Copyright Lobby Astroturf Site Adds Mandatory, Uneditable Letter to MPs |
| Print | |
|
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)
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. |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
... 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. |
|
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. |
|
... 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 |
|
... @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 |
|
@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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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? |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
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.... |
|
Meh So what is yer average MP gonna think when they receive so many identical letters? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... -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. |
|
... @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. |
|
@ 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. |
|
... 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 |
|
... @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. |
|
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. |
|
... @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. |
|
@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. |
|
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? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... "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. |
|
@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. :) |
|
... @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 |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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! |
|
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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @ James Ah your true nature has been exposed more than enough for a nice BIG label to be tattoo'd on your forehead: SHILL |
|
... @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? |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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 =) |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
@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" |
|
... 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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... @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? |
|
... " 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. |
|
... @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... |
|
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. |
|
... @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... |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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) |
|
... @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. |
|
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" |
|
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" |
|
... @ 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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
@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. |
|
... @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... |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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 ) |
|
... @glenn - who its arts technica? I stopped believing the content written by bloggers a long time ago... |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
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! |
|
... @ James Once again thanks for the laugh and proving again you are a complete idiot. @ Headshaker Nicely 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. |
|
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. |
|
... "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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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.). |
|
... @ 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) |
|
... 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. |
|
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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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 |
|
... @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 |
|
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. |
|
... @headshaker - You are Richard Dawkins crowd... Don't you ever worry about all the time you waste? |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... @glenn - Are you the guy who made a point to clearly define the difference between sensationalism and "truthfulness"? |
|
... @ 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? |
|
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. |
|
... @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. |
|
...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. |
|
T-T-That's all. Well, I think I'd better stop before James explodes in TrollFyre. Ta! |
|
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. |
|
... @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? |
|
... @ 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 |
|
... 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 |
|
... 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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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? |
|
... 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 |
|
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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @glenn - Then read the thread again and understand that the form letter is a "call to action" or words to raise awareness. |
|
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. |
|
... "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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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. |
|
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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... "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 |
|
... @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. |
|
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." |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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! |
|
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. |
|
... @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? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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. |
|
@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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
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. |
|
... 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. |
|
glenn,that's what a shill does They deny everything and praise the ground the MAFIAA sits on. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
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? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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? |
|
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. |
|
... @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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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? |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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? |
|
... @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? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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". |
|
... @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 |
|
... @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) |
|
... @James - And there is no hypothetical involved. The bill makes it so it's not hypothetical. |
|
... @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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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". |
|
... @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 |
|
... @James - But I can convert VOG MPEG 4 with conversion programs, so that's not a problem. |
|
... 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 |
|
... @James - And DVD's contain CSS encryption. Which is what DECSS decrypts. You need to do that before the conversion can take place. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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` |
|
... @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? |
|
... @chris - I don't understand what your question is. I tried to answer it several times. What is your problem? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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." |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @James - I've asked it a few times already. Not going to type it again since you won't answer it again. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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? |
|
... @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. |
|
@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/ |
|
... 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? |
|
... 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 |
|
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. |
|
... @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. |
|
@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. |
|
@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! |
|
@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. |
|
@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. |
|
@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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
@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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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? |
|
... @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? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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... |
|
... @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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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) |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
@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. |
|
... @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. |
|
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. |
|
@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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @crokett - meaning you can still copy the DVD without breaking the encryption. Just Dub it from one machine to the next. |
|
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. |
|
... 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? |
|
... @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. |
|
@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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
@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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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? |
|
... @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? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @guys - I have some laser disc for sale... Non-Encrypted. They were build in the civilized era... |
|
... 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. |
|
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? |
|
@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. |
|
... @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? |
|
@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. |
|
@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. |
|
... @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. |
|
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?). |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
... @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? |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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?) |
|
... @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? |
|
... 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. |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
... @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... |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
@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. |
|
... @ 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 :) |
|
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)... |
|
... 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @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" |
|
... 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? |
|
... @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 |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... 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? |
|
... 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... |
|
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. |
|
... @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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... @glenn - Another HideBound Reactionary! So what part of the Bill don't you like? Or the Form letter for that matter? |
|
... @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. |
|
... @ 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. |
|
... 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. |
|
... @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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
... @ 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 th |
Subscribe to this comment's feed