions do carry more weight. But unlike paid lobbyists most Canadians haven’t the time to ponder the minutiae of the law or craft beautiful letters. They used the CCER letter because it was a practical way to participate democratically. Many people edited the letter or used it as a resource to write their submissions. Yet Owens’s “CCER Form Letters” category includes not only verbatim and tweaked form letters, but all submissions that "contain all or part of the CCER form letter." Copy a few sentences because they reflect your opinion and you get accused of being a stooge for someone else.

Uneditable letters sent as a requirement to access something are grassroots activism, while voluntary individually-edited submissions are gaming the system? The situation is positively Rovian (as in Karl Rove, the strategist for George Bush): accuse your opponent whatever it is you yourself are doing. For anyone who doubted it, Geist is right. This is astroturf.
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
@James - Guy... Like I said... I don't understand you.

Exactly! And this is why you're loosing money, you don't understand your consumers, their needs with todays technology driven markets.

You don't give the consumer what they want which is cheap access to entertainment. Times change and the distribution of your products isn't artificially restricted by you anymore so its not worth as much as it used to be. Get over it and evolve other wise close up shop, tons of businesses go bankrupt every year and no one misses them as the next entrepreneur sees a hole created by the closed business and fills it in with the new ideas that work with the times.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@enduser - People in general pay money for media for a variety of reasons. It's the industries right to make product, and the consumers right to choose what product they want to buy. Exactly what you are saying.

I am more than happy to sit here with you for the next five or six days while you get all this ranting out of your system.
June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

@James
"DRM, I don't care about."

And I wouldn't either except for the fact that the locks aren't just being placed on your digital content. In order for that to work they also have to be placed on my mp3 player, iphone and dvd player, and computer. Now they are trying to tell me I can't remove the locks from my digital devices. Well.... they can go stuff themselves.

In the sixties Trudeau said "government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". The updated version is "government has no business in the living rooms"
June 18, 2010

Kai said:

...
Urm, hrrm... James, you should perhaps read other articles here or find out more then before discussing this issue. Since by your last comment, I can only think you are talking about something that we aren't, basically... It seems like you've made assumptions, which are incorrect.

The new bill doesn't really protect anything more. Activities like recording in a theater are already illegal, and have been successfully prosecuted... not many countries even have as strict a law regarding that. Other activities, such as distributing over the internet, bootlegging, etc, are already illegal and always have been. This bill does not somehow make things more illegal, somehow.

What it does do, is remove inherent fair use/fair dealing rights, consumer rights, to do legitimate things. As well as say that it's giving more rights that should be in place (such as time shifting), but at the same time negating those through the same method. The DRM clauses in this do not change that breaking the DRM for nefarious purposes or using the material in a nefarious way, is illegal... it always has been. What it does is make it illegal for consumers to use their purchases in a legitimate way. For example, as I said, time shifting. Another is format shifting. Or to give a simple example if you don't know what those things mean, one way of time shifting was the VCR, where you could record a program to watch later. Now it's done with a PVR. This has been ruled in courts to be legitimate and has existed for a hell of a long time. Format shifting, would be taking your CD and transferring it to your mp3 player, also, legitimate.

If you still don't get it... then, well... I dunno.

*Adds after seeing last comment*
Just to point out, that attitude of "don't like it, don't buy it", is what hurts and has hurt a number of artists, especially as they don't usually control the DRM, etc. It damages sales, and does not prevent any illegal usage as DRM is not an effective deterrent... meaning it just leaves a worse situation with no benefit. This going back to my original point, you can't claim to care about the artists, if all you're considering is the distributors. And if you're only considering the distributors, you're not considering the industry either, because it exists as a partnership.

But, then you also seem to be ignoring that that partnership can only exist through interaction with the consumer, which is the only way the industry can exist. And ignoring the needs of the consumer does mean they spend their money elsewhere, yes, which is why CD and printed book sales have rapidly declined, which means dead industry. Which again, helps no one. And if there's an artificial attempt at controlling the actions of consumers through law, well you're creating a negative environment which will be more likely to cause piracy, or you support the industry through alternative means... like suing the consumers for doing, what they should technically legally/morally be allowed to do, which is rather tyrannical and has in fact occurred in parts of Europe. Effectively, the accusations can become a form of racketeering. But meh... there's more to this issue than you seem to understand.

I'm about done with this debate, honestly, but I have to say... considering your description of experience you seem incredibly naive on how all of this operates and the interactions and balance of rights that are required. It's a very narrow and very damaging scope you have, especially odd because you seem to have some true intent. It's actually really confusing... but, yeah... there are plenty of articles just on this blog that might let you see why the other point of view matters.

Anyway, be well, interesting talking with you.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james

"You can't stop people from stealing. They will take a camcorder into a movie theater and rebroadcast it.
It is not the consumers right to bring a recording device into a theater and copy the movie."


You are an idiot. Not only does that have nothing to do with C-32 your lame attempt to use that as an example of why C-32 is good is beyond insane.

It's equivalent to saying C-32 should pass as is because someone farted in Germany

One has nothing to do with the other.

C-32's DRM/TPM is about trumping consumers existing rights period. It has nothing to do with trying to stop piracy or "protecting artists" so stop trying to infer it does. Such is a blatant lie the CRIA/RIAA etc wish the public to believe.


Oh as for your question of who I am an IT pro that not only supports the artists I like I do so directly and not via the CRIA/RIAA etc if such can be avoided at all.


I also crack and/or bypass any and all attempts to put DRM in any media I buy (DVDs/games/cds etc etc) and help others to do so as well if they want the help. I paid for a product afterall.. and I did NOT ever give the creator of that product authority to play "big brother" or to cause grief to those that gave them $ in the first place.


Also:

@James
"DRM, I don't care about."


If that was the case you would be saying C-32's TPM/DRM section should be completely removed since it does nothing to help / protect the artists.. it only strips the consumers of their rights.


PS: Even if you are not paid to be a SHILL it certainly does label you as a TROLL as well as being a hypocritical idiot. Don't like the honest label? Then stop acting in a manner that makes you such.

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@captainhook - I would be more worried about the RFID chips in your devices then some sort of digital lock which prevents redistribution of the materials.

So what is so different between DRM copyright protection and a video game which uses a proprietary cartridge format?
June 18, 2010

mckracken said:

...
" People in general pay money for media for a variety of reasons. It's the industries right to make product, and the consumers right to choose what product they want to buy. Exactly what you are saying."

"So lets get this straight. I support the rights of artists the distributors and the industry in general."



when there is a choice present, then the consumer can make that choice. the entire industry standard of placing digital locks on products reduces that choice to negligible levels.

i'm also sensing a bit of hypocrisy. on the one hand we have the above statement. on the other hand we have:

"Nothing in this bill really effects me. It effects everyone. I think it's a smart move to start thinking in terms of betterment of society rather than your own personal self interests.

so, again, which is it? the betterment of society? or the benefit of the industry over the consumer?

my personal stake in this has been expressed before. i have several different media uses. some of which occur at home, and some of which occur outside of home. should i be required to purchase the same media in multiple formats to satisfy the industry? or is it reasonable to maintain a distinct copy on a personal device for personal use while on a train without paying twice? further to that, would the industry include a version on a physical medium that satisfies both parties in that the media has been paid for, and allows me to review it on the device. a 'few' movies/studios have tried this route but appears to be making little headway. should such an allocation be made for bill c32 then it certainly becomes much more palatable. as it is, it smacks of multiple revenue streams for as little product as possible.

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@mckraken - Buy a tape recorder, an old sony walkman and take the music where-ever you want.

I really do not care if your convenience is violated. You have the choice to buy whatever product you want. You as a responsible consumer control the industry.

The government has very little to do with it. jmo...
June 18, 2010

Headshaker said:

What the...?
@James "So lets get this straight. I support the rights of artists the distributors and the industry in general.

Nobody else. Consumers take a back seat. If they want it. They can pay for it or take what is freely and legally given to them. "

Um.... aside from the poor grammar ala Captain Kirk that last part makes very poor business sense as well, particularity 'consumers take a back seat'. If that's the attitude a business takes towards potential customers then they are headed for a fall and deserve to be.

Furthermore, 'if they want it'? I don't think they want the back seat so consumers will much rather take the driver's seat or passenger side and that's realistically where they DO sit. Any business or person who believes otherwise either does not understand market forces or is trying to become a tyrant. The former will fail and the latter should be opposed or you'll soon be finding a gun placed to your temple to make you obey.

As for the music 'industry', it arose when music was harder to distribute and so filled a niche by making music easier to access for the average consumer. Naturally, before the Internet became bigger, that also gave them considerable control over who got listened to. If you think that this power was not abused then I've got some prime swampland to sell to you, especially in regards to contracts to new bands. Why are many songs 'owned' by the distribution companies and not those who created them, anyway?

Well, I'm not a big music fan anyway but I'll admit it was your one-sided posts and grammar that caused me to respond. Feeling a tad miffed, were we? Businesses succeed because they draw customers to them not because they have a right to. That's the cold, hard logic of it.

The biggest thing that draws customers is convenience. That's a big reason why so many people download music to their MP3 players and computers. While it's nice to have a physical backup (purchased CDs) they are bulky. Forget price, the digital medium is just more accessible. That's why digital locks ring such a chord in the public because it decreases accessibility. The whole entertainment industry, music and movies alike, was founded mostly on easier access to their product but now they've reached a point where access has overcome their control. Their reactions to this, quite frankly, has not endeared the general public mind to them which only makes things worse. Seeking to decrease access goes against the public niche that they fill if not their business model.

In fact, copyright itself was originally intended to protect individuals against business and has mostly been corrupted by businesses to become their weapon against individuals. Seventy year copyright? Sheesh. Twenty or thirty should be it. I don't have a complaint about businesses trying to help their shareholders but too much is exactly that--too much.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble so I'll end this quick. I'd love to see a paid service with movie access on Canadian internet (if it's not already available and I've missed it :). I'd rather not go Apple but that's just my preference. Competition is healthy for businesses.

Let common sense become public domain and business sense subordinate to it.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@James

DRM is not only a method to 'prevent piracy" that is a total complete failure it's actual use by RIAA/MPA etc is more to artificially control the market and in the case of C-32 to trump consumers rights.

Perfect example is region coding. It does absolutely zero to protect artists, nothing to prevent piracy. It's sole reason for existing is to artificially grant "forced markets" to maximize profits.

DVD X sells for say $30 here.. but the exact same DVD in India sells for $3. The only change is the single bit for region coding. And the only reason it's legal is due to the mandatory license to make a DVD player.

They couldn't ever get that into national laws after all since that would ironically be illegal. (Price fixing and creation of an artificial monopoly.) So they made it part of their licensing system which they also charge a heft sum for and refuse to grant to anyone they deem "not appropriate" (Also why there are no legal *nix dvd players.)

As for "a proprietary cartridge format" that would be much the same as the printer cartridges farce and how the DMCA has been used to try to prevent generic equivalents by claiming it violates the DMCA. C-32 is in this regard even worse!

Same thing for the infamous generic garage door case... etc etc

The end result is the consumer gets punished in the end and the "artists" and creators get no benefit.. the lawyers and big business rakes in the cash. Yep definitely a good result from "copyright"


Also... patents much harder to get and can be challenged. So big business has been trying to use "copyright" laws to bypass this via the DMCA etc etc...

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glen - Last I knew the region coding is an identifier. Not some sort of prohibitor. I could be slightly outdated, but the electrical systems in India are a different hertz and as a result the playback on alot of televisions is different resolution. PAL vs NTSC. Perhaps that has changed and India is now fully HD?

It is a distributors right to sell product to a given region at the price which is right for them. I will go so far to say that due to cultural differences, languages, discretionary ratings systems, or censorship differences that a different version of a medium be available to different regions.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Also of note.... esp for James

Go read about the infamous betamax case... something the entertainment cartels have been trying to overturn for years.. Since they can't do so they are trying to use copyright / C-32 / DMCA / ACTA as a disguise to attain much the same result as well as line their own pockets even more.

And if you care to much about "artists" how about you fight to get those artists paid by the CRIA / MPAA etc... for the piracy committed by those labels. (Or are you oblivious to that lawsuit as well)
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glen - It was the consumers right to choose which format they wanted. VHS won.

Industry has every right to make product in the format they choose. I believe the only place I will draw the line is when it seriously effects the health and welfare of the population.
June 18, 2010

Give the Riaa a Baseball Bat Dental plan said:

OOPS!! I submitted their form! ... with the following information
I made a profile on the site, filled out my information. the email I submitted (the General one) looks like this :D

"My name is I DON'T AGREE WITH THE CONTENTS OF THIS EMAIL! MICHAEL GEIST IS RIGHT! and I am a voter who lives in your riding. I am writing to express my support for robust copyright reform in this Parliament.

.........

As a voter in your riding, I urge you to build on the start provided by Bill C-32's introduction, and to advance the passage of Copyright Act amendments that work for all Canadians.

Sincerely,

I DON'T AGREE WITH THE CONTENTS OF THIS EMAIL! MICHAEL GEIST IS RIGHT!
xxxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx@gmail.com"
June 18, 2010

Alex said:

Have you noticed
Have you noticed how there is a comment block on every article on that site, but there are no comments?

Censorship?

Maybe the Soviet approach? - "You can say what you want, but you have to say with your mouth duct taped"
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James

...
@glen - Last I knew the region coding is an identifier. Not some sort of prohibitor.
I could be slightly outdated, but the electrical systems in India are a different hertz and as a result the playback on alot of televisions is different resolution. PAL vs NTSC. Perhaps that has changed and India is now fully HD?


The region code is a digial lock only to enforce that marketing. So yes it is a prohibitor.

The electrical systems (110 vs 220 and 50 vs 60 hz), NTSC vs PAL and HD or not HD are completely different issues. (Not to mention they have nothing to do with the region code lock farce)

You can learn more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_region_code


Quote:
It is a distributors right to sell product to a given region at the price which is right for them. I will go so far to say that due to cultural differences, languages, discretionary ratings systems, or censorship differences that a different version of a medium be available to different regions.
Unqote

Ahh but that is actually not true.. that is called price fixing and it is illegal in most countries. the Region lock which is enforced only via the license for CSS decryption is effectively a quasi-legal bypass which they try to protect using the DMCA etc.

Try importing a DVD from another region and play it in your player. In 99.999% of the cases it will refuse to play due to this lock.


Oh and they make profit on the dvds sold in India... so therefore why is the same product not sold elsewhere for the same price? Simple.. they are greedy and have created an artificial method to force prices higher and prevent importing the same "product" from elsewhere.
June 18, 2010

mckracken said:

working backwards?
"Buy a tape recorder, an old sony walkman and take the music where-ever you want.

I really do not care if your convenience is violated. You have the choice to buy whatever product you want. You as a responsible consumer control the industry.

The government has very little to do with it. jmo... "

so, your answer is to use antiquated technology to 'deal' with it.

yep, done with this discussion with you as you obviously do not have any interest in a reasonable discussion.

although, perhaps framing it differently as kai did above might help.

you've just bought a brand new jaguar, insured it, and now want to drive it on a highway. at that moment the distributor tells you, 'oh no no no, you can't just drive it out. you only bought it to look at here. we need to charge you full price again if you actually want to use it outside.'
you: '.............'

good luck with that rich. if anyone deserves to be identified with an absence of logical discourse in this matter, it is you sir.
June 18, 2010

Headshaker said:

Fusion correction.
@James - Industry has every right to make product in the format they choose unless it seriously effects the health and welfare of the population.
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
@James

Industry has every right to make product in the format they choose.

Yes and exactly way so many people download music whether it be illegally or legally. Your employers don't give the consumers the formats that the consumer wants YET you still call those consumer criminals who are the cause of the starving artists syndrome when they refuse to buy outdated mediums.

Again James please explain to us how if we're allowed to format shift for personal usage when this bill arrives can we as consumers make private copies for in home usage from dvd's/br/cd's that have DRM on them which is 100% of all the disk mediums. Breaking DRM will be illegal then, so how are we to make copies of our media when the law says we can but your employers trump our legal rights with DRM on everything they produce.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James:

James said:
...
@glen - It was the consumers right to choose which format they wanted. VHS won.



I'm sorry but again you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. You have failed to even google for "betamax case" obviously. (Hint: it has NOTHING to do with VHS at all)

You're trying to argue for TPM/DRM C-32 etc and you have no clue what they even do.. never mind more basic statements you have made such as the one quoted above. All you are doing now is making yourself look very very uneducated and oblivious to the basic facts.

If you wish to continue then it would be wise to educate yourself about things before opening you mouth and proving how uninformed you really are.

Also I quote: "I have worked in the media biz for both production companies, and my own in the past"

I find that very very hard to believe that anyone who has worked in media would be not only unaware of the betamax lawsuit but would be oblivious enough to make the posts you have.
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

James said:

...
@end user - Legal industry has every right to choose the format they want. Yes.

If Sony Music wants to give away free copies of an artists work over broadband. Sure.

If an Artist wants to charge people to download their album and give away 30 seconds of track. Sure.

If a Distributor wants to make a deal with content producers and exclusively show the material on their HBO network. Sure.

If someone wants to sell Blue Ray DVD only. Sure.

If someone wants to add digital locks to their music, or their video games, or their movies. Sure.

Consumers have the right to enjoy the product. They can choose which ever product they want to buy. Sure.

Consumers have the right to pirate materials and sell bootlegs. No...
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@end user - Legal industry has every right to choose the format they want. Yes.

If someone wants to add digital locks to their music, or their video games, or their movies. Sure.


Sure so long as the consumer has the right to remove / bypass those same digital locks to exercise their legal rights. C-32 would eliminate that by trumping rights with DRM.

You are oblivious to the point in more ways than one.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@captain hook - I am not going to argue with that one. I think you are right. If somebody sells you a physical item. That item is yours to alter in any manner you see fit. I mean unless your making a bomb or something. Even then I think it's your right to make a bomb, but not your right to blow people up.

As for redistributing material which you are not legally allowed to redistribute. I don't think that specific act can be prevented entirely. However, profiteering off that work is still illegal to some extent. Distributors have rights too.
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
@James - Consumers have the right to pirate materials and sell bootlegs. No...

Umm the blank-cd levy allows us to make copes of music for personal usage even downloading and burning them to a cd. No one these days makes bootlegs get real this isn't the 80's
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@end user - Personal usage has nothing to do with pirating materials. Pirating is thievery. Bootlegging is making illegal items for resale.

I was just a little toddler in the eighties.
June 18, 2010

end user said:

...
@James Personal usage has nothing to do with pirating materials.

Really if personal usage has nothing to worry about why are your employers paying off politicians to take away consumer rights when a pirate will do it no matter what the law is. Just like drug laws, prohibition fuel dissent and underground distribution making the distributors of illegal things very rich.

Thanks to all the info I get from Michaels site I would have gone and seen Iron Man 2 in the theater with the kids but I just used that money to buy Alice In Wonder Land and other movies for $3 each at the pawn shop saving me tons of money and shafting the people who are about to take away my rights as a consumer. I'll wait for my $3 Iron Man 2 dvd a few days after the DVD release and watch it on my HTPC at the comfort of my own home.

June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@end user - Personal usage has nothing to do with pirating materials.


Exactly.... the same as the DRM provisions in C-32 have nothing to do with prevention of piracy but do take away consumers rights.

Get a clue already.. your stance is "anti-piracy" then C-32 is NOT going to help with that at all.

Here.. go read this and start learning: http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2007/01/8616.ars
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@end user - I have no idea which of my employers are supposedly paying off politicians. The drug laws are in place to protect society. Unfortunately so many people, yourself being a good example have no respect for authorities to the point where you are willing to harm yourself and everyone around you in the process.

Do what ever you want to yourself. I don't care. I am all for legal suicides, people drinking drano, or tinkering with digital locks.

I would rather see Iron Man in the theater. Me personally, I'll wait until 2005 or 2006 when somebody plays on it on TV.



June 18, 2010

James said:

...
*2015 or 2016
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
A perfect quote for anyone thinking DRM protects artists:

In a nutshell: DRM's sole purpose is to maximize revenues by minimizing your rights and selling them back to you.

( http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2007/01/8616.ars )
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - who its arts technica? I stopped believing the content written by bloggers a long time ago...
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James

learn to google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Technica

They are a highly respected long term technology news source.

No one said you have to "believe" which your statement is hardly a surprise.. since you can't refute the facts lets "claim" they are not the truth since they do not co-inside with your views and you cannot prove them wrong. (A classic BS move same as the RCC has tried and failed with many times.)

The same information and more can be found from a large # of other sources if you bother to Google.

However since you are still a very uneducated troll / shill your stance again is expected and laughed at.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
Glenn - I stopped using Google when Bing came up with better image search.

Cracked Magazine has wiki entry too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracked

Don't believe everything you search for. You are guaranteed to find it.
June 18, 2010

Headshaker said:

Oh, it's all right then....
@James "who its arts technica? I stopped believing the content written by bloggers a long time ago..."

Then since they write about this C-32 bill thingie then we shouldn't believe it exists!
Problem solved. Thank you very much, James!
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James

Once again thanks for the laugh and proving again you are a complete idiot.


@ Headshaker

Nicely said!
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@headshaker - Someone else's opinion on copyright laws has nothing to do with my opinion.

I simply have never heard of the magazine before and I don't really follow anything they are saying.



June 18, 2010

Chris said:

Brick wall
James obviously hasn't read any of the points anyone is making since he has never actually addressed them. James, why should I support a bill that gives me the right to copy a DVD to my computer for my own personal use that I am never going to redistribute, and then takes that right away by not allowing me to break the digital lock on the DVD to do the backup?

It has jack to do with supporting the artists and everything to do with controlling how people use the things they buy even if that use is legal.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
"Privately, Hollywood admits DRM isn't about piracy"

Who is "Hollywood". Which one of thier official representatives "Privately" admitted that digital locks have nothing to do with copyright protection?

You are reading garbage sensationalist stuff. Like the National Enquirer. Only the modern version which feeds you the sensationalist stuff you want to hear.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
Inquiring Minds want to know...
June 18, 2010

James said:

June 18, 2010

Headshaker said:

...
@James - Ah, but together your original comments _implied_ that one shouldn't believe in what the blog site Ars writes about. If you never heard of Ars then you simply cannot comment on what Ars writes about to begin with. Quite frankly, deliberate or not, a hidden insult. (And right back at you)

As for your opinion, you are correct, but claiming that they are wrong to begin with is a smear on someone that you claim to have never heard about. That, in the best of cases, very bad manners.

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
I didn't claim they were incorrect. I said they were sensationalist.

It's an article from 2007.

This thread is about a form letter which appears to be more of a "call to action" or words to raise awareness. I don't neccesarily disagree with the form letter being pre-written. I think it gives people the opportunity to better understand the purpose of the bill. When the article uses terms like "embarrassing" I think they run the risk of losing applicants. It does force feed opinion a little aggressively.

Until now, I didn't truly understand what Bill-C32 meant to consumers but now I have a better picture. I'm sure it will raise awareness to consumers/employees as well.
June 18, 2010

IamME said:

...
In regards to VHS, and I admit am not too familiar with the betamax lawsuit, but it's my understanding it was the pornography industry that swayed the market. In those days, it was porn that dominated private sales and that industry chose VHS over beta. There was probably some back-dealing going on there.

Kai makes very valid points about this legislation...it does nothing to help artists, in fact it hinders artists and will hurt sales. It's not their choice as to whether or not their production company uses DRM and I truely feel sorry for that because I, personally will not ever buy DRM protected music. I love music, but if I can't copy it to a disk to play in my car (Which is the only place I get to listen to it these days) or to my wife's mp3 player without jumping through hoops, I won't have it. On top of that DRM will limit distribution which will surely result in less people hearing the music and result in lower concert ticket sales along with lower merchandise sales. Initially, I suspect this will almost certainly where artists will feel the largest pinch.

The ONLY artists this helps are those right at the top of the food chain (Nickelback, Metallica, U2, etc.) and those who produce and distribute their own music (Bif Naked, Sarah McLaughlan, etc.).
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James

ARS is not sensationalist at all. They are however highly respected for publishing the truth.

Your not knowing about them is irrelevant. Your statement is tantamount to saying everyone on the planet is a liar and sensationalist if you do not know them personally.

"Hollywood" = MPAA and their affiliates as well as the same response from the RIAA. (CRIA included)

Look at the fact there is no DRM currently on most CDs... and ask yourself WHY.


If you want sensationalist go to perez hilton's site.

Oh and btw,.. the irony of your comparison... the "Enquirer" is actually been proven over time to be extremely accurate (though about crap i don't give care for personally... ie: useless gossip)
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
I also switched to Bing to avoid the first result syndrome where popular opinion is driven by what people find in the number one spot on Google.

If someone looks for it. And they find it. For some reason it validates their theory with a little less critical thinking required.
June 18, 2010

Headshaker said:

Definitions time
@James - "I didn't claim they were incorrect. I said they were sensationalist."

If one is a sensationalist then one exaggerates the truth. To exaggerate means to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth. So, if one is not within the truth then they are incorrect. Therefore, you are incorrect.

June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ IamME and anyone not knowing about the betamax lawsuit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios

Quote:

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)[1], also known as the "Betamax case", is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market as it created a legal safe haven for the technology, which also significantly benefited the entertainment industry through the sale of pre-recorded movies.

The broader legal consequence of the Court's decision was its establishment of a general test for determining whether a device with copying or recording capabilities ran afoul of copyright law. This test has created some interpretative challenges to courts in applying the case to more recent file sharing technologies available for use on home computers and over the Internet.

Unquote.


As for Betamax vs VHS.. that was merely a format war and VHS won mosty due to lower costs. That however is irrelevant to the "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc." aka betamax suit.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Also.. the porn industry impacted the beta vs VHS format war again due to lower costs and that industry was a massive portion of the tapes being produced.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@headshaker - I don't why you care about digital locks other than to pirate the materials. It is your choice as a consumer to buy the product you want. If you don't want to buy a DVD with a digital lock. Go to India and buy the DVD which is only $3.00 according to you. Hell, go online and order online from India. Save some money, maybe get a PAL TV set first and learn to speak Indian.

@glenn - http://www.nationalenquirer.co...rity/68832
June 18, 2010

Headshaker said:

???
@James - At least get the right person to insult.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@headshaker - it's all the same... as if I've never been in a bickering match with trolls before... It's not the 80's
June 18, 2010

Headshaker said:

Clarification
@James - To be more clear (and I'm afraid I have to be) the whole India region code thing was from Glenn. I'm the one pointing out your personal mistakes.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@headshaker - You are Richard Dawkins crowd... Don't you ever worry about all the time you waste?
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James

The link is a report of an official statement by David Hathaway from NASA. If you wish to argue with that (when it is irrelevant to this topic) I would suggest you complain to NASA PR dept (if you are American.)

Now back to the C-32 discussion and your lack of knowledge... complete lame attempt to ignore any and all facts and arguments about it other than spouting your stream of crap.

Oh and Bing, Google... etc etc... does not matter.. the actual info garnered is the point.

Your argument w/that is about as pointless as Firefox vs IE and your claiming one is "skewing" the results simply because you do not like what is found.



June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - Are you the guy who made a point to clearly define the difference between sensationalism and "truthfulness"?
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james:

James said:
...
@headshaker - I don't why you care about digital locks other than to pirate the materials. It is your choice as a consumer to buy the product you want. If you don't want to buy a DVD with a digital lock. Go to India and buy the DVD which is only $3.00 according to you. Hell, go online and order online from India. Save some money, maybe get a PAL TV set first and learn to speak Indian.

Most modern DVD players now will play a PAL encoded dvd here w/o any issues at all. The only problem with the $3 dvd from India vs the $30 from your local Walmart is the region code lock.

I also find it amusing that someone as ignorant of the technical aspects of how things actually work would attempt to make an argument about such. Whats next.. you try to argue about quantum physics?
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

outside camot
June 18, 2010

Headshaker said:

Troll alert!
@James - Stop making illogical comments (opinions don't count) plus insults and I'll stop correcting you. It's that simple. Calling everyone else trolls (except you, of course) does not help your case.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@headshaker - Thank you for pointing out the specific illogical statements I made and referencing them specifically. I have no case. Just opinion. Same as you.
June 18, 2010

IamME said:

...well regardless...
This is something that has to be said. I spend, and have always spent, a lot of money on entertainment, between buying music, buying DVD/BD, satelite, going to concerts and movies when I have a chance, etc. I don't care what this law states and what it makes legal or not legal. I'll be God-damned if I give up my right to copy a movie, I legally purchased, to my computer or the right to record and store a TV show until I have time to watch it or the right to make a mixed music CD for my car or the right to copy music to my wife's mp3 player. If the content is locked, like DVDs and BDs and a lot of music, I will find a way to unlock it and they can kiss my white hynie!!! And you know what, this was the general opinion of absolutely 100% of those people I've spoken to. I'd be curious what others here think.

The bigger concerns for me are those out of my control, such as the restrictions on educational institutions and libraries. And, the potential side effect we're likely to have scare me, such as those the USA are experiencing as a result of DMCA.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

@James
That doesn't actually answer my question.
June 18, 2010

Headshaker said:

T-T-That's all.
Well, I think I'd better stop before James explodes in TrollFyre.
Ta!
June 18, 2010

IamME said:

Out-of-Region DVDs
Time to run out and buy a spare region-free player before they become illegal. Generally an off-brand region-free system-free player will run between $60 and $100 and are usually readily available in any electronics store located in "China Town" in any city. And they're easily found on-line too. :-) You can get a region free BD player now, but it'll cost you in the $400 range the last time I checked.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@IamME - I understand what you are saying. Some lady was sued for a few million dollars in the states for illegally downloading music. Obviously she unfortunate enough to become the example.

Napster was outlawed in the US.

I am not sure why you are afraid of recording devices somehow being outlawed. To my current understanding, most digital TV sets have built in recorders.

DMCA does serve a good purpose. To those who can afford to take the proper legal channels right? Smaller distributors are not immune to piracy.

Why would you want a region free DVD player? The region specific thing has been in effect for years now. Has it effected your ability as a consumer to use the product?
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ IamME said:
...well regardless...
This is something that has to be said. I spend, and have always spent, a lot of money on entertainment, between buying music, buying DVD/BD, satelite, going to concerts and movies when I have a chance, etc. I don't care what this law states and what it makes legal or not legal. I'll be God-damned if I give up my right to copy a movie, I legally purchased, to my computer or the right to record and store a TV show until I have time to watch it or the right to make a mixed music CD for my car or the right to copy music to my wife's mp3 player. If the content is locked, like DVDs and BDs and a lot of music, I will find a way to unlock it and they can kiss my white hynie!!! And you know what, this was the general opinion of absolutely 100% of those people I've spoken to. I'd be curious what others here think.

The bigger concerns for me are those out of my control, such as the restrictions on educational institutions and libraries. And, the potential side effect we're likely to have scare me, such as those the USA are experiencing as a result of DMCA.



Indeed.. and I will continue to crack through any and all BS DRM crap and provide the solutions to others.

C-32 if anything is worse than the DMCA and cannot be allowed to pass w/o removal of the TPM / DRM sections.



Also a region free player can be had for dvds for $30 on avg at walmart... almost all of the "no-name" players do not conform to the region coding rules. (Legally as well due to them producing the firmware for the model in a country that prohibits the region lock). You can very often get an updated firmware for most players to do the same online with a lil searching.



@ headshaker

LOL @ TrollFyre comment
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
Like I said... You can't stop people from stealing. You can only detour them and write sensationalist stuff which makes money for the "pirates" who sell secret DVD decoder technology
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
I'll probably write various MPs again over the summer about the issue of the digital locks in the hope that when they come back in the fall it's actually listened to and changed to at least allow the breaking of the locks in situations where we can legally copy something.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James

James said:
...
@IamME - I understand what you are saying. Some lady was sued for a few million dollars in the states for illegally downloading music. Obviously she unfortunate enough to become the example.

Yes and many innocent people have also been targeted in the RIAA's extortion attempts.




"Napster was outlawed in the US."

Correction.. it was BOUGHT and continues to exist today.




"I am not sure why you are afraid of recording devices somehow being outlawed. To my current understanding, most digital TV sets have built in recorders."


Your understanding is again massively lacking and yet you continue to open your mouth about things you do not know and prove your stupidity.



"DMCA does serve a good purpose. To those who can afford to take the proper legal channels right? Smaller distributors are not immune to piracy."


On the contrary the DMCA has proven to be a complete disaster. Not only failing miserably to "prevent piracy" in any way it has been exploited to stifle competition and censor the truth. Even one of it's primary creators calls it a total failure.



"Why would you want a region free DVD player? The region specific thing has been in effect for years now. Has it effected your ability as a consumer to use the product? "


Yes it has for many people. Anyone that buys a DVD when away on holidays in another "region". Anyone importing a DVD that has not been released here. Anyone whom gets a DVD from elsewhere as a gift.. etc etc And EVERYONE that has bought any DVDs here at all has been effectively ripped off by artificially inflated prices caused by the region coding.

June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
Like I said... You can't stop people from stealing. You can only detour them and write sensationalist stuff which makes money for the "pirates" who sell secret DVD decoder technology


Actually the "DVD decoder" technology was developed legally and given away to the world for free by Jon Johansen and 3 anonymous others. (DECSS) "Hollywood" has tried desperately to sue him and has failed miserably. Pirates have never "sold" that per se at all. They have instead mass produced pirate discs and sold those. Again though you miss the fact that DRM does not stop piracy... it only hurts the consumers in the lame attempt to remove their rights.

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
Disney has a lot of success with it's copyright protections. It's only common sense to provide the laws which protect the authors of the content.

Napster was sued, it does exist today and they charge money for service. You are right, I thought the statements on their website from their staff regarding the service was rather funny.

Guys... You are fighting for the right to Import foreign DVDs into different markets. You are blowing it out of proportion.

In any event, I can't even find pirated movies on Baidu anymore. That should be a big wake up call for all the rebels out there.

Times are changing.
June 18, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
Wow, reading through this thread, I am amazed at how much James boy shows off his ignorance.

James please, go learn something about region encoding, broadcast flags, DRM, the "Betamax" case, amongst many other things you are demonstrating extreme ignorance of. Then come back, and a productive conversation may ensue. Until then, this is just silly.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

One last time
James, we're fighting for the right to be allowed to do things that the bill is suppose to allow us to do in the first place.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james

Sorry but no.. Disney has had miserable failures with such attempts.. same as Sony's attempts (Irony there is Sony is so stupid they ended up suing themselves). I know for a fact since I in part helped eliminate their "protections" which came after the basic CSS system. DRM in all forms so far has been a miserable failure and has again not done a damn thing to prevent piracy.
(And no my efforts do not make me a pirate.. it makes me a consumer with the technical knowledge needed to bypass such crap.)

Napster was indeed sued... as well as others. However the US bullies have failed still to "prevent piracy".. DRM or not. The music industry was one of the first to get a clue that DRM was a failure (ironically) and then instead tried to sue their customers instead... (not very bright). Not to mention the same US bullies have tried repeatedly to force their laws on everyone else in the world.

We are not just fighting for imported DVDs... it's about consumer rights and C-32 trying to take those rights away.

Times are indeed always changing... but finding a pirate movie is not the point (even though that is very easy to do). Fact is times are changing and the "old dogs" are becoming dinosaurs (Music labels etc) and are unhappy.. therefore they are desperate to try to force their business model to remain via laws and taking away consumer (and artists) rights... just to give them $$$.

Well ultimately they loose the same as you do James.. have a tantrum all you want but the reality is we can and will fight back. And the US corporations behind this crap can kiss my ass.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - I might be confusing you with the "hackers". To be honest, if somebody wants to spend 20 or 30 hrs of their life trying to get a free copy of a DVD by circumventing a piracy protection issue. So be it. Their time is wasted and rather worthless.

You could record the radio to magnetic tape years ago. Your fears are unjustifiable. You can copy and steal anything if you really want to.

Just step back and think from a common sense perspective. Do you as an individual feel that artists, distributors and industries in general should be prohibited from introducing copyright protection methods to prohibit pirating?

Consider that this might make it more difficult for someone in India to play a DVD in North America, or it might make it more difficult for someone to get a hard copy version of a Lady Gaga CD without purchasing it. Or it might make it a little difficult to make extra copies of a DVD.

Do you think the artists, the distributors and the industries in general should left to the mercy of the pirates? I don't believe you much industry after long, I think given enough time we'll all be banging drums and entertaining ourselves or paying to go to concerts. They won't make any money if the decision to pay for entertainment is left upto the consumer. They will choose free at every opportunity. I know I do.

June 18, 2010

crade said:

...
The reason we care about digital locks provisions when we aren't pirates is simple. They make otherwise non-infringing use suddenly become infringing. They create a double standard. One set of rights for if there is no DRM, and a different, much smaller set of rights with DRM.

Creators are now strongly encouraged to use DRM. After all, they gain more protections. If they use DRM, they are no longer succeptable to most of the "fair dealing" and "consumers rights".

If these rights are really so unimportant, then take them out entirely. Then at least creators won't be punished for choosing not to use DRM. If they are important, we need them regardless of whether there is DRM or not. None of these rights are important if there is no DRM and suddenly unimportant if there is.

Also, since they forbid creating tools needed for circumvention as well, we have no defense when the technology used for DRM is used unethically, or when we need them for those few "super important" rights that even have special exemptions to allow breaking of DRM for.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James

Q: Do you as an individual feel that artists, distributors and industries in general should be prohibited from introducing copyright protection methods to prohibit pirating?
A: Considering that the protection have done little to actually stop pirating and, in some cases, have proved more damaging to people who don't break the law, yes. Considering what pirates do is already against the law, and no one is asking for that to be changed at all despite your repeated attempts to make it look like it, protections are entirely unnecessary.

Q: Do you think the artists, the distributors and the industries in general should left to the mercy of the pirates?
A: They're not, despite their claims to the contrary. What they are victims of is an ageing system and not adjusting to the new technological reality. The fact is no matter how well you protect your items, once they are digital it can be copied and broken.

Now I have no problem with DRM protection. What I have a problem with is DRM protection that takes away the same rights that the bill they are being introduced in gives us. Let me ask you again. Why should I not be allowed to make a legal format shift (which is legal under C-32) of a DVD I own because I have to break the digital lock it has?
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
Come on guys wake up. Which country has one of the poorest and most struggling media industries out there? I don't think I've really heard too much about the Canadian Media Industry at all. It's all government subsidized or American.

I personally feel that Canadians are raping their own culture. Especially when they have to compete with other countries who have their act together
June 18, 2010

mckracken said:

specifics
@james "Thank you for pointing out the specific illogical statements I made and referencing them specifically. I have no case"

they've been specifically pointed out and you've pointedly ignored them.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james

James said:
...

Just step back and think from a common sense perspective. Do you as an individual feel that artists, distributors and industries in general should be prohibited from introducing copyright protection methods to prohibit pirating?


Once again james. DRM does NOT prevent pirating.. The same as region coding on a DVD does not prevent piracy.. it was never intended to do that.

As for the "industry" claims that DRM is "anti-piracy" at best a smoke screen for trying to remove consumers rights and then "rent them back" and generate more $$ from it.

June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
The problem isn't the lack of Canadian content, or insufficient protections for Canadian content, is that the media seems more happy to feed us US content rather than work on their own content. The exception to this is probably the CBC.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - Then read the thread again and understand that the form letter is a "call to action" or words to raise awareness.

June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

MAFIAA I know you ARE rading this...
You are NEVER going to appeal to the masses,no matter hard yo utry why?We know the truth.We know how you ppl do things by giving the artists 1% and giveng yourselves a 99% cut,you'll never get it,just like you'll never get my money for your little music ponzi scheme.You are dying fast MAFIAA cause you better get with the times or you'll be forgotten,never remembered,put back on the shelf.You better embrace: P2P,Digital Distribution cause if you don't we customers will just directly support the local artists while you scream piracy piracty are your profits sink down the hole. What will happen then huh?NOFX was right in their song: Dinosaurs must Die because you MAFIAA are slowly going to shot yourself in the foot with these new laws and the fans just give up and stop buying music altogether.Accept change or go extinct like the dinosaurs did MAFIAA cause I won't cry when your demise set in.
June 18, 2010

Jason K said:

...
"In the absence of clear rules, Canadian consumers lack a clear signal that downloading digital products from the Internet without payment is not allowed."

Than it should be up to creators to put forth business models so it is allowed. Throwing restrictions on users with respect to the use of the internet is bad economic policy and it is not balanced. If creators and artists want payment for downloading than it should be up to them to come up with business models that are fair not only to the economics, but the consumer as well.

P2P file sharing is hear to stay, the creators and artists need to adapt now, and stop f**kin complaining! The US has not allowed file sharing and their pirating rates per person is a lot higher than Canada. Deal with it, move on.

The new economy is consumer driven. It would be best for our creators and artists not to piss off the consumer, and smarten up. Move forward with better economic models, and innovate, or get out of the industry all together.

Canada would be more of an embarrassment if we went along with the charade of putting together massively expensive operations in place to "try" and kill file sharing at a time when globally innovation is near nil in the creative industries even where strict punishment and reforms are in place. It would be a dis-service to our creative communities to go along with this since there is no short or long term positive economics in following suit.

Industry needs to be forced to innovate, we should be legalizing and monetizing file sharing to ensure this happens across the board! We are headed that way anyway.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
Come on guys wake up. Which country has one of the poorest and most struggling media industries out there? I don't think I've really heard too much about the Canadian Media Industry at all. It's all government subsidized or American.

I personally feel that Canadians are raping their own culture. Especially when they have to compete with other countries who have their act together


@ james

Oh please... you do realize our media industry is doing just fine. Not counting alot of the complete utter shit produced here (Murdoch Myseries anyone?) Thankfully we do also produce some excellent material such as "Being Erica". However once again C-32 does nothing to help this industry.. it only harms it and the Canadian consumer with US fed crap.

As for our "act" I'd say we have not only got it together but we refuse to be bullied by the aforementioned Americans and not just on C-32. (Helms Burton anyone and our stance telling the US to effectively kiss our collective asses.) We are a sovereign nation... the US needs to keep it's nose to itself before it gets it punched.

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@jason P2P might not be hear to stay. A three strikes and your out rule has been introduced in France. You are welcome to come to your own conclusion regarding it.

June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@glenn - Then read the thread again and understand that the form letter is a "call to action" or words to raise awareness.



Indeed.. and much to your obvious dismay it is raising awareness of the disaster that C-32 is regardless of uneducated morons like you trying desperately to say it's a "good thing" which we know very well it is not.

Maybe you should be more aware of the fact we all know you are full of crap and are being dragged out onto the carpet for it.

June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
argh

Murdoch Myseries = Murdoch Mysteries

damn evil typos
June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

James...
I'm ALLOWED to buy a import PS2 cause I'm not breaking ANY laws.If I have a Region 2 PS2( which i actually own) then I SHOULD be allowed to play the Region 2 import game I LEGALLY bought (since it's breaking no laws).Why should there be a no import clause in this bill,just because you think that sony of america will be scared they aren't getting MY money?get real....you are a MAFIAA shill and it's written all over your face.

Captcha: wrathing States
after they find out MAFFIA's ponzi scheme
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@junji - No Artist is forced to provide their works to a distributor. Nobody is prevented from opening up their own business models for distributing works legally.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@jason P2P might not be hear to stay. A three strikes and your out rule has been introduced in France. You are welcome to come to your own conclusion regarding it.


Indeed it has.. but France has a system where you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. Thankfully we do not have that crap here. Not to mention that same law is under legal challenge there and has already been rewritten in an effort to eliminate the massive flaws with it. France has even lost support from other EU partners over it as well.

June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@junji - No Artist is forced to provide their works to a distributor. Nobody is prevented from opening up their own business models for distributing works legally.


Very true... and that is why now with the internet and legal P2P many smaller artists are having success w/o the draconian old dying "labels" much to their dismay.

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
Guys, I assure you that I am no secret agent. This is the way I feel about it. I am not a large consumer of digital media products. I prefer watching strange shorts on the internet and listening to internet radio. I don't pirate DVD's. I don't pirate CD's. I don't listen to Justin Beiber.

I think there is so much opportunity for Canadians to grow industry but currently we are stuck in the mud creating imaginary villains fighting against imaginary evil forces. Canadian are greedy pirates. Not good for much.

To eat my own words. I'm almost embarrassed.

June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
Guys, I assure you that I am no secret agent. This is the way I feel about it. I am not a large consumer of digital media products. I prefer watching strange shorts on the internet and listening to internet radio. I don't pirate DVD's. I don't pirate CD's. I don't listen to Justin Beiber.

I think there is so much opportunity for Canadians to grow industry but currently we are stuck in the mud creating imaginary villains fighting against imaginary evil forces. Canadian are greedy pirates. Not good for much.

To eat my own words. I'm almost embarrassed.



you should be embarrassed with the sheer BS you have spewed... especially calling Canadians "greedy pirates". You seriously need to be slapped upside the head.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
And guess what James? I also don't download music from P2P networks that I can buy, I don't download pirated movie, video games, and I have no idea who Justin Beiber is.

Canadian industry does have a chance to grow, but not by removing the rights of consumers to do things that consumers have the right to do. It's also a perfect time for the Canadian industry to grow by embarrassing new methods of doing things rather than trying to hold onto old, dying system. Unfortunately people like you would rather us stay in the past than move into the future.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - you are embarrassing me. I am currently assuming because of your participation in the thread that you are Canadian. Nothing I have said has embarrassed me. I mean I could be wrong and none of you could be Canadians.
June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

James,what do you say to ...
Thom Yorke then?He KNOWS MAFIAA from the inside out.

"It will be only a matter of time—months rather than years—before the music business establishment completely folds. [It will be] no great loss to the world." - Thom Yorke

He already knows that MAFIAA is going to die by sticking with their outdated business model,why not embrace P2P and Other Forms?Cause your scared of change?Scared of trying something new?MAFIAA is going to sink if they don't change and accept change & other business models then their old ponzi schemish business model.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ Chris

Well said!
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James

Not only am I Canadian I am proud of it. And proud of the fact we continue to fight against the crap like the DMCA. I refuse to bow down to US corporations and their crap... trying to remove consumers rights in the name of the $. It's sad people like you are so damn blind.

As for Canadians etc on here... true even if you had the IP logs that is no proof. However given the statements made the most likely to be American here would be you James.. employed by the RIAA etc.

June 18, 2010

Anonymous Coward said:

...
"At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver4.htm
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - wake up... If you want to copy or steal media, nobody is going to stop you. Enter the real world for a minute. You can only detour and punish people for it.

There is no "dying system" there is only attitude which you seem to buying into. Wake up guy, the radio has been broadcasting music everywhere for years now.

Technology really hasn't changed THAT much, but consumer attitude has. Jmo...

I specifically said that with all this new technology it's an opportunity for smaller business to get started. Artists can entirely circumvent the greedy distribution channels of the "old days" and start new ventures.

It's the not the greedy corporations that artists have to worry about. It's the pirates.
June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

James..
I'm going to say a good quote (with appologies to Nigel Farage):
"I don't want to be rude but you know, really, you have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance ... of a MAFIAA Lawyer.Who Are you,we have never heard of you ,canada has never heard of you.

I can say with confidence on behalf of all canadian people.We don't know you,we don't want you and sooner your hung out to dry the better."
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@chris - wake up... If you want to copy or steal media, nobody is going to stop you. Enter the real world for a minute. You can only detour and punish people for it.

There is no "dying system" there is only attitude which you seem to buying into. Wake up guy, the radio has been broadcasting music everywhere for years now.

Technology really hasn't changed THAT much, but consumer attitude has. Jmo...

I specifically said that with all this new technology it's an opportunity for smaller business to get started. Artists can entirely circumvent the greedy distribution channels of the "old days" and start new ventures.

It's the not the greedy corporations that artists have to worry about. It's the pirates.


The pirates are there regardless.... so punishing consumers whom PAY for media is your ideal solution? That's completely retarded.

If you punish the consumers you alienate them and they stop supporting you and your product... and piracy continues regardless of DRM w/o a hitch. Therefore once again you are a moron w/o a clue.


Once again for the slow witted: DRM does nothing to stop piracy.


June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Junji Hiroma said:
James..
I'm going to say a good quote (with appologies to Nigel Farage):
"I don't want to be rude but you know, really, you have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance ... of a MAFIAA Lawyer.Who Are you,we have never heard of you ,canada has never heard of you.

I can say with confidence on behalf of all canadian people.We don't know you,we don't want you and sooner your hung out to dry the better."



I concur!
June 18, 2010

Anonymous Coward said:

Look, it's EMI being stupid! Why don't we follow them into the future?
http://www.techdirt.com/articl...9875.shtml

This list is just a fraction of the songs EMI makes available, but it's irrefutable that EMI uses free song files as promotion. Astonishingly they are still telling the court that they don't authorize song files to be distributed for free. They are denying these songs are legitimate in spite of overwhelming evidence of MP3 files from retailers, blogs, artist sites, label sites, and marketing sites. Even when you point to one of their own corporate blogs which offers downloads they remain steadfast in their claim that they don't distribute MP3s online for free.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James. I am awake James, unlike you and the people who defend the blind illegality of breaking digital locks. And yes the old model is dying, that's why they are fighting so hard to make it illegal to do things that we should be allowed to do. Does that mean I think things like DVD and CDs are going to disappear forever? Hell no, I actually like buying DVDs. But that doesn't mean the old "The only way for someone to get something is by going to a physical store" method isn't dying.

If you make a law that you don't expect to enforce, why make the law in the first place? Why not tailor the law to what you actually plan to enforce?
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ Anonymous Coward

nice link about the hypocritical tards @ emi
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@anonymous coward - The pirates are not seen as people who steal from the deserved. The pirates lower the overall value of the content in general. They reduce the value of works to zero. They make digital artworks worthless. That should be fairly obvious to anybody.

It is simply an issue as to whether or not the industry has the right to protect their materials. Which they do. So do Artists if they really want to.

A consumer has the right to choose which product they want to purchase.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james

Yep they do.. hence why copyright exists.

DRM however is not copyright and c-32 is an attempt to effectively remove consumers rights in the guise of "anti-piracy"

None of us are falling for that load of crap.

The industry protecting it's materials at the expenses of the consumers rights is beyond unacceptable.. period.

June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

James it's not about the Industry vs the pirates...
Even if ACTA's in place china WILL still MAKE bootleg DVD's still. The music industry going after the pirates is a ILLUSION. Their TRUE enemy is the customer.

"
Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That's sarcasm, let it burn

I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts "That's what they get!"

For all the years of hit and run
For all the piss broke bands on VH1
Where did all, their money go?
Don't we all know

Parasitic music industry
As it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be" ~NOFX - Dinosaurs Will Die
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - Digital technology makes copying more convenient. That's about it. The Artist/Consumer model hasn't changed at all. Distribution channels exist, people will pay for what they want.

Why should we prohibit technology from serving any other other purpose except for freely distributing materials? Why can't it be allowed to protect materials? And never have I once said that people couldn't tamper with a product which they have actually purchased and own. Renting a device, different story. Voiding a warranty, something entirely different. Breaking a lock on an item you own. I never said it should be illegal.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@chris - Digital technology makes copying more convenient. That's about it. The Artist/Consumer model hasn't changed at all. Distribution channels exist, people will pay for what they want.

Why should we prohibit technology from serving any other other purpose except for freely distributing materials? Why can't it be allowed to protect materials? And never have I once said that people couldn't tamper with a product which they have actually purchased and own. Renting a device, different story. Voiding a warranty, something entirely different. Breaking a lock on an item you own. I never said it should be illegal.



If that were true then you would be against C-32 and it's DRM
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - The thing you are arguing to protect? You know that you keep on saying we are wrong about? You are exactly arguing for making it illegal to tamper with those. That is why people are arguing against digital locks, not because they want to pirate things. That is why people don't like the digital lock provision in the bill because it makes it illegal to tamper with. I've said this pretty much every time I've started talking to you and you just don't get it at all, and you never address why it should be illegal.

As for making copying easier, digital technology also make it cheep to distribute. No longer do you need to spend the money to make the DVDs. Just make a digital copy and put it online for people to download. New distribution method. A new advertising or money making method could be putting it up for free and asking people to pay for it is they think it's worth paying for. And the people who like it and genuinely support you will pay you, and people you would have never got money from in the first place you won't. There may be a bit of overlap in the middle, but that's it.

Again, I'm not against the idea of digital locks. They are just ineffective at preventing what they are suppose to prevent and end up hurting the people who legally acquired the items more than it does the pirates.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@juhni - The consumer isn't the enemy. The consumer is what makes the artists life possible. Without the consumer there would be no opportunity for Artists or industry to exist at all. They are the ones who consume the product.

There is no clearly defined enemy. We aren't chasing imaginary villainous forces. This is about taking responsibility for supporting those artists. Giving them their rights instead of striping it from them. You can't stop someone from stealing, you can only detour them, or punish them. In a best case scenario, you can temp them to purchase the product out of want or in a strange circumstance, need.

The real problem is the disconnect between the artist and the consumer with the distributor who holds no responsibility or accountability to the industry in general. P2P is a good example. The Pirate Bay is another good example.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - How will they know the digital lock has been broken? I have said it before and I will say it again. This thread is about a call to action or a raising awareness for taking responsibility for the digital media products consumers buy. They can buy what they want. If someone wants to buy a product with a digital lock. Let them.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@glenn - How will they know the digital lock has been broken? I have said it before and I will say it again. This thread is about a call to action or a raising awareness for taking responsibility for the digital media products consumers buy. They can buy what they want. If someone wants to buy a product with a digital lock. Let them.


then why try to vote for C-32 and the DRm in the first place which only punishes the consumer by making breaking that lock ILLEGAL and taking away those consumers rights.

You are a unbelievably stupid stubborn ass.. to say the least. Never mind oblivious as to the reality of C-32 and it's ramifications.




June 18, 2010

IamME said:

@James
"I am not sure why you are afraid of recording devices somehow being outlawed. To my current understanding, most digital TV sets have built in recorders."

Well, if that were the case, which I'm not sure it is. I know my LG doesn't have a built in recorder, but that's not the point. The point is, that if a signal or source is protected with some form of DRM, it becomes illegal to use those very same recorders, making them useless. And that is not acceptable if I'm copying something I purchased legally. They wouldn't be pushing for the DRM provisions so hard if they didn't plan to use them...c'mon!!!! They're not trying to help the artist, they're trying to stifle the technology to gain control over the intangible. As it's been pointed out, a growing number independent artists use the Internet to successfully distribute their music and that scares the shit out the media giants. Shame on them for trying to take away fair use!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - Are you talking to me or are you talking to yourself? I don't know. Why vote for it?

I am not stubborn. You however are horribly mis-guided and for some strange reason feel that you MUST convince me that I should subscribe to what you believe. Including that sensationalist arts technica publication. Like it's a bible or something.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - Would you be okay with a modification to bill C-32 digital lock provision that currently makes it illegal to break a digital lock no matter the circumstances you are breaking for for for adding exceptions to allow the breaking of digital locks in the cases on legal use of copyrighted material? Would you also be okay with companies being allowed to manufacture devices to break these in the cases where you are legally allowed to use copyrighted material? Because that is what people are arguing for, not the ability to pirate whatever they want.
June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

James
Artists get a LITTLE slice of the pie while the LBAELS eat it up.Should we punish the customers with this law?Should we give them more money(by letting this law pass) and then where will it end up?BACK IN the Labels hand again. You must have clearly heard of the song won't be fooled again,the canadian public won't be fooled again.
June 18, 2010

Cimply Hear said:

...
I own a TV. I own a VCR. I have an antenna. Under C32, recording from that antenna will become illegal.

I have plenty of respect for artists, commercials (which is still better than a TV tax like they have in Britain), and consumers. It is the **AA type groups that make their money off of the artists and the consumers, then bite that hand that is feeding them.
June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

glenn,that's what a shill does
They deny everything and praise the ground the MAFIAA sits on.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - I am not sure if I would agree to anything which is so loosely defined by you. That is the truth. I simply do not trust you. But if you like to prove that my vote on this bill will cause countless consumers to be carted off to jail for breaking digital locks on products, well, prove it.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - If they are not going to be, why bother making it illegal? Why make a law you don't plan on enforcing? Why not make the law tailored to what you actually want to make illegal rather than just making everything illegal?

Not that you would go to jail since it's a not a criminal offence, but still.
June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

So we who speak out are the liars?
Is that MAFIAA telepromter telling you james that cause you seem to double speak all the time?Hmm?

It's not worth talking to a MAFIAA shill that denies everything yet takes MAFIAA's sayings as truth.I hope they throw you in jail too when this gets passed and then you'll end up crying and wishing that this bill didn't pass.You are a Shill sir, and you'll be talking from your MAFIAA telepromoter who's feeding you this garbage
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@juni - I am very serious. I am no shill and I am no secret agent.

@Cimply - Will it be illegal to take a photograph too?

@chris - The form letter seems to be a call to action to raise awareness. It does force feed opinion a little bit, but not any moreso than you do.
June 18, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ Junji Hiroma - Indeed!

@ James - Yes you are.. and not only stubborn but oblivious and a waste of time.

As per Junji Hiroma's post.. goodbye useless Shill.

June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - the feeling is mutual. In fact, I think I already asked you if you felt that swaying public opinion was worth all this effort and time.

I am all for the rights of the Artists, The Distributors and the Industry in General. The Consumers take a back seat. They have the option to purchase what they want.
June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

By your language you haven't proved anything....
Have you read this bill?Michael sure has and knows it's anti-consumer all over it.You rush and double speak alot and I've seen this in your posts.Should i point out the reasons why I think you double speak?
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@juni - we are not in a Richard Dawkins Science forum. There is nothing to prove. I already stated my opinions. The form letter is a little "canned". Maybe a little too much, but it is certainly a call to action of sorts.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - I'm not force feeding an opinion. The bill actually makes it illegal for me to copy my DVDs. I don't care if the head of the MPAA signs a legal document saying they won't sue consumers. Unless you can justify why that should be illegal, there's no reason for it. I'm not even talking about the letters, and have never ever mentioned them to you. So will you actually answer my questions, or make more deflections?
June 18, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

To everyone talking to james,stop
It's not going to work cause he'll just avoid the questions.I know when to stop talking to someone that just won't get it,you just stop talking to them.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - Are you not the one who linked to the ars technica article from 2007 and suggested I begin learning? Sorry, that was @glenn

So guys, if we are here to prove something other than what the thread topic is about. Then why not start pointing links at the bill and start proving it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soothsayer
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4580265&Language=e&Mode=1&File=72#16

There's the bill section on technological circumvention.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - And what is your point?
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - Also, I guess that's no, you are not going to answer my questions.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - You wanted a link. I gave you a link. Enjoy.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - Don't see anything in that section which removes the rights of a consumer. I don't think you said it, but I don't see anything about it being illegal to copy a DVD, only break an ecryption, which I might add, I have no idea if they are referring to physical hardcopy DVD's or paid Cable Boxes with scramblers.

I don't understand your point. I'm calling soothsayer. As in you think of it's the end of the world.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/nasa_solar_flares_magnetic_disturbance_disaster_2013/celebrity/68832

I think you are a sensationalist who reads too much crap on the internet and is hell bent on scaring the crap out of everybody else for no good reason other than you fear that good law abiding citizens who purchase product may become the norm and you'll have to buy a copy instead of steal one.

Can you prove otherwise?
June 18, 2010

lil_B said:

...
If you put a zip code for Coquitlam BC you can send a letter to James Moore, and put "Hahaaha just kidding" in the address box.

@James If you can't see how obviously Digital Locks take away rights from the consumer your an idiot. Digital Lock = Content owner has complete control via internet. They can erase your content at any time and force you to only watch it on some devices. They can also make it so that your platform only plays their content.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - You know the only way to copy a DVD is to break the encryption, right?
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@lil_B - I am aware that for the last few years people have paid for premium television content with "scrambled" devices. If you broke the scrambler it was considered illegal. It's stealing. How is this bill any different?

I also don't see anything about intercepting an incoming signal from an antenna. I guess if it's encrypted yes. However, if my computer connection to the internet is protected by encryption, I would prefer it if it was illegal for someone to break into my computer, whether I am broadcasting music or addressing a paid audience.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - When I used to run a DVD company, I was responsible for editing the video and ripping the DVDs. In a worse case scenario, I'd have to pipe video in, to a video in and press record.

I guess if you are really concerned about the digital locks, then you should be worried about people outlawing screen recorders too. I am little behind on the latest technologies but I can't see why a screen grabber would not be able to record video.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - Why should it be illegal for me to break digital locks in the cases where I'm legally allowed to copy copyrighted material? Care to answer that, or ignore it because you can't?
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
*video out to video in
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - That works great. Except when I want to copy it to my iPod.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - don't buy an ipod, buy another digital device which works better for you. You can't sit there and tell me there is a grand conspiracy concocted by every electronic device producer to make your music inaccessible, can you?

The consumer has lost no rights, they bought what they wanted.

If you are legally able to copy the music, then it says right in the clause of that article you linked to.

"unless it is done with the authority of the copyright owner"

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4580265&Language=e&Mode=1&File=72#16

What is your problem?
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - Why should I buy another device just so I can watch movies when I already have a way to do so that should be legal based on what is in that bill? I'm allowed to format shift my media, which includes DVDs to iPod except for that one section. So why make it legal to do, and then illegal to do later?

Oh right, because that's the real reason for digital locks. Not to prevent piracy, but to prevent me from being able to use the material in a way that I'm suppose to be allowed to.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - I think you've just bought into limitations allegedly imposed by an electronics manufacturer and now you want to blame the government. The problem is not with the government, it is either with the device you bought, your inability to use the device to record music from mini jack to audio in, or perhaps you're just a bit of a soothsayer?

Next time buy VHS and quit complaining that it doesn't play in your betamax machine.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - Actually no, the limitation is on the media itself. It has nothing to do with the technology involved at all. Saying that it is a poor attempt to deflect and not deal with the actual question. Why should it be illegal for me to break digital locks in the cases where I am legally allowed to copy copyrighted material? You have never ever answered this. Ever. You've just deflected with "Well, don't get it" or "Buy something else".
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - You are allowed to use the media in any manner in which the provider has provided it to you. Even then people have a tendency to circumvent whatever limitations they feel they have imposed on them. It might take them a few extra days in some cases, they might load malware onto their jail broken device, ect...

If it makes you feel any better, I wish electronics manufacturers made cables with rubber cases and better connections that lasted for more than a year, but instead they make cheap plastic cables which fray and destroy a perfectly good set of headphones in a few short months. My fault for buying the wrong headphones.

I'm not really blaming the government though
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - Can you give me a specific instance where this is the case. I am not sure if I can follow your hypothetical situation and give up a solid answer.

(anyone else think this captcha is creepy)
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - None of that answers the question. Answer the question.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - And there is no hypothetical involved. The bill makes it so it's not hypothetical.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris give me an example. No... I don't think you should be able to break into a scrambled Cable Box to decode the signal, whether you purchased the box or rented it. It's encrypted for a reason, people are paying for the premium content. In the case of the cable box they can just shut off your feed so it probably doesn't follow the situation where you physically download data to a device. Perhaps it's different for satelitte television. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest it's probably already illegal to intercept encrypted satellite signals.

With an Ipod... can you not just take the mini jack out and plug it into the back of your sound card? What difficulties are you having exactly?

I am under the current impression that digital music or even analog music is one of the easiest things to copy. No decryption required. What kind of encryption is on an Ipod?

The DVD's, well I don't really buy them too often, but there were a few years where they wouldn't play in consumer desktop boxes but if you had a good computer player it would play just fine. The technology was maturing at the time. There has never been a time recently when I have put a DVD into a DVD player and not had it play.

The
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - I gave you an example, which you deflected rather than addressed. I want to move a DVD to my iPod. Which I am legally allowed to do under format shifting, but can't because of the encryption. So answer the question.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
Um... because the DVD files are VOB format and the ipod plays Mpeg4.

Two entirely different formats. They are not encrypted signals, they require no public key or private key for decrypting.

I think you are confusing "Compression" with "Encryption".
June 18, 2010

gordon Duggan said:

...
@James - Can you give me a specific instance where this is the case. I am not sure if I can follow your hypothetical situation and give up a solid answer.
Circumventing for the purposes of research, private study, education, parody or satire. None of the fair dealing exceptions granted in 29 and 29.21 of the bill are allowed.

ps. no doubt you find captcha's creepy because they help translate scanned books
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - But I can convert VOG MPEG 4 with conversion programs, so that's not a problem.
June 18, 2010

Gordon Duggan said:

...
It also may be worth mentioning that the second largest (after CCER) number of submissions to the public consultation were from artists asking for better access to existing materials not stricter protection. These submissions came from actual artists, not artist representatives or those (like yourself) who apparently think they speak for artists
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - And DVD's contain CSS encryption. Which is what DECSS decrypts. You need to do that before the conversion can take place.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@gordon duggan - I read 29 and 29.1 and it says the material can be used for satirical purposes, it says you can actually reuse the material for "fair use".

With the copyright owners consent you can break an encryption to access the materials. But that's just to physically break the encryption, you could still easily copy the material can you not? Why do you have to break the encryption? A while ago you used to have to copy from magnetic tape to magnetic tape. And you would have to lose a generation in the process.

Do you really think that "Fair Use" will somehow become impossible with these new rules?

The captchas don't actually have any sort of ability to recognize characters, you are thinking of algorithms that spammers use to circumvent the captchas. I have started to download this specific captcha to see what is inside the code specifically. It's open source to my knowledge.

http://code.google.com/p/recaptcha/downloads/list?q=label:phplib-Latest

I think it's creepy because the words are sometimes relevant to what I am thinking, that's all. It's creepy.
June 18, 2010

Just Another Brick in the Wall said:

...
ACTA will not work. like any pyramid, when the end users see that the pyramid is unfair, they won't comply and will work to foil the system. collapse is inevitable.

`you cannot steal the ethereal`
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@gordon - this capthca seems to be plugged into a google api which requires a key. I don't particularity like Google.

But I do recognize your concerns about the fair use, it could slow down rapid public dissemination of digital products right? Who is to say youtube or another venue couldn't detect copyrighted material and take it down?

I mean they already have the ability to recognize songs with some sort of beat-matching algorithm correct?
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - I see you still haven't answered my question.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - I don't understand what your question is. I tried to answer it several times. What is your problem?
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - The question is pretty simple. Why should it be illegal for me to break a digital lock on any item in the cases where I am legally allowed to copy/use that item under copyright? There are no tricks, nothing to not understand unless you are purposely being obtuse and avoiding answering the question because you don't have an answer to the question.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - The CSS decryption? I will admit sometimes I over look a potential question but it was not intentional. If you are referring to the CSS encryption on the DVD, I will be honest, the wiki claims it's been around for years... 1996.

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

In all my time copying DVD's I never came across it.

I do believe that there was an instance where I tried to play the DVD to VHS and it was scrambled, I can remember exactly what I had to do to get around it. I don't remember the gestapo showing up at my front door.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - *sigh* Just answer the question. No more deflection with stuff that has no relevance to the question at hand. It's not just DVDs, hense why the question had items. At this point you've pretty much proven that you don't have an answer to the question at all and would rather try to deflect the issue away from the question itself.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
Okay lets be serious. If I put DVD player into my computer, it will play right? If I put a DVD in a desktop player it will play right?

I don't have Blu-Ray, but they are backwards compatible with older DVDs.

I am fairly certain the only thing this law prevents is from someone making a "pristine" copy or duplicate for redistribution without the copyright owners consent.

You can easily copy it via another method using video out to video in, if it's over analog maybe it will lose just a little quality? I am sure professional setps must have digital component connectors which maintain the signal quality, right?
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - You are overtly paranoid and I don't think it's healthy. I understand that the internet is "free" for everyone to use. Bt don't worry, nobody actually knows who you are... you might just be fooling yourself at this point. It's a little crazy.
June 18, 2010

Gordon Duggan said:

...
@james - With the copyright owners consent...

The whole purpose of the fair dealing right is that you do not require the copyright holders permission. This relates specifically to Freedom of Expression. No movie studio or record company would give permission to write a scathing review of a movie or album.

@james -Do you really think that "Fair Use" will somehow become impossible with these new rules?

yes- Fair Dealing (fair use is what they have in America) will not become impossible with these new rules it will simply become illegal. This creates for the first art forms that are banned not for their content but for their creative process. Aside from my own work I work with hundreds of media artists from around the world, all are massively and negatively affected by current copyright, C-32 will be worse. The TPM component of C-32 is little more than corporate monopolies that will eradicate the public domain Under current copyright, no work created in my lifetime will enter the public domain win my lifetime. Under Bill C-32, thanks to the TPM component, no work will ever again enter the public domain. The requires that the Fair dealing right be expanded, what 29 giveth 41 taketh away ...forever.

@james -The captchas don't actually have any sort of ability to recognize characters,...

clicking on the ? on the recaptcha the following information is provided. "By entering the words in the box, you are also helping to digitize texts that were written before the computer age. The words that you see were taken directly from old texts that are being scanned and stored in digital format in order to preserve them and make them more accessible to the world. Since some of the words in these texts are difficult for computers to process, we are using the results of your efforts to help decipher them."
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - Ah, the last resort of someone who's been beaten. Insult the person they when they can't answer the question.

It's really not a hard question, so I have no idea why you have so much time answering it.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
*such a hard time
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@douglas - yes... that would explain why it's plugged into Google and you use an api key. I understand you now.

@douglas - well, they did recently take down the Hilter Videos from Youtube. I am not sure if technically that would have been allowed with Canadian law would it? It would be covered as fair use for satirical purposes.

http://openvideoalliance.org/2010/04/hitler-downfall-meme-gets-dmcad/?l=en

What I think is really interesting is the Google Executives which are serving jail time for the video which was not removed after requests by the Italian government.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/02/google-executive-convicted-in-italy-for-downs-video/

I am not really convinced that fair use will become illegal. Google itself bases it's entire business model off of it.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - I am still convinced you don't care about anything except your ability to instantly and seemlessly transport DVD video disks to your Ipod.
I really do not care if your convenience is violated. I've already said that.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - Again, that doesn't answer the question. Not that I expect you to at this point personally since you'd rather just resort to insults.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - What question - I have to leave the desk for a few hours tomorrow... But I'm still willing to spend a few more days to work this out with you. I mean unless the world ends tomorrow with giant solar sun flares which bombard the earth and wipe mankind from the earth.
June 18, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - I've asked it a few times already. Not going to type it again since you won't answer it again.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@gordon - I went back to re-read your concerns. Article 29 giveth the right to use the material for fair use which in sharp contrast to the Youtube algorithms which prevent it. Section 40 simply argues that you cannot illegally attempt to break the encryption algorithm wihtout the copyright owners consent. You could still make a fairly decent copy. You just can't break an encryption scheme. No Cryop-Cracking, but Fair Use and Copying allowed. I think it actually protects free speech where using the Hilter Video example it is being taken away from people.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
*No Cryptography Cracking but Fair Use and Copying allowed.
June 18, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - You Said This,

"@James - The question is pretty simple. Why should it be illegal for me to break a digital lock on any item in the cases where I am legally allowed to copy/use that item under copyright? There are no tricks, nothing to not understand unless you are purposely being obtuse and avoiding answering the question because you don't have an answer to the question. "

Because you don't need to use cryptography devices to make a copy. Because even if you did, nobody is going to come knocking on your door to throw you in prison.

Because it is unclear as to whether or not you intend to break the encryption algorithm on satellite feeds, on cable boxes, or anything else. If you are not legally allowed to break the encryption, then you are not allowed. Just make a copy and quit pretending like any body cares if your torrent tracker is the fastest one on the block... Honestly, should you be somewhere ranting about Net Neutrality.
June 18, 2010

Mark said:

...
Because the content producer gets to decide whether or not to put a digital lock on the work, and because bypassing a digital lock, even for private purposes, would be illegal under C32, this means that the so-called fair dealings privileges that consumers are supposed to have can be revoked at a whim by the content maker simply by having a digital lock.

So how is that any different from just always requiring permission from the copyright holder, and not actually having any exceptions?
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@mark - You can still take video out and pipe it into another device to record, you don't absolutely need to crack an encryption to copy it. In fact, given the current speed of processors, and the advancements in technology, I wouldn't doubt if a "Dub" copy, from one machine to the next would be a lot faster than trying to decrypt an AES encryption algorithm. I don't know, I could be wrong...

But it doesn't change the fact that you are indeed allowed to reuse the material for fair use. It is protecting your free speech. It's also improving security. I don't see anyone losing any rights what-so-ever. At most I see some pirates losing some conveniences.
June 19, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@James: DVD decoder code is secret? Hiaku form:
How to decrypt a
DVD: in haiku form.
(Thanks, Prof. D. S. T.)
------------------------

(I abandon my
exclusive rights to make or
perform copies of

this work, U. S. Code
Title Seventeen, section
One Hundred and Six.)

Muse! When we learned to
count, little did we know all
the things we could do

some day by shuffling
those numbers: Pythagoras
said "All is number"

long before he saw
computers and their effects,
or what they could do

by computation,
naive and mechanical
fast arithmetic.

It changed the world, it
changed our consciousness and lives
to have such fast math

available to
us and anyone who cared
to learn programming.

Now help me, Muse, for
I wish to tell a piece of
controversial math,

for which the lawyers
of DVD CCA
don't forbear to sue:

that they alone should
know or have the right to teach
these skills and these rules.

(Do they understand
the content, or is it just
the effects they see?)

And all mathematics
is full of stories (just read
Eric Temple Bell);

and CSS is
no exception to this rule.
Sing, Muse, decryption

once secret, as all
knowledge, once unknown: how to
decrypt DVDs.

The rest can be found at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeC...-haiku.txt
Other formats are available at: "Gallery of CSS descramblers" http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
Okay for anyone still here who is actually a hard core pirate. Wouldn't you rather share P2P over an encrypted and protected network which is illegal to decipher rather than broadcast your transfers to anyone who wanted to listen in?
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
I hear a few thousand people changing their tune... maybe I am just imagining it...

The captcha says "community extolled" - It's a very creepy captcha
June 19, 2010

oldguy said:

Everyone ease off.

Hmm..

James has managed to drag everyone here off with him. It's frustrating, but sometimes you just have to back off.

He frankly admits that he isn't up on the technology, so you will never get him to understand the subtleties in C-32 that make the TPM conditions blatantly unfair to the end user, and in fact legally dangerous.

He seems to advocate that is OK to break the law (private copying of DRM/CSS protected DVDs), just because it is unlikely to be enforced. He hasn't explained how that will be accomplished if the tools to do this are also outlawed.
Note: statistically jaywalking is unlikely to be enforced as well, but it happens. The law is the law.

No matter how many links you supply, he will believe what he wants to believe. He has faith. You won't convince him of anything else. The only thing that will convince him is when he, or one of his relatives or friends is charged under these laws.

If C-32 is modified into a more palatable form, he will never realize that he and his friends have been "saved" by the various people that do understand this technology and the legal subtleties much more than he does. He will then claim he never wanted or needed to be..

His pattern is obvious. I've seen it before, many of us have. You also know what the best "response" is.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - If this were me speaking 10 years ago I'd saying something entirely different. I just don't actually myself breaking any of these laws and after everyone providing their best shot I am more confident than when I began that this a good bill. I actually have lame sense of pride for Cogeco and Rodgers networks, I think those companies and the industry and general was built by paying subscribers. So sue me.

I won't get burned by C-32. I just don't pirate music downloads, rip DVDs, or decipher satelitte feeds.

I've used john the ripper to crack shadow passwords. I think it's 256 bit, I'm fairly cure AES is 256 bit, that sounds rather computationally intensive to crack.

I don't see how this bill strips anyone of their rights. If it said that using encryption algorithms were illegal then I would be worried.
June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
wholly crap guys, massive responses on this thread, impossible to debate through the crap. Calm down.

James you said: "@jason P2P might not be hear to stay. A three strikes and your out rule has been introduced in France. You are welcome to come to your own conclusion regarding it."

You are welcome to your conclusions as well. The fact of the matter is that France is actually seeing an increase in darknet services. Darknet type services are being pushed out in industry as a replacement for P2P by Indie's. Darknet is extremely hard to track, and extremely hard to shut down.

This posed a number of issues for creative talent. First and foremost, it will be virtually impossible to track the sucess of a production online. Currently industry can track stats on shared productions. If this were to change say goodbye to any remuneration artists will get based on any eventual montization of the networks.

Second, you propose kicking ppl out of the marketplace. So much is tied into the digital economy this would have a profound negative effect on every type of business, not just the creative communities.

Third, constitutional challenges. Copyright infringement doesn't justify the taking away of constitutional rights of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and so forth. If the graduated response laws become a reality in Canada, they would be constitutionally challenged.

Forth, French arrogance, and political consequences: It's long been know that Sarkozy is deeply unpopular in his country. The first chance the French get he will be out of power. The Labor Party that introduced the 3 strikes law in the UK was voted out of power. In the UK Ofcom has stopped short of the 3 strikes law, and is currently consulting with consumers on this. The UK labor minister responsible for introducing this law in British Parliament was stabbed about a month ago by a protester.

Fifth The 3 strikes law will not sit well with Canadian consumers, who are the bread and butter for Canadian creative talent, and the majority of voters in this country.

Sixth and most importantly: The net was built to resist any control by the US military. Good luck with that.




June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
As a creator, I would rather be guaranteed income, than another decade of failed attempts by industry to shut file sharing down. But that's just me. guaranteed income entails innovation on the part of industry (which we haven't seen in the past 10 years even in France), and monetization of the networks. Essentially legalizing the use of file sharing while compensating industry for it. This could be done in a number of ways, and successes in industry are starting to emerge, along with the maturing of the digital ad market. All in which include file sharing and social media.

The world is your stage or the world is your enemy. It makes no difference which you chose, your choice will determine whether you fail or succeed in the new economy. It's ultimately your choice to listen, and I can tell you the points you've made have been actively debated for years. You offer nothing new to the conversation. Bravo for the Conservatives to shoot the 3 strikes down on economic grounds!
June 19, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@james
Okay for anyone still here who is actually a hard core pirate. Wouldn't you rather share P2P over an encrypted and protected network which is illegal to decipher rather than broadcast your transfers to anyone who wanted to listen in?

From the bill:

41.11 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply if a technological protection measure is circumvented for the purposes of an investigation related to the enforcement of any Act of Parliament or any Act of the legislature of a province, or for the purposes of activities related to the protection of national security.

So, no the bill does not make it illegal to break there P2P traffic of "pirates." Pirates can use encryption without official legal protection anyway.
June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
Last point on this, nobody cares what the Bloc thinks. Duceppe sent a letter out last weekend to thousands of Canadian Investors, Diplomats and MP's about instigating another referendum on Quebec Speration. The last thing our traditional parties want to do is align themselves with those who are determined to break up this country, and the more creative talent align themselves with the Bloc's proposals the worse it will become for them in the long run. Just some political advise to you James.

Our Creative communities are on the borderline of stupidity if they continue calling for Bloc proposals.
June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@oldguy
At this point it really shouldn't matter what our friend James here has said, nor does it matter what Giest posts around digital locks. We had a consultation with respect to copyright, and I think from not only following the consultation but the economics of this debate, is either you adapt to technology and consumer needs, or you become uncompetitive, and blame your problems on everything but the kitchen sink.

Digital locks are unenforceable with respect to the consumer, and have turned the market away from certain products. The problem with digital locks resides in the business and education sectors, not with consumers. Some might disagree, but figure this, how are they going to prove on the consumer end that you picked a digital lock? This came up in the consultations and the government was warned by its own independent researchers to be careful on implementing laws with respect to consumers that they can not enforce around DRM and TMP.

The market has already decided on DRM and TMP's. It left the room empty in several industries and if they want to continue a failed approach to digital product, they are more then welcome too. Let the new industry leaders emerge that don't use this C.R.A.P.

We've had our consultations, Canadians need now to be less inclined to responding to those that haven't or refuse to adapt. Those that have refused are industry failures and shouldn't acquire 233 responses. Let them die off. They have blinders on, let them learn from that. It's the only way to move forward. F**K them, seriously. Let them fade out.
June 19, 2010

oldguy said:

...
One response..

.. "I won't get burned by C-32. I just don't pirate music downloads, rip DVDs, or decipher satelitte feeds. "

And you won't be building a media server for your pile of purchased DVDs either. You admitted to not being up on current technology. You just don't understand the technological subtleties of how TPM applies in the bill. Perhaps not your fault, but it also means you aren't as qualified to understand these issues as you seem to think.

.. "I don't see how this bill strips anyone of their rights. If it said that using encryption algorithms were illegal then I would be worried."

It doesn't stop people from using encryption, it stops them from legally decrypting TPM protected content, for uses which are explicitly allowed. See above for the media server example. The exception rights explicitly granted in the bill are stripped from the user, because legal protection of TPM overrides the fair dealing exceptions granted.

June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@oldguy
sorry meant TPM's not TMP's..lol..
June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

...
I said: "Third, constitutional challenges. Copyright infringement doesn't justify the taking away of constitutional rights of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and so forth. If the graduated response laws become a reality in Canada, they would be constitutionally challenged."

The three strikes proposal was almost unanimously rejected by those artists, creators who chose to respond to the Copyright Consultations individually on constitutional grounds. I've always stated that if we were to breach constitutional agreements with society on copyright, than a reasonable and balanced thing to do is to also limit the amount of English or any other artist can use to create works. They should start writing songs, poetry and literature only using the words, "to" "be" "or" "not", if they use any more than this, than copyright should be paid per word used to the publishers of Websters Dictionary, and ensure that when drawing or taking pictures on crown land (such did the group of 7 did) that copyright be rightfully paid to the crown in full prior to sale. I think that would be a very "balanced" approach if we were to look at a 3 strikes policy.
June 19, 2010

Laurel L. Russwurm said:

@James
wrote: "Come on guys wake up. Which country has one of the poorest and most struggling media industries out there? I don't think I've really heard too much about the Canadian Media Industry at all. It's all government subsidized or American. "

@James, you started out representing yourself as pro-artist. After this comment, it's pretty clear that if you really are supportive of any kind of artist it certainly isn't Canadian artists. The statement above exposes your ignorance of Canadian culture and makes you sound as though you are not even a Canadian. Canada has been fortunate to produce a great many talented and successful creators. Of course, a large percentage of them have had to go to the United States to achieve success, in some part because of bad practices in our media Industry. Oscar nominees like James Cameron (Avatar etc.) for instance, or Oscar Winners like Paul Haggis, (Crash etc.) or hit show creators like David Shore (House). "America's Sweetheart" back in the silent era was a Toronto gal named Mary Pickford who went on to found United Artists.

I am really tired of people using "the artists" as an excuse for copyright stupidity like the DMCA or Bill C-32. Most artists are opposed to these laws, particularly the artists who understand the issues.

And I'm willing to bet that you and I think of different things when we talk about Canada's Media Industry. I'm just going to focus on the Canadian Music industry. Canada has an organization called CRIA, which represents the Canadian recording industry, right?

CRIA is actually made up of four branch plants of American record companies. That is, I am sure, what you believe to be the Canadian music industry. (The mother companies make up RIAA; I'm guessing you're a RIAA shill.) Before the Internet CRIA controlled close to 100% of the Canadian recording industry. Today that number has dropped to about 70%.

Canadian recording artists are "early adopters" who have learned that they don't have to give up any part of their copyright to a distributor if they create and distribute their own product. THIS is what is cutting into their profits.

It isn't personal use copying ("piracy") that is harming CRIA/RIAA it is losing the market to the Independents that will be the death of these organizations. They are in the process of proving they are incapable of change, and are making it worse for themselves by pushing for a Canadian DMCA that will only alienate more artists. Many people fail to understand the the only reason the reason that the record companies aren't creative. Not only do they lack imagination, they don't create anything. They run a company store for creators.

What >I< consider The Canadian Recording Industry is thriving as it hasn't done in over fifty years because the fetters of distribution have been broken.

I do realize that @James won't likely understand or respond to this, but I had to say it anyway.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@laurel L - I made statements that when I can donate to radio stations I do. It's not a lot. And to be honest, the only people donating to some radio stations are the people playing content.

@phillipsjk - That is a good point. So if there are any hardcode pirates out there they should worry about using PGP or something "military grade" to disallow law enforcement to catch them with decoded DVDs?

I am not fluent with all the cryptography laws, but I am aware that in some countries it illegal. The reasons for that being might perhaps be to aid law enforcement correct?

@Jason K - Well there is a French artist group which is currently claiming that Amazon is robbing them blind. I understand they chose the distribution channel and it's their own fault. And they are indeed "doing it on their own" by asking for donations. http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/260 Other than that I really have no other understanding of what artists feel. But I do support them which is contrast to Laurel said.

It could take me a while to get through the rest as fell asleep before all these good comments came in, and I do plan to address it all.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@Jason K - That is not true, digital locks are enforceable. I think it boils down the grade of encryption and whether or not it is public key or private key. I am not a cryptography expert. I do know there many claims about Quantum Cryptography and recent someone won a Nobel prize for their work on it. In easy terms, it seems to be an photo level analog type of encryption and experts claim it can thwart man in the middle attacks by catching a signal which is disrupted.

The PGP stuff, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...ty_quality has apparrently effectively stopped Italian law enforcement for accessing email. So digital locks in one sense or the other are enforceable to some degree. They either work or they don't.

With DVD's, I wold think eventually it will just be easier to make a Dub copy, but this Bill doesn't really address any of the details or the encryption, or how it applied, the only thing I read what that it encryption applied to music specifically. That could be satellite radio, a DVD full of music videos, or paid broadcast subscription service.

In any event, I do not see how this bill is somehow detrimental to the health and welfare of Artists. It might favor distribution channels, but why shouldn't DVD producers, internet TV broadcasts and subscription service be able to lock out unpaid users?
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@jason your comments are bravado more than any thing else. I don't understand what you are trying to say anymore.

You're saying

The world is changing you will either make it or you won't. The world is your enemy or your friend.

How does what your saying apply to the bill or anything else for that matter. What is your point? Is this Bill evil and your enemy or is it your friend?
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - I missed the part where you are against encryption. I do believe that encryption is illegal in France, Iran, and Iraq. But it is hearsay and I cannot validate it. I would assume it has everything to do with the 3 strikes and your out rule, and perhaps law enforcement.

So how is DRM technology a negative? Protect Law enforcement but not the artists, industry or distributors?

10 years ago how would you have felt about Digital Cable TV subscribers who used descramblers to get Free Cable TV?

Would they be criminal for breaking the encryption? Would it perfectly legal because the Cable stations have no rights to protect thier services?

I don't understand how anyone can take a hard stance on this and claim DRM is the root of all evil, or it is somehow the savior. Where are the specifics?

Shouldn't research in motion in Waterloo benefit should it somehow allow an upgrade path for those wanting to purchase items which are more compatible or seamlessly compatible with it's products?

I don't believe that by restricting the abilities of the manufacturer that you will somehow save Canadian industry. Consumers have the choice to purchase what they want. If they want to Buy Blue Ray DVD's with encryption on it, let them.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@Jason K - Guarenteed Income? For Artists? You mean Welfare? You would prefer that instead of the free market? It is better to have the government subsidized all the artists so they can make a living? I can't buy into that.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - Why would encryption somehow stop me from file sharing? I could easily send encrypted DVD discs over the network for other to decrypt. File Sharing doesn't stop. For Commercial Production industry or any industry which holds large amount of video assets, they might need to exercise their own copyright powers to broadcast their video contents as a service. Opportunity to build industry. I think Adbeast might be a good example of this. The NFB on John Street in Toronto at one point had Kiosks which you could go and watch Canadian content. I saw my favorite Norman MacClaren film there. Fiddle Dee Dee. So why does bill somehow prohibit file sharing? It's next to impossible to find Norman McClaren films online in good quality. Last I checked anyways.

SO I would like to know why this Bill is somehow the root of all evil.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@laruel - I am not a Shill. I have very little experience with the Recording Industries. I have been inside CBC at one point and I must say they are loaded. Nice gear for audio restoration, huge hallways. Other than that.

How does DRM or this bill make it hard for talent in Canada to make it? Isn't Justin Beieber Canadian? Shaina Twain? What about Avril Lavinie?

Laurel, I am supportive of Artists in general. When I said the Canadian media industry is struggling. I am just rehashing attitude which I picked up from a small group of people who worked the Film/Tv/Music Video side of things. I certainly not know all or see all regarding all of the Media Industried in Canada. I know that most artists or even a whole lot of what I've worked on was either funded by dirty money or Government Money. There doesn't seem to be any other kind of money floating around in Canada... Joke...
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - From a political standpoint, no. I am not qualified to understand these things. From a technical standpoint. There is nothing in that bill which will hurt Canadians. If there is, what is the problem.
June 19, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james

I could waste much more space dealing with your BS.. However it is very clear you are a waste of space and time. You spew crap endlessly and lack the fundamental knowledge necessary to argue the point. Continue to deflect and ignore questions instead of having an intelligent debate.. which I can now say you are totally incapable of doing.. or you are a SHILL / TROLL as well as being an idiot.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@Jason K - You are crackpot sir. There is nothing in the inherently built into the internet to "resist" control by the US government. When Vint Cerf was working on it, he didn't say, hmmmnnn, let's just build this part here to superficially disallow the US Government from controlling it.

I never said the US Government was somehow going to control it anyways. I don't understand you point or your approach.

The internet is a meant to allow any type of communication to flow over it. It does not require a listener on one end for another one to begin communication. But nowhere is there a line of code which says, "Resist US Government Control".

I will nice and let you off saying that it's not controlled by anyone at one single point. Anyone can join. That doesn't prevent eavesdropping, it doesn't prevent encryption algorithms from being used. In a sense, It's a free for all.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@Laurel L. Russwurm - I am not entirely sure what you are worried about. Whether it is file sharing or royalties of some sort. I don't really know that industry. I have stated that I believe that music is free and always has been. I personally enjoy live events. I don't actually buy "pop" music. But I do hear the pop tunes on the radio, out and about, ect. Those "chart toppers" to my knowledge have always been "advertisements" for the artists, the only means to make money being through merchandising, full album sales, and live events. How would encrypting CD's or Music DVD's hurt the artists? I don't think it would. However, if you are referring to copyright laws somehow hurting the artists due to a lack of fair use policy and royalty fees, I can see your point. Not being allowed to sample another musician, drum beat ect for use in a newer original recording could hurt some artists. Jmo...

Either way. I don't understand your concerns.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - I think I understand you now. The 3 Strike policy in France was only possible by striking deals with ISPs. I am fairly certain Cogeco has recently drafted some new policies. Specifically ones which make you agree to not "tamper" with other peoples servers. There are some bandwidth restrictions which is completely acceptable to reduce the P2P servers from sending DVDs over the network 24/7. To be honest, P2P is for geeks who have the time to spare to downloading malware, and other fake Media Contents. I started off by using anonymous FTP to file share years ago. I used it mainly to get software. To learn how to use it. Most people offer trial softwares now. I gave up on pirating stuff years ago. With the exception of "borrowing" a serial number within the last year or so. Pirates don't do much except "hoarde". Anyone seen the Hoarders television show. How is that something to defend? In any event... I am sure most people are just pirating music, feature films and video games anyways. Why not ask more people to start paying for it if they want to use it beyond the 30 day trial?

So besides your argument which references the Bloc. Which I simply do not understand in the context of this thread. I am not sure what your concerns are and how they relate to this bill, or the Form letter for that matter.
June 19, 2010

strunk&white said:

...
Well, there you go. Dr. Geist, you have once again fostered subtle, mature, informed analysis of the issues in copyright reform.

The hypocrisy is now astonishing. Unqualified support for a letter wizard (and its unverified results) with no controls or even attempts to legitimize the message, simply because it meets your political aim; unqualified disdain and false claims for a letter wizard that actually makes verification possible, simply because it does NOT meet your political aims.

You clearly have the respect of a crowd of reactionaries. Enjoy.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@strunk and white - At least the bill was referenced a few times. Correct? What is your stance on the issues? Whether it be specific clauses in the Bill which are worrisome or just a general opinion of the overall climate?

I don't believe that I am politically aligned with the website, but I have enjoyed it more than any other political publication in Canada with the exception of McCleans.
June 19, 2010

lil_B said:

...
This is so stupid. Its really a straw man argument. A lot of people here have no idea how the legal or technological sides work.

I'll just try to explain as simply as possible.

So what is the main point in all of this? People simply want the right to break digital locks, only in situations which they are allowed to by law. For example, if someone owned a DVD, and they want to put it on their iPod, play it with open source hardware, or use a clip of it for educational use or for a documentary. Consumers just want a way to protect their rights.

This has nothing to do with piracy. I repeat... NOTHING. Why? Because pirates are already breaking the law. They don't care about fair use. They don't give a sh**t if it's illegal to circumvent a digital lock. Digital locks don't stop them because all forms of digital locks can and will be broken. It only takes one P2P pirate to break a lock and upload the content and then it is free and available to everyone, everywhere, at anytime.

The only way to fight piracy, is to makes purchasing content more convenient and a better value to the customer. This means a high volume, low price method of distribution, which works well on the internet. (ask Steve Jobs, who is doing this successfully with music) This also benefits the creator, because they can sell their content independently without any middleman eating up the profits. (ask Trent Reznor, who is doing this very successfully)

The only one who clearly suffers in a DRM free method of distribution is the middle man, because there is less need for one. (ask Trent Reznor's former record label)
June 19, 2010

lil_B said:

...

now about DRM tech...

There are 2 main types of DRM systems :
(yeah, maybe more than 2 but lets just keep it simple okay?)

#1 - Local authentication types, such as DVD players, blu-ray, HDCP, old school CD-Keys, dongles, etc. Anything that doesn't need the internet to work. These are easy to hack because you have access to the hardware/software and you can modify it, or extract the encryption methods or keys.

#2 - Remote authentication, (AKA: pain in the ass). This is where either part of, or all of your content is encrypted, and the keys to that encryption are stored on a remote server. iTunes for example uses remote authentication with a unique key specific to your file. That means there is really no way for you to share that file in its encrypted form, and have someone else decrypt it because they have no means to retrieve the key. The content owner or distributor can also 'deactivate' your content by simply removing access to the key. A famous example of this is where online music sellers like Wal-mart and Microsoft in the states stopped selling music and shut down their DRM servers effectively destroying all the music owned by their customers (much of this content was recently purchased for ownership, at full price). Another famous incident was where Amazon deleted purchased copies of the book 1984 from their customers Kindle devices, without warning or permission. Amazon has also deactivated kindle devices owned by customers who they believe to be abusing their service, for reasons such as returning too many defective products for refund (A CONSUMER RIGHT!!!). Under this method the content owner has 100% control. You can break this DRM also however, by tricking the server into giving the key to a program on your computer which rips the file into an unencrypted format. Of course, this only works on a computer that was authorized to play that file at that particular time.

Why is this bad? Its a huge pain in the ass for consumers. It restricts their fair use rights, takes away the rights of ownership and first sale, and reduces ownership to conditional renting. Content companies can force consumers to only use their brand of devices. They can charge for moving content to a new device. They can create conditional playback (you must watch an add, you can only play on some TV's, etc.) They can force consumers to upgrade their devices or loose their content. They can use DRM as an anti-competitive measure, restricting 3rd party aftermarket devices or by blocking other services from their devices. They can remove services or features from their devices, even ones that were advertised when you purchased the device (playstation 3). They can brick the device making it useless.... even plain extortion if they want. The potential for abuse is overwhelming.
June 19, 2010

lil_B said:

...
Don't believe me? Just search DRM on google, you can hear from all the angry customers yourself. Better yet, try using DRM'ed content yourself. Rent and buy all your movies and books through iTunes. It will bite you in the ass sooner or later or maybe you will be lucky (for now). It bit my ass more than once.

DRM also takes rights from the creator. In a DRM market, the creator must choose a distributor with an established DRM system, or sell their content unprotected. The only way they have any control over distribution is to sell their content unprotected, outside of the established DRM systems. Why? Because DRM manufacturers generally only support one or a few systems on their devices. For example, to sell a protected movie to an iPod owner, you must go through Apple. You must pay Apple a share of your profits. You have no rights to independent distribution with DRM. Distributors can also reject your content or modify/censor it if they wish. They can also remove it from their store at any time.

COPYRIGHT LAW WAS INVENTED TO CREATE INDEPENDENT, NEUTRAL, and OPEN DISTRIBUTION FOR ORIGINAL CREATORS, AND TO BREAK UP A PRINTING MONOPOLY!!!
(Distribution rights for the ORIGINAL CREATOR, less rights for the middle man. LOOK IT UP!)


So how does DRM protect copyright? It doesn't. It simply takes away the need for copyright.

DRM is by definition an enforcement of the distributors conditions by which that content can be used, regardless of copyright law, and the rights granted to individuals by any law.

BY MAKING DRM UNBREAKABLE BY LAW, DRM OVERRIDES ALL LAWS AND RIGHTS (not just copyright) THAT ARE NOT EXPLICITLY GRANTED EXCEPTIONS OVER IT

Now onto piracy. Encryption is used in bit-torrent as a means to try and fool traffic shaping hardware or other bit-torrent disrupting methods. Encryption does not protect you from P2P lawsuits. Basically, the method used collect data on infringement involves sharing a particular file, and watching the IP's that connect to download the file. The server that collects this data doesn't have to make that file available, it simply has to pretend to and other bit-torrent clients will attempt to connect to it. The server can collect a list of IP addresses that were trying to illegally download that particular file. The Internet service provider then supplies the addresses and identities of the individuals who were using those IP's during the time of the infringement. Then a subpoena is issued to each infringer for the contents of there computer hard disks, which are forensically searched for evidence to prove the file was downloaded. If there is enough evidence the individual can be sued.
June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"@Jason K - You are crackpot sir. There is nothing in the inherently built into the internet to "resist" control by the US government. When Vint Cerf was working on it, he didn't say, hmmmnnn, let's just build this part here to superficially disallow the US Government from controlling it. "

Actually Cerf's orders were specific to disallowing any Government control over the network. It's awesome that you're actually using Wikipedia now to try and come across as intelligent, but you're failing the mark.

Right from Cerf's mouth a few months ago during an interview with a BBC program. If one area of of the net is threatened with control, data will reroute to different area's of the network where control doesn't exist. We've been seeing this on the P2P networks for the past 12 years! The reason why it was built this way was on orders from the US military so that military hardware and communications could not be taken over by any centralized source. This question was posed to Cerf specifically on the issues of file sharing, and trying to stop it.

Darknet these days very rarely contain private FTP sites, someone should update the wiki on that..lol.

James I'm not going to sit here and have a debate with you that's already been settled in the consultation process with respects to 3 strikes, and that's been debated for years on this blog. It's a no-go in Canada. Our big businesses, along the vast majority of Canadian voters believe this is not a balanced approach. It was discussed during the consultations and quite strongly rejected by those who participated in the consultations and our government. Deal with it and move on. Even if 3 strikes were to become law, it would not benefit the creative communities at all. It doesn't solve the economic problem of the lack of innovation even in France, and other countries where law has been reformed around copyright. As far as I'm concerned 12 years of listening to those in industry who have completely failed to put forth the innovation needed to follow market demands globally is a far worse threat than a Canadian downloading of off the P2P channels.


June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - I didn't use wiki pedia to pull up information on Vint Cerf. He is chief visionary officer at Google as of recently, and due to previous concerns of age discrimination in that corporation I took interest to it and have listened to his talks on his involvement on the creation of arpanet. I think it was arpanet.

What @Lil_B is saying is for the most part accurate. What you are saying is sensationalist.

I agree, digital locks will not prevent piracy, and someone like steve jobs has created products which have otherwise provide convenience and huge improvement to the delivery of content. The piracy will continue with JailBraking digital locks on iPhones and such. I am not a huge fan or the more "closed source" nature of the iPhones and iPods and such, but they are a huge success, and the consumer has the right to buy which product they want. Industry has every right to build products which they want.
June 19, 2010

Crockett said:

Take your ball and go home
@James "DRM, I don't care about. I only care about the rights of the artists, distributors and the industry. Consumers have the choice to purchase the product or not. Plain and simple. They are free to spend their money where-ever they want. If consumers don't DRM. Don't buy it. Easy."

And there folks is the most short-sighted comment of this blog. These industry execs really seem to think 'my way or the highway' is the way to maintain a loyal customer base. There is this funky thing called the internet that is continually making your distribution system obsolete, and your response is to have little tantrums? ... It's my ball, play the way I say or I'm going home!! lol, incredible.

Yes, you will see in the not to distant future people will not 'buy it' and spend their monies somewhere else. Always on internet DRM on games .. FAIL!! Steam? A system that is actually well thought out, adds value and I use and support. Why, because they are making efforts to serve their customers rather than just their own self interests. So take your ball and go home .. I'll play with these cool kids over here.
June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
A good read with respect to our above conversation is here:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100506/0249579318.shtml

With respect to digital locks, I think the conversation should be towards allowing fair use for purchased content inside the cloud. I understand Geist's views on this, and it's important that consumers, students, and educators have the rights in place on purchased content. We shouldn't be discussing "digital locks" in an analog sense here. We should be focusing on user and consumer rights within the network, and developing non traditional business models that will allow industry to move forward with market demands.
June 19, 2010

lil_B said:

...
One thing that I think must be made very clear, is that Copyright, and DRM are both content protection systems. One by legal measure, and one by technological measures. They can clearly conflict with each other. To grant DRM any legal protection over copyright, invalidates copyright law itself in any case where DRM is used. Copyright law is controlled by the government for a very good reason. DRM is controlled by businesses. This means if DRM is used with legal protections against circumvention, effectively businesses would then control what used to be copyright.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@crokett - Your belief system couldn't be coming in at a worse time. People want good product, that works, they don't care if they have to circumvent a DRM management lock or JailBreak an iPhone. They want product that works, they aren't interested in "tinkering". If somebody wants to slap a dongle on 30,000 piece of gear to provide a smooth upgrade path then the digital lock be put in place to protect the interests of the manufacturer to protect their investment. Consumers have the right to what they buy. If they buy a Copy of a DVD, it's not a VHS tape, it's not a Hologram, it's not a 3d DXF model, it's not even an MPEG 4.

A digital lock which prevents the user from "transcoding" a media format to another format has nothing to with fair use or copying.

Someone who pysically circumvents a digital lock, or any lock for that matter is attempting to break in and steal content which otherwise is not legally theirs to access.

I can see this upsetting someone who feels it's thier god given right to be able to break an ecryption scheme on a DVD so that they can transcode it to MPEG4 for playback using another method so they have an absolute pristine copy to resell, repackage and redistribute for a profit, but not personal use.

Personal use is defined by the product sold to the end consumer. If someone buys VHS tape of their movie, it won't work in their DVD player. Two different technologies, no Encryption required. In the Case of a DVD with encryption, it's protection to ensure the high quality of the DVD stays in the format is was originally intended to be delivered as and even then it won't stop everybody but it will be a good deterrent.

June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@crokett - meaning you can still copy the DVD without breaking the encryption. Just Dub it from one machine to the next.
June 19, 2010

mckracken said:

it will never end with this guy...
from @james:"There is nothing in that bill which will hurt Canadians. If there is, what is the problem."

if there is, so what?

all this troll is doing is trying to wear everyone out and then declare 'i win!'.

way to politic.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
I wonder if everything would change if there was a dongle required for each DVD. If each DVD provided to the end user came with a chip which when inserted into the DVD player provided an unlock key to play it.

While I do believe that any physical item sold to an individual it their to tamper with as they please, the lines blur when it's a rental, something that voids the warranty, or when something is simply declared "illegal to do".

I think it's my lack of respect for those laws and no consequence that could possibly arrive if I did break the encryption on a DVD for personal use.

That's sums it up for me. I don't see anything wrong with this bill. I wonder if the next line of 3D television set will attempt to make use of encryption to protect the format of the media playing back to screen?
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@mckracken - The only real thing I could see hurting Canadian industry is the lack of Open Standards to conform technologies to in the future. If you can't access or decode the technology in use, what good is it to anybody?

We've just been through an Open Source fiasco over the last little bit and it's turned the world upside down to the point where corporations are serving people from the cloud to protect their digital assets, or intellectual properties.

I only wonder if the encryption and digital locks improve over time if there will be even newer and greater technologies to come about as a result, possibly at the detriment to Canadian Industry which would then have to kick it into high gear and start catching up.

I'm not taking sides, or trolling, I'm asking people to think about someone else for a change.
June 19, 2010

IamME said:

@James
"While I do believe that any physical item sold to an individual it their to tamper with as they please, the lines blur when it's a rental, something that voids the warranty, or when something is simply declared "illegal to do"."

Rentals and illegal acts are one thing, something voids my warranty is my own prerogative, unless it constitutes something illegal. It's my choice if I which to do something that voids my warranty. It goes hand and hand with tampering with my own property. Remember, the most valuable company in the world right now would not be possible if it wasn't for someone tampering with their hardware to make it do something different...APPLE!!

3D TVs likely use HDMI, which already an protected, encrypted signal.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@IamMe - well then I guess the only question is whether or not industries have the right to protect their intellectual properties. Or according to the only argument I know of which has been pointed out in the thread, is whether or not it's illegal to break the encryption or a digital lock.

I think it should be illegal. It's it's broadest sense, what is to stop me from "cracking" the "digital lock" on a government website? To my current understanding, it would require the owner of the website to press charges in the US. I am unsure what it is in Canada, but I would think that it should be illegal.

I almost get the feeling that consumers are arguing over how industry builds it's products. As if Windows 7 isn't good enough and laws should be put in place to bring it down. Well that isn't required because different business models compete and the consumer goes with the one which suits them best. They buy the product they want.

June 19, 2010

Crockett said:

...
@James "meaning you can still copy the DVD without breaking the encryption. Just Dub it from one machine to the next."

Ok, so if I understand what you are saying ... if I want to shift or backup digital media I should dub it? Does that mean like it sounds, the famous "video tape the movie of the TV screen" approach? If so, you know no one in their right mind is going to do that so by offering this as your sanctioned solution is disingenuous at best.

Let me ask you a straight forward questions and see if you will answer in the same manner .. Apart from the Dub method you suggest, is it your position that the consumer not be allowed to back up or shift the media they have purchased for personal use? Is it your intention that if I want to watch a movie movie on DVD, then put it on my Ipod for a plane trip that I should buy two formats of the same media content?

Please be clear on that because I can accept that as your position, you are wanting to double dip on your profits, but I will not be buying any of your products if that is the case. Why? Because I and the majority of the consumers sees that as gouging. Whether you agree it is or not your customers do, and they are your bread and butter after all.

You seem concerned that people are going to break the digital lock to, "resell, repackage and redistribute for a profit". Well that would be wrong for sure, profiting off someones else's work. But using something I have purchased as I see fit, that's allowable in my books.

I have heard it argued that if I want a backup of a DVD I should buy two copies? Does that mean I should buy two books just in case I happen to loose one? Do you have kids James? Optical media is very fragile, especially in the hands of youngsters. If I buy a book for my kid I can be pretty well assured that it will be around and usable for a while, heck I still have books from when I was a kid that they are now using. Can't say the same thing for a CD or DVD. You know I would be supportive of a trade in system where if a disc was damaged I could be sent or download a new copy for a reasonable fee, but buying to copies of the same material, well no.

James, people are generally fair in their dealings if they feel they are being treated in the same way. It's that golden rule thing that's been around for a few thousands years. Continue to treat your customers as the enemy (stifling use, suing customers) and you will receive no love in return.

Things have changed, face it, deal with it, move on. You can not legislate culture, culture drives legislation. Expectations on the value and versatility of media have changed. Try and lock it down all you want, spend all the money you can on lobbying, in the end it will make little difference. Your industry methods and practices are seen as out of date by the masses. Swap all that energy you are using to stem the flow of progress and instead start making products that the people desire and I betcha things will be just fine.

As the industry changes, there will be some winners and losers. The studios fought the VCR, claiming it was the death of their livelihood. Well we all know how that eventually worked out. If you are scared you are going to be on the loosing side, do something constructive about it. If the media industries had spent the last decade innovating instead of legislating just think of where we would be today. Even your own media execs finally admit this to be true. Change is good Donkey.





June 19, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James

Keep on Shilling... we all know you are full of crap.
June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"I'm asking people to think about someone else for a change."

That steers this debate again towards creators and users. That's not the debate here, it's simple economics. First and foremost, DRM was largely rejected by the market. It doesn't matter on the consumer side whether DRM is broken or not. In order to enforce this you have to prove it first. That's virtually impossible to do on the consumer side. On the economic side, this will substantially raise the costs of doing business. Extra licenses would have to be purchased to adapt existing technology to DRM enabled systems. It would also put several Canadian big software firms out of business who develop API's around a whole range of software to make it compatible with their clients systems. It's more of a money grab by the incumbents than increasing any protection for creators. Those that will by hurt by this law are likely to be SME's, and SME's are the driving force in our Canadian economy at a time when many of them are just getting by.

"We've just been through an Open Source fiasco over the last little bit and it's turned the world upside down to the point where corporations are serving people from the cloud to protect their digital assets, or intellectual properties."

Actually there were a number of technological advances that put us on this direction towards cloud computing. Open Source is probably the worst example you can bring up with respect to technological advances towards the cloud. We should have been selling in the cloud 12 years ago when napster was first born. The actual market forces at play with respect to pushing the cloud ahead stems from the tremendous cost of data loss and system backups in Business, not by open source. The market was going towards the cloud long before the Open Source debate.
June 19, 2010

mckracken said:

intrinsically missing part of james' schtick
is a complete failure to directly address whether it is a good idea or bad idea to have to pay for the same media twice.

good idea?

bad idea?

expected responses - people are free to do what they like with their money. a complete non answer.

i support industry to protect their property. a complete non answer.

buy technology in use before james was born to avoid it. a complete non answer.




June 19, 2010

Crockett said:

Umm, right
@James "In the Case of a DVD with encryption, it's protection to ensure the high quality of the DVD stays in the format is was originally intended to be delivered"

Umm.. yeah that's why they put it there, protection of *cough* profits *cough* I mean high quality 0_o
June 19, 2010

end user said:

...
@Crocket Let me ask you a straight forward questions and see if you will answer in the same manner .. Apart from the Dub method you suggest, is it your position that the consumer not be allowed to back up or shift the media they have purchased for personal use? Is it your intention that if I want to watch a movie movie on DVD, then put it on my Ipod for a plane trip that I should buy two formats of the same media content?


Hes already stated earlier when I asked him, he said we should expect to buy a second copy for backup purposes, its in this post somewhere. This guys is a paid troll so he's just gonna post nonsense no matter what we ask him thats why he never gave me an answer to how can I after C32 becomes law,legally back up my media that has DRM on it. He has no answer.

The only way is to speak with your wallet as screw their share holders.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@crocket - Dub... As in a Dub Plate. Reel to Reel recording. As in making an identical Copy. Just no trans-coding from one digital format to another, unless the copy was made to another format first. It's just a deterrent. Probably good enough to add extra hours to the whole process to where perhaps it might actually be easier to purchase a viewing copy from online?
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@end user - I am no paid troll. What upsets me is the "limited time" availability for movies purchased over the cable boxes. You buy it, and then you wait for the time it will play and that's it. You can't access it again. It's like the viewing experience of the movie theaters without physically owning it. The digital media reaches your box, you don't record it. It's not yours.

Why aren't we complaining that the movie purchased for viewing is forever available on the "cloud" where once we pay for it, we can view it as long as we please? Maybe that's next?

June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@guys - I'm just glad I didn't waste all my money on DVD's... Blue Ray is Around the Corner, then it won't be long before you can view movies Hi Def over the internet.

But I understand why you guys are fighting nail and tooth over your god given right to make back up copies of DVD's. I know I scratch them the second I use them.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@guys - I have some laser disc for sale... Non-Encrypted. They were build in the civilized era...
June 19, 2010

Antonio said:

...
The whole thing is bs. Another attempt by the rich and powerful to control the rest of us. It too will fail. Creativity will prevail. See you on the other side.
June 19, 2010

Crockett said:

Clarified?
@James "Dub... As in a Dub Plate. Reel to Reel recording. As in making an identical Copy. Just no trans-coding from one digital format to another"
@James "But I understand why you guys are fighting nail and tooth over your god given right to make back up copies of DVD's. I know I scratch them the second I use them.

Thanks for the clarification, so it looks like you are in support of making backup copies but not shifting to another format. There have been some DVD releases that included a digital copy at what seemed no extra charge. This is a prime example of giving value and convince to the customer, but unfortunately it is not a universal practice. As the bill stands, it will be illegal to make a "dub" of a DVD for backup purposes. From the comments above it seems you are acknowledging the customers right to backup up their media. So do you then support this bill in it's current form, with the ban on digital lock circumvention, or not?
June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@end user
"This guys is a paid troll so he's just gonna post nonsense no matter what we ask him thats why he never gave me an answer to how can I after C32 becomes law,legally back up my media that has DRM on it. He has no answer.

I think you're right, he's purposely avoiding questions posed by those who have been posting on this blog for years, and have a tech background. On one hand he claims to not be that tech savvy on the other he's pulling out tech terms and trying to reference these terms in his argument without even putting forth common knowledge in that field, nor the an understanding of the market.

If I was paying this guy, he would have been fired a long time ago. Too bad the real issues and conversations are lost due to this. Than again, that maybe the reason why he's here.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@crockett - I didn't read anything in the bill which says anything about making backup copies.

The only thing I support is the right for Industry to make product so long as it is not harmful to everybody else. That includes useless crap which people get all passionate about.

Shouldn't you guys be cleaning up an oil spill?
June 19, 2010

oldguy said:

@Jason K
I agree. In the minimalistic exchange I had with him, I pointed out exactly where TPM trumps the rights of the users to format shift, as explicitly allowed in C-32.

His response was that the user could upload the content to someone on the internet and have them remove the TPM, and he could then download the TPM free version through P2P. But he is on a diatribe against P2P as well.

His only consistent point is that he thinks this bill is "just fine" as is and he doesn't see where it is a problem for the people. In every other way he is simply responding in whatever manner seems to counter another argument. If that response involves illegal activity he is also arguing against elsewhere, he doesn't seem to notice the inconsistency.

This goes way beyond simple ignorance or beliefs. It speaks of a multiple personality complex. And that is what I think we are dealing with here, multiple persons.

June 19, 2010

Jason K said:

@end user
"The only thing I support is the right for Industry to make product so long as it is not harmful to everybody else. That includes useless crap which people get all passionate about.

Shouldn't you guys be cleaning up an oil spill?"

My point proven. Until Geist decides to monitor and clean up this blog, which seems to be over run with trolls, I'll find other blogs to read. I've unsubscribed from this fiasco.
June 19, 2010

end user said:

...
@james Why aren't we complaining that the movie purchased for viewing is forever available on the "cloud" where once we pay for it, we can view it as long as we please? Maybe that's next?

Cloud my ass and stop using buzz words because a cloud is nothing but a server farm and your content is at the mercy of who ever is running it. Kill the DRM server and there goes your media.

Prime example of DRM crushing consumers http://news.slashdot.org/artic...27/1521238

I say let C 32 pass but put in a provision that say a media disc has to have a BIG fat sticker that says you are not buying this disk but leasing it. Also big fat
"This Disk Is DRM Protected" label on it. Then let he market decided, I say it'll take 6 month after that for sales to plummet and downloading to increase by several fold. End of Media Companies.

June 19, 2010

Crockett said:

Really it's all a non issue anyways.
Realistically, if this law does pass as is, then most people will just ignore it because it is unjustifiable and paid for by special interests. It would be impossible to police anyways, and with the damages cap at $5000 for ALL infringement who is going to bother to prosecute it all the way through court?

It's just amazing that the bonehead media execs simply don't get it. Are they really that uninformed, unintelligent or just plain desperate? Consumers dictate the marketplace, not businesses. It's called the free market, or it was until lobbyists were invented. Well the internet brings a freedom to the people that works around that little problem.

Remember, it's not the artists who are pushing for all this, it's the media distribution companies. People support what they love, make good stuff and then they will. When the Stargate SG-1 movies came out direct to DVD I bought both of them, and so did many others. I could have downloaded it from torrent, it was there, but I bought them because I wanted to support the work with hopefully more to come. The digital lock on the media did not stop it from being torrented, neither did it stop me from buying it. So what's the point? I am a loyal customer but now if I want to back it up I'm a criminal? Truthfully, you are making us all so angry that it is understandable to just download it and say screw you all.

A software company recently made a popular title that requires you to be connected to the internet all the time. Well, you know some people can't do that, but they could with a cracked version. Now there's a smart business move, actually the sales for that product were below expectations for that very reason.

It seems the execs in charge are of another time and generation. I suspect they lack the technology literacy of the times and cannot comprehend the expectations of todays consumer. It will all work out in the end though. The consumer is increasingly becoming aware of their buying power, at the same time there is a growing choice of where to spend their entertainment dollars (of whom media companies seems to think there is an endless supply). Those that do not innovate will be gone in five years .. ah memories (AOL, Selectric, Pontiac, NBC?).
June 19, 2010

phillipsjk said:

Is "James" a persona?
James contradicts herself so often, I think it is actually a group of people. That would also explain why James know nothing about technology in one post, then used surprisingly technical terms in the next. It would also explain why seems to acting like a 14 year old, but claims to have been born in the late 80's (apologies to any 14 year olds reading).

James seems to lack understanding even when he uses technical terms. He does not understand the difference between two "pirates" using 128bit AES and the content industry forcing mass media to use AES (DTCP, the "link protection" for DLNA, for example). Encryption only works as well as the key management. The two "pirates" can attend a "key signing party." The content industry has to glue the key somewhere in your device and hope nobody can extract it.

An yes, I do know about device revocation. I don't think it is a good thing.
June 19, 2010

Laurel L. Russwurm said:

This whole gamut of copyright law has put us closer to Orwell's vision of 1984 than we have ever been.
@Crockett I wish I could agree with you about the law being "unenforcable". Certainly they will not be able to stop piracy, but they will do a lot of enforcing which will no doubt have grave ramifications in human terms. The scariest part about this is that if passed this law will lead to others that will allow government approved or even mandated spyware, great interference in internet freedom, including, but not limited to shutting down p2p.

The very connectivity of the Internet could allow vast amounts of spying on citizens. Please note: The CRTC has allowed Bell to employ Deep Packet Inspection without ANY oversight. Whether they employ it or not, that has given them the physical ability to examine every bit of mail, every bit of software, every thing that crosses the internet. Then all the tech people say: we can encrypt.

Once C-32 is passed, there will be suddenly be a compelling need to pass other laws to allow enforcement. Encryption could be made illegal.

(DPI is illegal in other parts of the world because it can be so easily misused.)

I think part of the reason the CRTC approved Bell's Usage Based Billing is because of the mistaken idea that the only reason anyone could NEED more than a handful of gigabytes of bandwidth is because they are probably nasty pirates. Since Canadian Internet rates will go through the roof when UBB is implemented we will need filesharing even more because it is such an efficient use of bandwidth.

The vast majority of Canadians have no idea what is really happening because the mainstream media isn't saying very much about this. Filesharing isn't illegal (yet) and there is an enormous amount of good and LEGAL filesharing like open source software and independent media distribution. Yet we have "Canada's National Newspaper" equating piracy with filesharing. p2p is NOT copyright infringement.

But the astroturfers say it over and over and over again and people start acting like it is true. That's propaganda and brainwashing at work.

Now I am NOT a tech person, I'm a writer. So while I will bow to all you tech folks on tech matters, I can say with authority that @James is not a real person, it is a character. And not a very well written one at that. If you look at what it says, there isn't a shred of consistency beyond "Bill C-32 is good". I wouldn't be surprised to learn that @James was actually written by half a dozen people following an astroturf handbook. A certain amount of arguing with it is good, because correcting the misinformation from the copyright lobby's propaganda is important. But we will never ever convince @James, because @James is a corporate agenda not a human being. (And an American one to boot.)

BTW, I just went through and did a wordcount: to date @James has written 9411 words in this comment thread. That's the equivalent of about 2 of my longer blog posts (and mine tend to be excruciatingly long). For a fiction writer, that's an incredible wordcount. That's a little less than a third of the entire wordcount of this entire comments section. Think about how much energy that took.

(Even the name... in tribute to a certain government minister?)

Think about it. there has been almost no discussion about astroturf and letter writing, the subject of Michael Geist's article. I realize that the government will most likely ignore letter content, it is not what we say that will stop they law; like the @James character their minds are made up. What might stop the bill would be a LOT of opposition. Like for instance a lot of letters. Could that be @James mission?
June 19, 2010

Laurel L. Russwurm said:

Is "James" a persona?
@phillipsjk

I agree :)

June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@phillip - if persona as in, is this my personality? Yes... and I am like this in person and I have the bruises and bloody noses to show for it. Guess I have a habit of attracting bad people.

Guys, I know my tech... I also know it when people are blowing things way out of proportion.

Somebody want to give me a GOOD reason why industry or anyone for that matter should not be able to use encryption without expecting anyone legally to be able to have a free for all on it?

June 19, 2010

Laurel L. Russwurm said:

Being a writer I'm used to conversing with fictional characters...
If encryption actually works... as you claim Disney's does... it shouldn't need protection under law.
June 19, 2010

Laurel L. Russwurm said:

so sad
I wonder what life will be like-- will they be fired or just treated like dirt -- for the employees of those companies if they DON'T write those letters. Employers telling their employees how to think?

June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@laurel - I am not cryptography expert, but I have ported the TEA for commercial commerce use. I didn't invent it but I had a fun time trying to fix the pads.

PGP, not P2P is apparently military grade, and it has thwarted law enforcement in the past. It can work in the sense that it can prevent someone from accessing the data encrypted within it.

It doesn't prevent someone copying an image, copying video, and it doesn't prohibit fair use.

I can only guess that you guess really think it is 1984. Well, Maybe it would be a good idea to give some people some freedom and make decrypting an encrypted signal illegal? If you are really that paranoid of course.
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@end user - I am not sure I understand you. If somebody wants to buy music which encrypted from Walmart on a CD. Do you really think they can afford a computer?

I will admit, I spend the majority of my time on front of a computer. A CD, or even a DVD for that matter hasn't crossed my mind for years now. I might have bought a CD a decade ago maybe?

While I can understand your deep concern for the end user. I think you are imagining the severity of it. You might enjoy this...

Rated R - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2CyQ7Eslg4

Times are changing really fast. I'm not sure if anyone is going to care about the implications of this bill and how it impacts their store bought CD. (I read that correctly, right?)
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@end user

Oh I'm embarrased - http://news.slashdot.org/artic...56&tid=141

It's 0.99 Cent Music Tracks. How is that crushing the consumer. They get an individual track, they have to download the whole album right?
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
It seems to be a "call to action" or words to raise awareness. I don't neccesarily disagree with the form letter being pre-written. I think it gives people the opportunity to better understand the purpose of the bill. When the article uses terms like "embarrassing" I think they run the risk of losing applicants. It does force feed opinion a little aggressively.

Until now, I didn't truly understand what Bill-C32 meant to consumers but now I have a better picture. I'm sure it will raise awareness to consumers/employees as well.

To Elaborate...

I don't really think anyone is going to support copyright laws. I think it will need to be enforced. That's just the feeling I get after the example they set to that poor mother who was charged with illegal music file sharing and now has to pay out a few million. And that's after Napster, and now I've just learned about the 99cent tracks at Walmart.

June 19, 2010

Lyric said:

All for One
If you write a form letter to the CRTC on a particular file, they consider ALL of the other same form letters to be just ONE letter. This prevents the responses on that file from getting stacked by the party with the most PR money.

I'm not sure if Industry Canada does this, too, but you can ask them.
June 19, 2010

Headshaker said:

Wow. The troll feeds on.
Don't respond to James (T. Troll), people. Seriously. Review his entire list of responses (which are many!) and you'll see that when things goes against him he starts insulting you. He started at post #4 and is still going strong. Read his replies to me and others, especially the one about:
"@headshaker - You are Richard Dawkins crowd... Don't you ever worry about all the time you waste?"

Make your own conclusions there...

Worse, he sometimes can't even seem to get his insults directed to the right people--read the section when I was pointing things out to them and you'll see the inconsistency in the posts--which lends support to the idea that this is more than one person.

Just ignore them. Please. Or could Mr. Geist close this topic?
June 19, 2010

James said:

...
@laurel - Thank you for the write up, I am almost flattered and I feel warm and fuzzy, almost.

I am a human, I've probably pirated more stuff in the past than alot of you people. I was thrilled when I used to get 5K download steady. After a few short days, I'd have what I was looking for.

I think "pirating" copyrighted materials for education use, is essential. Software, books, ect. But I don't know anybody else who did that, people just want movies. They don't care if they watch it, they don't care if they have to download it 20-30 times to get the proper English version they need.

The software has made it so easy for people now that it's just too easy. I am not against the convenience factor disappearing a little. I think they are wasting time, and that's only because I remember how much time I wasted. It's novelty, people don't need to pirate, but they are thrilled if they can.

Someone did mention already that the best way to move forward is with advancements in technology to better serve the consumer. I think anything that can be done to protect it, and move it along is reasonable, and any government laws which could prohibit a company from innovating, could be a problem. If they need to encrypt, or add digital locks, let them.

jmo...
June 19, 2010

Crockett said:

Lets not be to unrealistic
@Laurel "The scariest part about this is that if passed this law will lead to others that will allow government approved or even mandated spyware, great interference in internet freedom, including, but not limited to shutting down p2p"

Well, I am a tech person and I think you are being a bit over paranoid here. The tide of public opinion is becoming aware of these sorts of Orwellian aspirations and pushing back. Laws have been passed in a few jurisdictions but are not being well received and I don't see a rush of others eager to jump in as well. That won't stop the media barons from trying. They were hell bent on suing everyone and when that blew up in their faces they went on to pushing "Three strike laws". When people started to realize that an internet connection, that has become almost essential to daily life, was being threatened for a mere minor civil case it became a no go for most as well. Call me an optimist but I believe that when public opinion swells against even the deep pockets of industry that the people will eventually win
June 19, 2010

Crockett said:

Why close him (them) down?
Why close "James" down. When you read the stuff "He" spouts compared to the more informed responses, it only goes to show the shaky leg they have to stand on. Seriously, read the posts and see how either uninformed or contradictory they are. We know who you are ... It's almost funny if it weren't so sad.
June 19, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
Ok.. Now you are technical.. Ok, lets talk tech. My game.

.."Somebody want to give me a GOOD reason why industry or anyone for that matter should not be able to use encryption without expecting anyone legally to be able to have a free for all on it?"

Go read up on the sciences of cryptology and cryptanalysis. This is what DRM and TPM are based on. Your very phasing of the above question tells me you really don't understand the fields in spite of your claims.

But I will attempt to answer the underlying mis-assumptions that your phrasing of the question seems to imply.

In no other industry is cryptanalysis illegal. If the cryptographic measures are easily broken through cryptanalysis, then is the responsibility of the user to make the measures stronger. In fact, it has only became illegal to "crack" cryptographic measures with the advent of DMCA type laws. Never before, in no other industry.
The very concept of "legal protection" in the cryptographic field is ludicrous. Either it works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, you fix it.

If an industry wishes to use cryptology to protect their product, they are free to do so. They are also responsible to make sure it is an effective methodology. The test of "effective" is the cracking. If it can't be cracked it is effective. This is a constantly evolving field, with some techniques becoming "ineffective" rather quickly and others that have stood the test.

I have no problems with a business using cryptology measures in any way, but they must invest the continuing and ongoing development effort to make sure it remains uncrackable. If it's uncrackable, it doesn't need legal protection. If it's crackable, it doesn't deserve legal protection.

Applying ineffective TPM measures to content, and then lobbying for legal protection of these same measures, is the technical equivalent of legal protection for removal of a "do not copy" sticker. Allowing the legal precedence of such a sticker to trump the explicit user exceptions in that same law is contradictory to the intent of the exceptions. To make such a law useful, you also have to make the tools illegal. Black marker pens have been used to remove TPM, never mind more sophisticated tools.
This is the danger with TPM protection framed into law, it's potential for misuse and abuse while being totally ineffective for it's claimed purpose. One only has to look at the existing case law surrounding the DMCA to see it's abuses, and it's lack of success in controlling copyright infringement.

The fact that existing TPM is so easily defeated, means people *will* exercise what they perceive as their rights as explicitly granted under C-32. They will be breaking the law. We will all be criminals. A law that makes everyone a criminal is a very poor law.

Let me expand on this, and throw out a potential case where a non-copyrighted work is protected by TPM. In this case we have situation were it is perfectly legal to copy the content, but it is illegal to break the TPM to do so. Forever. Expand this idea to cases of Creative Commons licensed works, or works out of copyright, or freely copyable works. Same problem - forever.
You have to become a criminal to exercise your legally granted rights, when content is protected by legally protected TPM. C-32 is bad law. It's that simple.

June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ Laurel L. Russwurm

Bravo,

I will be checking your site tomorrow (very late tonight) for ab email / icq / msn etc so we can communicate directly w/o "james" and his spewing :)
June 20, 2010

R.B said:

dumb and dumber
@james,
Are you really that dumb??
no one here has anything against DRMs and no body should. it is the f**king legal protection !!!!!!
Yes custumers can choose IF THEY HAVE INFORMATION TO ACT UPPON you moron (SONY rootkit, was it cleaerly specified on the CD box??? NO) .
YES you can copy (MOST ... have you heard of MACROVISION ?? Idount that) a DVD without having to break any encryption, but that act it self is CIRCUMVENTION and will be illegal under C-32 as it is now. Eitherway that'S beyond the point. There is no clear definition of what is and what is not a DRM, and that can be abused, (LEXMARK trying to force people tu buy theire over priced ink cartriges ... auto builder trying to controle after market service -- YES AUTO REPAIRE IS MORE SOFTWARE THAN HARDWARE these days -- ... the list can go on)
EFF website (eff.org) is full of articles on that subject. 10 Years of DMCA proved to be a disaster (at least for those people living on earth, you seem like an alien ...a retarded one to boot)...
June 20, 2010

lil_B said:

...
Where digital locks and the DMCA hurt consumers is in situations where the DRM blocks activity that is either not illegal, or activity that is allowed by law (like fair use exceptions)

Even if breaking DRM is legal, its still a problem for the consumer because it may not be a simple matter to break that encryption, and in a case where the keys to that encryption are deleted it may be impossible.

Old DRM systems have the keys to their encryption stored in the hardware/software so they are easy to extract or crack.

New DRM, like iTunes is impossible to crack because the keys are stored on the server. You can however trick iTunes into decrypting it for you with a program like requiem, but only if you have the keys. This means that with the encryption in place, it is impossible for a 3rd party to decrypt it. It can only be done with your authorized computer.

If the DRM servers are ever shut down, its game over. You cant just crack open your content because the keys are lost forever.
June 20, 2010

lil_B said:

...
Once you decrypt you content, you can do whatever the hell you want with it. Legal or illegal.

So while I can see a need for DRM (like with movie rental systems), there is also a huge potential for companies to abuse it. I say, DRM should only have legal protection in cases where circumventing it would be for the purpose of infringement. So if they make a program that can decrypt your authorized iTunes content so you can play it on a playstation, that program must me made to only work with purchased content, rather than rented content.
June 20, 2010

lil_B said:

...
@R.B

Recording a DVD with a video capture card would not be illegal under C32. Macrovision is designed to screw with VCR's. It was never intended to, nor is it designed to disrupt digital recording methods. If your capture card or recording device is not affected by it, your not technically circumventing the lock.
June 20, 2010

Tom Gelinas said:

...
@ lil_B: Why should a user have to use a degraded, re-captured copy of a media work they have already paid for? It's better to use decss and have a perfect, digital copy that can be modified than to use a degraded digitial-to-analog-to-digital copy. We licensed the movie at a certain level of clarity, resolution and quality, we should retain the ability to freely use that DVD for personal use.
June 20, 2010

lil_B said:

...
@Tom Gelinas - No kidding, we should be able to decrypt for fair use. I'm just stating, as it is C32 doesn't stop you from copying anything in a manner that a digital lock doesn't protect it from.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@crokett - I'm referencing the bill. You are attacking an individuals character in an attempt to... I'm not sure. Do you all know each each?

In any event, for all the babies here. Why not add a clause which say that DVD owners have the god given right to break the DVD encryption on their DVD Disc. No man shall drop a generation of video when copying from copying from one disc to the next. Trans-coding will be pristine and convenient at the expense of all software developers and should it not, they will be forced by law to change any and all aspect they see fit by any and all consumers.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - Well in this bill it says cryptanalysis, but does go so far to mention that if you circumvent it's illegal.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4580265&Language=e&Mode=1&File=72#16

I don't think that analyzing a piece of code, or a type of digital lock is considered breaking it. By your definition of what cryptanalysis is, it might be outside the bounds of this.

I can't see any reason why in a commercial setting that breaking a security measure put into place by a manufacturer, distributor, artist, or anyone should be legally subject to "cracking" or "hacking" or "theft"
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
*does not say - cryptanalysis
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
So everybody, what happens years from now when everybodies car is locked with a digital lock, or their wallet is locked with a digital lock? Or their connection from their home computer terminal to their bank, or their home computer to the movie theater is protected by a digital lock. Should we abolish the concept of "digital locks" all together?

I don't write Bill's, but I would suspect that if we take a while to use Occam's Razor, just to figure out what concept makes the most sense across the widest array of situations, it might help us figure out what a digital lock is really for.

To detour theft. Maybe we should scrutinize everything which attempts to detour theft and work from the honor system?
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@lil_B - For the most part, you are right. What happens if you store your DVD's in a rental shed and burns down. It's gone forever, until you buy another copy, with any luck there will insurance in place and you will be re-reimbursed.

I thought this was funny since everybody thinks it's 1984 - http://www.smh.com.au/technolo...-gimr.html
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Quote:
So everybody, what happens years from now when everybodies car is locked with a digital lock, or their wallet is locked with a digital lock? Or their connection from their home computer terminal to their bank, or their home computer to the movie theater is protected by a digital lock. Should we abolish the concept of "digital locks" all together?
Unquote.

No.. the key there would be who controls those digital locks.. if the control of the car and wallet locks are in the hands of the retailer even after the consumer has paid for them then yes they need to be abandoned.

Reality is james is a SHILL, proven over and over again in this forum. A useless waste of space and time.. Hopefully no one will be foolish enough to believe the crap spewed from him.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - Can you stop calling me a shill please.

In the case of the DVD, there is no lock preventing the end user from viewing the content. They have purchased viewing rights. I am certain that at the beginning of many movie there are disclaimers stating that you can no play the movie for a commercial audience. It is for personal viewing only.

There is nothing on that DVD which interferes with a persons right to enjoy their DVD in their DVD player, or even on their PC.

If you need to make a dub copy, make a dub copy. It's not rocket science.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
In any event, years ago when I used to demux VOB files on DVD's it was a painstaking process which in the course of a business day I very rarely has requests to "circumvent" a hollywood DVD for inclusion in a work which was supposedly "professional".

If anything, Encryption will just make it harder for businesses who want to make money repackaging, reselling, removing disclaimers, altering the full work to suit their purpose, etc...

It will have very little effect on the home end user. What does it take to make a perfect digital copy of one DVD disc to another? Copy it to the harddrive, burn it to another DVD? I do not think encryption could prevent that now could it?
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
If Hollywood was smart, they would stamp unique keys into the plastic, and the key would be responsible for decrypting the encrypted video on the disc. That would make it impossible to use blanks to make copies right?

But I don't think they do that. They didn't years ago, I haven't heard anything about it since...
June 20, 2010

mckracken said:

this thread will be fun to reference
in about 2 months when it's discovered james is simply the top floor admin pool for the cria.

it's the only way to explain the varying levels of technical sophistication and outright ineptitude being shown here along with the checklist of talking points.

i could practically write a paper based on this exchange alone. please don't purge this.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@mckraken - I am not sure what you are referring to, but perhaps it is the multi-plexing which takes place on a DVD disc. Video Files are merged with Audio and, Text (caption streams), to form a single stream. You can "Demux" a VOB file to separate those streams to derive an MPEG-2 from. MPEG-2 is pretty much the standard.

Encryption by definition requires a one way hash algorithm, or public or private key system. I don't know which Encryption technology is currently on use within a DVD.

Do you? Write a paper. I don't know you. But I have a really good feeling you don't know half of what you claim you do. You must be a consultant. Hanging out with the old boys club? Crook.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ mckracken

I agree completely on that one! James is most definitely a SHILL... CRIA or otherwise the behavior screams SHILL.. and the fact he does not like the truth about that makes it even more obvious. (SHILLs never want to be exposed as such after all)


@ james the SHILL

Ah.. so you say there is nothing preventing a consumer from watching the dvd?

DECSS was invented to solve that exact problem you obvious SHILL.

Not to mention your argument once again is effectively trying to take away consumers rights. Not that we are about to fall for it though.


June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - Another HideBound Reactionary!

So what part of the Bill don't you like? Or the Form letter for that matter?
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - CSS didn't take away anybodies right. In fact I believe you be incredibly hard pressed to find a single consumer protesting CSS.

Thanks for being a watchdog though.

Consumers purchase viewing rights. They can use their DVD however they please. There is nothing about CSS which prevents a consumer from using their DVD in their DVD player or their PC for that matter.

I think someone brought up Ipods. Where there is no slot for a DVD to go in an Ipod.

CSS is irrelevant.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the SHILL

James said:
...

Encryption by definition requires a one way hash algorithm, or public or private key system. I don't know which Encryption technology is currently on use within a DVD.

June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
damn forum..

repost:


...
@ james the SHILL

James said:
...

Encryption by definition requires a one way hash algorithm, or public or private key system. I don't know which Encryption technology is currently on use within a DVD

Funny how you choose to know and not know as it serves your SHILL cause.


"Do you? Write a paper. I don't know you. But I have a really good feeling you don't know half of what you claim you do. You must be a consultant. Hanging out with the old boys club? Crook. "

And when you could not refute words and points made you resort to a lame attempt to attack hoping the smoke screen will hide your being a SHILL.



James said:
...
"@glenn - Another HideBound Reactionary!"


Ahh if a "HideBound Reactionary" is what you try to call a consumer that is well aware of the facts. Is well aware of the technical aspects of how the C-32 provisions will impact consumer rigths and the ability to fight back against SHILLs and the US media conglomerates.. Then yes I would fit that name. However I'm sure you won't agree of course.. that would be anti-SHILLish in nature


"So what part of the Bill don't you like? Or the Form letter for that matter? "

I and others have already stated this many times.. but for the sake of anyone new to this thread and james's SHILL behaviour I'll reiterate it.

C-32 TPM/DRM provisions trump consumers rights period.. this is not acceptable. It does nothing to prevent piracy.. it only punishes the consumers and in many ways effectively would give control of what is "copyright" to the media conglomerates instead of it being in the hands of the government which is where it belongs.

Copyright law should in no way shape or form give legal protection for DRM. Regardless of how much temper tantrums the US media have about it. This is Canada... take your US DMCA bullshit and go home.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - I will be honest with you, I never once had any issues trying to rip video from a DVD. The CSS decryption was either absent or simply not in use.

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

It says it's been around since 1996. Of all the DVD's I ripped or copied it was never an issue.

The wiki says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomeria_cipher is the new type of encryption. I have zero experience with this, but I can only imagine it will work for as long as it takes for someone to find a way to crack it and distribute it on the web.

June 20, 2010

mckracken said:

turing machine?
starting to feel like a voight kampf test is required here. (for those unaware, it is a fictional test from the movie blade runner designed to determine if an entity was human or synthetic).

a variety of answers here with additional noncontextual commentary additions suggest someone with a head injury who has been up for 36-48 hours taking coffee/redbull intravenously, or, a chat bot.

June 20, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

The Lama has words for us.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you. Then you win."

We win because James & MAFIAA ALREADY know they've been beat
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ James the SHILL

CSS is all but mandatory in effect.. and extremely few DVDS are ever produced (commercially) w/o it enabled. Regardless of your ripping such a rare dvd the reality is it is present on 99.999% of DVDs.

This is this not about if YOU had issues or not. it is about consumer rights and the C-32 DRm provisions trying to take them away. (Not to mention effectively taking copyright out of the governments hands and into the hands of the media production companies.)


Now try to keep your SHILL behavior about the issues at hand instead of trying to deflect again.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - I understand your concerns with "punishing consumers". I don't believe that this is an enforceable law, which may help you to better understand this letter.

This law is a deterrent. People should know when they are pirating DVD's that it is illegal to say the least. It's theft.

To say it is unforacable, or wrong to impose because it violates the rights of a consumer (specifically when speaking about DVD's), is just wrong.

Laws are guidelines we follow, without the threat of punishment, should we have them at all?
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james

.."I don't think that analyzing a piece of code, or a type of digital lock is considered breaking it. By your definition of what cryptanalysis is, it might be outside the bounds of this."

The bill references decrypting or descrambling of encrypted works. By it's very definition this is accomplished through cryptanalysis. It sounds like you have learned to use the buzzword(s), but don't know what they mean. As I previously said, you don't really understand the technology and are not qualified to comment on it.

..."I can't see any reason why in a commercial setting that breaking a security measure put into place by a manufacturer, distributor, artist, or anyone should be legally subject to "cracking" or "hacking" or "theft" "

In every other field or industry they do not need legal protection. When cryptographic techniques are used in a commercial setting, they must be designed to work. If they don't work, they are replaced with something that does work. Legal protection is irrelevant, and in the context of the cryptographic field itself is detrimental to the advancement of the field. They do seem to address this somewhat in the bill, allowing analysis. But only after advising the content holder that it is being analyzed. Again, this is special treatment that no other industry needs. Implementing cryptographic techniques requires that you shoulder the responsibility associated with doing so.

But I notice you studiously avoid addressing the legal consequences of protection of TPM as granted in this bill. Can you really not see where exercising the exception rights granted in the bill, when the content is protected by TPM, turns us all into criminals?

Based on previous comments from "you", I would guess not. You don't care that the bill is bad law. And if we all become criminals because of it, you are still happy with C-32. Do you really want to support a bill that encourages common disregard for this law?

Isn't the letter writing doing exactly that?

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I am not a cryto expert. I've already stated that. My experience is limited to porting TEA (Tiny encryption Algorithm), to say I don't under terms or what they imply is wrong.

I've worked in the DVD industry for 4 years about 4 years ago. Mostly Authoring, Sending of Masters for Glass Master runs, demuxing VOBs, clicking the button on the free software package that says DeCSS.

TPM appears to be a storage platform for keys, only hardcoded into ROM.

I do not believe ALL of us will become criminals. I think it is a call to action, or a voice to raise awareness that we need to stop raping industries and start supporting them. Even if it means supporting the Glass Master Replication Factories, or the Distributors, or the Retailers, or the Artists, or who ever makes a living from DVD's and other Digital Medias.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ mckracken

Indeed a good referece.. and the captcha is designed to help prevent that... but a paid SHILL is the most likely answer.



@ james the SHILL.


James said:
...
@glenn - I understand your concerns with "punishing consumers". I don't believe that this is an enforceable law, which may help you to better understand this letter.

This law is a deterrent.




No it is NOT a deterent.. it has nothing to do with prevention of PIRACY no matter how much you try to claim it does.

It is another lame attempt to control that which they have no right to control.... strictly for profit at the expense of consumers rights.

As for pirates they don't give a shit about the law.. they will pirate the dvd etc regardless.. and trying to claim it is preventing such is a load of crap and we know it.

There are already laws in place to punish for piracy... so why do you so desperately want this new one which would do NOTHING about that?
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I don't think that DVD's are here to stay to be honest. There will be better distribution methods in the future. I do not see any real threats to consumers regarding the use of encryption. Consumers have the choice to buy from who they want.

To disregard law because it seems futile is just surrender. Maybe the law makers should just pack up and call it a day, after all, these technologies will most surely make all law enforcement a thing of the past. I'm just kidding, there needs to be laws, and I opt to make them with the least amount of hypocrisy.

My honesty regarding how those laws will be treated being irrelevant.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - Yes it is a deterrent in the broadest sense. Referencing the Current state of CSS, no. It's not much of a deterrent.

June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the SHILL

Your stance that C-32 is good holds even less water than the 'anti-gun' laws. Pure fiction is all it is when they introduce a new anti-gun law making it harder for a gun to be owned legally all in the name of "preventing" gun crimes.

The criminals still have the guns regardless. The crimes with them still happen. Meanwhile law abiding citizens are punished again.

I for example own guns. I could choose to go commit a crime with them etc etc.. but I do not since I am a not a criminal. You would want to prevent me from having those under the pretense of "he might / could do X".

Reality is if I wanted to kill someone (against current laws) I am more than capable of doing such not only with a gun but without a gun. I could do so w/o anything more than my own hands. Whats next.. a law to remove my ability to use my own hands?

It makes as much sense as trying to punish consumers in the name of "piracy" when the real intent is removal of rights and making profits.

Reason in that case is simple... the lame duck politicians choose to "look" like they are doing something about the problem.. but tackling the actual problem is much much harder than to fake it by instead attacking legal ownership.

As for your "piracy" stance we all know very well it is not about piracy.. so stop with that tired load of crap.

It's called a smoke screen and it is the exact same BS as the US media has been using to try to get control.. all the while screaming "piracy".
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@oldguy - Yes it is a deterrent in the broadest sense. Referencing the Current state of CSS, no. It's not much of a deterrent.


@ james the SHILL.

No it is not a deterent. Current laws already make piracy illegal. C-32 does not change that.. but it does attempt to take away consumers rights by making exercising them illegal.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - There is no consumer to my knowledge which is technically capable of Demuxing a VOB without the assistance of illegal software.

It is completely legal and perhaps alot easier to make dub copies, digital to digital in a replication burner, or from deck to deck.

The only thing I can see this encryption doing is maintaining the integrity of the final product. To prevent others from repackaging altered works or the high quality materials with their own branding, without disclaimers, ect...

The encryption is not protecting the DVD itself, it is protecting the intellectual property (integrity of the product) at the same time the laws permit fair use.

It robs no consumer of their rights. And it gives law enforcement an opportunity to enforce law.
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
By a simple logical parsing of the law within C-32, it should become perfectly obvious what is wrong with C-32.

1) The bill explicitly grants you the right to do "A".
Now add the TPM..
2) Except where a third party does "B" first.

Can you not see where a third party action trumps user rights as granted in "A"?

Discussion: Certainly that third party should be allowed to do "B". But they can't expect the law to protect their actions. It should not trump the user's legal right to do "A". If the measures in "B" are effective, it becomes a matter of "can't" not "criminal". If the measures are ineffective, the the user should not be exposed to legal liability by exercising their rights.

Lets continue on some of the other effects of TPM in C-32.

1) You have always been allowed to do "C". It has always been, and is still perfectly legal to do so under law. It may, or may not, have anything to do with "copyright protection".

Now add TPM as described under C-32.
2) A third party now does "B" first. You are no longer legally allowed to do "C".

Bill C-32 now effectively removes legal rights you have historically had. The action "C" has never been, and still isn't against the law. But the very act of that third party doing "B" makes the action "C" against the law.

Discussion: The problem with C-32 is that it grants a third party the ability to make perfectly legal actions into criminal ones. By making it illegal to "undo B" under law, it is opening up a whole gamut of potential "illegal actions" that by their history and nature are perfectly legal ones. This goes way beyond simply trumping user rights granted under C-32, it creates whole new classes of illegal actions that were previously legal.

C-32 is simply bad law.

TPM is a technology. As used by the entertainment industry, it is ineffective. That is a problem for the industry, but the answer isn't legal protection for TPM. The answer is for the industry to create and use effective TPM. If they can't do this within their current business models, they need to consider different business models or different technology.

June 20, 2010

sam said:

...
have you noticed your rights are eroded everyday? Buy a house, your rights are diminished by planning, zoning, bylaws, urban forestry etc. This is the same, if you accept criminalization by Harper and his neo cons over your ipod, it's over. Intellectual freedom and citizens rights must be non negotiable.
"Honk if you hate Harper"
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the SHILL

James said:
...
@glenn - There is no consumer to my knowledge which is technically capable of Demuxing a VOB without the assistance of illegal software.

On the contrary DECSS is not illegal... no matter how much of a tantrum the MPAA has about it.

And as stated previously I am a consumer and I am more than technically capable of doing that and alot more. C-32 would not prevent me from doing that.. it would simply make exercising my rights a crime.


"It is completely legal and perhaps alot easier to make dub copies, digital to digital in a
replication burner, or from deck to deck."

And what of use of legally purchased DVDs in a HTPC for example? What of clipping out a small segment for critical review, parody or anything else considered fair use in copyright law?
However C-32 would not only make such illegal it would remove consumers rights simply by trumping them with DRM.


"The only thing I can see this encryption doing is maintaining the integrity of the final product. To prevent others from repackaging altered works or the high quality materials with their own branding, without disclaimers, ect...

The encryption is not protecting the DVD itself, it is protecting the intellectual property (integrity of the product) at the same time the laws permit fair use.

It robs no consumer of their rights. And it gives law enforcement an opportunity to enforce law. "



Bullshit.. pirates will still continue to pirate.. consumers whom BUY the media do not do that. Therefore once again the consumer gets punished not the pirates.

Current laws already enable law enforcement to enforce the law.
C-32 does nothing to help that or prevent piracy.. It does effectively eliminate many consumer rights on the other hand and would be thoroughly abused to generate more profits at the expense of the consumers. (Not to mention in the case of CRIA/RIAA it is trying desperately to make them still relevant when things have changed and they are a dying business model.)


Your bullshit is beyond tired.. it's pathetic SHILL behavior.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@sam - There are talks that jailbreaking an ipod and an iphone opens the doors to malware and hacking. Apple even displays a different welcome greeting to the end user.

You have the choice to buy Android or a Blackberry. The choice is yours. I don't see why government should encourage others to take a path against what is advised by the manufacturer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jailbreaking_for_iOS#Viruses.2Fworms

If anything, they should re-enforce it. In the broadest terms of what a digital lock is, and what it is meant to do, I think breaking one should be known to be a bad thing, even if the punishment is interpreted as severely jaywalking.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
sam said:
...
have you noticed your rights are eroded everyday? Buy a house, your rights are diminished by planning, zoning, bylaws, urban forestry etc. This is the same, if you accept criminalization by Harper and his neo cons over your ipod, it's over. Intellectual freedom and citizens rights must be non negotiable.
"Honk if you hate Harper"


I'd honk but it would be pointless... Harper would never hear it since his ears are covered by the thighs of the US media execs.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I am having difficulties deciphering what you are trying to say.

What is the real issue? Should manufacturers be allowed to use "Digital Locks", to protect their investments, or in the case of an iphone, use it to create a safer environment for their users?

Should it be criminal to disallow someone the right to break a digital lock?

I don't understand your logic.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@sam - There are talks that jailbreaking an ipod and an iphone opens the doors to malware and hacking. Apple even displays a different welcome greeting to the end user.

You have the choice to buy Android or a Blackberry. The choice is yours. I don't see why government should encourage others to take a path against what is advised by the manufacturer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jailbreaking_for_iOS#Viruses.2Fworms

If anything, they should re-enforce it. In the broadest terms of what a digital lock is, and what it is meant to do, I think breaking one should be known to be a bad thing, even if the punishment is interpreted as severely jaywalking.



@ james the SHILL

Indeed jailbreaking an iphone could do that. However the same phone is vulnerable to the same even w/o jailbreaking. Now also if a consumer owns an iphone and wants to use X app... he OWNS that phone and apple should have no right whatsoever to say he/she cannot do that. C-32 would give apple not only the continued ability to do that but would give them legal protection when they decide to remove functionality of the same phone w/o the owners permission.

As for use of a iphone as an example look at the draconian bullshit extortion apple does with their "license agreements" to develop an app for the iphone etc. It's legal extortion (in the US but not here)


Thankfully though we do have very excellent alternatives to the crappy iphone and apples crap in Android.. thanks to the forward thinking execs at Google.



June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@oldguy - I am having difficulties deciphering what you are trying to say.

What is the real issue? Should manufacturers be allowed to use "Digital Locks", to protect their investments, or in the case of an iphone, use it to create a safer environment for their users?

Should it be criminal to disallow someone the right to break a digital lock?





@ james the SHILL

Apple does not use a digital lock to "make a safer environment". They use it to control consumer choice and generate additional profits at the expense of the same consumer.

Use of DRM has been proven time and time again it does nothing to "protect" their investment against piracy. It is there to control consumers rights and choices.

And no it should not be illegal to break a digital lock if that is done for LEGAL purposes. piracy is not legal and therefore would remain illegal regardless of C-32
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - We currently understanding that breaking a digital lock on an iphone has both the negative effects of malware and security breaches which essentially turns a product which is meant to do something into something else. It also has the advantage of using software which is not easily available or supported by the product.

What would breaking the encryption on a digital rights management system do? It would have the negative effect of potential re-branding or it would enable the alteration of the product into something else.

It would not prevent dub copying for backup purposes, and it would not prevent fair use abilities. It may slow down the ease at which others can mass redistribute altered works. I don't see it doing anything else.

To keep the integrity of what a Digital Lock actually means, and what it actually does, I think it should be known to be illegal. It does not rob a user of thier rights. If anything, DVD's specifically, it might give reassurance to paying clients that others are not getting the same product for free, doubt it, but it might help a bit.

If someone is paying, why should another have it for free. Consumers pay for privileges. Maybe Privileges are not something we should consider with Encryption.

(Its a bit of a rant, but I wrote it, so I'm posting it)
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
*I think it should be known to be "illegal" - if they are broken...
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the SHILL


James said:
"...
@glenn - We currently understanding that breaking a digital lock on an iphone has both the negative effects of malware and security breaches which essentially turns a product which is meant to do something into something else. It also has the advantage of using software which is not easily available or supported by the product."

jailbreaking does not cause that alone.. since the same phone is vulnerable even w/o jailbreaking. Trying to say it does is about the same as saying the consumer using a PC with Windows on it should not be allowed to use any software on it unless M$ has approved it. it does nothing to make it more secure.




"What would breaking the encryption on a digital rights management system do? It would have the negative effect of potential re-branding or it would enable the alteration of the product into something else."

DRM does not prevent re-branding or alteration by pirates. This has been proven time and time again.


"It would not prevent dub copying for backup purposes, and it would not prevent fair use abilities. It may slow down the ease at which others can mass redistribute altered works. I don't see it doing anything else."

On the contrary as has been pointed out already many times it would prevent such fair use s well as making such illegal.



"To keep the integrity of what a Digital Lock actually means, and what it actually does, I think it should be known to be illegal. It does not rob a user of thier rights. If anything, DVD's specifically, it might give reassurance to paying clients that others are not getting the same product for free, doubt it, but it might help a bit."

Legal protection for DRM does nothing to prevent piracy period.
Having DRM does not give any reassurance to paying clients since those that would pirate do so anyhow. It does punish those whom purchase such inferior products though as has been proven many times.


Care to spew the same load of BS again? Of course you do.. you are a SHILL.


If someone is paying, why should another have it for free. Consumers pay for privileges. Maybe Privileges are not something we should consider with Encryption.

(Its a bit of a rant, but I wrote it, so I'm posting it)
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - I can't tell you if an iPhone is running a BSD unix or not. I can't listen to your hearsay anymore.

Can you start referencing materials? I don't know who you are, but I still think you're some guy reading the national enquirer like it's the new age law for technology.

June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ my last post:

james said:

"If someone is paying, why should another have it for free. Consumers pay for privileges. Maybe Privileges are not something we should consider with Encryption.

(Its a bit of a rant, but I wrote it, so I'm posting it) "


Rant all you want.. it's still just SHILL crap.

Consumers purchase media. If they were paying for privileges that would be a contract / rental not a purchase.

The rights they have are RIGHTS not privileges granted by the media companies. Once again this is proof you are a SHILL since those media companies desperately want people to believe they are granted privileges and have no rights. Of course all in the name of profits.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
More Hearsay, More Slander. Nothing of relevance...
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the shill


James said:
...
"@glenn - I can't tell you if an iPhone is running a BSD unix or not. I can't listen to your hearsay anymore.

Can you start referencing materials? I don't know who you are, but I still think you're some guy reading the national enquirer like it's the new age law for technology. "



What I am using for a phone or what OS I am using is completely irrelevant to say the least.

Your new lame attempt to insult since you cannot refute the point is childish at best. It will not fool anyone.

How nice of you to try to deflect when you cannot argue.. and to ignore when you cannot argue... typical SHILL as expected.








June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - There was no insult glen. I just pointed out the "jist" of your post.

I do not work for Apple, I do not work for RIAA, or CIRA, or whoever is conspiring to make your life miserable.

I'm sorry... Some peoples kids...
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
More Hearsay, More Slander. Nothing of relevance...


@ james the SHILL


WOW... james the shill finally told the truth about every post he has made!

Quick.. someone call Guinness!
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
More Hearsay, More Slander. Nothing of relevance...


@ james the shill


Look everyone... james the shill finally tells the truth about every single post he has made!

Quick.. someone call Guinness!!
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - I gave up drinking a long time ago glenn - It really makes you stupid if you're not careful about how much you consume. But I did stumble across an ICE, I might drink half of it.

Yes... That's an insult. Ya paranoid Douche
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@glenn - There was no insult glen. I just pointed out the "jist" of your post.

I do not work for Apple, I do not work for RIAA, or CIRA, or whoever is conspiring to make your life miserable.

@ james the SHILL

The attempted insult was plain to see by everyone.. denial of such does not change it's nature.

Your denial of being a SHILL makes you no less of a SHILL. That is quite obvious to everyone.

Companies such as Apple, MOAA, RIAA etc trying to abuse consumers for their own profit is what makes peoples lives more miserable. I am one of those consumers whom fights back though and when necessary I simply eliminate the BS put in place by the aforementioned companies.

June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@glenn - I gave up drinking a long time ago glenn - It really makes you stupid if you're not careful about how much you consume. But I did stumble across an ICE, I might drink half of it.

Yes... That's an insult. Ya paranoid Douche



LMAO!! Ohhh the SHILL tries to insult again... and only makes him look even more dumb.
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
"What is the real issue? Should manufacturers be allowed to use "Digital Locks", to protect their investments, or in the case of an iphone, use it to create a safer environment for their users?"

They should be allowed to use anything that works. But they don't need legal protection for those measures if they work. They only need them if they don't work. The law should not support, or protect, poor technology implementation choices. If the technology works, it stands on it's own without legal protection.
From a business standpoint, if a technology doesn't work it gets thrown out and replaced with something that does work. Happens all the time. If the replacement technology requires a modification of business models, that is a purely business decision. The law should not protect business models or poor technological techniques.

.."Should it be criminal to disallow someone the right to break a digital lock?"

No. What is done after such a lock is broken is covered under other laws. But the breaking of that lock itself should not be illegal. This is the same as every other law relating to "locks". The picking or removal of the lock isn't illegal, it is the actions after you have done so.
If a business needs a stronger lock, they should put one in. They shouldn't expect the law to somehow mandate it into a "pick proof" lock. Locks are a deterrent to simplistic illegal action, nothing else. It is the action that is supposed to be illegal, not the deterrent.

.."I don't understand your logic. "

Obviously. It's simple algebraic logic though, so I have to wonder why. I suspect you should be asking yourself why so many others can see this logic, but you cannot.

TPM protection has nothing to do with copyright law. It should never have been included in C-32. It has everything to do with making nominally legal actions into illegal ones. Both within and without the realm of copyright.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I sort of agree that technology should stand on it's own.

When you say, "The law should not protect business models or poor technological techniques."

That is an interesting concept. Laws are typically in place to fill the void where technology fails. Anyways, I can't believe that hard stance, laws are everywhere, they stick their nose into every crevice of society regardless of whether or not there is technology involved.

Don't steal bread. Even though there is security cameras with facial recognition and a guard on duty, there should still be laws to protect the business.

I think this form letter was crafted to recognize the overwhelming lawless and self righteous attitude which permeates the debate areas on the web. There is very little love or respect floating around. To the average citizen, I think love beings with respect for oneself and others they share space with.

I do not see Apple or the RIAA as some sort of evil, nor do I think encryption is somehow a bad thing. I personally think there is more danger to the average citizen with concepts of Net Neutrality, and the lack of Encryption, Protection and Digital Locks.

While I have sort of come to the conclusion that this website is less concerned with it's citizens and more concerns with the logic of being "sound". I can't disagree with you, technology does stand on it's own, at perhaps you are right, laws should fall to the wayside and allow technology to reign supreme.
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
.."I do not believe ALL of us will become criminals."

The moment you exercise your lawful rights against anything nominally protected with something labeled "TPM", you will be a criminal.

Yes, eventually we will all be criminals. ALL of us. Normal everyday actions will take us there. You won't even realize it.

(To cut short your hair splitting, I'll grant that there will be some that will have died before they can commit these illegal acts.)

C-32 is simply bad law.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - We could be misaligned. Reading this entire thread, I think everybody already is the criminal and it's time to turn that around.

If you think everybody will become a criminal. I believe the majority of us already are. Especially this thread.
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

...
"Laws are typically in place to fill the void where technology fails."

No. They are in place to protect a society, all of it. In their whole, they form the "rules of the road" for a society. Laws have to be cognizant of technology, but they don't fill any void.
Technology is expected to fill it's own "voids".


June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
"We could be misaligned. Reading this entire thread, I think everybody already is the criminal and it's time to turn that around."

As C-32 attempts to legalize normal society behavior (format shifting, etc), I would agree with you.

But then the TPM measures take all that *and more* away again. And this is where we part ways. With the inclusion of TPM protection, C-32 isn't forward looking anymore, it's anti-social. It won't turn anything around, it makes things worse, much worse. It's bad law.

.."While I have sort of come to the conclusion that this website is less concerned with it's citizens and more concerns with the logic of being "sound"."

On the contrary. Concern for the abuse of it's citizens because of unsound law is of primary concern. It should be to everyone. And that is what is being pointed out, over and over again.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I copied that sentence from your statement earlier.

You said, "The law should not protect business models or poor technological techniques."

I interpreted it as, "Laws are typically in place to fill the void where technology fails."

So perhaps we are both splitting hairs.

I don't see anything wrong with this Bill. So what if someone tried to break the TPM, that should be illegal. It's tampering with a lock.

If we are so concerned about citizens, then perhaps the law should be effective and prohibit any and all digital locks from being used?

That way, no "innocent" citizen can be criminalized, and no industry can strip the rights from it's customers through the use of Digital Locks.

Chaos. If technology and laws can't work together. Maybe that is the answer, from a complete splitting hairs, philosophical point of view.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
In a perfect world, all DVD's would be rentals. Then there would be none of this TPM encryption stuff to worry about.

And yes... I know I said any physical object which someone owns should allow someone the rights to tamper with it exclusively.

There is no law which says you cannot break open a thermometer and drink the mercury, there is no law which says you can't use a physical product sold to you for purposes other than what it is intended for.

So... in the case of DVD's. It becomes a grey area. Yes, you should be able to tamper with any device which is sold to you, but if it is build in a manner to void warranties, or break, or if there are measures in place to protect the users as a whole, they should be respected.

I think the tools for decryption, if they are not for educational purposes, should be outlawed. Malware maybe?
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
That's the answer, it's the tools that need to be outlawed. I will admit, I didn't read the Bill the whole way through. I was just exercising my belief system.

But , the tools to decrypt are not mentioned in that copyright law bill, then it's a problem. Without outlawing the tools, how will anyone be able to enforce copyright law when it comes to breaking TPM decryption?

That way, citizens can anything they want with the product, but if they caught with the tools to decrypt an item, well then they knowingly crossed the line.

That makes the most sense to me.

I still don't really see anything horribly wrong with this form letter, all you make it seem like Canadians as a whole are idiots who can't think for themselves. We are all Shills for the Music Industry.

Thanks...
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the SHILL

" James said:
...
In a perfect world, all DVD's would be rentals. Then there would be none of this TPM encryption stuff to worry about. "


Ahh the MPAA/RIAA's wet dream would be exactly that.. since such would be governed by a contract they control and would not be subject to "pesky" consumer rights.



" James said:
...
That's the answer, it's the tools that need to be outlawed.


That is what the MPAA etc tried desperately to do with DECSS and they failed miserably."


Whats next.. outlaw a hammer since it could be used to smash into someone's car and steal it? The hammer is not at fault.. the criminal stealing the car is. However that same hammer has many perfectly legal uses. (Note you ignored my prior example w/gun control as well)

Once again you spew yet more SHILL crap.
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."That way, citizens can anything they want with the product, but if they caught with the tools to decrypt an item, well then they knowingly crossed the line."

Do you own a black marker pen? Do any of your friends and family?

Guilty..

June 20, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
Wow, I've read a bunch of this thread, (Must be a new record for Geist) and find myself longing for the days of semi-intelligent trolls like s&w.

If the arguments supporting the bill here are typical of the lay C-32 supporter, then that demonstrates pretty well to me that the lay C-32 opponent is significantly more informed, which should at least give us a fighting chance of defeating it.

Argue away, maties, I pop in and watch once in a while :-)

June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ Captain Hook

Lets hope that is the case and that we can force our brain dead politicians to actually do their jobs instead of kissing the US's ass.
June 20, 2010

R.B said:

...

“circumvent” means,


(a) in respect of a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition “technological protection measure”, to descramble a scrambled work or decrypt an encrypted work or to otherwise avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the technological protection measure, unless it is done with the authority of the copyright owner; and


(b) in respect of a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (b) of the definition “technological protection measure”, to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the technological protection measure.
“technological protection measure”
« mesure technique de protection »


“technological protection measure” means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation,


(a) controls access to a work, to a perform- er’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; or


(b) restricts the doing — with respect to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording — of any act referred to in section 3, 15 or 18 and any act for which remuneration is payable under section 19.


"to otherwise avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the technological protection measure, unless it is done with the authority of the copyright owner;" recording an encrypted DVD on a capture card mean exactly "AVOID" and by the above is circumvention

and MACROVISON falls under the definition of a TPM as stated above ... as a lot of things (a bit that says simply do not copy can be a TMP).
anyways ... there's an article of intrest on eff.org (about the last 10 years under DMCA hegemony) as you'll see if you read it, in this realm anything goes and anything can be a lock
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - I am not foolish enough to believe that a DVD has given me ownership of the movie itself. It's granted me the ability to view it as many times as I please. That's it. If it has given me something else, I am not aware of it. Perhaps it's give someone status?

@oldguy - For an old guy who is worried about Canada's citizens you certainly have no issues drawing the line where ever it suits you best.

@captain hook - Is there anything which you support?



Why defeat the bill? Why not make it better? This is the kind of defeatist left wing libertarian movement which has led me to believe that everyone feels they are above the law.
June 20, 2010

phillipsjk said:

...
Law -> Works to solve social problems
Technology -> can not solve social problems

As it is, DRM or TPMs are annoying. A sufficient number of customers were adversely affected that many works specifically list "DRM free" as a feature.


The legal protection of TPMs moves them from the realm of annoying to evil. To put it another way, the legal protection of DRM moves it from being part of a healthy "free market" to subverting the "free market."

"James," you do not seem to understand the phrase "DRM does not affect 'pirates'; only paying customers" is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. If the DRM is inconvenient, the 'pirates' will simply strip it.

To use the DVD example, commercial pirates can use a pressing plant to make bit-for-bit copies ignoring the CSS. Consumer DVD burners do things like enforcing Region coding in the hardware (firmware). If you buy a DVD-R disk, you can't do a "bit-for-bit" copy because the first sector is "pre-burnt" at the factory. An unofficial DVD+R disk may work, but you have reduced capacity to contend with. If you were able to copy DVD's without worrying about the DRM, your software probably handled that automatically behind the scenes.


I think what "oldguy" was saying is that things like bicycles should not be outlawed if the price of oil goes up to $800/barrel just because the automotive industry is dying. Similarly, Digital copying machines should not be outlawed because pressing plants are becoming a niche product.
June 20, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@R.B
It has been updated to reflect 12 years under the DMCA: http://www.eff.org/wp/unintend...under-dmca
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@glenn - I am not foolish enough to believe that a DVD has given me ownership of the movie itself. It's granted me the ability to view it as many times as I please. That's it. If it has given me something else, I am not aware of it. Perhaps it's give someone status?


Ah but by a purchase of that DVD you do have the right to watch it as many times as you please. What you are wanting though effectively not only removes that in part but eliminates your other consumer rights. Never mind satire / review and other fair uses under copyright law.


james the SHILL said:

@oldguy - For an old guy who is worried about Canada's citizens you certainly have no issues drawing the line where ever it suits you best.



Oh and you are one to talk there? Hypocrite!


James the SHILL said:

Why defeat the bill? Why not make it better? This is the kind of defeatist left wing libertarian movement which has led me to believe that everyone feels they are above the law.


Simple... C-32 is fundamentally flawed at it's core. The same as it's predecessors were if not more so. in some ways it's even more flawed than the total failure called known as the DMCA.

It is crafted to effectively kiss the US's ass.. and I for one am not American. I refuse to bend over for the MPAA etc to do as they please and try to eliminate consumer rights in Canada and help line those same media corporations pockets all under the guise of "piracy"

The US trying to pressure other countries to abide by their laws is nothing short of them being a bully. They continue to try this with bad laws time and time again The DMCA is but one case... if you want other examples (not sponsored by the MPAA etc) just check out the Helms Burton law and how they attempted to bully other countries w/that crap.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@phillip - It's hard to say that DRM cannot effect pirates. It certainly can, especially with point to point or point to many encrypted broadcasts, right?

It's fairly loosely defined as R.B said. It doesn't cover specifics. DRM is an all encompassing terminology, not a a technology.

So in a sense, this bill does work towards creating some good guidelines for the protection of industry and consumer goods, it opens the door a little for a witch hunt and it has all the paranoids crazy scared like it's 1984. That's about it.

What's wrong with my solution? Passing the buck, criminalizing the tools for Decryption/DRM circumvention, moreso than the individual.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - More Hearsay and Slander. Holds no relevance. At least point a link somewhere which shows how the US is bullying Canada, or point out exactly where I was a hypocrite, or anything to give yourself an ounce of integrity.
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."@oldguy - For an old guy who is worried about Canada's citizens you certainly have no issues drawing the line where ever it suits you best."

My line is consistent.
It does not advocate breaking one aspect of a law in order to exercise rights granted under another aspect of that same law. It recognizes that such a law is unsound.

My "line" is that such a law is bad, and needs to be changed. I have not wavered.

Can you say the same about your line? Other than saying "C-32 is good", where is your consistency? You seem to be able to say anything, including advocating breaking the law, in order to make that statement.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I don't think anything is going to be "perfect". It won't suit the needs or beliefs of everyone. When I say good, I am referring to the overall "form letter" which has led me to believe what this bill means to consumers. If that is what it fundamentally means to consumers and employees than I think it is good.

If there are real threats which will criminalize the whole population of Canada, then I can't agree that the form letter was purely good intent, nor can I agree that the Bill fully good.

In either case, I can't dismiss it as being irrelevant either. The "call to action" or the raising of awareness is a GOOD thing no matter what.

If the bill is so loosely defined to cater to everyone and every situation while leaving the doors open for a witch hunt, I don't think it will be taken seriously and needs to be improved.

I don't think copyright law is a useless effort. It's a good thing at it's core. I am not a borg.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the SHILL



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

"The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who resent the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba"

Google and 10 seconds would give you the same information.

Just because you are too stupid and lazy to search for information does not make it not true.

Other examples.. learn to use google and check out how they have tried to screw with Canadian forestry.. or meat products.. or even the infamous Avro Arrow. etc etc.. there are many many cases of this behavior by the US with Canada as well as other countries.


As for you being a hypocrite.. the fact you ignore / defect and state contradictory things as you flail about uselessly attempting to show C-32 as being good is more than enough proof of such.


Now go back to your flat out denial and/or defecting like a good lil SHILL.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - Cuba is run by a Dictator who struck deals with Russia over some sort of sugar trade, or Russia bought sugar from them at a higher than normal market value price. They brought missiles into the country.

I am not fluent with Communism or Marxism, but I have a feeling you believe you are.

This is copyright law. When an artist produces a work it is thiers and they rights to do with it as they please, they have the right to protect themselves against thefts, industries have the right to build industries to deliver the artists works to others, ect...

I like Hollywood. I don't hear any artists coming out of Cuba or any other Communist Countries. North Korea has a super race of athletes and traditional musicians thought. Why don't you move there...

Shill
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

...
First you say:
..."@oldguy - For an old guy who is worried about Canada's citizens you certainly have no issues drawing the line where ever it suits you best."

Then in another posting you say:
..."If there are real threats which will criminalize the whole population of Canada, then I can't agree that the form letter was purely good intent, nor can I agree that the Bill fully good."

It looks like at least one of your personalities is starting to see the light. I suggest you get together for a group discussion.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - That's why I have acknowledged what you have said, it makes a lot of sense that citizens shouldn't be criminalized, even if they were held accountable in any way, it wouldn't solve anything.

I think the answer should be in criminalizing the tools for DRM decryption. Unless for educational purposes.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
Let's outlaw calutrons, and DRM Crackers (unless for educational purposes). No destruction of knowledge, Law Enforcement can enforce, Citizens can "begin" to take responsibility for their own actions.

Artists can choose to go with a distributor, or they can go it thier own. Both will be able to protect thier properties with technology, the public will still maintain free speech rights with fair use, ect...
June 20, 2010

David Collier-Brown said:

I sent my MP 's staff a heads-up
About the astroturfing, so they'd expect to be pestered with form letters.

--dave
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@phillipsjk
..."I think what "oldguy" was saying is that things like bicycles should not be outlawed if the price of oil goes up to $800/barrel just because the automotive industry is dying. Similarly, Digital copying machines should not be outlawed because pressing plants are becoming a niche product."

Not really. I am saying that law should not be enacted that directly addresses technology in any way. If it is illegal to copy a DVD, then state it as such. It shouldn't matter how it is done, or what technology is used to "make the copy". It's either legal to do so for a specific purpose, or it isn't. It should not be wishy washy about "unless protected by a business decision to use certain technology".
This tends to ensconce particular business decisions and innovations into law. Something most businesses would feel pretty upset about if it directly impacted them. In this case, the businesses advocating for this law are the direct beneficiaries, so they are advocating for it.
If a business wants to use certain technology or innovations, that is their choice. It is also their responsibility to make sure it is "effective", that it works properly. The law shouldn't even be addressing those business decisions.

Lets back up a bit. If the "intent" of the business is to deter the making of a copy of their content, they should be allowed to make the attempt. If the attempt is unsuccessful, that's their problem. If the particular application of the technology isn't up to the task, it's their choice of application that is at fault. If they can't shoehorn an effective application of that technology into their business model, they can choose to change the business or drop the technology.
But in no cases should they request, and be granted, that laws be passed to legitimatize the intent in their use of that particular technology. They should not be allowed to say "this the effect I want this technology to have, and I want laws passed that make it work this way".

Once we get past this point, there are all kinds of injustices present in C-32 relating to the way it applies TPM protection. The law itself is inconsistent in it's intentions, with the way it applies such measures.

Not only is legal protection of "effective TPM" an oxymoron, the way C-32 addresses such protection opens the doors to all kinds of legal abuses and trampling of various legal and historical rights.

June 20, 2010

Crockett said:

...
@ James "If you think everybody will become a criminal. I believe the majority of us already are. Especially this thread."

Did you know that in Canada it's illegal to climb trees? A law is only as good as it is respected by the majority of the population and is enforceable. Pass stupid laws and yes we all become criminals.

Speaking of illegal. Look here ... from Cnet:

The ability to create copies of the media you've purchased for personal use is a long-accepted facet of the fair-use doctrine in U.S. copyright law (at least, it used to be). However, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) states that it's illegal to break the CSS copy-protection mechanism employed by most commercial DVD movies. What does that mean? Most fair-use advocates say that the policy directly contradicts U.S. copyright law, but the DMCA seems to indicate that you cannot make a copy of a commercial DVD.

Please tell me then what you mean by DUB, if it is illegal to electronically copy a DVD, that is reading off one DVD and writing to another. I know this is US law but the laws being proposed in this bill is being dictated from the US regardless.
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
.."I think the answer should be in criminalizing the tools for DRM decryption. Unless for educational purposes."

Ok.. Given that assumption lets explore the ramifications.

Please tell me how the average citizen will be legally allowed to exercise their rights, explicitly granted in C-32, when it is protected by TPM? Please address this point *without* resorting to illegal activities. You can't.

You continually miss and ignore the point that TPM protection as applied in C-32 tramples all over the rights of the users.

Not only that, it tramples over all kinds of rights, historical and possibly constitutional, that are unrelated to copyright.

June 20, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@James
"@phillip - It's hard to say that DRM cannot effect pirates. It certainly can, especially with point to point or point to many encrypted broadcasts, right?"

The Internet routes around censorship. It takes only one person to break the DRM.

In the case of the average consumer, it is the most loyal customers, the "early adopters" that are the most effected by DRM.

Maybe i did not choose my words carefully enough: It is impossible to adversely effect 'pirates' with DRM without giving the average consumer an even worse experience. I know the term "DRM" is a meaningless "catch all" term. That is beside the point.

To be honest, I did not figure out that "early adopters" are most effected myself (because I am not an early adopter):

"Five Ways Early Adopters Have Been Screwed" http://www.pcworld.com/article...rewed.html

"UPDATE x2: Avatar Blu-ray DRM bites legitimate customers" http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hard...omers/8193

"Paying for DRM" http://www.drmwatch.com/specia...hp/3111851

"HDCP 'Handshake' A Big Problem For Many Legacy DVI-Based HDTVs" http://www.avrev.com/news/1105/10.hdcp.html

"PS3 Firmware (v3.21) Update" http://blog.us.playstation.com...21-update/

"Ubisoft DRM servers go down, punishing customers but not pirates" http://boingboing.net/2010/03/...rvers.html

"Microsoft PlaysForSure" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...aysForSure


Protip: The paranoid should encrypt/authenticate all of their traffic as much as possible, not just the things they feel may be sensitive or "illegal."

Protip: Tor and Freenet are experimental at best.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@crockett - I haven't used DVD's for a while, but to take an instance of a DVD, copy to a hard drive and then copy it back to a blank DVD is essentially a DUB. A Copy. In video tape terminology, it means to copy from one video tape machine to the other, while one plays the other records. In Vinyl Technology a Dubplate is a "Double" of the original. I'm not sure where it originates, but it's slang for making a copy.

If you have two DVD drives, which are connected, you can essentially have the DVD play in one machine, and Burn to the other machine in real time or if the right software exists, faster than real time.

I would call that a Dub. A perfect physical copy.

What does it mean when it's said to be illegal to break the CSS Decryption? I am not a computer science PHD or a mathematician. To me, breaking the CSS encryption would require a piece of software which would decrypt the DVD to a format which I could then alter to make the contents of the DVD, editable, or changeable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System#cite_note-ieee-copyproc-0

I had to read the article in the wiki to understand that they do imprint an authentication key on the physical disk before the data is read.

So... Disk to Disk copying might not work if both the disk has unique non-copyable r burnable data, and the machine is expecting it. I never came across that problem to me memory in the 4 years I worked with DVD's but I didn't copy a lot of Hollywood DVD's either. But there were alot of readily available tools to decrypt CSS.

Another Dub method, would be video out from a DVD player, to Video in on a recorder, if the connection is good, there be very little quality loss.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
*if the disk has non-copyable, or not burnable data, and the machine expecting it, then the disk being copied has to disassembled, or DeCSS'd or Decrypted and then reassembled t lok like a disc which has no CSS protection.
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."Another Dub method, would be video out from a DVD player, to Video in on a recorder, if the connection is good, there be very little quality loss."

Enter Macrovision and the "do not copy" bit embedded into the HD stream.

These are also TPM. Again, not very effective, but they make us into criminals if we bypass it.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:

"...
@glenn - Cuba is run by a Dictator who struck deals with Russia over some sort of sugar trade, or Russia bought sugar from them at a higher than normal market value price. They brought missiles into the country.

I am not fluent with Communism or Marxism, but I have a feeling you believe you are."


Cuba's politics are irrelevant and not the point.... Nice lame attempt at deflecting however from the issue of the US trying to be a bully.

Once again.. can't argue the point so you try to avoid... as expected.





"This is copyright law. When an artist produces a work it is thiers and they rights to do with it as they please, they have the right to protect themselves against thefts, industries have the right to build industries to deliver the artists works to others, ect...

I like Hollywood. I don't hear any artists coming out of Cuba or any other Communist Countries. North Korea has a super race of athletes and traditional musicians thought. Why don't you move there...

Shill"




Indeed it is and copyright law is for the benefit of the artist and for the public. Not for that of the benefit of the corporations trying to screw both the artists and consumers. As copyright stands it is a BALANCED set of rights.. not a VITO power granted to the media labels as it would be under C-32.


What you are wishing for is not only eliminating the consumers rights but trying to make any breach of copyright a criminal matter instead of civil. Once again trying to offload any associated costs to the government since the infamous "lawsuits" method did SFA other than piss people off.. including the artists the RIAA claims to be defending. (See prior posts for links / evidence etc before trying to claim it is more "Hearsay and Slander" etc..)

This does not apply to piracy alone which already has laws in place.. but instead is consumer oriented regardless of what crap you try to explain it away with.

As for your signing you are a SHILL that might be the 1st truth from your keyboard.

June 20, 2010

Mark said:

...
@James "I think the answer should be in criminalizing the tools for DRM decryption. Unless for educational purposes."

Please don't procreate. You apparently want to outlaw open source software created by communities of people with 0 profit motive. I know, I know, stupid troll is trolling for a reaction, but this guy/gal "James" is unbelievable. You want to actually prevent programmers from creating software only because that software goes against your industry. This would essentially be coding censorship. You will not and I repeat you WILL NOT prevent ANYONE from creating. Stop trying.

James has his foot in his mouth. Troll on industry crusader. Troll on. My entire dvd library has been digitized. All of it is encrypted and impossible for anyone other than me to access. I'm a criminal under C-32 because I break digital locks almost weekly. However in order to prove this investigators will have to break a much more advanced cipher than a dvd encryption, thereby breaking the very same law. Good luck team hollywood/music astroturfers. Your lively hood depends on a radical change in public policy. Which will never happen.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@mark - I didn't say anyone should ban open source software. Open Source software is a terminology used to describe the way a software package is distributed, it doesn't explain what the software does.

Mark, what part of "for educational use" didn't you understand?

Is it just me or are there futurist/nihilists hanging around these threads?
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - First off, You should stop worrying if I am a shill or not, because I'm not and even if I were, get used t it, because everybody gets paid by someone you IDIOT!!!
June 20, 2010

Mark said:

...
@James.

Handbrake is Open Source Software which is a tool for breaking DRM encryption. You said "I think the answer should be in criminalizing the tools for DRM decryption. Unless for educational purposes." I don't digitize my purchases for educational purposes, I do it because I have no use for plastic discs. By criminalizing a piece of open source software you are in effect censoring the open source community.

Anyone using a linux based machine only has to type one command to download handbrake. James is in effect calling for the open source community to censor itself from a particular type of software he doesn't like. Good luck with that bud.

You think you can stigmatize my argument by calling me a "futurist/nihilists" ? troll harder.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@glenn - First off, You should stop worrying if I am a shill or not, because I'm not and even if I were, get used t it, because everybody gets paid by someone you IDIOT!!!


@ james the SHILL


Yes everyone gets paid by someone. That is a fact of life within the society we exist in.


However most of us do such within an honest means and not via a dishonest and / or deceptive means.. which is what a SHILL does. That puts a SHILL in much the same "boat" as a pirate btw.. something you obviously failed to realize.

June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the SHILL

Oh and btw.. nice try once again at deflecting / ignoring the facts presented to refute your bullshit claims.

Boo hoo for you... silly lil shill does not win.. does not pass go.. goes straight to jail.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - Yes, well definition of "circumvent" can just about mean anything, but I think the real issue is that it's the circumvention of the "technological protection".

(a) in respect of a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition “technological protection measure”, to descramble a scrambled work or decrypt an encrypted work or to otherwise avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the technological protection measure, unless it is done with the authority of the copyright owner; and


So... My reasoning is that anyone should be able to alter any physical product which they purchase however they want. If they want to break the CSS encryption for thier personal use, I would consider that educational.

While if law enforcement came across someone who was hoarding a pirated movie stash and rebroadcasting it to the internet, or reselling it to others, the stash along with the tools would be evidence.

If a consumer was to be "criminalized" they couldn't be convicted unless they were caught with the tools to decrypt it. So while everyone is trying to download DVDS from the web, should they already be decrypted, they aren't doing anything wrong. It's the people who physically use the tools to rip that first perfect copy who are the real "criminals".

I don't really know how to rationalize it in any other manner.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - I haven't seen a fact come outta you yet. What did I deflect? You can't sit there and tell me that you are perfectly okay with the complete and total lack of security and the irresponsibility the entire community adopts can you?

http://www.openwall.com/john/

How does that even exist without a disclaimer, "For Educational Purposes Only". It doesn't even make a lame attempt to warn anyone if the country they are in bans the software or if it's illegal to crack other machines passwords. No offense to John the Ripper.
June 20, 2010

James aka FOSS hater said:

...
Hi I'm James. I've never used a digital media center in my life. Doesn't everyone carry stacks of dvds around their household? What's a linux?
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ Mark & ! james the sad pathetic excuse of a SHILL whim no one is being fooled by.


Just for clarity's sake.. I agree w/your statements completely.. but just in case one of the many ppl behind the "james" SHILL persona get a clue and tries to argue w/logic. The proper term would not be digitizing.. but copying to another medium other than "plastic discs" since a DVD in and of it'self is technically already in a digital format.

As for handbrake etc.. the primary reason that is "illegal" is due to the DCCA's BS "licensing" system. (designed to enforce an artificial price fixing scheme since otherwise it would be illegal.) The DeCSS application ironically was developed to allow playback of legally bought and paid for DVDs on *nix. Regardless of the DCCA's bullshit restrictions.

Ever since then (and technically before if you go back to the infamous Betamax case) the cry of "piracy" was used instead to try to gain sympathy from the public and to allow shit laws like the DMCA to be created. At the behest of the media cartels of course regardless of what rights they trample in their methods.

Thankfully in this day and age we not only can but will fight back. And the obsolete morons trying to control such can die off as they stave w/o income caused by their own short sightedness and inability to adapt to reality. They are a dinosaur.. and should go off and DIE already.

Once again.. US media morons.. go home.. this is CANADA.. you are not welcome.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@FOSS Hater - Free is different from Open Source, They do not have to go together, and they are not one and the same.

Security can exist with Open Source.

Open Source is not synonymous with Zero Security.

I like Open Source... But that doesn't give anyone the legal right to break into someone else's machine. And guess what, software doesn't have to be Open Source to Crack Passwords either.

Chumps...
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@Glenn - You guys are like a plague... I swear... Doesn't anyone love you? Get some fresh air... Everyone loses it sometimes, but it's important to take that first step towards recovery.
June 20, 2010

James aka FOSS hater said:

...
What's a digital media center?

I've heard of boxee and XBMC but I've never actually bothered to use them as I feel that anything thats free has to be criminal. Their are people volunteering their own time/skills to write software that allows consumers to actually use their purchased products how dare they I say.

Writing free software that obsoletes my archaic business model should be criminal. Technology must never evolve!
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@foss - For educational purposes... It's fine...

There is nothing criminal about free... it's probably the most brutal business model any industry has to compete with. It drives competition.

It also makes software worthless in the process. Don't put all you have into it or you will end up worthless too. No Doubt.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@Glenn - You guys are like a plague... I swear... Doesn't anyone love you? Get some fresh air... Everyone loses it sometimes, but it's important to take that first step towards recovery.



LMAO!!!!!

Oh is the poor pathetic shill upset by someone that does not accept his lies and bullshit?

Get over it looser.. I am not only well informed about IT but the real facts involved in these matters.

None of your BS posts will simply make me go away so you can spew your crap w/o opposition.



Continue w/your calling everyone chumps, douches (btw that is not an insult you idiot), slanders, etc etc... it just serves to prove w/o any doubts you are indeed not only a complete moron but one full of shit.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn, you are not only a chump, a plague, an idiot, probably addicted to video games, but you hold no responsibility to anyone except yourself.

I am not proud of your culture.
June 20, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@Glenn - You guys are like a plague... I swear... Doesn't anyone love you? Get some fresh air... Everyone loses it sometimes, but it's important to take that first step towards recovery.


@ james the SHILL

Once again another lame attempt to insult.

Perhaps when you grow up and maybe get a brain you might grow a clue.


June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - I know you think you might be accomplishing something, and I can go along with that, I think I still have three more days to hang around while you get all of this out of your system.
June 20, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@James @Mark @'James aka FOSS hater'
I know you have asked for links. I tried supplying links to show why DRM only effects early adopters. That triggered some kind of spam filter, so my post got held for moderation. Either that, or I failed the Turing test and the JavaScript went ahead with the submission anyway.
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."I don't really know how to rationalize it in any other manner."

And you seem to be going through all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify that C-32 is good, just as it stands.

Why not simply admit that it's a badly formulated law? Full of contradictions in intent, and application.


While the bigger picture is still a problem to be addressed, the current form of C-32 is simply not the right way to address it.

June 20, 2010

phillipsjk said:

Correction
should read: "... DRM effects the early adopters the most. ..."
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I don't understand the Bill process, whether it can be modified, whether it is a draft. I noticed a thread about amendments, so I can only guess it is a work in process. In which case, I agree with what you said about it potentially criminalizing too many people. I don't think it's bad, it probably just needs work.

If that means it should be destroyed, I don't know, but I would think it could just be fixed to address that one minor issue.

Is it really that serious anyways? I mean would a witch hunt really begin? I am only thinking of that lady who was sued by the music industry for a few million dollars in the US. If that were to start happening in Canada, I'm not sure if it would be the right thing.

But the pirating has gone mainstream, and jmo... it needs to go back underground so to speak. Jmo...
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
I could be over exaggerating too. I don't know if this means pirating is losing popularity or if people are moving on to new things.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

The wiki says we are one some of the common "hoarders" out there though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
This trend is more interesting... Torrentz as searched within Canada compared to tumblr the new blogging site

http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrentz,+tumblr&ctab=0&geo=ca&geor=all&date=all&sort=0
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."Is it really that serious anyways? I mean would a witch hunt really begin? I am only thinking of that lady who was sued by the music industry for a few million dollars in the US. If that were to start happening in Canada, I'm not sure if it would be the right thing."

Regardless of the seriousness or not, the way bill C-32 is written it opens the door to abuse. Not exactly the above form of abuse, but other forms.

So, how "serious" it may be is something that can only be decided over time. Should it be nipped in the bud or do you want to take the chance? Do you really want to put a law in place that allows a business decision to trample user rights?

The fact of the matter is that this is a poorly written bill. We need to fix it before it becomes law.

The letter writing campaign that this blog initially addressed, glosses over and ignores the problems in C-32, advocating that it should be implemented just as it is tabled. That would be a major mistake.

June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguys - That is a tough one. Yes. I have to align myself with the digital media industry having rights over the digital media consumers. What they say goes, only if the technology works, as you put it earlier.

A culture of pirates doesn't really deserve anything else. But to keep them away from law enforcement sounds proper.

Net Neutrality, Spywares, and such being a different story all-together.
June 20, 2010

Eric L. said:

This is really silly now.
Guys, it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination that "James" here is just an ignorant kid, probably typing out his/her messages in his/her parent's basement, or just some person masquerading as one. In the end it doesn't really matter. Since he/she has admitted he/she is from the U.S., the fact is that his/her opinions are really worthless since this is CANADIAN laws and freedoms at stake here. American views in theory should be placed on the sidelines.

"I am not proud of your culture."

Damn, you hit us right in the heart. Funny, but I could have sworn that Canada was a *multicultural* society. Ah, but I guess it's better to make personal opinions based on emotion and quick assumptions than actual factual evidence. By all means, continue spouting James; you do your point-of-view real justice.
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
Eric - I didn't say I was American. I'm not proud of the Anarchist Pirate Culture. I think it's terrifying to be honest.

A bunch of worthless citizens who can't find any value in themselves. It's fairly sad. I'd rather the media industries grow on the internet, instead of the gambling and porn websites. Not that I am against either, I'd just prefer it if they weren't the only means to make money besides advertising.

Entertainment industries should have rights. Jmo...
June 20, 2010

James said:

...
@eric - If it helps, I was sort of under the assumption, that the majority of people in this thread are early twenties or younger. Some sound like they are in their thirties. Not sure about the rest. But overall, a bunch of punks... jmo...
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."the pirating has gone mainstream, and jmo... it needs to go back underground so to speak."

That is quite a different topic. The reality is that we will not address this with technology or bills like C-32. It boils down to a fundamental change in society, it's behavior and values. The reason it is growing (and going mainstream as you see it), is because the segments of society that are "modernizing" is growing. It's no longer a "leading edge" adopter problem, it spans multiple demographics and age groups.
Although technology is the driver for the changes, the tech isn't the problem. People are now capable of doing things they never could dream of before. Restrictions on their actions that were meaningless in the past, are now irritating and bypassed.

You are not going to properly address this issue in a C-32 type bill. Nor in any bill. It requires that you step back, way back. Look at the 300 years of copyright law existence. Look at the roots of why it came into existence. Note the balance between the creators rights and the public rights within the realm of the technology in that day. Map that "balance" into today's world and technology. What you will end up with is quite different than any copyright law as it exists today.
If you look at how copyright law has evolved, especially in the last 70-80 years, you will see that much of the "public rights" and "grey area" have been eroded away. Now the tables have completely turned, and not only can the public "take back" those rights, they can go much further. And they will.

We can't, and won't, address these issues until we, as a global society, step back and take a fresh look at the balance between society and creators. If a law isn't respected by the majority of society, it is obviously not going to be very effective. The average member of society respects laws that make sense to them. If it seems senseless they will ignore it.


If you look at the reasons why it is such a problem today, it really boils down to outdated business models. Most of these problems could have been bypassed if the industry had addressed those "early adopters" and met their needs. Since the industry ignored these early adopters, they turned to whatever means met their needs. The casual attitude towards "piracy" need never have developed. Napster was a major warning flag to the industry, and they responded by shutting it down. They never learned a thing. They didn't respond to the identified need. The "customers" went elsewhere.

Even today we could close the rift between the "digital society requirements" and industry offerings. But you won't do that through law or forced behavior. It will take a fundamental shift in industry business models. They will have to come further, much further, than they would have during the napster heyday. The longer they pursue an attitude of "controlling" these people, the wider the rift grows.
Although there have been some moves recently that show the industry has recognized it's mistakes, it might be a case of "too little, too late". How fast can they shift gears?
On the other hand, things like ACTA and DMCA laws and suing grandmothers illustrate the prevailing attitude. Lack of vision is the kindest term I could use to describe it. They are afraid of the future.

New business models will arise to meet the needs of the digital society, lots of them. About all we, as a society, can do is to make sure our laws don't unduly restrict these models. Don't make laws simply to support the "status quo" business models. Above all, make sure our laws don't encourage a generic disrespect for law in general. They have to make sense, in the context of society.

June 20, 2010

R.B said:

...
@james .. what does C-32 say about circumvention ?
June 20, 2010

R.B said:

...
@james .. what does C-32 say about DRM/TPM circumvention (as you read it and understood it)???
June 20, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."I was sort of under the assumption, that the majority of people in this thread are early twenties or younger."

I'm retired and collect a pension. Was a geek long before the internet existed. I do computer stuff on the side as spare money. It keeps me in touch with all walks of life. I have kids and grandkids and nieces and nephews. I talk to them, and I listen to them - even when they aren't aware that I can overhear them (poker game in the next room perhaps). I am still young enough to care about my future, and old enough to care about theirs. They are living in a different world than I grew up in, although because of my background I understand theirs.

There are quite a few others here that rival my age and life experiences. We share the same concerns, although we may differ in viewpoint.

The internet is a great equalizer, in many ways. It has changed our society more in the last 20 years, than anything the previous 50 years, make that 100 years, have. Those changes are ongoing, and accelerating. Pay attention.

June 20, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
I'm come from a media background, and I'm also a trained Systems Analyst/Software Engineer. First and foremost I find it almost laughable that you have advocated in this tread that DRM should come some form of encryption. For those techo illiterate, the entertainment industry is using the latest in encryption technology for DRM enabled devices. Comparing or suggesting that both are separate shows your lack of technical expertise. They are the same thing!

Second, you reference PGP as a form of encryption the industry needs to look at. PGP hasn't taken off on the market or in business, and there's a reason for that not to mention it's an old form of encryption. It's unreliable, causes problems with interoperability, and often corrupts data it encrypts.

All encryption is, is a set of algorithms. In tech there are back doors to just about everything. If someone wants to get in they will! The main reason for this is largely due to coding languages used, and human error. There is no such thing as a perfect coder, there is no such thing as an unbreakable encryption. This is largely the reason out of over a decade of R+D and application of encryption technologies on media that laws against breaking these digital locks are being purposed. I can tell you if there was a magic unbreakable key industry would be using it right now, and wouldn't be relying on tech noobs like yourself for information.

"I'd rather the media industries grow on the internet, instead of the gambling and porn websites. Not that I am against either, I'd just prefer it if they weren't the only means to make money besides advertising."

If this is true than you have been no help to that growth and offer no knowledge on the media markets to understand where that growth is occurring, and what problems this industry has with innovation.

"Entertainment industries should have rights"

They do have rights. The problem is with innovation and an old monopoly not following the market and consumer to generate more income for creative talent. It's a misconception that the downfall of this industry is directly related to consumers infringing on the rights of artists.

In fact where copyright law is it's most strongest around the globe, this industry is moving at a snails pace on market innovation and generating new income for it's talent and production compared to almost every other sector of the economy. An example of the lack of innovation around the globe is the crash of the traditional ad market last year. Investors have been begging industry on a global scale to move forward in different area's on the net to the point where they have bugged our of the traditional ad market because they know they are not getting value for money on traditional media. Over the past 6 months there has been a boom in innovation lead by investors NOT entertainment corps to move the ad market and services online. The entertainment corps were forced to hit the online sector due to the ad market crash.

As an innovator, and broadcaster I can tell you that the entertainment industry is making it extremely hard on a global scale and still is to move forward with online business models that would benefit creative talent and the future growth of this industry by, hiking the prices of royalties up that are unrealistic to the market value, or by refusing to allow an online production or business model to continue. In order to move forward with your preferred growth, it's the innovators and future industry leaders that should be dictating copyright policy, not anyone who held a monopolistic power over the market in the 20th century.

If you want to help push forward this industry James, than I would take stock to what those are saying on here, because the responses you are receiving are directly from those that are your future consumers. Deny them a voice, or work against these issue, those in the creative communities can and will look forward to a near collapse of this industry across the board within the next 5 years. It's a consumer driven market, if the entertainment industry wants rights, than it needs to demonstrate the ability to move forward globally, or get out of the way and let the new guys in.
June 20, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
As a Systems Analyst, the key is detection and prevention with respect to the security of applications and productions and the main reason why a lot of services are moving exclusivity to the cloud in the next 2 years, which is also another reason for market development in this area, and we have yet to see any real understanding of market expectations by the entertainment industry within the cloud which has been readily available for free during this consultation and many others that are on going.

If anything we should be more focused on acceptable business practices and consumer rights in the cloud, and mirror those as close as we can to consumer, privacy and business law within our boarders. In fact that's actually being currently studied at the moment by a number of Ministries.

Everyone has a right to get paid for their work, but in no way should we be focused on interfering with the natural course of the free market. Those that don't follow market demands will fail, those that do will succeed. That's what this is about. Considering the Entertainment Industry has had 12 years now to follow the marketplace, we should be seeing globally a lot more income for creative talent, especially in countries with strict reforms, and we're not. It's not copyright laws, it's the inability to follow and predict a very followable and predictable digital marketplace, nor put the amount of investment needed to ensure a return (even where copyright law is strict). Our creative talent deserves better than this, and it's really up to those to now follow the market, or get the hell out of it and stop dragging our creative talent down with them.
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

...
Well Said Jason K!
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
As someone who is educated in media, my first lecture in media was the ability to adapt to market changes. The Entertainment industries used to be so good at adapting to market changes in the past, now they are puss buckets, pathetic, and most are in need of retraining. This is largely due to a few in that industry who have refused to move forward in the digital realm fearing they will lose the total control they once had in a different century. If what I'm saying isn't true, than the Entertainment Industry should be well within a major boom in innovation, artists and creators would be getting huge pay cheques and this whole deal on "Entertainment Rights" wouldn't sound like its some civil rights movement from the 60's that no one cares about, since all Canadian Creators care about is getting paid. Nothing else...the rest comes from an area of the industry that is largely responsible for this sectors downfall. The less we listen to them, and the less we send form letters like in the above blog, the faster the day will come when artists and creators will be making some serious cash. Rant over...

June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

A fine example of a media industry employee
@James "If it helps, I was sort of under the assumption, that the majority of people in this thread are early twenties or younger. Some sound like they are in their thirties. Not sure about the rest. But overall, a bunch of punks... jmo..."

What an idiot, those 'punks' are your main demographic market. If the entertainment industry is full of people like you no wonder you are failing so epically.

Oh, I'm 44 just FYI
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"the pirating has gone mainstream, and jmo... it needs to go back underground so to speak."

I'm assuming that your reference to "pirating" means file sharing. Those that would agree with you, will find themselves on the street corners begging for change very shortly. The new economy is already being built on the sharing of media, and information and has been for sometime. The decision facing those in media is simple, you're either going to be a part of the new economy or you won't be.

In recent years there have been a number of value chains around the sharing of media presented on the table, including this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIqG7WgqQ-w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XftaEUYLz4&feature=related

The best way to kill "illegal" file sharing is to make it legal. The best way to ensure a return on investment in production is to focus on the opportunities for future income around the markets choices, which is how business has been done for centuries. Those that bring in moral arguments are businesses where judgment is clouded, and opportunities for future income are missed. Usually those that miss opportunities based on moral arguments are not in business for long. Creative talent in Canada really need to be-careful on who they align themselves with professionally, especially if they have James's point of view here.
June 21, 2010

lilB said:

...
If everybody spent as much time writing letters to MP's and educating the public about C32 and DRM as they have been spending replying to James, we wouldn't have to worry about C32. It's everybody's responsibility to make democracy work, so do it.
June 21, 2010

lilB said:

...
I mean, how much free time does everyone have? Really.... I don't think this argument is worth the effort. Your MPs are supposed to represent you. If enouth people want change it can happen. Let's defeat the lobbiests and stop wasting effort on crap like this.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."spent as much time writing letters to MP's and educating the public about C32"

Can't speak for everybody, but done and done.

This is a popular blog. The discussion here might be considered "educational" to some. Although this particular comment thread is probably way overdone. I can't see anybody wading through it all just to "understand the issues".

June 21, 2010

complaints said:

complaints and consumer complaints
The Service is provided to individuals only and for
personal use only. You agree to use the Service only to post
(send) and view (receive) personal messages.
Any unauthorized commercial use of the Service,

or the resale of its services, is expressly prohibited.
You agree to abide by all applicable local,
state, national and international laws and
regulations and are solely responsible for
all acts or omissions that occur under your
name or email, including the content of your
transmissions through the Service. By way of
example, and not as a limitation, you agree not to:
June 21, 2010

don said:

...
can anyone other than Harper and Mooore take the recording industry seriously? It's a dinosaur and should die - when the customer is technologically 10 years ahead of the content provider, the customer will win.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
So this is an interesting case.

How can this copyright law apply to Software as a Service. How do you guys feel about software which you have made. Should it instantly and always be free for the public domain?

Should any encryption in use to protect the code from copying be allowed to be bypassed and should passwords to any digital product be handed over to any customer at any time.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
In other words. Let's say you upgrade and start paying for Gmail. Now I understand it is physically located on another server, yet it is a product which you get a copy of to use in your browser for personal use. While server code remains on a server which you do not have access to, should you be allowed to circumvent any digital locks to access the server?

What about any other "cloud" services. If you get a copy of software and you are paying to use it, should you be allowed to circumvent any digital locks which are a part of that service to gain the intellectual property which is inside for the purposes of making more personal use copies.

If so... Why do you feel entitled to it.

If not... how is a piece of software different than a piece of digital media?
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason k - The only people who lose out are the consumers who adopt the attitude of pirating. Corporations will do everything they can to hook you on new cloud based services to lock you out all over again. That is just my opinion.

While some here might feel that industry is somehow 10 years behind the average consumer. I know and feel very differently.

Maybe in Canada they think a little backwards, but the new industries will ensure they profit at the same rate or substantially more than they have in the past.

People will look back on MicroSoft 10-20 years from now, and consider them angels. Jmo...
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
Actually not really, MicroSoft will be cloud based soon enough. My favorite statistic.

Hotmail vs Gmail

http://www.google.com/trends?q=hotmail,+gmail

Should you be allowed to circumvent any digital locks in use to gain either the media on those servers, or circumvent and securities to gain copies of the code, for your own personal use?
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

Another great example of a media company employee
@James "In other words. Let's say you upgrade and start paying for Gmail. Now I understand it is physically located on another server, yet it is a product which you get a copy of to use in your browser for personal use. While server code remains on a server which you do not have access to, should you be allowed to circumvent any digital locks to access the server?"

Wow, run the Gmail application on my own server, I can do that? Now everyone will send me their emails. Oh, boy I'm gonna be rich! 0_o ... idiot.

James has so many 'personas' of stupid his therapy costs will break his media bosses company. ;-)
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@crockett - Punks are not the main demographic - They don't spend any money - Noone targets them. Maybe independent punk rockers, which are dead and gone. Where did all the punks go?
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

another great example of the intelligent media employee
@James "In other words. Let's say you upgrade and start paying for Gmail. Now I understand it is physically located on another server, yet it is a product which you get a copy of to use in your browser for personal use. While server code remains on a server which you do not have access to, should you be allowed to circumvent any digital locks to access the server?"

Yup, I'm gonna be the newGgmail. I'm gonna be rich 0_o
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@crokett - My question is simple and it applies to more than just Gmail and Hotmail.

Should you be allowed to circumvent the locks to gain access to the intellectual property on the server? Whether it is content you have uploaded, or whether it is to get a copy of the code to make personal copies.

Facebook data, Gmail Data, Hotmail Data, Basecamp Data, Whatever...

I didn't ask you how you were going to make money, I asked you how copyright law applies to cloud based services. To my understanding everyone feels they should be allowed to circumvent digital locks regardless of what the manufacturer claims.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@crockett - Join the Google Apps Reseller Program - Make some money - http://www.google.com/apps/int...index.html
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

...
My sarcasm seems to have been lost on you. The digital locks people are upset about are the "luggage lock" variety on media that we wish to back up, such as on DVDs. When you use the term digital locks to refer to preventing hacking into a server you are speaking of a different problems and technology altogether. That is prevented by firewalls and other methods not "digital locks' as you think. Hacking into a companies server is already illegal under other provisions of the criminal code and bill C-32 had nothing to do with that.

If you are going to cite an example at least know what you are talking about.
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ crockett

Crockett said:
Another great example of a media company employee
@James "In other words. Let's say you upgrade and start paying for Gmail. Now I understand it is physically located on another server, yet it is a product which you get a copy of to use in your browser for personal use. While server code remains on a server which you do not have access to, should you be allowed to circumvent any digital locks to access the server?"

Wow, run the Gmail application on my own server, I can do that? Now everyone will send me their emails. Oh, boy I'm gonna be rich! 0_o ... idiot.

James has so many 'personas' of stupid his therapy costs will break his media bosses company. ;-)


LMAO Ahh how right you are! I think you know how the old dinosaur music execs will make $ now... they will call themselves head shrinks and serve james.. since he's that fubar :)
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Crockett said:
...
My sarcasm seems to have been lost on you. The digital locks people are upset about are the "luggage lock" variety on media that we wish to back up, such as on DVDs. When you use the term digital locks to refer to preventing hacking into a server you are speaking of a different problems and technology altogether. That is prevented by firewalls and other methods not "digital locks' as you think. Hacking into a companies server is already illegal under other provisions of the criminal code and bill C-32 had nothing to do with that.

If you are going to cite an example at least know what you are talking about.


@ James

Not to mention that as far as software goes.. there are many very good cases of success with SHAREWARE... the author creates a good product and has been paid for it. "Total Commander" for example is an excellent example of such.

Those strictly relying on crap DRm for crap products will loose out. Microsoft for example with Office which is insanely overpriced.. They wish they could ban/destroy Open Office for example.. which is not only good but it's FREE.

The same can also be applied to games.. make a good product and people will buy it. Kill it with DRM and it just wastes $ on the DRM... paying customers get po'd and less people buy it. Then someone cracks it removing the DRM and the product then acts better in pirate form than store bought.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - This is a real world problem. Because a client feels entitled to the password to the server to access the software which hosts software which I have been developing for the last 4 years to serve the needs of all my clients, they feel it is their right to access that intellectual property. While I have nothing huge against this, they simply haven't paid for the last 4 years of my time. I can't give them all that intellectual property. I own the copyright on it. They own the front end of the website. The design, the media elements, ect. But they don't own access to the code which I write. Nobody else paid for it, why should they get it? It's this sense of entitlement and "ownership" which is grey area for digital products in general

This is a major problem. Where do you draw the line?

I mean should we all start demanding FTP access to Facebook?
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@glenn - This is a real world problem. Because a client feels entitled to the password to the server to access the software which hosts software which I have been developing for the last 4 years to serve the needs of all my clients, they feel it is their right to access that intellectual property. While I have nothing huge against this, they simply haven't paid for the last 4 years of my time. I can't give them all that intellectual property. I own the copyright on it. They own the front end of the website. The design, the media elements, ect. But they don't own access to the code which I write. Nobody else paid for it, why should they get it? It's this sense of entitlement and "ownership" which is grey area for digital products in general

This is a major problem. Where do you draw the line?

I mean should we all start demanding FTP access to Facebook?



@ james the SHILL

Once again you are an IDIOT.... there are laws in place to prevent HACKING which is what you are not harping on. It is not piracy.. and it is not copyright.

get a clue you tard.
cru
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

Thank you James
James, whomever you all are, I would like to thank you for all your so well informed input. Years from now we will look back on this blog to see the best that the media industry could come up with for arguments, with a nostalgic twitter. By then you will be have been replaced by people who actually understand the current and future marketplace and want to provide the services and products they will purchase. I have nothing against artists or the entertainment business in general, just the dinosaurs execs with their fingers in their ears, not realizing their extinction is on nigh.

Continue to post if you wish, this is the best 'material' the entertainment industry has put out for a while.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - What is so different between hacking an AES Ecnryption scheme on a DVD disk, and hacking a server to gain access to digital property which you feel entitled to?

June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"The only people who lose out are the consumers who adopt the attitude of pirating."

Actually as we are finding out over the past 12 years, the only people that lose out on file sharing are creators themselves, because their attitude around the sharing of media has halted business models and future income that could be based around file sharing.

"While some here might feel that industry is somehow 10 years behind the average consumer. I know and feel very differently."

How old is the Ipod? How long did it take before we ended up with Non-DRM from Itunes, this year a need was finally met in industry since the birth of the Ipod to actually allow users to transfer video on to the Ipod when purchasing a DVD, and include software to do so. They've just met these needs 7 years after the needs were born. They should be meeting these needs within days, months, not years.

The sharing of media is also a need and demand in the marketplace. Seems like that demand won't be met for sometime either. And that need should have been addressed over 12 years ago.

"Should you be allowed to circumvent any digital locks in use to gain either the media on those servers, or circumvent and securities to gain copies of the code, for your own personal use?"

Yes they should if the need for sharing media in the market hasn't been actively met by producers and creators and they will regardless if they are "allowed" in law or not. Producers of "media" need to start producing material with the expectation it will be shared online, and develop business models around that.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@crockett - I am not in the "Media Industry". I used to be years ago. I am asking why hacking AES encryption on a DVD would be any different than lets say Hacking a MMORPG game to access your game logs, or raw character data, or any other Digital Media you felt entitled to.

What is the difference? Where do we respect Copyright Law? Where Technlogy works only? Or where Policy Dictates?
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - I have nothing against, "file sharing" in it's broadest sense, I am just concerned about copyright laws. Digital media is fairly easy to copy. Copy - Who Has the Rights?

File Sharing is irrelevant. Who owns the intellectual property and where do lines draw. If technology exists to allow FTP access to Facebook. Should we be entitled to it to access our personal pages? Or due to their policy, are we to pound sand, and deal with the technology which is given to us?

Same goes for any cloud based service.

Why do people feel entitled to crack encryption on a DVD, or crack open the electronics on a video game console? Do they feel the same for paid services in the cloud (I know people don't pay for facebook, just using it as an example.)
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@glenn - What is so different between hacking an AES Ecnryption scheme on a DVD disk, and hacking a server to gain access to digital property which you feel entitled to?



@ james the IDIOT SHILL

Even asking that question simply gives more proof that you are without any doubt a moron.

June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - People want to break encryption on DVDs to they can make their own backups (legal under C-32) and format shift the media (also legal under C-32). Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - I'm trying to open your eyes, I flipped to your side of the philosophical debate, now your fighting your own beliefs. Do any of these questions worry you at all? Or do you not care about your future and access to Digital Media.

What is the difference? Where the locks are physically located? Your level of technical capabilities? Where does the line draw?
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
Consumers are going to do what they are going to do as long as their needs haven't been met, regardless of law, and regardless of how industry decides to protect itself from the very people that purchase content and support their pay cheques. I think now especially, the more those needs are not met, the more the consumer will start to turn to corps and organizations that are meeting the needs of the market, especially when it comes to the sharing of media.

If the needs of the market are met directly to the consumer by the corps, the less likely someone will hack into a server to obtain information to full fill that need. The best way to kill illegal file sharing is to legalize it and engage in it from a developers stand point, and build business models around the expectation of shared content, especially in media where the more the viewers, listeners a production has, the more value it has. It's up to industry, not government or law to unlock that value in the new economy.
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

Why keep citing spurious arguments to deflect from the real issues?
@James "@crockett - I am not in the "Media Industry". I used to be years ago. I am asking why hacking AES encryption on a DVD would be any different than lets say Hacking a MMORPG game to access your game logs, or raw character data, or any other Digital Media you felt entitled to."

Simply, I want to be able 'Crack' the DVD encryption to make a backup in case the original becomes unusable, as it often quickly can due to scratches. This is a inherent flaw of the physical media, which the media industry has chosen to employ. I am not trying to steal, or alter anything or access information that does not belong to me for nefarious purposes. If I was then a digital lock would not stop me, it just makes criminals out of people wanting to exercise their fair use.

If the DVD industry was really concerned about the continued usability and durability of their products and was interested in providing customer service they would make it easy for the consumer to get replacements for damaged media, either in physical or digital form.

Why do they not do this you may ask? Because they want you to buy a whole new copy. Is it not the content of the media that is the bulk of the products cost? Why should one have to pay for that again once it is purchased? If my car stops working, does Ford require me to buy a whole new vehicle, or do they offer a way to fix it?

The answer to all this can be summed up in one word - Greed. Which is why you are finding you "get no respect". Piracy, as you call it, is not something that is fighting against you .. it's something you created yourself.
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the moron shill

to simplify it to a level even you can grasp

DRM = BAD

C-32 = BAD

Hacking into a server you do not own = BAD

Exercising your legal rights = GOOD



For your next argument you really should try to stick with things related to COPYRIGHT... hacking into a server has nothing to do with that.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@crockett - I understand your wants are what drive your sense of entitlement. You knowledge which exists regarding the ability to copy DVDs is what makes you demand those capabilities.

What if you knew your MMORPG software and character with a level 200 was compatible with a good handful of other MMORPG softwares, would you demand the legal right to break any encryption to access the game server to get your character out?

@glenn - What if you own the content on the server? Do you have the sense of entitlement to gain access to the raw data files? Is it your legal "right" or copyright to hack into a server to gain access to an MMORPG character you created and thus own?
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

...
As far as a MMORPG character, it is not something I need to copy as it is not prone to damage or loss as is a physical DVD. It is backed up by the game company. It is there as long as I need it. Is my DVD backed up somewhere? No, because the media company does not offer that service and is trying to make it illegal for me to do so.

Illogical argument, try again.
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

...
Oh, and to think that a character from one MMO would be compatible with another MMO is not technically possible and just silly really. Do you understand technology at all?
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@crokett - It's not far fetched... MMORPGs have been around for a long time. Alot of them are open source. http://www.daimonin.org is a good example of one of them. It's branch of a much older MMORPG game called "crossfire". To my knowledge, hundreds to thousands of these branches exist, and with the exception of the Map editors and Game storylines, the basic character data is probably the same as the original version of the software.

My question to is to you. If your character in Dungeons and Dragons (this is purely hypothetical) was indeed compatible with World of Warcraft but the MMORPG developers from one would allow you to export and import game character data from one to another, but the other one wouldn't. Would you break into the server of the one who restricted you from accessing your raw character data because you felt you owned the copyright on it (for personal use only)? After all, you may have spent 2-3 years building that character. It's yours right?
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ crockett & james the moron shill

Well I'd respond but crockett already nailed it on the head nicely.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@crokett - so by your logic, if a company provide free replacement DVDs for scratched ones, you would give up your right to break the encryption on the DVD?
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
James said:
...
@crokett - so by your logic, if a company provide free replacement DVDs for scratched ones, you would give up your right to break the encryption on the DVD?


No.. since that also would not address the fair use rights consumers have,.. nor Parody, nor critical review.. etc etc... fact is legal protection for DRM is pointless.. does not stop piracy.. and that is the key point being used to try to push it.

Once again trying to deflect from this is a pointless waste of time

and SHILLs like you know it.... but are paid to spread lies and misinformation for your own gains.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
You don't own the physical server which contains the content. You don't have physical access or control of that server. There are no laws that even imply that you should be able to copy that code, never mind explicitly grant you the right to do so.
Copyright law does not apply. Not even closely related.

You again show your ignorance when you use the term "Software as a Service" in your examples. The keyword here is "service", you never have the "software" in your possession. You access it as a "service". This could be via direct connection (web, RDP, whatever) or though an Application Programming Interface (API) from a server or application that *you* write which then talks to the "service". In no cases do you require or need a "copy of the content" to be in your possession. You never have, or receive, the server software itself, you only use it - remotely. In fact a copy would probably be useless to you unless you have *everything*, hardware, software, internal network connections, various servers, the works, that the "service" requires.
Gmail is an example of the direct connection. Google API is an example of the second case.

You are back to grasping at straws and mental gymnastics. Somehow you show a quite different (and much poorer) grasp of technology than you showed yesterday. Please explain.
No, never mind, the reason is obvious.

June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
Quite a ways up, you proposed that the tools for DRM removal be made illegal. I responded and ask you a question. You never answered. My response, and it's question is repeated below. Will you ignore it again?

-----

@james.."I think the answer should be in criminalizing the tools for DRM decryption. Unless for educational purposes."

Ok.. Given that assumption lets explore the ramifications.

Please tell me how the average citizen will be legally allowed to exercise their rights, explicitly granted in C-32, when it is protected by TPM? Please address this point *without* resorting to illegal activities. You can't.

You continually miss and ignore the point that TPM protection as applied in C-32 tramples all over the rights of the users.

Not only that, it tramples over all kinds of rights, historical and possibly constitutional, that are unrelated to copyright.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."While some here might feel that industry is somehow 10 years behind the average consumer. I know and feel very differently."

You don't "know", otherwise we would see evidence. Or detailed logical analysis. We have seen neither.

..."Maybe in Canada they think a little backwards, but the new industries will ensure they profit at the same rate or substantially more than they have in the past."

Certainly some will profit more.. Let me ask if you would rather sell 100 million "digital versions" at a 10 cent margin with close to zero overhead, or 100,000 at a $20 margin with expensive overhead (selling costs, ads, distribution, etc). But it will be impossible to sell 500,000 at $20. Which would you choose? Your head seems to be stuck in the economics of physical scarcity.

..."People will look back on MicroSoft 10-20 years from now, and consider them angels. Jmo..."

Where *have* you been??? Don't you pay any attention to the industry? The trends? Profit margins? Come one, this conclusion is based on so many misconceptions I really don't know where to start. How about you start with the analysis that leads you to this conclusion, so I, and others, can point out where you have gone wrong.

June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
You bring irrelevant moral questions into this debate. Business isn't about morals it's about opportunity. Those that base their business models on moral aspects of this debate are set up and doomed for failure. They already have failed, but this time they will hit rock bottom.

Only seeing past emotional responses towards the opportunities industry is currently presented with, will determine the success and failure of those venturing out into the new economy. Nothing you can say or do here will change that, and that's something that law, nor government can help alter that course. It's economics not morality that will win the day when it comes to the cut throat business community. It's either your competitive and meeting market demands, or you don't. It's a very simple concept that you and many others with your beliefs seem to fail to get a grasp on.

You go to the market, you don't force the market to come to you especially when arguments are based on emotional and moral issues.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
.. "if a company provide free replacement DVDs for scratched ones, you would give up your right to break the encryption on the DVD?"

They should also supply me with a version that worked on my iPad, and my media server, and my Linux based netbook, and all the other devices I may want to play this content on in the future. If they promised to do that, I would have no need to remove the TPM/DRM.

You do realize that C-32 legally grants me the right to do these things. But your insistent on TPM tramples all over my rights, unless I am legally allowed to remove your TPM.

Which is more important? Your right to decide when, where, and on what device I am allowed to watch my purchased content. Or my right to decide the same thing about content I have purchased. Take your time and make it a detailed, logical, response.
Question, exactly what is it that you sold me?

June 21, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@James
My post held back for moderation is now posted. Search for the phrase "early adopters".

This appears to have been answered already:
"Should you be allowed to circumvent the locks to gain access to the intellectual property on the server? Whether it is content you have uploaded, or whether it is to get a copy of the code to make personal copies."

Circumventing "locks" to break into a server you don't own is considered computer trespass (not sure if that is the Canadian legal term).

When you circumvent the "lock" on media you own, using equipment you own, most rational people would assume you are not guilty of computer trespass. However, DVD John was charged with that offence for "breaking in" to his own computer. http://diveintomark.org/archiv...ers-sunset
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I understand the software is not in your possession to copy. In a sense, the technology has successfully prohibited one from accessing the raw code in the server. The technology works and it protects the copyright.

@glenn - someone can still make copies, they can dub from deck to deck. And they can use the material as fair use.

Until someone releases a proxy password cracker which over time brute force cracks a server password right? The tools exist, it is possible to break into the service. The physical location is the only thing which prevents someone from recognizing or respecting the locks in place.

With a DVD. Very few people can decrypt a DVD without the tools to do so. No one in their right mind is going t decrypt CSS on thier own, let alone demux the VOB files right?

@philip - Sure... You don't own, the server, hence you can't access it, or cirumvent the locks. With a DVD, You don't own the high quality Digital Material which is contained within it. Hence, you don't have the right to go into the data and steal it. When you are sold a DVD, you are sold viewing rights. You are not sold the source footage to do with as you please correct?

So the act of thievery on the web boils down to tresspassing. That is basically the only thing which is respected.

@phillip - I understand your belief system that early adopters lose out and supposedly gain nothing in the process. But adopt early to gain all the benefits. That's why they adopt early.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"You go to the market, you don't force the market to come to you especially when arguments are based on emotional and moral issues. "

Just to further expand on this point. My thoughts are for the creators on this. If industry doesn't fix the problems with innovation and the rejection of new income for talent based on that innovation, these are the people that have and will continue to suffer the most due to ignorance.

The moral and ethical argument you bring to this discussion is a very old, and outdated compared to the economic understanding now that exists on issues industry is presented with. A continuation of trying a failed approach at social engineering society around the demands of industry is inadvisable. This approach hasn't worked in 12 years, and creators have suffered because of this failure. It's time those see past that failed approach, learn from it and look towards current opportunities. This isn't just the opinion of myself, but with many predominant Canadian creators and my peers. A continuation of the failed social engineering approach will be met with a growing revolt in industry on the incumbents. That presents a whole range of issues that the industry is and will be facing, and which is far more damaging to the incumbents than those that download from P2P on this industry.
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the moron shill

James said:
...

@glenn - someone can still make copies, they can dub from deck to deck. And they can use the material as fair use.


You need some new lines and arguments.. this BS you spew has already been refuted multiple times.


June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"So the act of thievery on the web boils down to..."

In order to see the opportunities presented to industry this mindset needs to change. As far as I'm concerned we've already paid for access to media through our ISP's as we do when we pay for Cable TV. It is up to industry to develop viable business models around what is taking place to ensure the extraction of value in those productions. Laws, moral arguments and governments can do very little in helping change the perception of thievery into opportunity in industry. What a shame we still have people after 12 years of utter failure and disgrace, some still taking the advice of Metallica rather than actually pushing forward with future income.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - There is no social engineering at work. Not from my perspective. Industry has to dodge the thieves and the crooks and find a a middle ground where they can survive. The web is one great big collective space really. Tied together by DNS.

I could see in twenty years time when virtualization removes the need for a desktop all together and due to the fact that we are all connecting via terminals we will own nothing due to the way we perceive what we own. Where it is physically located.

I don't appreciate your self righteous attitude. I don't work for the RIAA, I don't work for CRIA, I'm simply trying to understand where people feel they legally own something.

It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the locks.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"There is no social engineering at work. Not from my perspective. Industry has to dodge the thieves and the crooks"

That statement is a juxtaposition.

"I don't appreciate your self righteous attitude."

The attitude I present on this my friend is a growing within industry itself, and is present in almost every other area of the new economy that's seeing growth. It's not "self righteous" it's self preserving in the face of those inside industry who are quite clearly planning on continuing this argument at creators expense and pay cheques for yet another decade rather than move forward into new area's which would benefit creators.

"I'm simply trying to understand where people feel they legally own something."

Take a course on marketing and economics. You won't find that answer here.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."I understand the software is not in your possession to copy. In a sense, the technology has successfully prohibited one from accessing the raw code in the server. The technology works and it protects the copyright."

The technology works, period. It has nothing to do with copyright. The particular software could be GPL or BSD licensed, or even public domain, in which case you are free to grab your own copy and set up your own server. You *still* don't have access to the "service" as offered, you can simply set up your own "service".

I really don't see why you are trying to conflate copyright issues with "Software as a Service" technology. They are only peripherally related.


June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - If you don't get it at this point, you're not going to. People want to be able to legally do the things the bill says we can do, but we can't because someone put a TPM on the media/device. If you don't get this at this point, I really wonder if you're reading anything anyone has written at all, and to be frank, do think you work for the people you say you don't because any reasonable person would have at least understood this part by now.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I am just fascinated with Unix. How it used to be a terminal based system, and eventually the PC brought "ownership" t digital media creation to peoples desktops. I believe at one point it was called "Multix". Fascinating stuff.

Copyright effects software authors as well. Who has the right to copy it. Well, it basically boils down to which technology is going to prevent someone from doing so. And even then, it only matters if someone respects trespassing laws.

I consider software to be basically on equally grounds as other digital medias. They are both fairly easy to copy or pirate.

I think the Artists have a really mixed sense of what copyright really is. They don't have a whole lot of it. Once it's out there, people will copy away as they please.

@jason - That's a big word. Juxtaposition. The only thing that is going to benefit creators, is popularity. That's the only thing arts serves an artist well at. What else can they do if their material is freely distributed and copyrights disrespected. Right? One of my favorite quotes is by Any Warhol - "In 15 Minutes Everybody will be Famous"
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."There is no social engineering at work. Not from my perspective. Industry has to dodge the thieves and the crooks and find a a middle ground where they can survive."

And those words are the words of someone that is afraid of the future. Stuck in a mindset of physical scarcity, instead of digital abundance.

The world is changing, has already changed. Those "crooks and thieves" could be your best customers, if you simply learn how to cater to their needs. And all of your existing customers are developing the same needs.
So, which will you do? Try to change those customers into something that suits your business? Or will you change the business to meet their evolving needs? Which do you think stands a better chance of success?

The moment you start considering large segments of your former and future customers as "crooks and thieves" because they have moved beyond what you can deliver, is the moment your business starts to die.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I am not a futurist, I prefer to think in terms of reality.

I'm not stuck in mindset of physical location. Guys, I'm more left than any of you by far. It's too bad none of you can see it.

June 21, 2010

phillipsjk said:

Richard Dawkins crowd?
When I saw "James" accusing us of being the "Richard Dawkins crowd," I assumed that Richard Dawkins was someone famous for advocating the reduction or elimination of copyright. Possible associated with the "Pirate Party." However, according to Wikipedia:
"Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL (born 26 March 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and was a fellow of New College, Oxford." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

What does that have to do with copyright reform?

"I'm simply trying to understand where people feel they legally own something. "

This goes to the basic definition of property:
"Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property

The 1996 WIPO treaties seem to say that intangible "property" deserves stronger legal protection than physical "property." Even territorial animals understand the concept of physical property. Can you explain to the dumb masses why "virtual property" in more important than physical property? You can't eat money.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."I am just fascinated with Unix. How it used to be a terminal based system, and eventually the PC brought "ownership" t digital media creation to peoples desktops. I believe at one point it was called "Multix". Fascinating stuff."

Not to me. I have been involved in this industry longer than Unix. I have watched it grow and evolve. I am tired of correcting your misconceptions about technology. If you are really interested, you will take the time to learn. Make sure you learn more than just the buzzwords though, that is your Achilles heel. You seem to think knowing the buzzwords means something. Misusing them just makes you look stupid and pretentious.

..."Copyright effects software authors as well. Who has the right to copy it. Well, it basically boils down to which technology is going to prevent someone from doing so. And even then, it only matters if someone respects trespassing laws."

And here you go again. Trying to mix technology and copyright law. Sorry, I didn't buy it before and I don't feel like refuting it again. Go back and read. When you are ready to address my previous comments, feel free to do so.



June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"What else can they do if their material is freely distributed"

I've already put forth above a possible value chain in some of my responses to you. I suggest you take it upon yourself to get acquainted with the many possible value chains out there around this. I'm sure with your technical prowess you can search for these on your own, and there's no need to waste my time reposing this yet again in this blog for the 50th time to another uninformed industry shill. If you want to debate, know what you are debating first.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - Consumers don't know what they want, until a creator provides it for them. They might have a vague idea, but what they dictate is very seldom something worthy of calling it a "creation".

That's consumers. I don't typically cater to that crowd.

In any event, want is what drives a consumer. Not scarcity. We aren't talking about the physical world where there are utility bills and such. Maybe in 50-100 years when the next generation nuclear power stations are built and you get your "free" energy.

Right now, however, you guys are fairly lost, self-righteous consumers. Right Wing if I ever saw it.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."@oldguy - I am not a futurist, I prefer to think in terms of reality.
I'm not stuck in mindset of physical location. Guys, I'm more left than any of you by far. It's too bad none of you can see it. "

Oh! I finally get it.. You are trying to be funny..

Don't quit your day job..

June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"I think the Artists have a really mixed sense of what copyright really is."

This point I agree with you, and what's even more dangerous to this is that they have been lead to believe that consumers are thieving on their rights by the very people the entrust to follow the marketplace and ensure return on investment and haven't. How much money has gone into things like lobbying, and online copyright protection compared to innovative services, and new income from the creative talent. In 12 years we are still stuck on physical media and means of protection rather than moving forward to increase the value of the market and services that are on consumer demand.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"That's consumers. I don't typically cater to that crowd. "

Than you don't belong anywhere near this debate, and I hope you are not in anyway shape or form involved in representing creative talent.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I am not trying to be funny. But it is funny, you're right.

You are the guys who feel it's important t break down encryption schemes to get at material which you feel is yours. Well guess what. It's not the DVD or the encryption which matters, make a dub.

You are right wing. You think that you are entitled to the beautiful contents within and you think you are doing justice to your fellow artists by stealing their revenue by demanding digital locks are a fruitless effort.

You're needed, needy right wingers. No self worth, entitled to everyone else's though. I'm just hoping you give back something worthwhile with your "fair use".

Go and blame a distributor for all your problems. No wait... Blame technology...
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"Right now, however, you guys are fairly lost, self-righteous consumers. Right Wing if I ever saw it. "

We're not a social dictatorship in Canada, and those across the political spectrum here in Canada with the exception of the Bloc, don't share your views.
June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
Is is me, or is James starting to make less and less sense the more he posts and ignore things?
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - Nobody is dictating to you how it should be done. You live in a free world, yours for the taking. But you need someone to provide it to you. That is what this whole DVD copyright thing is about, right?

I think it's your inability to see past the technology which blinds you and basically turns you into a consumer. Not a good one. One who feels like they need more because they can't find it in themselves.

Everyone could rise to the occasion and create something really beautiful. But that's not what is happening. Everyone has to play it like they are being robbed.

That's what happens when we all have this freedom. We all rob each other. Whether we actually think we are or not. It's a fairly worthless attitude. Nothing I would ever want to attribute to the far left.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."Right now, however, you guys are fairly lost, self-righteous consumers. Right Wing if I ever saw it."

Right now, you remind me way too much of my 6 year old grand-niece, in a temper tantrum.

And as to who is being a realist? Look around you, listen to yourself. Read what "you" have already posted. You don't seem to be a futurist, or a realist. The closest description I can think of would be living in a wishful fantasy.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
The artists are being robbed by the distributors, the distributors are being robbed by the consumers, the consumers are being robbed by the industry.

Everybody just robs each other.

Somebody asked me what I thought of this Bill.

It's just the blue prints to draw a common ground of respect. But I don't think it will happen, it's pretty much generation "Me". None of this X or Y stuff. It's a hyper consumerism culture. There is hardly anything "left" in my books. Jmo...
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

...
.."I am not trying to be funny. But it is funny, you're right."

In that case, go look up the definition of the word "scarcity". Then reread your comment. It doesn't look like you are even fluent in the English language.

Hey, can we get the "James" we had yesterday back? At least that one had some worthwhile comments once in a while. This one is just plain stupid.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - Scarcity... where does that exist in Canada? Nothing becomes scarce in Canada until the cold weather rolls in.

June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"I think it's your inability to see past the technology which blinds you and basically turns you into a consumer."

I've stated on several occasions in this blog for years and above, I am a creator. One that see's the opportunity that's before industry, and one that see's incumbents turning down new business models and money for creative talent almost on a daily basis, due to the risk of losing market share, and actually having to now compete with others if that marketshare is surrendered, nothing else.

It's one thing to create something beautiful and emotional, it's another to remove the emotion from the debate and learn the economics and market in order to turn that hard work into value for not just society but the creators, and that just isn't happening by those who creators put their trust in to ensure value. The emotion for that failure is than put towards the market and consumer rather than the business side taking responsibility for it and moving to correct it.

"That's what happens when we all have this freedom."

Get used to it, we're not a social dictatorship like China. The media industry and artists once helped encourage this freedom, I don't completely understand why those in industry are so hell bent on destroying it. I don't know, but maybe if you were a creator you'll see what I saw in the consultation process. Many of my peers came out in support of constitutional rights, all they are asking for is a business model in which they can earn a living. Maybe if many took that approach all would be better off, especially if that approach was taken 12 years ago.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - The way I see it is that is somebody wants to encrypt thier DVD, it should open up new possiblities for others who can then go into business and provide the freedoms they want.

That's the way I see it. Just because one person superficially closes the door doesn't mean another can't open it up.

That's why it makes no sense to me where this imaginary moral ground is over what digital locks should be allowed to be broken and which ones shouldn't.

I think it's common sense that we should just respect digital locks in an "open web" or in a free world. But apparently we can't do that because we feel we are somehow being robbed.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"Just because one person superficially closes the door doesn't mean another can't open it up."

In a free market environment it's the market and consumers that determines which doors open and in which areas, it's not the incumbents that decide this, nor should it be governments responsibility to interfere with the market on this.

"That's why it makes no sense to me where this imaginary moral ground is over what digital locks should be allowed to be broken and which ones shouldn't."

That's irrelevant the market has already made it's choice on DRM. Consumers will break the digital locks, not based on morality, but based on market needs that haven't been met.

"I think it's common sense that we should just respect digital locks in an "open web" or in a free world."

I think it's more common sense that those in industry should be meeting market demands and defuse to technological changes rather than trying to protect business models that are not competitive, nor realistic in the new economy. There's a real danger to the economy as a whole if that doesn't start to happen.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - Do you really believe that sharing freely is a viable economy? Have you tried it? Have you tried giving everything you have without working to a set pre-arranged payment?

Have you just given, and asked only for what others provide?

So until you do, don't give me any of that bull****. Sorry for swearing
June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - There are some artists who are starting to give their music away for free (mostly those who have managed to get out of their recording contracts) and they are doing pretty well still from everything I've heard.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - chris, no doubt, there are some excellent artists out there, I donate to them when I can. I don't have much. There isn't a day in my life which I have t go without music. Not on the internet.

I'm just a little concerned that some feel that encryption is somehow a lock which should not be respected because somehow the distributors are greedy thieves rbbing the artists.

http://ghosts.nin.com/main/order_options

That's a paywall if I ever saw it. If any of the purchasable materials contain locks, I would respect it and I would expect other to the same.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"Do you really believe that sharing freely is a viable economy?"

Yes I do.

"Have you tried it? Have you tried giving everything you have without working to a set pre-arranged payment?"

Most in media have, in fact this has been done in traditional business models in media for a long time.

"Have you just given, and asked only for what others provide?"

No actually that's not a viable nor a successful business model within media. There have been successes on this, but that's not where the market nor investors are currently. In fact I find this example to be quite demeaning to artistic talent, and shows just how despite things are right now because market needs are not being actively engaged by those on the business sector of these industries.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - it's not, hike it up to crown land, bring all f your suburbanite friends with you, and share to your hearts content.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - Tell you what... if you entertain me for the next five days or so n this thread. I'll send you some rice crispies in the mail. If you don't like that, we can barter fr other services or product.

Come n guys... the economy won't really start moving until we embrace the medieval barter system. Let's Share... Everything...
June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - You really still don't get it, do you? It's not that we don't want to respect digital locks (which, given their history of not working at all other than to hurt legitimate consumers, I wonder why we should respect them at all). Is so that we can legally do what has been granted permission to use by law, like more a DVD to our computer so we can watch the digital version on our iPods.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - I think you've got it.
June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - Got what exactly? Since you're still not making any sense at this point.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - An overwhelming sense of right wing entitlement.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
Well James the only thing I can say is that those that don't embrace the sharing freely, won't be around for much longer. There's been a large amount of economic data and market research available from a number of sources including the from the UNCTAD that have actively studied this. The sharing culture is now an integrated part of the economy and democracy globally and the market doesn't demand this, it expects this.

It's only far fetched for those who haven't done any market research in this area, and argue points against change. If you don't know how to sell in this economy around this, you shouldn't be in business at all...jmo

My autistic son deals with change better than those in industry.
June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - I'm not exactly sure how being right or left wing applies to this at all, but since you haven't made in the last half a day at all and just seem to be spouting anything that comes to the top of your head rather than actually discuss things by actually debating, I shouldn't be surprised. Oh well, when you stop acting like someone throwing a temper tantrum because they can't counter the people they are arguing against, let me know.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@chris - It applies to the anarchist pirating attitude which is ripe in the thread.

@jason - There is no sharing economy... people need money to survive. Profiting off the good will of others. That's a business strategy, not an economy.

I am not arguing against change. I have already stated several times over that I am simply trying to understand where the boundaries are for respecting a digital lock?

I agree with the way things are moving. To the cloud where property is virtualized and there is little opportunity for one truly own anything.

@chris - the oldguy says it partially correct. It's where the technology works that should decide which digital locks are the right ones to use. No law can enforce it. But it's also the belief system of the general public which decides which locks are valid as well. Industry adjusts.

You guys talk like your evangelists or something. I am well aware that technology is the new religion.
June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - You sound more like some industry evangelist than anyone else does in this with your defence (which most of the time doesn't remotely apply to the situation at hand and shows a distinct lack of understanding of the technology involved) or any understand of what the actual problem is and why everyone (include the most left part in this country) is against the idea. Except for the most right party in this country who proposed the bill in the first place and the various lobby groups that are happy.

Still waiting for you to actually debate BTW.
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

Dubby Dub Dub
@James "It's not the DVD or the encryption which matters, make a dub."

Umm James, to make a "dub" you have too use software that breaks the DCSS encryption which is in this Bill illegal so that makes no sense. If you mean by Dub to tape it of my TV screen then you are just crazy and should be ignored. No one is willing to do that, yourself included I think if you'll be honest. So to put that forward as the option is not being realistic or respectful.
June 21, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@Chris
"Is is me, or is James starting to make less and less sense the more he posts and ignore things?"

No, you are not alone. I bring up the accepted definition of "property" and all of the sudden we are being accused of being "Right Wing". "James" then claims to be (so far left he is wrapping around to fascist) (not those exact words of course...).

I consider myself relatively "left wing" possibly with anarchistic tendencies. However, my position on a 1-dimensional political scale has little if anything to do with the discussion.

It is another example of deflecting when she can't refute somebody's point.

June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
@Crockett - Pointed that out yesterday. He ignored it completely.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@crokett - I can respond to everything. I can't make sense of half of the soothsaying anyways.

I have report from the ACRNYMN here, The market is moving there. Guys... were on the internet now and your talking down to everyone like their idiots.

I call you people sales. In any event...

Give me a point to refute. I might agree with it.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"There is no sharing economy... people need money to survive. Profiting off the good will of others. That's a business strategy, not an economy"

That's a perception of preconceived ideology, not based on fact. Prove it with links and numbers. If you do I'll be impressed.
June 21, 2010

Chris said:

...
@James - You have lots of points left to refute. Going back to when you first started posting.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."Do you really believe that sharing freely is a viable economy? Have you tried it? Have you tried giving everything you have without working to a set pre-arranged payment?
Have you just given, and asked only for what others provide?"

That's what open source and GPL software is all about. So the answer is YES on all counts. And it works very effectively.

Next stupid comment?
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
Why do feel it is okay t break a digital lock? Because you a technically incapable of thinking outside the box. Industry dictates your sorrows to you. An invisible wall which prevents you from making a dub copy for fair use.

You are not interested in fair use. You have that capable at any time. It's policy which grants fair use, not technology.

If the studio provided you with a life time supply of free discs should you scratch it, then it wouldn't make a difference.

Your criminal. I can live with that, but that kind of attitude is going to cost not only the "early adopters", it's going to cost everyone.

I am fairly certain it already has. Everyone is thinking about the future technologies like it were religion, and the secret code to their success somehow lies within it. Or it somehow prevents them from exercising their rights.

Nobody is thinking about their futures, Industry is though.
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ everyone

In the last dozen or so posts have you noticed a change in james the SHILLS writing? I'd say it's a shift change time.. one moron to the next.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - How did I change? I am the same person I am when I began this thread.

Same belief system... I still think you guys have it completely wrong...

I think you want to know how technology enables you, and what possiblities it grants, but your so not-technically adept, that being unable to put a DVD on an IPOD is your god given right to which a manufacterer must live upto and if you can't have it. Well, turn to the government.

Welfare Queens
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
Not that I'm killing it... I'm not raking in thee dough, that's for sure... But I'm not crying wolf over DVD to IPOD evil corporation "limitations".
June 21, 2010

phillipsjk said:

Correction
The 2D "Political compass" (TM) says that anarchismfascism are on a completely independent scale.

'James' also said he was "more left than any of you by far" before my post.

I think I am going to have to retire from this thread as my responses are getting sloppy.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"It's policy which grants fair use, not technology."

No it's society that dictates policy around technology and fair use policy. Policy grants fair use on the basis of the definition on which is acceptable to society. Why do I have to keep reminding you we're not a social dictatorship in Canada. We elect our MP's as our voices. Contrary to popular believe among some Canadians we are still in a democracy here.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@phillip - I'm a hippie at heart... but a realist in the real world. I try to give what I can, and I expect little in return. I value my worth based on results.

I feel no sense of entitlement to break the encryption on the DVD. One, because I don't have to in order to make fair use of it. I'm not a critic who does noting all day long except make "fair use" of others materials.

I'm not a pirate reselling product.

I respect artists, and industries.

I will admit, I have a strange bias against hyper consumerism, self righteousness without good cause and futurists/evangelists.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"Nobody is thinking about their futures, Industry is though."

On the contrary, I think many in this blog are thinking about the future. I think the proof that Industry hasn't been thinking at all about the future resides in resounding economic information coming from countries with strict copyright reform and are years behind innovation, and meeting the needs of the market. That's proven. Even creators in Industry see this now, the only people that don't are those in intermediary positions that are worried about protecting their own market share let alone increasing income for creators.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - Amazon is fierce competition. I don't think people are afraid of entering the new market.

I think the internet is a popularity contest when it comes to owning the distribution channels. I think people are getting thier ass kicked in the market. Not much else. It's generation "Me". Not Y or X.

There is very little collaboration. If I had to guess, it's the small business owner against the large multi national corporation and that's it.

People are not slow to get in. They are getting their asses kicked. Jmo...

How about giving people solutions instead of telling them what they aren't doing?

That's why I've called you guys futurists, in line with terrorists, self righteous, not good for much... I'm just playing along.

But I like your solution to copyright... Break the encryption because it's hopeless to offer anything which works.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"Your criminal. I can live with that, but that kind of attitude is going to cost not only the "early adopters", it's going to cost everyone."

It's not the attitude of consumers to blame when it comes to business. That far too simplistic.
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ Jason K


Before the asshat james can try to spew anything I'll post a correction:

Technically Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy not a Democracy.

However your meaning is still sound and the SHILL is still a SHILL.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
The early adpoters "lock in" to services. You yourself said they give up alot of their rights.

They also control the market of what is hot and what is not.

That's what industry is banking on to my knowledge. Not the correct solution, or the right solution, but the solution that "sounds good".

Industry can't win with pirates.

early adopters
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
Let me know when the "cloud" frees you to live a better life.
June 21, 2010

Cimply Hear said:

...
As to what Glenn wrote, he is rather correct. You do not vote on each ordinance that comes before Parliament or Congress, Legislature or City/Town Hall... you elect voices to do the work for you. Ancient Athens was a democracy, the US is a Representative Republic, and Canada *is* a Parliamentary, Constitutional Monarchy.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"How about giving people solutions instead of telling them what they aren't doing?"

As I said before it's not my job anymore to be providing solutions to industry shills on this blog for the 50th time. You have google, research it if you are interested in learning more. I'm hired on by clients to provide solutions, and the way I see it, why give them away when I can just put those out of business who aren't fulfilling market demands and cry to government to fix the law because they have become uncompetitive.

The consultation is done. It's now a free for all. Those that don't move forward have very limited time left.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
I'm not a shill, I don't know the difference between a Constitutional Monarchy or Athens Democracy. The democracy sounds like chaos to be honest.

Anyways. I'm not a shill. So quit being so paranoid.

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

Not a shill. I don't work for any large industries. Don't know what you are talking about.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

@Glenn
..."In the last dozen or so posts have you noticed a change in james the SHILLS writing? I'd say it's a shift change time."

Most certainly.. At least the last one had some good thoughts and would read the replies and respond in relative context. This one doesn't even seem to understand how to use a dictionary. It is just spewing. The last one was fun, this one is pathetic.

And do you notice he is back to advocating illegal actions in order for users to exercise their rights in the "good" C-32?
Scanning back, I see at least 2, probably 3, and possibly 4 distinct personalities and viewpoints from our "James". No wonder he seems all over the map. I think I'll just ignore this spew and wait for the relatively intelligent one to come back.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - What part about the moral boundaries of where a digital lock is respected versus where it is not.

I can respect someones belief that it is their god given right to break the encryption on a Physical DVD should they purchase it, because they believe they have a hard copy of it.

But where does that line blur? If they purchase a copy online, should they not have physical access to the server to access the material they purchased?

I am making valid points. I'm just not meeting people eye to eye. Either that or people have no interest in proving where they believe the boundaries are drawn.

Let's say the new 3d Sony TV's encrypt the signal which they probably do. Is that 3d signal proprietary? Does that change the legal status of being able t break the lock to access it?

Perhaps that is where the moral boundary is drawn. Whether or not the contents are proprietary or not?
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

Heh
"Not a shill. I don't work for any large industries. Don't know what you are talking about."

Move along .. move along ... nothing to see here ...
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
No seriously I'm not a shill anymore than you are. But I can guarantee you I'm not getting paid to post this. Maybe you are?
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@Glen
"Technically Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy not a Democracy."

Wow haven't visited this in a while. Actually the Constitutional Monarchy was technically in the 80's through the replacement of the BNA act with our Constitution. We don't answer to the queen anymore, and we are able to make our own independent choices and laws outside of Britain. The Queen has more a traditional and historic role in Canada now than during the days of the BNA act.

The GG has to act on what he/she believes is the will of the people, and what our elected constitution has drawn up. The GG is also appointed by our elected representatives in Ottawa with a term.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
"And do you notice he is back to advocating illegal actions in order for users to exercise their rights in the "good" C-32? "

- I am not endorsing them, other are... where did I endorse that someone should break the digital locks?

Who are you people and why can't yu read what I am saying. I'm people why they feel it's so important or necessary and where the boundaries are drawn.

I never said you should break the locks. Everybody is saying they should be able to in order to exercise "fair use"
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
*I'm asking people why they feel
*I am not endorsing illegal activities, other people are
*Who are you people and why can't you read what I am saying

sorry my keyboard cuts out when I type too fast. I will grammar check a little more often.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
My apologies. I drifted off int sarcasm. This may have been interpreted as endorsing it.

"But I like your solution to copyright... Break the encryption because it's hopeless to offer anything which works. "

That was sarcasm. My mistake. I apologize. You got me. Good one. Have fun.
June 21, 2010

George said:

...
@ James

Are you James Gannon http://jamesgannon.ca/ a lawyer at the firm McCarthy Tétrault in Toronto and member of this very same astroturf group balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca ??

Too many coincidences to not be true.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

...

..."- I am not endorsing them, other are... where did I endorse that someone should break the digital locks?"

In your reply to Jason in the context of DRM, you said:

..."That's the way I see it. Just because one person superficially closes the door doesn't mean another can't open it up."

Go read it yourself. Perhaps you need to slow down and read what you supposedly wrote. You're stepping all over "yourself".

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I might be having a bad day. What that should be interpreted as, is, a reply to one who believes they should have the right to circumvent a Digital Lock. I don't believe they should.

There is nothing in that digital lock which make fair use impossible. At the very most it is an inconvenience to the consumer, not something to raise the alarms over.

If anything, it gives others in the industry the ability to release product which has better convenience capabilities for "fair use" purposes". The limitation creates opportunities for other tech industries and distributors who can sell convenience as a feature of their product or method of distribution.

"superficially" as in, no door has actually closed. No rights have been lost.

@george - I am no one with a political affiliation at all. If anything I am aligned with Small Business. Micro Businesses.
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the shill

We don't think you are that lawyer... you are far too stupid to be that.

As for your affiliation I'd say your closest affiliation would be micro brains not micro businesses since you are w/o any doubt a moron.. proof of such is offered via all of your flat out stupid posts.
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

...
If you are aligned with small business don't you actually have a one to run or a job to go to? You have spent the better part of three days full time on these boards. If this is not paid work for you, do you need a a few bucks for some food?
June 21, 2010

George said:

...
@James
Nice spin.
Yes or No. Are you James Gannon lawyer at the firm McCarthy Tétrault in Toronto?
Yes or No. Are you a member of the astroturf group balancedcopyrightforcanada?

Not that I trust a word you say anyway. Your answer was intriguing. No denial or acknowledgement.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."There is nothing in that digital lock which make fair use impossible. At the very most it is an inconvenience to the consumer, not something to raise the alarms over."

If they are not legally allowed to remove the lock, how does the user exercise his legal right to format shift, make backups, etc? This is much more than an "inconvenience", it is trumping the users legal rights.

So, apparently you are now advocating that C-32 should *NOT* include legal protection for TPM? What a switch.

June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"Who are you people and why can't yu read what I am saying. I'm people why they feel it's so important or necessary and where the boundaries are drawn."

I think you are quickly finding out that both sides of this debate are deeply entrenched in their positions and personal points of view. It's not about ideology, points of view or personal positions, it's about economics and facts. The politizing of this debate around ideology, emotion and morality is in large part due to the position of the old monoply has presented in this debate.

I've worked both in industry, and over the years have written quite a bit about this debate, spoken with many in industry, and your position and point of view and points of argument stem from someone who is deeply connected to an entrenched position on this, and I have a very, very hard time believing that you're hear looking for information.

Today was my day off, and you are replying to this blog almost every 5 mins. You're either unemployed or you are being paid to do this. Considering the positions and arguments you've presented which are almost exact in nature to those who have been fighting for stricter copyright laws, you are in no doubt a part of that lobby.

So let me make this clear, and you can bring this to your clients. None of the ideological or moral debate holds weight on either side here. Especially with information now readily available to creative talent on the economics, who are taking upon themselves to ignore banter from both sides and looking at the numbers. It's now directly tied into the economics of the situation and facts, plus how fast your clients can adapt. Your clients have done nothing to win over the support of the public here in Canada, nor those contracted with them, and if I were your clients, I'd seriously think about getting back that support rather than digging an unclimbable hole for them and the talent they represent.

Consumers have already won, the rest is politics. Deal with it, or go out of business.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
I am very glad that it's not the ideological or moral dog poo that's responsible for making the decisions on this draft bill, and there was a major attempt to focus on the economic facts and situations. DRM locks need to be more looked into, since this can and will pose negative economic effects in other area's such as SME's, and we must properly define the control developers and producers have to ensure that the smooth flow of day to day business is being protected, and not interfered with in a competitive market. As I've said in the past, it's unenforceable with the consumer.

There's a balance that needs to be set into place, and copyright is a small part of that balance. The rest will be to update our consumer, privacy, and business laws to reflect these changes, which is currently being looked at on several sides.
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

@james

You have been obstinate about your defense of TPM as applied in C-32. Many of us have lead you, point by point, in excruciating detail and simplistic examples, why this is wrong.

When will "you" ever respond directly to even one of these comments that do so? All you do is defect and spew. If you really want to be treated as an intelligent participant here, you will do so. Show us EXACTLY why our point by point breakdowns are wrong. Show us why TPM does NOT trump users rights, both in C-32 and previous rights we already have.

Until you call in the "big guns" to do exactly that, you will be treated with a growing measure of disdain. Even the most patient of us can only tolerate a certain amount of stupidity before we get tired of it.

June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
Those fighting for your moral and ideological positions have lost any and all credibility in this debate with not just the public, but also our politicians too, as they start to look at independent economic data and put 2 and 2 together and come up with a realistic economic look at the situations, and how to approach this in policy.

Professionals with your point of view in this debate come across and spoiled little brats most of the time, kicking and screaming when they don't get what they want. It's almost like you guys expect to hand what you want to you to get you to shut up. Unfortunately in the adult world it rarely doesn't work like this. And it's demeaning to those professionals inside industry and those thinking about getting into it, the way these professionals act. I was almost ashamed to be part of this industry during the Toronto Copyright Town Hall. In fact I've dropped all business from the major labels because of this.

Why come on here and insight an argument on Geists blog? It doesn't change anything and above all makes your side look pethitic. Move on James. If you want answers to your questions, I'm sure you know how to use Google.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - Sometimes the posts go through slow. Seriously, I wasn't around. But there was a Multix, Only I spelled it wrong, it's Multics.

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

I'm not saying the word means anything except from a "visionary" or futurist perspective.

I was referring to the sense of "property" one gets, which has been said by others to give them the sense of entitlement to break the DVD encryption. If they have a physical copy, they will believe it is theirs to do with as they please. I was suggesting desktop computers give that sense of ownership.

Contrast that to terminal style systems or cloud based computing and people feel differently about ownership and circumventing locks.

That's all.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - What hard stance do I have? The only hard stance that I have is that copy right law is a good effort.

So you are basically saying it's useless?
June 21, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@James
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Did you even read that page? from the summary:
"'Shill' can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit 'shill' for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity."

So, if you happen to be a Lawyer who would benefit from complex, contradictory copyright law, you can still be considered a shill in the absence of direct payment.

The Blog post on James Gannon's site is much easier to read and more coherent. From that post I have a better idea where "James" may be coming from (assuming it is the same person). My website explains why I think the legal protection of TPMs is literally "an incredibly bad (thing)." http://phillipsjk.ca/copyright_submission.html
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
"Show us why TPM does NOT trump users rights"

@oldguy - because you still make a copy... No TPM is going to prevent someone from taking video out, to video in.

It only hampers convenince and quality of product. Use a camcorder for all I care. Nothing is limiting your free speech or your fair use. How many times have I said this and how many times are you jst going to shout louder in an attempt to lok smart.

This is the worst forum I have ever been in... It's a peacocks.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
*This is the worst forum I have ever been in... It's all peacocks.

and please someone break out the rule book and show me where it says that any sort of alleged credentials are evidence of sanity.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@phillipsjk - It is a sad sad state of affairs when everyone resorts to name calling and accusations in an attempt to ignore my perfectly legitimate statements.

Call me a shill, pretend I am an alien from outer space if you want... Doesn't change any of the facts. Copy Right law is a good effort regardless of what the lawless feel...
June 21, 2010

Captain Hook said:

573 comments. This thread is nuts!


You know I once tried to have an intelligent conversation with a born again Christian. I had about the same luck you guys are having with this James character. Honestly. It's a waste of breath. Wait for struck&white to post. He ignores the debate too, but at least he makes rather more informed arguments of his own.
June 21, 2010

George said:

...
@James
Yes or No. Are you James Gannon lawyer at the firm McCarthy Tétrault in Toronto?
Yes or No. Are you a member of the astroturf group balancedcopyrightforcanada?

If you're Mr Gannon, then your last post criticizing those who would actively debate you would be ironic given that jamesgannon.ca doesn't allow commenting.
June 21, 2010

Crockett said:

...
@James "Call me a shill, pretend I am an alien from outer space if you want... Doesn't change any of the facts. Copy Right law is a good effort regardless of what the lawless feel..."

Lawless? Because people on this forum are not in support of some provisions in bill c-32 we are now considered lawless? Oh good, now I can go rob a bank, cheat on my taxes, pull that label of the mattress. What we are opposed to are lobbied laws that do nothing but support an outdated business practice because a certain industry does not want to innovate with the times. It is the deep pockets of big business and their practices based on greed that are closer to the darker side.
June 21, 2010

Captain Hook said:

...
BTW,

Great new TV show on The Pirate Bay.

http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/5633688/Pioneer.One.S01E01.HDTV.XviD-ReGeN.5633688.TPB.torrent


Better way to pass the time then spending much time here. Arrrrrr
June 21, 2010

oldguy said:

About James

Ok.. I've completed my quick analysis of the posting style, topic interest (which part of a posting they take interest in), and phrase/word usage of our entity called James. There are well over 500 postings here, so scanning down and cross referencing "James" responses against the original comment he is responding to isn't easy.

We have 3 very distinct personalities at play here. There might be more, but the variations are within the range of normal styles.

The wannabe geek.
The thoughtful reader.
The attack dog.

All seem to be advancing a common theme, "TPM as applied in C-32 is good". Each is approaching it from a different perspective. They are attempting to mask themselves as a single personality, with poor success. They shouldn't have come from such diverse backgrounds. All geeks, or all attack dogs, or all intelligent generalists would have masked the traits better.

Take notes for next time such a tactic is tried. They will also need a few weeks of intensive "integration training" to properly mimic each others style, background knowledge, and personality traits.

There are times when all 3 are simultaneously active, and times when only one of them is active. They tend to contradict each other more and more as time goes on. The mistakes pile up.

So, when/if you respond to "James", recognize which persona you are dealing with. It's no loss if you totally ignore the attack dog. You can have some fun with the other two.

June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@captain-hook - These guys start name calling when they're out matched. And from such a small guy out of nowhere too. I've been a hired agent of the CIRA or RIAA, you name it. If they can't win, I must be a shill. These guys, are all bravado and they no will to move things forward in a sound way. It's all retreat and a lot of cowardice.

I came in to learn a thing or two... what I have learned is that there nothing in this thread which leads me to believe anyone here respects copyrights, digital protection measures. It's all Nihilist. No point to pursue anything good.

It's a sad an rather destructiveness waste of debate, time, and I am sure the Canadian Industry, along with the artists that they are being fooled into believing that good is working on their side.

Crooks. That's just how I feel. I walked in looking for answers, I leave with having no faith in anyone here.

Schizo-paranoids. Go and fight the evil industries... and the shills too... freaks
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
You're advocating ideology, all anyone has to do is look at your posts to see where you're ideology stands through the terminology you use, and the statements you put forth. The bill is a good effort, I agree with you on that.

My concerns here both personally and inside industry is that this is not an ideological or moral debate. It's an economic one. If we have economic policy that isn't built around a full and complete understanding of the current cycle of creative destruction and how that relates to each industry independently, plus put forth laws that inhibit innovation rather than foster it, than I have a problem with that. So far those with a strong ideological approach to strict copyright reform have fell way short on providing even elementary knowledge on the market they are faced with, and are too focused on punishing consumers for accessing the marketplace and free flow of information in which industry has the responsibility to put value to.

So let's see how that ideology is James, are you for or against the 3 strikes law?




June 21, 2010

George said:

...
James if you push on your keyboard "CTRL q" I think you'll find a place where shills are appreciated.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"So let's see how that ideology is James, are you for or against the 3 strikes law?"

Actually, you already answered this a while back as I recall you were supporting this idea as a viable solution to the economic problems, and lack of innovation in industry..yes I seem to remember that conversation with you a few days ago ;)
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
Well I have faith that I haven't been robbed today. I am testing the limits of a digital lock on a shared hosting space. Hopefully my intellectual property will not be stolen by people with your insane ideologies today.

Have a good one guys... Enjoy that tax payer money... welfare queens
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

...
Well, I'm signing off here as well. Off to play EA's Tigerwoods 2010 on my PS3 with purchased downloadable cheats and mods via DLC ;)
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason k - I can't say I am advocating ideology, just questioning it. I never said that the 3 strikes rule was something worth doing.

You guys might be right regarding the Shill thing. I do have an interest in protecting intellectual property. Specifically I am interested in providing fair solutions to paying customers while protecting my own intellectual properties. So in a sense, yes, by your loose or all-encompassing definitions, I might be a shill. Here on my own terms with a bias with no authority paying me to do so.

That's it. 3 strikes your out sounds facist to me. It sounds like communism gone wrong. I am not a political alignment expert.

I am just aware of the bad position Canada is in regarding copyright law, or at least it seems there is a cloud hanging over Canada over it's inability or lack of effort to enforce or do something about copyright protections and pirating in general. Or it least it seems Canada is the scapegoat.
June 21, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@James
"Well I have faith that I haven't been robbed today. I am testing the limits of a digital lock on a shared hosting space. Hopefully my intellectual property will not be stolen by people with your insane ideologies today."

I can tell you exactly what the limits are, but you won't listen/believe me. As a rule of thumb: If the end-user can see the content, they can break the lock. If you are talking about your blog. I can set up a mirror for you; just to prove my point.

I have no problem with Article 12 of the 1996 WIPO copyright treaty (the requirement to preserve Rights management information). My (major) objection to the 1996 WIPO Treaties is actually quite narrow. I don't think "effective technological measures" need legal protection. If they are truly "effective", they can stand on their own.

My minor objection has to do with the what I consider 'long' copyright term of 50 years.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
*I am interested in providing solutions to paying customers while protecting my own intellectual properties.

That's all... You are Democrats. That's what you all are.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@phillipsjk - Oh they can take the front end no problem. I don't care, I invited them to. But they are fixated on "OwnerShip".

My issue is with someone going to the supplier, paying them, and then asking for my keys. So it's testing a Digital Lock in Policy sense.

"unauthorised modification of rights management information contained in works" if that is section 12 it has nothing to do with it. I don't care if they tried t modify it, it's copying that bothers me.

@phillipsjk - What is... 'long' copyright term of 50 years.

If you are suggesting that computer code is a literary work which cannot be modified for 50 years without the copyright holders consent then that is a new one to me.

In any event, FOSS is not the standard. I don't care if there is an overwhelming belief that it is somehow profitable, because it's not. It's a start and that's all.

I understand what the limits are, it just pains me that others don't seem to respect it. 100's and 1000's f hours invested into code, while it might seem worthless to someone else, it is still valuable to me, and they can't just have it for nothing. That is why I don't charge for development, only surface changes. That and time spent delivering deliverables. Not the actual server code itself. I know the surface is fair game for the taking.
June 21, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"I am just aware of the bad position Canada is in regarding copyright law, or at least it seems there is a cloud hanging over Canada over it's inability or lack of effort to enforce or do something about copyright protections and pirating in general."

Just an FYI and my last point on this very long troll thread to you. The US per person pirates more online material than Canada. In fact our digital growth with respect to music has grown substantially more than the US and other countries that have implemented reform. What I've personally seen in the economic data I have looked at is a huge problem in economic growth in countries that have implemented strict reform, and what seems to be a long time revolt on media when needs are not being met.

Those who are producing the reports about Canada's level of piracy are hog wash, and impossible to independently verify. Further more those putting us on these reports are well known to have a strict reform ideology and are well known lobby's, but as economic data has stated..that ideology is flawed.

I'm not an advocate against reform, just that it provide an accurate balance to ensure no one in industry has the competitive edge in policy, that it reflects the reality of the marketplace, and the needs of that marketplace are not artificially made illegal, and above all be proven to foster much needed innovation to generate new income for creative talent. None of the above are present in 12 years of DMCA in the south.

It's a global economic problems, and there has to come a time when industry's cry babies are either forced to adapt, or forced out. With the economic data now being looked at closely by almost everyone, that day of reckoning is soon and fast approaching.

My personal feelings on this are to legalize file sharing, and out preform the others by providing the much needed income and investment in our creative communities. Force those dragging this industry down and refusing to change out. We should and probably will be setting that example when all is said and done. It will end here in Canada. We pride ourselves on our culture, and Canadian talent has made it like never before on the world stage due to the sharing of media. I highly doubt those in industry would support punishing the consumer, in fact I know that would be an extremely tough sell to a lot of Canadian artists, and creators I know personally.

June 21, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@James
"'unauthorised modification of rights management information contained in works' if that is section 12 it has nothing to do with it. I don't care if they tried t modify it, it's copying that bothers me."

Unauthorized copying is *already* against copyright law in most cases (except for fair dealing). As I understand it, the "rights management information" is much like the copyright page in a book. If lists the true author, even in the face of unauthorized copies. As far as I know, even "hard-core pirates" frown on plagiarism.

"If you are suggesting that computer code is a literary work which cannot be modified for 50 years without the copyright holders consent then that is a new one to me."

It has be the case at least since Bill Gate's "Open Letter to Hobbyists" in 1975.

I'm sure *technically* the code can be modified without the copyright holder's consent, but it is a legal no-no. As an alleged lawyer, you should allegedly know that :)

The reason computer code is a literary work is that it is sufficiently creative for copyright protection. It is still the "creative expression of ideas," even if the language is not exactly English.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@jason-k I agree, file sharing should be legal. How could anyone take away FTP. Re-reading some of these comments (which I obviously missed), it seems for the most part there is some really good knowledge in these threads.

I am just concerned that consumer entitlement is crossing the line into criminal culture and that is not something that makes me rest easy. While I still believe that industry has every right t make product they want, and the consumers have the choice to choose which product is best for them, I agree that neither can be trusted to do the right thing.

Copyright law and intellectual property however is extremely important, if not from a dollar value perspective, for the self worth of people who create for consumers. I don't believe you can healthy industry if the consumers don't respect it, and I'm not looking for much respect, just a little.

The ease at which we can all pull information and creative works from the web I believe has reduced the over all value of those things as seen by the consumer. There is very little respect left. If you guys are saying that pirating is slowing down, based on the Google trends I believe it and I look forward to good thing ahead.

Having a chance to re-read some of the posts, I have more confidence that at least a few people know what they doing. Trespassing seems to be the final frontier for sure. If I don't get robbed tonight then I trust that copyright does protect the economy rather than rob from individuals or industry.

My apologies for trolling at times, I obviously got in over my head a bit. I am no paid shill, I appreciate all the info provided. I don't think it's been wasted.
June 21, 2010

phillipsjk said:

correction
If I was able to 'convert' James by telling him about Bill Gates' 1976 "Open Letter to Hobbyists"; I officially spend too much time on the Internet.

Popular wisdom is that 'Trolls' are a lost cause.
June 21, 2010

James said:

...
@phillipsjk - That is an excellent letter, and it along with my notes have been forwarded to the guy who is trying to bypass a digital lock to take my copyrighted work. Thanks for the link.
June 21, 2010

James said:

Don't Worry, Be Happy
D'n worry Mate!

It is probably just somebody having fun.

/paranoid
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
George said:
...
James if you push on your keyboard "CTRL q" I think you'll find a place where shills are appreciated.


@ james the moronic shill


Hey james.. try this to get your fix!!


format c: /q /x / | Y


(For those old skool to catch the meaning)
June 21, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the shill

q.. if you and your insane ideas are in a room w/me and my "liberal" ideas and you see me copying a DVD to my computers HDD. What would you do?... Right here.. right now.
June 22, 2010

Jason K said:

@James
"Copyright law and intellectual property however is extremely important, if not from a dollar value perspective, for the self worth of people who create for consumers."

It's not intellectual property that's extremely important is the payment for creators who create for consumers that's important. IP rights must reflect that of the new economy model of compensation rather than the 20th century model in order for any IP rights to be actively respected. How can they currently reflect any new model of compensation when industry can't agree what that model of compensation is? We risk artificially making new market needs into criminal acts. There's a distinction that needs to be understood and drawn here with respect to what is a new market need, and what is a criminal act, thus the digital lock issues.

If you make a need within the market illegal than there is a huge risk of law becoming irrelevant. That poses dangers in-itself. The government was warned about this very thing by it's own independent sources during the consultation. The law needs to reflect the market not the wishes of those competing in it in order for it to be enforceable and realistic.

Both you and I have the same goal, and that's to increase the pay cheques of creators. I think the time has come and past when with respect to listening to those that preach strict reforms for better pay and market value. We need a completely new approach to this to move forward, and the only way to really come up with any viable solutions to this is to understand fully what's going on economically, and look at the market data and surveys to come up with better approaches and policy to deal with the stale air most in industry seem to be breathing these days than continuing to rely on advice from 1999 by members of Metallica. We're in 2010 now, and we should be focusing, building on and profiting from the successes that have resulted from the sharing of media.

We should also be learning from our failures, rather than blaming them on everything but ourselves. jmo
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - fdisk

June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@jason - I completely agree, I am not soothsayer, but Nigeria population explosion and their inability to recycle or replenish their natural resources has really made this trend interesting to me...

http://www.google.com/trends?q=make+money+online,+work+from+home

I completely believe there are opportunities in the digital economy, good ones too. I just think the "criminal" culture for the most part has people working against each other, rather creating opportunities for others. Jmo... it's all crowdsource and that I'm going to guess that is severe mental punishment for creators.

If you are suggesting circumventing copy protection on DVD's would be a disrespected law. It sure would. No doubt.

I never liked Metallica, we used to call them skids growing up. Not sure what they had to say as far advice goes to be honest, but I can't imagine it was anything good.

Then again, I'm too sure people are interpreting the GNU Goat as a symbol of good either... even though I am sure it has it's roots in balance.
June 22, 2010

James said:

Australian James is really phillipsjk
james@test:~$ format c: /q /x / | Y
bash: format: command not found
bash: Y: command not found
james@test:~$
June 22, 2010

Crockett said:

Ignore the above post it's nonsense and false, it doesn't even mention phillipsjk
Ignore the above post it's nonsense and false, it doesn't even mention phillipsjk
June 22, 2010

phillipsjk said:

Commands explained
I had to look up the /x option.

The /q option is a quick format. Only the File allocation tables would be over-written (leaving most data still on the disk, but a scrambled mess)

The /x option dismounts the partition so that the format command will complete without a "disk busy" or similar error.

Piping the output to "Y" simply answers "y" to all questions. this failed Under Gnu/Linux because it was case sensitive. It would also fail for tools like dump(8) that expect you to type "yes".

Fdisk does not actually touch the partitions at all: only the partition table in the MBR (the first sector of the disk). Deleted partitions can be easily re-created, especially if the partition scheme in use was simple. These days, computers ship with "hidden" partitions, so re-creating them may be a little more involved.

He apologised, I'm not sure what these threats of data-destruction are supposed to accomplish!
June 22, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@crockett
You don't believe I would respond to my own post? James' post about the letter did not show up right away for me. Not sure why he would want to send a letter talking about BASIC to somebody "trying to bypass a digital lock to take (his) copyrighted work."

My name is James as well. Sorry for any confusion. I also posted the terminal log of the format command ;)

I'll stick to phillipsjk from now on: I don't like password proliferation.
June 22, 2010

Crockett said:

Brass tacks
Let's get back to topic about bill C-32:

a) Bill c-32 is not yet law. No one here is a Criminal or anarchist as has been accused.
b) Most people posting here are concerned that the proposed digital lock provision will supersede the fair use provision in this bill for purposes such as backup, parody, education, research etc.
c) It will supersede, for example, in the making of a backup copy of a DVD because that would break the DCSS "lock", and we fear the media industry will use digital locks on much of it's other material as well.
d) It has been posted here that digital locks are needed to protect content. But they are easily broken, and will continue to be so. There is no technological measure that cannot eventually be bypassed and the same method easily disseminated for others to use. Ethical or not, that is just a plain fact.
e) So digital locks do not prevent the copying of media, if that is the case then what is their purpose?
f) The most likely reason is to attempt to monetize extra revue streams from the same content in violation of accepted fair use practices. In other words corporate greed.

No one here is advocating counter-fitting and profiting of content that has digital locks removed. Will that occur anyways by unscrupulous people? Yes, but digital locks will be no impediment for them and thus are ineffective.

Will digital locks inconvenience paying customers? Yes, and it will have no effect on piracy. Just scare honest people away from exercising their fair use rights.

File sharing, sanctioned or not, has been shown to increase exposure for talent both amateur and professional. Leading to many successes outside of the traditional media distribution industry (RIAA/MPAA etc). The most recent studies show that profits for traditional media distribution channels has decreased by 20% from base level in the last decade due to file sharing. While at the same time the profits for the industry as a whole, including independent artists and concerts, has increased by 5% from baseline. So while the bulky traditional media distribution system has lost ground, artists have gained by a difference of 25%. (Ref. http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...ociety.ars)

So Digital locks
- Do not stop piracy
- Inconvenience honest customers
- Stifle innovation
- Increase profits for Media barons

So why are there digital lock provisions in Bill C-32. Because of deep pockets and lobbying from USA special interest groups to support the old distribution models. The rich back room men don't want to loose their gravy train, but artists are starting to realize they don't need them anymore and that has them scared. Their only recourse is brinkmanship and bullying. And our politicians are letting that happen.

That is why the people who are posting here are passionate about this issue. It is about fairness, not just for themselves but for the artists whom until now have no recourse but to bow to the system. Disinformation is the main tool of the system. Read the pros and cons of this thread, who has the best arguments and the most intelligent responses. Don't just believe what you are told, investigate, then you decide.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the moron shill


LOL... Ok now just for sake of argument say you did try to fdisk the computer in question you would then be in violation of computer trespassing and would be arrested.
Assuming I'd actually not stop you of course lol.

Reality.. you would do nothing since it is not your computer and you have no authority.

You do not pass go.. you go straight to jail and do not collect $200.


Care to try again?
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ crockett

Nicely said!we
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - High Power Magnets - Neodymium

http://scientificsonline.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_3081237
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james

LMAO I am more than aware of what those are. They would be completely ineffectual for what you suggested never mind even attempting to do such would still be illegal. (Not to mention your even suggesting such shows your lack of understanding and yet you spew regardless.)

Your suggested actions would be illegal.. and trying to do so to me for my exercising my legal rights. Nowhere was it said I would be uploading or pirating the copy.. I could be using a segment of it for a review... or a parody..

Therefore once again you and your proposed actions would be the criminal in nature and intent.

C-32 would take those same rights away from "we the consumer" and make the act illegal.. But it would not allow you to attempt such actions either since those actions would be trespassing, break and enter (if you attempted to enter my residence w/o permission), Willful destruction of private property and invasion of privacy. (Possibly others as well.)

Even if for sake of argument that C-32 had a provision added to it prohibit you from trying to erase my hdd... such actions are already illegal under out current laws. Much the same a PIRACY is illegal under our current laws. Therefore again it is BAD LAW and redundant in nature... not to mention the whole point is:


C-32 is supposed to be about copyright not Piracy..

We all can see the truth it is an attempt at the "Media" to get things put into law that not only do not belong there but if were put in terms that were honest would never ever get approved.

Something you obviously have no understanding of at all.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the moron SHILL


2nd example.

For sake of argument say C-32 passes as it sits right now. In the aforementioned example of my copying a DVD to my HDD.


In order to know I've done something now "illegal" (C-32 makes it so) you would need the following:

Probably cause or evidence. (Invasion of privacy to even get a clue of that)
A warrant granted by a judge based evidence which no one could have (at the public's expense)
Police enforcement (again at the public's expense.)
A Crown Attorney and court staff (again at the public's expense.)
A lawyer for my defense (again at the public's expense assuming I cannot afford one.)
Prison/jail guards to ensure the "ciminal" does not escape (again at the public's expense.)


Some of the impact of this would be:

Mean while it has cost the media conglomerates nothing for the above.

It has not prevented piracy in any way.

It has stiffed any "fair use" of the media in question.

It would cause a HUGE massive outcry and bad publicity for the "studio" etc in question. Due to myself and many others standing up and making a "big scene" about a non-pirate being punished for not pirating.

This would cost those same studios untold amounts of $$$ in lost revenue from other customers whom PAID for the DVD in the first place.. but would refuse to support them for such biased bullshit actions.


Regardless of how you try to spin it they are trying to do something that is flat out WRONG.. and we will not be bullied by the US media giants whom only care about $$.


C-32 is bad law as written.. and TPM has no place in copyright law PERIOD.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Oh and meanwhile in the time all that was happening someone in china etc was busy using a professional press to make thousands of illegal 100% copies of the same DVD.. which are sold off making $ off real piracy..

So much for C-32 being about prevention of piracy
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Now assuming you get a clue and understand the prior examples..

The case of the pirate DVDs are "lost sales" is what would be claimed. However not all of them would actually be such. Those buying those DVDs are paying say $5.. instead of $35.

They then not only have a copy.. but one that undoubtedly has no lame forced commercials.. no TPM to prevent them from copying or format shifting... or using in ANY dvd player including *nix..

Sure they have an "illegal' copy... but how sad is it that the pirate copy has more functionality.. better "Value" for the consumer due to that and costs about the same as the 'real thing" is typically sold for in India etc.

If those same producers of the real thing would instead get a clue... sell the 'real thing' at a reasonable cost w/o all their attempted restrictions they would instead be making more $$$... squashing piracy since if there is no profit the pirates will not pirate... and wow.. even having customers that are HAPPY.

Imagine that.... but since we all know they are brain dead morons like you it won't happen.


Also note.. that under C-32 anyone trying to even find out about the infamous Sony root kit for example would be a criminal.. even by turning windows autoplay off. (*nix was immune) Therefore C-32 would grant legal protection for ILLEGAL acts by those same producers.. Funny how they don't want that information talked about either....


June 22, 2010

Crockett said:

Correction
In a earlier post I said that that profits for the media distribution companies has been reduced by 20% due to file sharing. Rechecking my sources that is incorrect, apologies for the misquote. In fact I should have said that 20% of the TOTAL DECLINE in profits is due to file sharing while 80% of the total decline is due to other market forces such as increased competition and changes in consumer buying habits. I do not have the figure for what the actual total decline in profits over the last decade has been rather the above is just a ratio of causes for said decline.

Here is the exact quote from the article: "Indeed, they round up a host of studies from the past few years suggesting that, on average, one-fifth of declining music sales might be chalked up to piracy. (The rise of new entertainment options like video game has also hurt the business, and consumers finally stopped "re-buying" old albums on CD by the mid-2000s.)"

June 22, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@James
Still off topic, but Glen is correct about the magnets. Let's assume you wanted to make a linear motor for moving the read head on a hard-disk. You want the motor to be as small as possible, yet efficient.

One way to get a wire to move is to apply current to it while it is in a strong uniform magnetic field. The kind of field created by a small gap between two high-power (Neodymium) magnets.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - My Suggested Actions would be illegal under which law that prohibits??? My Free Speech? Do I need to break out the tinfoil hats.

High Powered Magnets are perfectly legal for Personal Use.

I do understand that in these threads, a law which is unenforceable is worthless. How would one know someone was carrying Neodymium in their pocket? Airport Scanners?

A Bad Law is surely a law which we should never subject to the public otherwise it might sacrifice thier freedoms.

You want to outlaw magnets, but your worried about digital locks. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

One point at a time please. I think we're still on the circumventing of digital locks to access CopyRight materials.

How would this law be applied differently if the Locks were circumvented for the destruction of Copyrighted Materials.

Shouldn't it just be simple. A lock is a Lock. The items on the other side are protected. The purpose of a digital lock is to protect it's contents, hence, any circumvention is a trespassing.

The consumer has the choice to buy the product they want, if they choose to purchase items with locks, that is their choice.

The industry has the right t sell items with locks, not only for their protection but also for the protection of all consumers. To protect their investment.

What good is a DVD if it is worthless next week due to rampant piracy.

I know locks don't prevent piracy, but they can slow it down, and they can detour high quality copies from entering an illegal market. This gives more control t Artists who might wasn't to sell high resolution materials while freely distributing lower resolution materials.

N fair use rights are lost, More power to the artists, industry, and it retains the value or investment made by the consumer.
June 22, 2010

... said:

Ye gods
I am utterly in shock. I REALLY hope James is trying to advance an agenda, I have never seen such a level of incompetence / ignorance in my entire life.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
OMFG james you are suck a moron SHILL it's beyond belief.


June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
suck = such damn typos

though i do suppose you could say suck applies as well since james BS posts do suck.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - The sony rootkit is a good example I think. Not to many consumers on their own would be able to find a root kit. Educational purposes only. That is the exception.

That is a different topic all together anyways. Digital Locks don't have anything to do with spyware. Breaking a Digital Lock for law enforcement, fair use, educational is still possible.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
Can we loose the implied negative connotation thrown around with the use of the word shill?

If it were up to your guys, anyone including reporters would be shills. Shills are essentially a good thing.

That's what the law is all about, protecting everyone. Shills have right, just like you guys, the Welfare Queens.

In any event, I don't work for any large recording industries, I'm here of my own free will and not getting paid for it, which in sharp contrast to you guys who are collecting welfare.
June 22, 2010

phillipsjk said:

James said:
"High Powered Magnets are perfectly legal for Personal Use.

I do understand that in these threads, a law which is unenforceable is worthless. How would one know someone was carrying Neodymium in their pocket? Airport Scanners?"

LMAO.

Erasing somebody's property can be considered vandalism or computer trespass. See the accepted definition of "property" I posted from Wikipedia above.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the morn SHILL

Ok.. so educational only you say? Fine.. I'll rip the DVD to my hdd.. edit out the crap.. convert it to a nice AVI and upload it in the name of "I'm learning how to do this" and that would be allowed according to your insane lack of logic.

June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - For personal use. I am currently under the impression that copying materials for personal use is allowed. It's just circumventing the locks. If someone was just learning to break a digital lock, and I am not a lawyer, I think that could be an acceptable explanation in court if someone for one reason or did make a backup copy through circumvention of locks. Mass distributing them being another story all together.

The educational use clause allows technology to be reverse engineered for the health of information being allowed to make to the public. It gives "watchdogs" some rights.

Am I missing something? Why hasn't industry made the connection between stamping unique identifier codes within the DVD tracks to trace the origins of where a disc is physically located on earth, and where it has spread trough pirate channels.

June 22, 2010

James said:

...
Nevermind, they are pressed from a glass master. That explains which each disc is an identical copy digitally.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
You would think with all this crying and complaining about pirating, people would just look to revise the manufacturing process just slightly to protect their own investment.

@phillipsjk - I was just playing with word. My "Suggested Actions" are not illegal. I didn't threaten to erase anybodies hard drives, I just suggested that banning the Magnets doesn't make a lot of sense, which in retrospect makes me realize I should have never suggested that outlawing the tools for Cracking was somehow the right answer.
June 22, 2010

... said:

@James
Seriously? If you have to use some kind of retarded explanation like "I broke the lock to learn how to do it", doesn't that suggest the law makes no sense? Geez.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the moron shill

No one said anything about banning magnets other than YOU.

You completely missed the obvious sarcasm about piracy in the name of educational

As always you miss the point that FAIR USE is more than simply protecting the investment you tard.



Ah at least you have given us proof that evolution has not been perfect... there are always throw backs like you.

June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn the Leach - Protecting the investment has nothing to do with fair use. If anything Fair Use rights enable consumers, educators, and journalists to increase the value of the digital product by promoting it. Back at'cha moron. Or should I say the paranoid freak who thinks the whole world is out to get him, because Glenn is f'n important the world is actually conspiring t make him miserable. No... wouldn't have anything to do with complete lack of intelligence and creativity now would it.

June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn the leach. With your ideology, all digital product should be free for everyone, pirating rampant everywhere. Only the early adopters will enjoy a brief moment of value, and they can endure the cost of digital media for all of us. The value of any digital product essentially worthless to anyone, thereafter. We can all de-evolve back into servants. Product will cease to exist and we can just serve each other rather than create. Or we can paint portraits of each other all day long.

As the flakes like you put it. A knowledge based economy, or to be exact. An opinion based economy. You know what that means.
June 22, 2010

phillipsjk said:

@other James
'@phillipsjk - I was just playing with word. My "Suggested Actions" are not illegal. I didn't threaten to erase anybodies hard drives,'

So, you are claiming that in the hypothetical situation presented above, you would have just typed "fdisk" to see what Glenn's partition table looked like?

After Glenn said "Care to try again?" are you claiming your knew the shielding and high storage densities would render magnets ineffective for erasing data?

"just playing with word." Are you claiming we are just wasting our time? Most of use probably suspected as much anyway.
June 22, 2010

... said:

Attack Dog
Seems it's the attack dog's turn... No point arguing with that creature.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@phillipsjk - There is no argument which it will accept. Maybe this one.

fdisk .!..

Not wasting anybodies time. I'm not derailing threads. I pull it back to digital locks the form letter, and the copyright bill whenever I can...
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Ohh I just love how now james the moron shill is trying to put words in my mouth in order to prove his non-point.

Whats wrong james.. can't hold a real discussion about it?

(That was rhetorical btw .. since you obviously would never get it otherwise)


Fact is you have proven w/o any doubt to be either one really really stupid person.. or a group of said stupid people... aka SHILLS.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
It seems to be a "call to action" or words to raise awareness. I don't neccesarily disagree with the form letter being pre-written. I think it gives people the opportunity to better understand the purpose of the bill. When the article uses terms like "embarrassing" I think they run the risk of losing applicants. It does force feed opinion a little aggressively.

Until now, I didn't truly understand what Bill-C32 meant to consumers but now I have a better picture. I'm sure it will raise awareness to consumers/employees as well.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
Actually maybe "embarrassing" is the right term to use... There is definitely an overall change in attitude.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=limewire,+torrentz,+bittorrent,+warez,darknet

I would go ashamed instead of embarrassing though.
June 22, 2010

... said:

@James
That is like the third time you regurgitated that EXACT block of text.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
Just keeping it on track. This thread has two personalities.

- The first one does everything it can to call out imaginary shills and derail the topic.

- The second one does everything it can to address the issues.

June 22, 2010

... said:

The third
The third involves you denying all logic that actually makes sense. You have utterly failed to address most arguments against you. When you have, you have either dodged the question or employed an illogical argument that you were subsequently called out on. When called out on it, you have either ignored the counter argument or just repeated your original argument.

Your argumentative skills are severely lacking.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Everyone else notice that james the moron shill is resorting to pasting in the same statements over and over..... just like a group of SHILLs would do... when trying to act as if they are one person.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
Guys - Did you even look at this statistic?

http://www.google.com/trends?q=limewire,+torrentz,+bittorrent,+warez,darknet

That's crazy... Fewer and Fewer people are searching popular file sharing programs. I think that could mean one of two things. The file sharing software is inconvenient, cumbersome bloatware, which isn't worth anybodies time to fuss over.

Or it could mean industry is one upping the pirates and providing value where the pirates are failing miserably.

Which one do you think it means?
June 22, 2010

... said:

@James
Maybe that everyone interested in it already has it? There is no need to download the applications a second time...
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
LMAO @ James the moron shill.

Bloatware??? Now that alone was worth a big laugh.. if you want bloatware look no further than anything Microsoft has produced in the last 15 years or more...

As for the industry.. if they were actually doing that then they would not be fighting for C-32 and the like... and since we know they are not therefore your conclusions are obviously flawed.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
I would agree with that if some of those search terms weren't the name of the illegal file itself.

This is an interesting trend.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=iphone,itunes,ipad,torrentz&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - It's not that the pirates aren't doing a good enough job. It's that the culture is shifting. It's embarrassing t pretend your fighting evil empire. They're aren't so evil. The pirates are a joke. It's a dying breed. Sharing is the New Pirating.

File Sharing programs, offer almost nothing to consumer from a sharing perspective.

The pirates are old news. It happened a while ago.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
hey look everyone.. "james" the SHILL is had a popularity increase lately.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=shill&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn the leech - Give some value and maybe you can turn everything around for yourself.

In any event. The only real threat to consumers regarding digital locks, is if they truly become unbreakable. Not that it appears to be an immediate danger, and I am not fluent with cryptography laws and military vs commercial grade cryptography technology.

Minor inconveniences however are exactly what they are, there is no reason why anyone who cares enough about fair use, cannot access it.

The digital locks as they stand on current DVD's are rather superficial.

Anyone opposing the general belief as to what this bill stands for, as in, it stands for the protection of copyright, and grants fair use and even protects free speech, could in fact be a dinosaur.

The pirates need t step it up a notch, they aren't good for much at all. Especially when it comes to creating value.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
@ james the moron SHILL

Once again.... then why do we need C-32 and it's TPM???

It's in the name of "anti-piracy" after all and you just said yourself the "The pirates are a joke. It's a dying breed."



June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn - "Pirates", as in the Carribean Legends. They will always hold interest.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=pirates,+software+pirates

"File Sharing" technologies, are a waste of time. They didn't do very much to leave a lasting impression in the hearts and minds of anyone either.
June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
james said:

"Anyone opposing the general belief as to what this bill stands for, as in, it stands for the protection of copyright, and grants fair use and even protects free speech, could in fact be a dinosaur. "


On the contrary... it does the exact opposite of granting fair use, protecting free speech and anything else for that matter. Other than the "studios" ability to trump consumers rights and monetize things for their own greed.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn the welfare queen - Old hat, heard it before... The man is oppressing the people and we all have to rise up and... and... thieve from them...

I mean until we all get off welfare and realize the modern industries aren't THAT bad to work for...

Not that I do, I do my best to support smaller artists, or smaller business. It's tiring knowing all those welfare queens are out there, let me tell you...
June 22, 2010

end user said:

...
@ James Or it could mean industry is one upping the pirates and providing value where the pirates are failing miserably.

Which one do you think it means?

File Sharing programs, offer almost nothing to consumer from a sharing perspective.

The pirates are old news. It happened a while ago.

REALLY? How about real mafia providing better services and customer service then the enterteinment industry

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/hollywood-faces-new-piracy-threat-reuters

Treat your customers like criminals and don't offer them anything new you get upped by the next guy who has a vision.


June 22, 2010

Glenn said:

...
Ohh james is now not only calling all of us thieves but welfare bums... and yet no one here has ever said they want to STEAL. They only want to be able to exercise their fair use rights as consumers whom have PAID for the media in question.

Wait a second.. that's no change.. he's still spewing the same shit.

June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@enduser - Only time will tell, right?

http://www.google.com/trends?q=cyberlockers,+netflix

I think if anybody really wanted to route around in a locker to download a movie and play it, they can. All the mac users can go back to HotLine if they want. Same thing right?

Anyone remember HotLine?
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@glenn the welfare queen - I know, I was shocked with Netflix Wii II integration too...

That's some serious value, even for the welfare queens.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
I'll be honest with you guys. I'm terrified for Canada's future. And that's not from the perspective that Pirates are somehow decreasing the value of digital media, or somehow robbing reporters of fair use.

I'm terrified for Canada's future because the pirates aren't creating any value, and everybody else is.

We're getting left behind.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
Hey... Where did all the self-righteous go?
June 22, 2010

end user said:

...
@James pirates aren't creating any value

Seriously you're retarded. I just posted a link that debunks your statement. No one is going to pay $20 for a movie download. Price them at $2-5 and people will flock to them. They lose a hard drive oh well its only $2 to download the movie again Bang - repeat customers. Hell at $3 per download I wouldn't even bother going to pawn shops to get new releases for $3.

Its the blind leading the blind while the consumer gap gets further and further away.

Thats it for me in this thread.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@enduser - They will if it's convenient...

Guys... you think your talking to someone who isn't knee deep in open source code on a daily basis...

I'm not not embarrassed of Canadians. I'm ashamed that they can't do any better.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
I don't follow the public versus private sector that much. But I'm fairly sure all the private sector high tailed it like little pussies to the public sector when the tough got going...

Welfare Queens
June 22, 2010

phillipsjk said:

I think I noticed a trend
When "James" said we had some good points, and apologised for his "trollish" behavior: that even was preceded by several people saying saying they were leaving the thread to do more productive things. This like playing video games or watching TV.

Then after what must have been a hour of no responses "James" wrote:
"Hey... Where did all the self-righteous go?"

"end user" then made a response, and "James" posted two more messages.

Looks like popular wisdom wins out: you are wasting your time talking to trolls. If nobody responds, "James" will post to himself about 20 times, them give up.

Though, that said, I don't think "James" is truly a "Toll" he does not meet some of the common criteria, such as posting inflametory post in order to generate a lot of response. While "James" has done that on occasion, zie is participating in the discussion more than a typical Troll would. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I think "Shill" fits best, though his identity is still unclear. As someone pointed out, we would expect a lawyer to show more intelligence and knowledge about the issues. If I had to guess specialization, I would say "web developer." "James" claims to be "knee-deep" in source-code all day, but does not understand how computers work at any deep level.

TL;DR I'm finished with this thread too. I am not on welfare, but I really should be putting extra effort into looking for work.
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@phillip - There is talk about radical extremists. Considering nobody on this website seems to know who that is... Maybe it's everybody posting here?

It's like a cult of self-righteous anti-copyright defenders bickering over digital locks and how they prohibit fair use.

You saw netfix right? What digital lock are they using?

And yes, they are trends, but I didn't stumble across them... it's true... pirate culture and anit-copyright types are getting left behind.

tl;dr???

You've had nothing better to do that fight an imaginary shill justice league for the last few days.

Copyright law, you're right, it might be irrelevant, convenience trumps consumer attitude anyday. The DVD digital lock, it's starting to make more sense to me now. It could be the last blow to everything you worked so hard copying the last ten years...

Fight for the pirates... they've got you're back...
June 22, 2010

oldguy said:

@james

Many times you have made the comment that you came here to learn. Regardless of the validity of that statement, based on your comments here, you still have that opportunity.

I see 3 major things you have a poor or incorrect understanding of the issues with TPM and copyright.

1) TPM as a technology within the field of cryptology.
2) TPM as applied to copyrighted works.
3) TPM as applied under bill C-32, a proposal for our law.

From what I have seen, we have heavily discussed points 1 and 3 above. You are still not seeing the issues, technical, ethical or legal. Perhaps that is because you are missing point 2.
I suggest you carefully (take your time) to read and understand this link. It is a pretty decent treatment of point 2 and touches on points 1 and 3.

http://www.itworldcanada.com/b...ded/53172/

Feel free to come back and "ask questions". I'm sure that are lots of people that can answer. But if you simply disagree with the technology, or the relationships, or the legal ramifications then I personally am not interested in "helping you to understand".

If you really do understand the issues, feel free to challenge my technical or legal interpretations. But the silly "arguments" you have presented show clearly that you have not done your homework. Point to specific links, specific technical or legal details, to bolster your arguments or refute. Please, no wishy washy stuff. Stick to logically formulated, legal or technical refutations.



June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I understand there are specific laws that deal with cryptography technology, some countries won't allow you export the product, others won't let you import it.

In the realm of copyright law, you have step back and wonder where the digital lock is for circumventing is on NetFlix broadcasted to a Wii. Right?

I can't agree that DVD locks actually prohibit fair use at all.

I don't have any questions t ask when it comes to DVD's and "digital locks" specifically. Nothing is being locked out, at best it "was" a frustrating deterrant. The demuxing of the VOB files and the extraction of the subtitles, and the authoring is more difficult than circumventing a now superficial CSS Encryption.

In the future, should encryption technology fully prohibit any circumvention for fair use, as in the Video is Lazer Beamed directly into the consumers eyeballs bypassing any sort of recording device, then we could be in trouble.

But to be fair, Industry must not really be in sync with law enforcement to one degree or another. I mean why not slightly change the manufactering process ever so slightly to make DVD's have a unique digital signature, than when copied can be traced back to the origianl phsyical.

In any event, with DVD's specifcally, this whole digital lock argument is bogus. jmo...

This is interesting stuff though. Iran and Iraq simply don't like encryption technologies a whole lot. I suspect it's due to law enforcement. I would hate if that would ever happen in Canada.

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

The three strikes and your out rule I would suspect is in effect to one degree or another in those countries.

Does it worry you that Canada even considered it? I know ISP's changed their policies within the last few years, I don't know the specifics, but it's worrysome to me at least. Maybe we are moving more towards American Culture in this regard rather than any sort of commercialization?

Thats all basically the same questin. How important is copyright law in Canada?
June 22, 2010

phillipsjk said:

I know is said I was done..
"But to be fair, Industry must not really be in sync with law enforcement to one degree or another. I mean why not slightly change the manufactering process ever so slightly to make DVD's have a unique digital signature, than when copied can be traced back to the origianl phsyical."

I am not sure (the details are secret), but I think the new digital video format (Blu-ray) may do that. the AACS licensing administrator requires a "protected path" all the way to the display device: whether it is in the same room or not.

For video output, the signal is scrambled using HDCP. Every device in the chain must authenticate the next device in the chain. Each device in the chain must also decrypt the signal and re-encrypt it before passing it on. The DRM interoperability standard, DTCP allows the propagation of "system" renewability messages." SRMs allow the revocation of specific devices if they are found to be in breach of contract. For example, if a device key is easy to extract, the device maker is in breach of contract because they did not make their device "robust" enough.

Now, you are in charge of designing HDCP or some other encryption scheme. How would you go about determining which devices are compromised? Hope the 'pirates' brag about their equipment or where they got the device key? It may work, but would require a lot of detective work.

Remember how I mentioned that every device in the chain must authenticate and re-encrypt the signal? Why not add a unique "device identifier" using a watermark as well? If multiple watermarks are added to the stream, they can all be extracted. What way, when you find a "blu-ray rip" in the wild, you can simply revoke the last device in the chain in the next release!

(still done with this thread)
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
@phillipsjk - I'm on an old laptop, it's fairly slow playing back HD video from the web.

I am unsure how Blue-Ray is compatible with Computers. However, I don't see why the newer machines would have any issues recording what is sent to screen.

Are you saying you cannot put a Blue Ray disc into a BSD or Linux machine?
June 22, 2010

James said:

...
Consumers still have the choice to buy what products they want, and industry can sell whatever products they want.

Worse case scenario, a consumers investment is protected for a while, pirates and those who exercise fair use have to live with a less than perfect copy.

I do appreciate you taking the time to explain the blue ray scheme though.

I'm not for or against pirating really. I'm just saying the convenience issue is what it boils down to. Consumers will go with what is convenient. I know the argument which suggest non CopyRight compliant devices might cause some t buy double copies of media, or something similar. But if they can afford it and they really really want it. Who is to say industry can't make a product with Digital Locks because it's "expensive".

That's about it. I will stick to Youtube and watch the free movies.
June 22, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."Thats all basically the same questin. How important is copyright law in Canada?"

Wrong question. This is way too simplistic a viewpoint. Break down the individual components, research the background of each, and identify reasonable examples of each component.

I could ask the same kind of open ended question. How important is freedom in Canada? You want to start down that road? It includes and encompasses your question, and much, much more.

Did you read the article I referenced? Did you follow any of the links referenced? Do you have any questions that reference examples or technology in the article?

Do some research and think about the full topic. Lots of us have been thinking about this, for years. You have yet to directly directly address anything of substance about our concerns with TPM and C-32, or even the wider issue of copyright in a digital age.

June 23, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."I'm not for or against pirating really. I'm just saying the convenience issue is what it boils down to. Consumers will go with what is convenient."

Duh.. This is marketing 101. Business 101. Economics 101. Something the entertainment industry seems to have forgotten..

June 23, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I'm just saying... I wasn't implying that somehow that the Entertainment industry forgot it.

If anything it's more of a fascist move which attacks smaller industries trying to keep their head above water.

No consumer rights are lost. Industry Wins, or they lose fostering their nazi like reputation.

But the small business probably loses out, especially if they can't afford to get into the Blue Ray market, but especially if they can't get their discs to conform to CopyRight protected devices.

When I was burning DVDs, if one didn't play in those devices, looking back 5-6 years ago, it was probably a closed circuit system.

So production companies might lose out. Maybe. How does that sound.
June 23, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - but anyways, back then our answer was, if you want it to play in every device you have to do at least a short run glass master press, and the one off recordables were not guaranteed to play in all devices.

June 23, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."No consumer rights are lost. Industry Wins, or they lose fostering their nazi like reputation."

..."So production companies might lose out. Maybe. How does that sound."

It's pretty obvious you haven't yet read the referenced article and it's links. Do so. It will be worthwhile for you, even if your purpose here is simply to advocate for industry. Also, there are cross references to quite a bit of other research, analysis, viewpoints, and discussion on the topic.



June 23, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I did the skim through the article. I do my research. Things are alot different these days. The way I see it, Google came along and took a free market and made it explode. But I think those days are at a turning point. I mean they themselves have hit a point where they can keep being "innocent" they have to step on people to get where they want to go, and that's forward.

At the same time, they are practically communist as far as an equal distribution of wealth goes the way I see it, or at least at one point they were, but even they are starting to "scuplt" links and their values. It's still an incredibly wide open free market, the internet and media in general if you ask me... I just think the further we go along, the government will take more freedoms away, probably under the guise to protect everyone, industry will do what it can to control distribution channels, small business will always be the underdog, and pirates will continue to erode everything from the inside out chasing a fake cause when they could be working for everybody else.

Why pirates latch onto the concept of FOSS is beyond me. It's a start and that's it, as a communal resource, big business just rapes it, while small business is suffocated by it.

I don't need to research all the topics to understand it. I don't have all the numbers for sure, but I do try to avoid biases. That's why I flip flop from ne side to the other.

I do appreciate all your information. You do seem like an old guy and do respect everything those who have a lot more mileage than myself. It's the punks I can stand.
June 23, 2010

Crockett said:

...
Today Heritage Minister James Moore warned against those "radical extremists", people seeking to oppose Bill C-32.

Right... if someone disagrees with ol' James he becomes a terrorist 0_o

Guess he thinks they are all punks too.

Someone mentioned that the "James" who has posted a few hundred times in this long running carpet bombing thread was actually James Moore the Heritage minister. I said no, the minister must be more informed that, but now I am not so sure!
June 23, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
.."I did the skim through the article. I do my research."

It's not something you can skim and understand. The ramifications take thoughtful consideration - and more research. The first time I read that, I thought about it for at least an hour. Then did more research and more thinking. And I have the advantage that I fully understand the technical issues, applications, and limitations of the technology as well as Russell does. He just puts it differently, perhaps better.

The more you think about the issues surrounding TPM and legal protection for TPM measures within copyright law, the more you realize that this goes beyond, way beyond "convenience".

Russell has an interesting observation. There is a way to make this perfect "balanced" in a legal fashion, but the industry has to stop selling media and content. They have to go into the rental business, where they rent you the DVD *and* the DVD player, perhaps the TV and your whole home theater. Follow the chain of TPM protection to see where you need "rent". Likewise the IPad, or portable media player or whatever. The user never "owns" any of these devices themselves. Copyright then becomes an issue between the holder and the distributor/rental agent. Do your own research.

I really doubt this will turn out to be a viable economic model though, at least not yet.

If you analyze it closely, you will see TPM is only interesting to copyright holders who are interested in a monetary return. Other copyright holders (and there are LOTS of them) really don't care one way or another about protecting their content through TPM. Fundamentally, TPM isn't about "the rights of the creator", it's about "economic protection". It doesn't even belong in copyright law per se.

Then you turn to the technical analysis of how useful TPM actually is for the task of "economic protection", and you find it's almost useless. This arises because TPM isn't an appropriate technology to accomplish this task within current copyright based business models.

The industry has tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. Rather than admit their mistake, they are trying to drive that fit through legislation. I don't care how carefully you try to place that square peg into that round hole, there will be gaps and abrasions. Which is what we see in C-32. Can we change C-32 so TPM is a better fit? Not really, it was never designed to fit. Can we smooth some of the edges? Perhaps, but someone will ALWAYS suffer under the abrasion.

So step back again (and here comes Jason). Change the business models. TPM isn't needed anymore (and it was never appropriate anyway). Experiment with lots of different models.

And still you wonder why I consider the application of TPM in C-32 a "bad law". In reality, what good does it do? It's simply snake oil hype. It will never give any measure of economic security. It doesn't really belong in copyright law. And it has way, way too much potential to be misused (and we have evidence from the DMCA to see examples of how).


June 23, 2010

James said:

...
@crockett - You would probably like this video on the Linux Development. If not you, anybody else who is all gung ho about FOSS somehow contributing to the betterment of society. From the looks of it, Society is drained while Big Business keeps all the profits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2SED6sewRw

It gets the part on who funds it around here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2SED6sewRw#t=22m00s

Now I could be way off, but shouldn't big industry who uses the software be contributing to it the most?

I just think it's a big wake up call for all the FOSS supporters as they seem to be in this thread, correct me if I am wrong. In any event, I am not kernel programmer.
June 23, 2010

Crockett said:

BREAKING NEWS FLASH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The head of Canada’s spy agency says foreign governments have infiltrated Canadian politics, CBC News reported Tuesday night."

Heh, I must say I'm shocked. I never suspected such a thing could happen 0_o

Do you think it could go all the way up to the Heritage department?

Ref. (www.nationalpost.com/news/ Foreign+powers+have+infiltrated+Canadian+politics+CSIS+
head+says/3188357/story.html#ixzz0reY7HiCp)
June 23, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."Now I could be way off, but shouldn't big industry who uses the software be contributing to it the most?"

Off we go again.. You simply aren't doing your research. The current Linux kernel has approx 13% of the developers unaffiliated with corporations. The rest comes from various individuals that are supported by a variety of corporate entities. The largest single corporate contributor is Red Hat at 11%.

Everyone can contribute. Everyone can benefit. Including those "big corps". I haven't "paid" a single cent for my GPL software installs in the last 10 years. But I have contributed, in money and in time and in code. So can anyone, even if it's just pretty icons.

This topic will take you a LOT longer to wrap your head around, and a LOT more research. I suggest you back away now, you are simply not yet equipped to understand it. You lack both knowledge and fundamental perspective. It's the perspective that will trip you up, every time.
Trust me, it works. And very well. But you *will* have to turn your world view upside down, a few times. I came from the pure corporate world. I know.

June 23, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - if you are basically saying there is no perfect answer to accommodate everybody, I certainly understand.

It's just chaos. I wouldn't expect any law to be completely fair or just.

The new business model sounds ideal. Just rentals, but then everybody is going to want to share anyways, and those digital locks or closed circuit systems will start to tighten down on fair use capabilities.

I've never felt that ownership of material items was a really big deal anyways. Not DVD digital media anyways. Celluloid, Film, Books, Art, different story.
June 23, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - I'm just wondering where the Android Phones and Google Server Farms play a role in all of that. I'm not really an IT guy. I understand Red Hat is Canadian. That's about it...

I know this OSX machine is to one degree of another a BSD machine, I'm just wondering where everybodies shares are...
June 23, 2010

oldguy said:

@james
..."It's just chaos. I wouldn't expect any law to be completely fair or just."

Perhaps not. But that isn't an excuse for it to be as fair and equitable as it can possibly be.

But I certainly can expect, and perhaps demand, that our laws be internally consistent as to purpose, intent, and application. C-32 is a long way from that.
And all because they tried to shoehorn TPM into someplace it never belonged.

June 23, 2010

James said:

...
Well. I think it's fair the way it is. I don't think it's an improvement to remove the digital locks. Not on DVDs or Kindles or whatever.

So long as there is fair use, for consumers and reporters.

So long as for educational purposes those technologies can be reverse engineered or broken.

So long as it is a free distribution channel in regards as to whom can enter it. Based on quality rather than some sort of discrimination.

There are plenty of distribution channels. It's still for the most part a free market the way I see it.

I don't see anything severely wrong with it. But I don't have the numbers, what I say is just opinion.

@Crockett - neat stuff
June 23, 2010

oldguy said:

...
..."I understand Red Hat is Canadian."

Nope, American. Always have been. Start researching.

..."I'm just wondering where everybodies shares are..."

http://kernel.org

http://bsd.org

http://distrowatch.com

Dive in.. See you in about 10 years..

June 23, 2010

oldguy said:

...
.."So long as there is fair use, for consumers and reporters."

And because of the way TPM is applied in C-32, it overrides the above. Not good.

..."So long as for educational purposes those technologies can be reverse engineered or broken."

Your tech knowledge is too weak here to appreciate this. The user already has the "lock", it's in his DVD player or his computer. You just handed him the key to the encrypted content when you handed him the DVD.
It really doesn't take much "reverse engineering" to figure out how to apply that key to the lock and convince it to hand you a decrypted stream that is copied to a file rather than displayed on the screen or sent to the amplifier.
TPM as applied in the copyright industry *depends* on the user's ignorance of the technology. Any copyright holder that "trusts" TPM to protect his content, as it is used in the industry, is just lapping up that snake oil.

Does TPM deter unauthorized copying? No, it can't by it's very nature. So what does it do? It supersedes a user exercising the rights granted to him elsewhere in C-32. It tramples all over them.
So tell me again, just why do we have TPM in C-32? What is it's real purpose?

June 23, 2010

James said:

...
@oldguy - What did I say a thousand times over. It's a minor inconvenience.

Come on guy... quit being such a prick
June 23, 2010

James said:

...
excuse me...
June 23, 2010

James said:

...
Sorry... I don't like being interrogated...

The only possible thing it could do is cause incompatibilities between blank media which has problems playing on devices which are expecting copyrighted protected materials.

If you don't have a disc which is built to work in a specific device then it might not play in it.

So my guess is all you need to do is spend a few minutes on the forums to see if there is any truth to it...

http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/doesn-t-recognize-the-blue-ray-disk-t367291.html

It's probably meant to keep blank media from being played on copyrighted closed circuit devices. But I can't find anything on it... Not much doubt about it though... jmo...

June 23, 2010

oldguy said: