Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • Last Call on C-11: My Appearance Before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade & Commerce

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Last Call on C-11: My Appearance Before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade & Commerce

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Friday June 22, 2012

Today is copyright day at the Senate, where the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce is devoting seven hours to hearing from over 20 witnesses on Bill C-11, the copyright reform bill that passed the House of Commons earlier this week. I was asked to appear and participated in the first session of the day. My opening statement is posted below. The discussion focused primarily on the digital lock rules with a good opportunity to focus on the dangers of the current approach.  My recommendation was to use the regulation power found in Bill C-11 to create a digital lock exception linking circumvention to copyright infringement.


Appearance before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade & Commerce
June 22, 2012

Good morning.  My name is Michael Geist.  I am a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. I am also a syndicated weekly columnist on law and technology issues for the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen. I edited “From Radical Extremism to Balanced Copyright: Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda”, the largest academic study on Bill C-11, with peer reviewed contributions from 20 leading Canadian experts.

I appear before this committee today in a personal capacity representing only my own views. As when I appeared before the House of Commons legislative committee on then-Bill C-32 in December 2010, I wish to emphasize that I am supportive of much of what is now Bill C-11. There are many positive elements in the bill that reflect a genuine attempt at striking a balance and developing forward-looking copyright laws. However, the bill also suffers from a very serious flaw that has been the source of considerable controversy and widespread opposition – the digital lock rules. 

Let me start with several of the positive elements of the bill:

1. The fair dealing reforms, which add parody, satire, and education to the list of fair dealing categories, represent an attempt to strike a balance between those seeking a flexible fair dealing provision and those opposed to new exception categories altogether. I think the C-11 compromise is a good one. The government rightly rejected misleading claims that the changes will permit unlimited, uncompensated copying.  It is fair dealing, not free dealing, and the new changes will be subject to a six-factor test developed by the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure fairness.

2. The bill adds several new consumer provisions, including time shifting, format shifting, backup copies, and an exception for user generated content. Some of these exceptions are long overdue as they reflect common consumer practices.

3. The bill rightly distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial infringement for the purposes of statutory damages. Canada is in a small minority of countries with any statutory damages at all. The prospect of multi-million dollar liability for non-commercial infringement is unconscionable and this change will remove that risk.

4. The bill’s approach to Internet providers is a fair one that provides rights holders with an effective tool to counter online infringement, respects the privacy and free speech rights of Canadians, and assigns an appropriate role to ISPs.  It is a model that the legislative committee heard works well and that other countries such as Chile have begun to emulate.

While these are some of the positive elements, the digital lock rules remain a serious problem. I should clarify that much of the concern does not come from digital locks per se.  Companies are free to use them if they so choose.  Moreover, there is general agreement that there should be some legal protection for digital locks since it is a requirement of the WIPO Internet treaties.

Rather, the concern stems from C-11’s unbalanced position on digital locks in which the digital lock trumps virtually all other rights.  This distorts the copyright balance not only for the existing exceptions in the Copyright Act, but also for the new consumer rights, which can be trumped by a digital lock at a time when locks are widely found on devices, DVDs, e-books, and more.

The most obvious solution would have been to amend the bill by clarifying that it is only a violation to circumvent a digital lock where the underlying purpose is to infringe copyright.  This approach - which has been adopted by trading partners such as New Zealand, Switzerland and India (the same countries with which we are negotiating international agreements such as ACTA, CETA, and the TPP) - would have ensured that the law could be used to target clear cases of commercial piracy but that individual consumer and user rights are preserved.

This approach received wide support during the C-32 and C-11 hearings.  Business groups, creator groups, consumer groups, education groups, and library groups all supported this approach as did tens of thousands of Canadians who wrote to their elected officials on the bill. The urgency for change stems from the genuine harm the current approach may cause:
  • The House of Commons Industry Committee recently heard from an intellectual property enforcement firm who expressed concern the digital lock rules will actually harm efforts to enforce IP rights.
  • Documentary film makers warned that the absence of an exception for DVDs will leave Canadian creators at a competitive disadvantage relative to U.S. film makers who do have such an exception.
  • Groups representing the visually impaired fear that the blind will not have full access to electronic materials since a digital lock exception for those with perceptual disabilities is ineffective.
  • Teachers and librarians worry that Canadians will lose their ability to use their fair dealing rights once a digital lock is installed.
  • Researchers have expressed concern that they may be blocked from conducting legitimate research and unable to apply for research grants to support their activities.
  • Constitutional scholars warn of the constitutional risks of a digital lock approach that is fundamentally about regulating private property, a provincial matter, rather than protecting copyright.
  • Business experts note that the Canadian digital economy has succeeded without restrictive digital lock legislation. The Business Software Alliance recently reported that Canada has shown the fastest decline in piracy rates in the world over the last five years. The IFPI, the global music association, reports that Canada is now the third leading paid music download country in the world with Canadians buying more music downloads than either Germany or Japan, and more than Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden combined.
Let me conclude by reiterating that there are many good provisions in Bill C-11 and that fixing the harms caused by digital lock rules that extend far beyond international requirements was relatively easy. The decision to reject amendments to address this concern and leave the digital lock rules intact effectively locks out the blind, creates disadvantageous barriers for creators and educators, and stifles innovation. That is a cause for concern, not celebration.

That said, I recognize the urgency of getting the bill passed and the desire of many to not hold it up with further amendments. There is a solution for the digital lock problem that does not require any amendment to the bill, however. Section 41.21 (2) of C-11 includes a regulation making power to add exceptions to the digital lock rules as the government recognized that there were legitimate concerns for overbroad, anti-competitive, anti-consumer effects. Therefore, the committee should recommend a new exception be created by regulation before the bill takes effect that permits circumvention for non-infringing purposes. This approach would ensure that the bill can pass quickly, be used to target clear cases of commercial infringement, support businesses that wish to use digital locks, and ensure that many affected groups are not unduly harmed by the legislative reforms.
Comments (82)add comment

John Eric Pollabauer said:

Lawyer
Your written submission is excellent and addresses the concerns over the mid-use of digital locks quite effectively. Congratulations on a job well done. aNow let's all hope that the message gets acted upon.
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
Interesting read; you get 5 points from the EFF, people like Lawrence Lessig would be pleased, but I don't think our Government is as easily manipulated.

Best of luck Mr. Geist!

June 22, 2012

Brian said:

Nicely done!
Yeah, very impressive opening remarks. It seems very difficult to see how an honest, unbiased government can ignore such a well-put explanation and solution to the current imbalance.

Too bad ours is not an honest, unbiased government and it's sad that Prof. Geist's very well argued points will again be completely dismissed. Being a "radical" and all.
June 22, 2012

end user said:

...
Mr Geist I fear this will fall on deaf ears, you'd have better luck if you were an American corporation.
June 22, 2012

Anti_Harper said:

..
Ya like others said good luck Giest hope they listen. So after this meeting today what's next, are we going to see this get Royal Asscent before summer break?
June 22, 2012

Gthang said:

Tech Expert
Ya why shouldn't they listen to a technology expert I mean you obviously know what you're talking about...... oh ya that's right you aren't American.
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
The meeting is being aired live and for FREE!, why aren't you watching it if you're that concerned?
Unless you prefer to rely on 2nd hand info and on-line personal diaries?

June 22, 2012

JKL said:

.
I can't watch because I get too angry at what some of these people have to say.
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
JKL - have your parents watch it with you if your fears are that great? I certainly don't meant to be rude here but if you're that young, do you really think Copyrights and Intellectual Property Law(s) are things you should be concerning yourself with?
(I can only assume based on your rather immature comment that you're very young in age.)
June 22, 2012

Annie O said:

Our history has been to side with Europe on fundamentals, not the US, by the way.
Europe has rejected ACTA for exactly the same reasons that the EFF, Lessig and millions of others now understand: that you cannot allow the old monopoly positions to take any root in our common software arrangements. (In others words, don't break the Internet.) To outlaw the private use of a popular class of software, and mandate the
trackability and lockdown on our hardware that C-11 and the copyright industry seeks, is not even possible. I'll repeat, not even possible, because people will want around it.
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
Annie O:
Since cut n paste is your thing ...

PART 1
Harold Camping has famously predicted the end of the world three times.

His first prediction — September 6, 1994 — came and went with little fanfare. His second attempt at setting a date for the apocalypse was far more successful. The Internet was abuzz as May 21, 2011 approached. But again, the world did not end.

Undeterred, Camping checked his math and announced a new date. October 21, 2011, would mark the final day of everything we know, for real this time. Wrong once again, the former leader of the California-based Family Radio has apparently retired from his role as apocalyptic soothsayer.

Apocalypse Now?

I mention Camping because a similar phenomenon occurs in the copyright realm. It seems that whenever new legislation is introduced, there are those who are ready to predict that if it passes, it will surely result in the demise of the Internet, or innovation, or some other thing we hold dear.

You can see this in action by taking a look at some of the headlines in response to the US House’s introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA):

Don’t Let Hollywood Break the Internet With the PROTECT IP Act!
Stop (U.S. Innovation) Online Piracy Act of 2011
SOPA: US House of Reps copyright bill proposes national censorship, attacks on hosting services, Twitter, YouTube
SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet
New Internet Blacklist Bill Could Shut Down Twitter And Youtube!
E-PARASITE Bill: ‘The End Of The Internet As We Know It’

This are just a sampling of the dire predictions about the epic catastrophes SOPA would bring if passed — the SOPAcolpyse, if you will.

But, like Camping, copyright’s skeptics have made these predictions before.

Sometimes they are done with striking consistency. Sci-fi author Cory Doctorow says SOPA “might be the worst-ever copyright proposal in US legislative history.” Not one to make use of hyperbole sparingly, Doctorow also declared a 2005 French proposal the “worst copyright law in Europe”; in 2007, it was an EU proposal that would surely be the “worst copyright law in the world!”; little more than seven months later, he stated that a Canadian legislative proposal “promises to be the worst copyright law in the developed world.”

The same goes for copyright activist Lawrence Lessig, a big proponent of the “break the internet” line over the years. Talking in 2003 about his idea for a compulsory license that would cover P2P activity, he said, “We have to buy [music and movie companies] off, so they don’t break the Internet in the interim.” That same year on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, it was DRM: “The response that the music industry has insisted on would be technologies that would essentially break the Internet.” Fast-forward to 2008, and Lessig, speaking at an event hosted by Harvard’s Berkman Center, Google, and the Family Online Safety Institute, again cautions against letting copyright law “break the Internet.”

June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
PART 2
The Sky is Falling

The doomsday scenarios began on day one. In February 1993, the Clinton administration put together the Information Infrastructure Task Force to study the advancement and development of information technologies, including the burgeoning Internet and infant web. Part of their mandate was examining the intersection of copyright law, digital technologies, and networked communications and exploring what changes were necessary.

The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights released its report, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure (the “White Paper”), in September of 1995, sparking the first wave of the “parade of horribles” that would accompany copyright reform from then on out.

Copyright scholar Pamela Samuelson penned an article in Wired magazine that gave a laundry-list of reasons to oppose legislation proposed after the White Paper was released: “your online service provider will be forced to snoop through your files”, it would “transform the emerging information superhighway into a publisher-dominated toll road”, it would “eliminate fair-use rights”, “it can be construed as outlawing many activities widely believed to be lawful.”

Others concurred. “The bill in Congress now, critics say, goes much too far … the Internet’s potential as a source of public education and free expression could be crippled … [it] could instead turn out to be the executioner of the Internet’s real promise.”

The initial legislation evolved to become the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which became law in 1998. Some still weren’t convinced the days of a free Internet weren’t numbered. A writer in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal predicted shortly after the DMCA became law that:

The post-DMCA Internet will feature even more of those damnable “404 – file not found” messages than it currently does. As media companies expand their demand-letter operations from commercial “piracy” to include negative commentary, transformative uses, and what they deem to be a little bit too much sampling or quotation, the ranks of the independent Internet publishers will be radically depopulated.

Ten years later, many of those same critics couldn’t praise the DMCA enough. Wired magazine calls it “the law that saved the web.” “Blogs, search engines, e-commerce sites, video and social-networking portals are thriving today thanks in large part to the notice-and-takedown regime ushered in by the much-maligned copyright overhaul.”

June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
PART 3
A Decade of Falling Sky

Since the DMCA, most copyright legislation has elicited similar responses.

The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act was passed in 1997, expanding the definition of “financial gain” in criminal copyright infringement and increasing criminal penalties. Among the opponents of the bill was the Association for Computing, which raised concerns that it would restrict dissemination of science, criminalize the transfer of information protected by fair use, and chill free speech in research institutions. Others warned it would greatly expand the scope of criminal infringement; “aggressive prosecutors would abuse their discretion to win convictions” or “bring weak felony cases to get quick misdemeanor plea bargains.”1

None of these concerns materialized. As Eric Goldman concludes after examining the five years following the Act, “the prosecutions to date appear generally consistent with Congress’ objectives for the Act.” None of the convictions could be fairly characterized as “de minimis“, none of the defendants could have raised a legitimate fair use defense, and universities and educators remained untouched by efforts under the Act.2

The Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention (ART) Act of 2005 added provisions to criminal copyright law that expressly targeted “camming” and distribution of pre-release commercial works. Critics called it draconian, foresaw an uptick in prison sentences, and decried a lack of fair use in the Act. The provisions have instead been used judiciously; prisons have not been filled with cammers and leakers.

2008 brought the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act, a broad bill that amended civil and criminal provisions of the Copyright Act and created the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator position, currently held by Victoria Espinel.

The response? Michael Seman of NetSherpa wrote, “The passing of the PRO-IP act is the latest in a string of actions taken by the U.S. Government that result in further constricting the free exchange of ideas,” one that “means we’re close to losing the flow of culture that the Internet so greatly facilitates.” Mike Masnick said, “All it will actually serve to do is to limit more creative forms of expression and much more innovative business models from being allowed to thrive.” And noted copyright scholar William Patry remarked, “The dangers in the new Zero Tolerance to copyright go far beyond the individuals swept within its net, although that is bad enough: the Zero Tolerance approach threatens respect for law itself.”
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
PART 3
Grokster pt. 2

Legislative proposals aren’t the only things that brings out the freedom and innovation pessimists.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster in 2005, holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright” may be liable for the resulting infringing acts by its users. In its amicus brief to the Grokster court, the National Venture Capital Association warned that a rule holding Grokster liable would “have a chilling effect on innovation.”

However, since Grokster:

[V]enture capital in the media and entertainment sectors grew faster than the rest of the VC market in four out of the six years. By comparison, in the five years before the Grokster decision, growth was lower in four of them. From 2000 to 2004, media and entertainment venture capital accounted for about 4.6 percent of total VC dollars invested. From 2006 through 2010, media and entertainment VC dollars grew to 7.1 percent of total VC dollars.3

This year alone, in a down economy, music-based startups have received nearly half a billion dollars in funding. And some of these startups are far more exciting than the mere hoarding of music files that Grokster and other P2P services offered.

Little difference that makes though. In a letter to Congress on the proposed PROTECT IP Act, a group of venture capitalists offer the same warning: the bill would “throttle innovation” and “chill investment.”

It’s the End of the World as We Know It

Despite this history, critics of the Stop Online Piracy Act promise that the bill spells the end of innovation, culture, freedom, and the very Internet itself, for real this time.

It won’t.

In the long term, the public benefits the most when both creators and innovators
succeed. And our laws should continue to adapt to make sure that happens.
Terry Hart • November 2, 2011
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
Mr Geist why are my comments not being posted? This wouldn't be censorship? would it?
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
I posted part 3, it seems to be blocked.
June 22, 2012

JohnF said:

@Dan
You asshat.
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
@JohnF
Grow-up
June 22, 2012

JohnF said:

..
I don't want to grow up I'm a Toys R Us Kid.
June 22, 2012

anon said:

@Dan
The series of tubes must have been clogged. They got through now though! all three...four parts! Good call the play the censorship cart, I bet that won you points on this blog.

The DMCA part that saved the internet (according to your sources) is the "notice and takedown". This part allowed youtube to exist without a massive ammount of litigation.. well, there is that pesky viacom one (...billion dollars!). I guess they didn't get the memo about the DMCA tool for takedown of their content or the amazing work YouTube does to help the content owners: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=plcp

I'm sure the RIAA doesn't try to abuse the rule that saved the internet... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...own_Notice
I mean, why would they when YouTube manages to push more media sales via free promotion?

Nice to see ICE keeping up that good work by simply pulling the plug on legitimate sites without proper oversight:
http://www.domainnamenews.com/legal-issues/ice-accidentally-takes-84000-websites/8808
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/bert-knabe/2010-11-29/ice-takes-down-77-internet-domains-without-warning

Who wouldn't want that kind of law in their country?

You no longer own a copy of software or buy a copy of a movie, you simply buy a license to view or use the software. That means in the end, if the rights holder decides it's time to revoke that license, then you have a worthless encrypted disc. Why is it that the Ads say "buy your copy today", when you actually don't own a copy? Would people still buy movies if the law was in place to inform consumers of what they are buying? Perhaps the marketing would be a lot harder with a "buy your license to view the copy you paid for today, but maybe not tomorrow - and only with a fully updated bluray player!" is a hard sell.

This law protects the content creators, that's awesome. Good job.. but what about the people who actually pay the salary of the elected officials.. you know, the ones who vote? Where is their protect or say in this law? Why were all the consumer advocate groups denied a say?

It's nice that you know this won't ruin the internet, I wish I could see the future so clear. But will we end up in a worse situation than without it? It's easy to point to extreme arguments.. such as "the internet will ruin music sales!".. And I think we all know who gets the crappy end of this stick - the public.
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
Anon,
First off we're in Canada not the USA.
And most importantly when we buy a movie or cd we do not own the material's on the disc, we own the plastic the Copyright Protected Works are packaged in. Read the terms of use.

June 22, 2012

anon said:

@Dan
my comments about the USA are because we may as well be there the way this government is pushing the pro-usa laws. And the same could be said to you about your DMCA rant.

And most importantly, that was my point. Go ask people what movies they own, see if they say "none, but I bought licenses for these ones.." then tell them to "Read the terms of use" like some jerk on the internet. The average Canadian isn't a Law student (and most don't gloat about being one by posting with that title in EVERY comment) and needs the elected officials to look out for their rights.

Keep studying.
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

Law student
and you keep trying!
June 22, 2012

LOL said:

@Dan
Why don't you go troll so where else, you're the only immature one here.
June 22, 2012

KL said:

...
I see the politicians are out for their
Summer recess.

This bill C-11 hasn't passed into law
yet, has it?
June 22, 2012

JG said:

@Dan
Please find somewhere else to spam.
June 22, 2012

crockett said:

...
Dan,

Please refrain from the old "I'm being censored" gambit to make you look more self important. There is this thing called a filter that automatically pauses a post over a certain length to check for spam. Be patient it will appear shortly. There is no mechanism or person that checks for opinions that may be contrary.

If that is what you are hoping to find try copyright maximalist site johndegen.com
June 22, 2012

mango said:

...
@anon

"You no longer own a copy of software or buy a copy of a movie, you simply buy a license to view or use the software. That means in the end, if the rights holder decides it's time to revoke that license, then you have a worthless encrypted disc. Why is it that the Ads say "buy your copy today", when you actually don't own a copy? Would people still buy movies if the law was in place to inform consumers of what they are buying? Perhaps the marketing would be a lot harder with a "buy your license to view the copy you paid for today, but maybe not tomorrow - and only with a fully updated bluray player!" is a hard sell.

This law protects the content creators, that's awesome. Good job.. but what about the people who actually pay the salary of the elected officials.. you know, the ones who vote? Where is their protect or say in this law? Why were all the consumer advocate groups denied a say?"

..seriously? ..did you even read the thing, or watch any of the meeting today? The focus of this is to ensure that artists and creators get to remain professionals instead of weekend hobbyists. I wish more people would feel encouraged to spend their lives doing what they love and were passionate about. There is so much generosity to the consumers that its borderline obscene. Do you remember cassette tapes, My fu*ck!ng walkman ate so many of those things and what did I do, i bought another one..no big deal. Now we only have to purchase A copy. Just one, one time and if its for your personal use, well you're pretty much covered (and who would know anyways...) You can drop it on anything you need to enjoy ..YAY! If we keep digging in our heels every time someone mentions drm we are ultimately going to alienate the people who make the world so colorful.

I would have kept the consumer groups away too, this isnt about us as consumers right, it just would have turned into another sopa circus and c'on now this is canada eh we know better
June 22, 2012

Dan said:

...
crockett,
I was not aware of the filter, and as you pointed out some sites will block and censor opinions that differ from their own. boingboing for example, blocked me and many others that tried to engage in debate.

crockett I don't know you, nor do I know the intent behind your actions or comments. I would appreciate that you ask me about me and not decide me for me.
A sense of "importance"? How would that even be possible? Unless of course you've already committed my person as being that shallow.

June 22, 2012

crockett said:

...
Dan,
Unlike some others here I welcome all opinions. I do appreciate though that people abide by their own standards. You berate some as childish yet complain immediately to censorship with little delay. If we can dispense with pettiness from all sides it will make for a better discussion.

You are correct I do not know you and surely cannot speak for your motives do I do apologize for that.

As for your comments above there is some truth to them, alarmist rhetoric is too often used to stir opposition. This is not limited this blog mor only one camp of these debates, need I remind you that the VCR was to be the Boston strangler of the entertainment industry?

The often quoted article from wired is one opinion among many of the merits of the DMCA, certainly there have been good aspects of the law but also abuses and deficiencies. It is only by debate from a wide audience that good solutions can be found. The problem with SOPA and similar efforts was it was driven mainly by stakeholders from only one side of the spectrum, this is why it was unacceptable and failed.

When there is inclusive and transparent effort then this impass exists can be reduced to find workable models for the new digital marketplace.
June 22, 2012

crockett said:

...
Please excuse the typos above, corrections on this cell phone screen do not work well.
June 22, 2012

crockett said:

...
Mango, respect is two way street. You seem to feel the consumer is being treated to obscene generosity? I'm not sure how to answer that but from a consumer s perspective I feel the behavior of your major professional organizations to be obscene. Your first effort should be to reign those in. I support the artists I enjoy and the ones who make an effort to connect with their fans (customers). It is not my job or purpose to turn your weekend hobby into a career, it's yours.
June 22, 2012

Napalm said:

...
@Dan: BS. Unlike Camping, a government has plenty of methods to enforce their "predictions" (legislation).
June 22, 2012

Eric L. said:

RE: Dan
BitTorrent piracy increases sales of ‘leaked’ albums: study - http://www.digitaltrends.com/m...ums-study/

It's Amazing The Lengths 'Music Supporters' Will Go To In Trying To Trash Success Stories - http://www.techdirt.com/articl...ries.shtml

What Filesharing Studies Really Say – Part 2 – P2P Has No Effect on Music Sales - http://www.zeropaid.com/news/1...sic-sales/

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

Canadian Bill C-11 – Harmful to Free Software - https://www.pirateparty.ca/uncategorized/canadian-bill-c-11-harmful-to-free-software

Trusted computing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/
June 23, 2012

Dan said:

...
RE:Eric L.
Your personal ideas thoughts and input seem to have omitted from your post; or are you a man that is willing and able to be groomed by random strangers of the World Wide Web?
Eric you posted nothing other than links to other people's thoughts and ideas, have you none of your own?


June 23, 2012

Dan said:

...
crockett,
RE: "You berate some as childish yet complain immediately to censorship with little delay. If we can dispense with pettiness from all sides it will make for a better discussion."
I fully agree. But what does a man do when another man assaults them? Nothing? Ignore it?
I don't think "berate" applies here (its rather strong for the situation in my opinion) in fact I feel that I pointed out the obvious, and I quote:
"JKL said: I can't watch because I get too angry at what some of these people have to say."

People like me voice our opinions and we're deemed "trolls" "asshats" "spammers" ... not everyone will agree with everyone and that's perfectly acceptable. Whats not acceptable are the disparaging attacks and comments. I haven't called anyone here a FREETARD, nor would I.
Its rude and childish. I am open to debate I'm certainly not open to being discredited by random strangers off the WWW.
Thank you for the apology, accepted 10000%.
Be well crockett
June 23, 2012

Eric L. said:

RE: Dan
I was just posting several links that demonstrate empirical evidence against the posts you decide to add to this discussion. It appears to me that you haven't considered the negative effects of so-called "intellectual legislation" and that you are viewing the effects through a strict "law student" guise. Now, obviously there is nothing wrong with law students in general. However, as with any concentration, not looking at any other perspective leads to dangerous conclusions. I had a law prof who argued that "national defence" was a good reason to break privacy at any time without a warrant, and that removing anonymity from the Internet was a good thing.
June 23, 2012

Jacob Four Four said:

Irrelevancy
I'm not interested in the discussion above.
---

Thank you for representing this opinion Michael.

I noticed with "they reflect common consumer practices" that even if new legislation doesn't represent common practices, it becomes as irrelevant as the old legislation. Bad legislation can have bad effects, but it didn't seem to succeed in goals.
June 23, 2012

Dan said:

...
RE: Eric L.
"I was just posting several links that demonstrate empirical evidence against the posts you decide to add to this discussion"
"Evidence"? Mike Masnick? The Pirate Party? "empirical evidence"? Seriously? How the hell does misinformed ignorance become empirical evidence for you? And of all people to use as a means to add credibility Mike Masnick!?

"I had a law prof who argued that "national defence" was a good reason to break privacy at any time without a warrant, and that removing anonymity from the Internet was a good thing."
Did you explain that to Google? No one I know uses anything by Google now due to the fact they actually read people's private emails. A company reads peoples emails and you have an issue with Government and privacy?
"anonymity" on the Internet? Does not exist and never has.

"However, as with any concentration, not looking at any other perspective leads to dangerous conclusions."
Its one thing to read, but its painfully obvious that a great many people do not comprehend what they're reading; and that I would argue leads to "dangerous conclusions".
In law we have no choice but to weigh both sides, unlike the great many "copyright experts" from twitter and face book (most of which thought IP rights were Internet protocol) I actually comprehend what I'm reading, and what I don't understand I'll ask a lawyer to explain. You stick with people like Mike Masnick I'll stick with the people who actually understand the laws their talking about.



June 23, 2012

Eric L. said:

RE: Dan
""Evidence"? Mike Masnick? The Pirate Party? "empirical evidence"? Seriously? How the hell does misinformed ignorance become empirical evidence for you? And of all people to use as a means to add credibility Mike Masnick!?"

So your counter to my links is to attack the standing of the authors rather than actually read the content of the articles. Like for example, how they link to studies which indicate that file sharing has a neutral or positive effect on digital sales. Or this link by Michael Geist that links to a Canadian-funded study that suggests that competition and innovation for media industries is a more effect course of action than digital handcuffs and restrictive legislation (http://bit.ly/LgeIbH). Or the fact that despite having "weaker" copyright laws, Canada has higher digital music sales than the US. Or the incidence of "Hollywood Accounting", which screws over the artists involved in movie production. Or the Sony Rootkit scandal (http://bit.ly/LIRKwo), a DRM system that would have been protected by the anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA had it not been exposed for being a rootkit.

"Did you explain that to Google? No one I know uses anything by Google now due to the fact they actually read people's private emails."

While I agree that Google's privacy violations to be egregious, I find this statement rather telling. Really? No one uses *anything* by Google now that you know? Really? No Android phones, the top selling mobile operating system? Google Search? And what do those you know use in turn? The oh so more secure products from Apple? Microsoft? I'm hoping that your statement here is sarcasm.

"A company reads peoples emails and you have an issue with Government and privacy?"

Well, objectively, both are equally egregious. That being said, Google hands over information to many governments, so trying to distinguish between the two parties is really quite pointless. I really don't understand your point though. Are you saying that because Google does it, that it's ok for the government to do it?

""anonymity" on the Internet? Does not exist and never has."

Tell that to the people developing Tor, I2P, CJDNS, etc. Of course it exists. It depends on the individual's drive to maintain it

"In law we have no choice but to weigh both sides"

Really. Because it seems you have quickly jumped to one side. By weighing both sides, are you referring to amount of cash?

"unlike the great many "copyright experts" from twitter and face book (most of which thought IP rights were Internet protocol)"

Right. Way to not link to these who you have described as "experts". For all I know, you took some random comments on those sites. Of course, you could be just making this up. BTW, I know that most of the copyright lawyers on Myspace and tumblr like to poop their pants and think that pirates stream data from ships on the ocean. Honest.

"I actually comprehend what I'm reading, and what I don't understand I'll ask a lawyer to explain. You stick with people like Mike Masnick I'll stick with the people who actually understand the laws their talking about."

Hmm, that's funny. So when lawyer Dr. Michael Geist explains this law, you get in a tissy? He can't comprehend law? Are the people who create and administer these studies on digital music sales and filesharing not understanding on what they are doing either?
June 23, 2012

Tim said:

@Dan
Dan Ciraco? Is that you? How's it going? :)
June 23, 2012

Napalm said:

...
Since we're at the history of internet and its privacy luminaries, let's also remember these:

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

Ah, the horrible times of dial-up internet, when IP addresses were oh so random... Fortunately we had some great inventors to fix it!
June 23, 2012

Crockett said:

...
Dan, since you brought up the "Freetard" quote (which you would not use) I would like to expand on that. Labels, admittedly including my own 'copyright maximalist' used earlier, really only serve to put people in a convenient box so as to ignore any of their opinions. I take exception to people telling me I am a 'Free Culturist', even when I try to explain I want nothing for free. This label (like anti-choice instead of pro-life) is by its very terms misleading.

I pay for all the media I use, unless it is given freely. I do not file share unless with permission to do so. I support independent artists and avoid media from labels and studios as much as possible. I prefer to pay artists directly through their own web sites, merchandise or performances. It is my belief that model betters serves artists in both their monetary and creative capacities and the more that adopt this approach the better. While they are are at it the more that walk away from any organization with **AA in their name the more power and control of their destinies they will acquire.

I appreciate artists and creators who take the extra effort to be responsive to their fans, and I go out of my way to recompense & promote them. A good example of this is www.thepianoguys.com. Two self made guys with talent and positive personalities who make you feel good about yourself and them. They understand the use of technology and the new digital marketplace. They also work damn hard (without label backing),not that other creators don't but these guys are doing it right.

I came to this blog about 5 years ago with this basic message ... creators need to stand on their own as their professional organization representatives are turning their own fans (and marketplace) against them. Today, for creators, the message is the same but now they have even greater tools and opportunity to do so.

If that makes me a 'Free' anything in the eyes of the popular artistic misinformed masses then so be it. Time will tell.
June 23, 2012

Devil's Advocate said:

@Eric L.:
I think you hit a nerve. This troll you're feeding seems to have some "issue" with Mike Masnick.

Just sayin'
;)
June 23, 2012

Crockett said:

...
OK Dan, because of your obvious disdain for Mike Masnick, I decided to check out the linked article Eric mentioned above.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/04291118843/its-amazing-lengths-music-supporters-will-go-to-trying-to-trash-success-stories.shtml

This quote from the article seems to line up with what I was saying ... "It highlights just how much fans really value artists. But, for some reason, it seems to make them really upset -- perhaps because it shows how much the fans value the artists, rather than the gatekeepers who used to take most of the money."

I am open to hear on what grounds you disagree with this premise?
June 23, 2012

Trey said:

RE: Dan
Excuse me, Mr. Dan. I would like to point some inconsistencies in what you have said. On a previous post, you said:

"I actually comprehend what I'm reading, and what I don't understand I'll ask a lawyer to explain. You stick with people like Mike Masnick I'll stick with the people who actually understand the laws their talking about."

So, based on this statement, it is clear you value the view, perspectives, and opinions of lawyers on a variety of issues. Why then do you attack Professor (and Doctor) Michael Geist, who is not only a lawyer but also a law professor with many years experience at a key Canadian university? Should you not by your admission trust his understanding of the law?

Earlier, you brought up the EFF with a negative connotation. You said:

"Interesting read; you get 5 points from the EFF, people like Lawrence Lessig would be pleased, but I don't think our Government is as easily manipulated."

I beg your pardon sir, but the EFF's staff consists of quite a few lawyers, including Cindy Cohn amd Hanni Fakhoury. Furthermore, Lawrence Lessig who you also brought up in your quote is also a lawyer.

It's quite contradictory, Dan, how you can say on one hand that you value lawyers so much as to trust them to provide you with accurate interpretations on legislation, "the people who actually understand the laws their talking about" as you put it. On the other hand, you then proceed to discredit lawyers like Michael Geist who by their own accolades are experts in their field.

From this, and with good old Occum's Razor, I can only draw the conclusion that the lawyers you apparently rely on are actually not well-educated lawyers in general, but rather a select group in strict line with your views. I'd even go so far as to guess that these lawyers are akin to Barry Sookman or James Gannon; they may even be the lawyers that you are referring to. Of course, that is just speculation on my part. I think, however, considering the history of those men coming on Michael Geist's blog (often making comments that are dishonest and/or misleading for the side of those who benefit from strong copyright legislation), that it is appropriate to bring up the possibility of a connection to those two men. Regardless, it appears that this clear contradiction on your part raises serious doubts to the pretence that you came to this blog to offer any serious, educated, and honest and debate that hasn't been inflenced in some way by special interests.

Also, I would hope that a law student would be able to use the proper form of there/their/they're in a sentence.
June 24, 2012

Dan said:

...
RE: Trey
I'm not going to make an attempt at defending myself with you Mr Trey, you are after all simply one of billions of random strangers of the www. For all I know you could be a 12 year old bitchy little girl.
I will gladly supply some back ground info though: I study at McGill in Montreal Canada. I have had the pleasure of meeting Michael Geist a few times. While I may not agree with all of his views, I do respect his insights. The EFF does in fact have many lawyers, to the best of my knowledge all libertarian. Same can be said for Lawrence. Barry Sookman I have meet many times, he is a partner at the same firm a close friend of mine works with. James Gannon I don't know well and have only chatted with him on a few occasions and briefly at that.
I worked closely with Me. Julius Grey last year, and will be working with the firm Robic this summer.
I did catch the THEIR vs THEY'RE vs THERE only after I posted the comment, but as you know there is no edit to fix the typo that bothered so very much, opps. You were able to understand the sentence however.
I have looked for the "inconsistencies" that you somehow found, I didn't find them.
"Why then do you attack Professor (and Doctor) Michael Geist" same can be said for that fun little sentence, where did find that?
I came to this blog with the hopes that the people here were intelligent well rounded and secure in THEIR (proper usage?) thoughts and ideas, and for the most part I was right. Have fun Mr Trey, but I'm not going to be playing along.

June 24, 2012

Dan said:

...
Crockett,
The "gatekeepers" I will assume to be the producers, or production companies that own the Rights to the Works by way of mutual agreement, no one forced the Artist to do so.
The Artist does have the option to remain independent.
The producers are now the investors, it's them that take the risk.
The Artist can focus on their craft and the producers can focus on the marketing of the Works. In most cases it's a mutually beneficial partnership.
Better known Artists can negotiate better terms and in some cases not all Rights are assigned to the producer(s).
Joss Stone I believe is independent and is a success. So it is possible to remain independent.
Film and television contracts in Canada, the actor is not paid resid' but a buy-out is made part of the agreement.
This was created by the union(s) ACTRA/UdA, with the members having final vote (the members being the artists.)
There is a daily rate for the work and a buy-out for the User Rights. Again, no one forced the artist to agree.
Why some artists complain after they have already signed and agreed to the terms in the contract I don't know?
But does that make the producers the bad players?
Should the artist want a 100% of all profit then the artist should assume 100% of the investment. That seems fair to me.
Perhaps if more fans were made aware of artistic contracts perspectives would be different?
June 24, 2012

Crockett said:

Lions, tigers and bears ... oh, my!
Hello again Dan, I must give you credit for walking into the lion's den, the fur does fly sometimes. I would like to touch on the producer/independent issue. As you can tell, many of us here have no great love for the media industry yet contrary to what many from the outside may think, there is a great appreciation for the artists & creators, most of us are avid fans. I know also from corresponding with people here over the years that most of us have spent an above average amount on entertainment products or events (thus supporting artists). I have also noticed that many of us are technically minded, a large percentage being involved in the IT side of things in some way. Possibly, it is this perspective that drives this world view.

Referring back to the producer/independent debate my personal view is that the 'labels' take unfair advantage of the artists. We all know that on the whole (apart from the superstars), they get very little for their efforts and the focus of the industry is not on the artist but the shareholder. Now as you say, this is an understood relationship and those going into it should not be surprised at the outcomes. Yet, today there is emerging a new and better way to market oneself and create a better living for the artist. Admittedly, this model may require a different or broader skill set with the artist having to operate in both the artistic and marketing sides, and some will not be able to handle that. That has been the strength of the label/contract system and really the only route until recent technology changed the landscape.

Is there room for both models? Absolutely, but this brings us to where the disdain for all **AA comes in. These organizations can see the writing on the wall and are doing all they can to maintain their castles at the expense of the serfs. Rather than working for the benefit of the creators they purport to represent that are frantically trying to limit opportunities outside their control. They do this in the name of 'fighting piracy' to rally the troops, yet the lobbying and legal wrangling (and outright vindictiveness) they push is more to maintain their power than to combat 'evil'. The fallout is a continual erosion of people's respect for the media industry and copyright in general ... they are digging their own graves.

I am self aware enough to know my views are limited by my experience. My father is a fairly prominent actor/director/producer/play-write (having worked off-Broadway in New York), and I have worked both on the stage and behind, so I am not unfamiliar with the creative industries but there are complexities of this industry as a whole that I do not fully understand. I bring to the debate a view from both this and the technology side, and my drive is not do defend 'pirates' or push to get things for free. Rather, I would hope to see the adversarial environment reduced and a real, honest effort by everyone to come to terms with the changing landscapes we find ourselves in. Human nature being what it is, I expect such hopes to be tempered by self interest. So when I see the governments, whom should be working for the good of society as a whole, being driven by the self interests of a few (SOPA for instance) that the anger and fur starts to fly.

Thanks again for wading in Dan and I hope you can take away an better understanding of the mindset here.
June 24, 2012

Napalm said:

...
So Dan, would you agree that with a few select exceptions (like Joss Stone), everybody else is actually doing "work for hire" for the record companies, disguised under fancy "copyright" contracts?
June 24, 2012

KL said:

...
Now that this bill is likely going to pass,
I'd hope to see some changes in favour of the
consumer.

1. Please stop charging exorbitant prices
for CD and DVD collections. I had seen
Night Gallery Season two in HMV for over
$65! I had to buy a Chapters Indigo card
to get a so-called deal for the collection
for just over $45 plus tax!

2. And for a best of compilation CD,
please have the music labels
really make it a "best of" CD,and
not force people to decide to overcharge
for a one that has two of their greatest
hits included, out of 10 or more!

I have a real decent, extensive CD
collection, going back to the mid-90's.
I gave a lot of money to the CRIA, although
stopped buying them after seeing how crappy
some of my favourite artists CD compilations
had become.
June 24, 2012

Dan said:

...
Napalm said: "So Dan, would you agree that with a few select exceptions (like Joss Stone), everybody else is actually doing "work for hire" for the record companies, disguised under fancy "copyright" contracts?"

Napalm - not to belittle your post in any way, I think it only fair to point out that music is not the only creative Works under copyright. That being said I think an understanding regarding the process(s) involved even before the Works are placed on the market under copyright protection is important.
Pre-production: 1000's of man hours are spent on the first draft. 1000's of auditions are held to find the right performers. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent even before the final cast is confirmed.
Production: again, 1000's of man hours are involved to produce, and with big budget productions tens of millions of dollars are invested by the production team and NOT by the artist.
Post-production: again 1000's of man hours are involved and of course more money invested by the production team.
What you consider "Work for hire" the artist(s) considers to be their JOB. Professional singers, dancers, actors, musicians ... all expect to be paid for their work, like we all do; unless of course you yourself are in a financial position to work for free.
Entertainment is not a free public service Napalm "disguised under fancy "copyright" contracts". Professional artists do consider themselves professionals, which is why triple A actors can demand a higher salary. Professional studio singers with extensive Work experience can demand a higher wage. The technicians in studios and on film sets are hired based on experience and are paid accordingly.
Artistic Contracts are very specific, which is why most professional artist have managers and lawyers to negotiate for the best contractual terms possible; and this time it is the artist(s) who pays real money for the professional services of their managers and lawyers.
Napalm all this happens before the Works even hit the market.
I will agree that software has enabled the public at large to copy and disseminate the Works to millions (billions?) of people within minutes. But has the public ever considered the work involved by the 1000's of people that made the music or movie possible?
I don't like the prices of food but can I walk into a store and decide whether or not I pay for it? Or tell the person at the cash the price that I deem fair?
Some thought and consideration is not impossible Napalm. And I personally think until the public engages in fair-play with the rightful owners of the Copyright Protected Works laws and bills are going to keep getting tougher and more and more people are going to charged with copyright infringements.




June 25, 2012

Napalm said:

...
I don't see anything particularly "arteestec" in the pre/post production processes you mention that would warrant protection under "copyright". Not to mention that the people involved are paid as employees/contractors, not under some "copyright" sale.

But let's get to the main point: if the "arteests" are mainly doing "work for hire", why exactly do they have associations like SOCAN involved in copyright lobbying?

I have yet to hear about some association/union of let's say computer programmers involved in this kind of lobbying.
June 25, 2012

Devil's Advocate said:

Why ask the question....
Why pose questions to a shill wanna-be, when it's obvious his one-track thinking isn't going to allow him to even understand the question??

(Case in point: "work for hire")
June 25, 2012

Dan said:

...
Napalm,
I have no interest in changing your thoughts ideas or notions. I will assume you're a grown-up capable of deciding for yourself.
I would like to make clear though that I will not respond to insults, or any further non-nonsensical statements.
Enjoy!


June 25, 2012

Napalm said:

...
@Devil: He actually touches an interesting point. If he's correct and everybody is doing "work for hire" (with few notable exceptions) then all these artist's associations are nothing but proxies/shills for "the industry".
June 25, 2012

Napalm said:

...
Also, it the relation between "the arteests" and "the industry" is in fact an employee/employer relation (carefully disguised in the "copyright" transfer contracts), then maybe we should also investigate if it's not some grand tax evasion scheme?
June 25, 2012

Devil's Advocate said:

@Napalm:
yeah.
[chuckles]
You're still feeding a troll, though.
:)
June 25, 2012

Paul Durrant said:

...
A regulation exempting non-infringing removal of digital locks would be great, but surely won't do a lot of good if the distribution of tools to remove digital locks is still illegal?
June 25, 2012

Dan said:

...
Paul,
Unfortunately many people don't understand the difference between non-infringing vs infringement.
I've read counter-claims stating that because the Works were up-loaded to their "personal" public websites it's a "personal Use" of the Works.
Some went as far to claim Fair-use, "education and research" for porn movies, full feature films and televisions shows in Yahoo/Google groups that had links to cyber lockers with kick-backs for the up-loader.
The lack of factual understanding with regards to Copyright/Intellectual Property Rights and all Neighboring Rights is rather extensive Paul.

June 25, 2012

Crockett said:

...
Dan,
Because some people have a deficient understanding of a law it does not follow (or should not) to the deigning of rights to others. I would think this a fundamental tenet of law? Shall we 'lock without exception' the right of freedom of assembly because some immature teenagers think they have a right to cheap or free education?
June 25, 2012

Dan said:

...
Crockett,
I'm in Montreal so I have first hand knowledge of what you're talking about. These "kids" are not kids for one, and busting up people's property, cars, store fronts, houses ... is not what was meant by the right of freedom of assembly.
The protests actually turned into violent temper tantrums.
Very much like a lot of the "debates" around copyright laws.
I am admittedly very fortunate, there are 10 of us in my family, more than half work within the legal system.
The Internet however is full of information required to make an informed decision, provided that's what people really want it.
June 25, 2012

Crockett said:

My thoughts for Dan, Part 1
@Dan "I personally think until the public engages in fair-play with the rightful owners of the Copyright Protected Works laws and bills are going to keep getting tougher and more and more people are going to charged with copyright infringements."

Dan, I understand this is the view of many in the media industry but I would like to offer a counter this belief.

I posit the following:

- The actual harm from non-commercial copyright infringement has been overstated (as evidenced by comments from even the US copyright office). This range of harm has been stated to be anywhere from a net positive to a 50% loss. Actual in depth studies have found the range to be in the neighborhood of a 10-20% loss, so let's for argument say 15%.

- Other losses are most likely due to the following; Changes in media formats and market saturation, diversification of the entertainment market (video games often outpace movie sales), changing demands on the market due to societal factors (people spend a lot of time on social networks thus less time on music and movies).

- It has also been shown that the recent TOTAL spending in the entertainment sector has actually remained fairly steady and even grown in some years. This is even through some of the toughest economic times this century.

Now lets look at the ramifications of dealing with these losses. The legal, lobbying & policing costs alone must be significant, now if these efforts were effective in diminishing said losses or even preventing an increase then they could be warranted. It is my observation and belief though that rather than diminishing infringement, the heavy handedness of the representative organizations actual exasperate the problem.

So what is the solution? Lets look at what has been tried so far ...

-Education: Efforts in this category have been very poorly handled, from the abysmal 'Don't copy that floppy' video to 'Would you steal a car?' the message has not resonated to the public, but its tone has only increased the disdain already felt.

-Litigation: The absurd financial penalties that have been put forward are so out of touch with the public's perception of harm done and fairness that it makes the media industry look mean & vindictive, another loss.

-Policing: The idea to remove people's right to access the internet [for infringement] was seen by the majority to be a largely disproportionate action to the harm. The removal of rights to the user would far outweigh the harm done to other parties. Again, as a student of law you should understand the tenet [and harm] of disproportionate penalties.

-Lobbying: Until recently, the ability to lobby the governments on these issues has been affordable mainly by the media industries. Those representing other views only had power at the voter booth that seemed to disappear shortly after the election. The internet has changed that [among many other things] by giving the public a voice that is hard to ignore and that is equal or greater than that the lobbyists. It is a new era that people in power are going to have to adjust to.
June 25, 2012

Crockett said:

My thoughts for Dan, Part 2
In my opinion, it will not harsher laws and penalties that will correct this market imbalance but rather a restructuring of current business models and increased innovation. Of course this is already happening to some extent, but there is also an [understandable] concerted effort by the established industries and leaders to keep change at bay. It follows that there will be some losers and winners as things play out and there will be many battlefields large & small.

I understand you are coming at this from a law student perspective and that is certainly valid. There have been huge investments by industry and they do not want to see that wasted, their only recourse in the face of a changing marketplace are lobbying or innovation. When the latter takes more of a prominence over the former then the losses of the industry, as well as infringement, will decrease. To zero? Not likely but then it has never been so and therefore unrealistic.

So back to your original premise "...laws and bills are going to keep getting tougher and more and more people are going to charged with copyright infringements."

This may be true in the short term, with SOPA, PIPA, C-30, C-11 there have been some wins and losses for both sides. But in the long term I see the only solution is develop a healthy marketplace where the value of the products outweighs the risk and bother of infringement. This will have to go hand in hand with a campaign of good will on the part of the entertainment industry. Yes, I understand there is a feeling from the said quarters that the 'thieves' are the ones who need to make restoration, and this may be true. But it is dependent on the industry to court their customers, not the other way around. There is truth in the adage "the customer is always right'. I know there are complexities beyond this simple idiom, arts for arts sake has some validity and patron or government support is sometimes necessary, yet that is not the battle being fought here, its rather all about industry and shareholders.

I think I have said my piece for now Dan. I have appreciated your thoughts and I hope you have gleaned some from mine. Take care.
June 25, 2012

Dan said:

My rather short reply to Crockett
"The actual harm from non-commercial copyright infringement has been overstated"
Tell that to the people who have their privacy and publicity rights stripped by random strangers off the WWW. Copyrights are not only for large corporations Crockett. To many people are focused solely on large companies, so much so the little guys has been left in the dark.
The little guy film producer who invested all their money with the hopes of making a profit only to find their property exploited on blogs and cyber lockers without express permission and in most cases against their wishes. Does the little guy have the $50.000 to pursue in order to get what the laws already say is theirs? In most cases no.
Crockett the examples can go on and on and on ...
Have you ever sat in a court room during a copyright infringement filing? It's terribly messy for all parties involved. And as far as I'm concerned completely avoidable.
You're a cool guy Crockett. Thank you for your insights and perspectives I mean that; you've given much to think about.





June 25, 2012

Crockett said:

...
Thanks Dan, it is refreshing to have a proper conversation. Often hard to come by in the internets!
June 25, 2012

Napalm said:

...
Say Dan, how about the other side of the story. Like when a taxpayer funded company like CBC produces "The Tudors", in addition to that you fork out some more money to buy the DVDs, to finally realize that it would be illegal to watch the episodes on your tablet, as you would need to "circumvent" some DRM in order to do that? How's that "cool"?
June 25, 2012

Crockett said:

...
Napalm, I agree its not 'cool' because the media industry is trying to play both sides of the coin. On one hand they entice the consumer to 'own your copy today' yet the legal EUA is more like a limited lease. The vast majority of consumers expect to be able to shift & backup their purchased media (sharing is another matter). Bill C-11 even enshrined these rights in law but castrated them with the lock provisions.

This is another reason infringement is rampant, the built up expectations do not reflect the reality or actions of the industry. The cake is real until you eat it.
June 25, 2012

Dan said:

Fact check?
Napalm,
Can I ask why you think the CBC produced The Tudors?
(Napalm please check your facts on IMDB, or wikipedia.)
Further to this, if memory serves CBC is a Crown Corporation.
June 25, 2012

Napalm said:

...
From Wikipedia: "The series has been produced by Peace Arch Entertainment for Showtime in association with Reveille Productions, Working Title Television, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and was filmed in Ireland".

Now if you would bother reading the DVD label (the one on the back), you would notice the CBC logo, plus the federal Canada and Ontario logos attesting separate financial contributions by federal and provincial governments (in addition to the CBC funding).

So how cool is that it is illegal to watch it on my tablet, eh?
June 25, 2012

Dan said:

Now I'm confused
Yes CBC was 1 of the producers, not the producer, I don't need to read the DVD label I'm very familiar with the series.
What's your point?
June 25, 2012

Napalm said:

...
@Dan: "What's your point?"

If you still didn't get it then no amount of supplementary debate would help you.
June 25, 2012

Dan said:

...
Napalm,
My feeling is that you once again took someone's ideas and thoughts and posted them as your own. I didn't "get it" I asked you to explain.
Can you? And more importantly with the reference(s) in Bill C-11 that I'm looking at as I type this.
June 25, 2012

mango said:

@my fans
Ok lets be honest here. EVERYONE wants a piece of the Mango. Contrary to some beliefs, Mango is not a weekend hobbyist. It takes hours and hours and hours and hours and a whole team of nimble fingers to make the Mango you adore and love. (I know, I know it LOOKS effortless!) Now Mango has some tough choices to make. Mango can trust the public and hope they wont redistribute his work, or Mango can use the dreaded DRM to prevent sharing. Mango has been hurt by his public before and has run out of ideas. What is an independent Mango to do? If you have ideas, I am open like a door. For now though, I in either case, what Mango decides should be respected. Even if Mango decides to make a separate version for each pc, dvd, bluray, tablet, mp3 and lock them with drm thats Mango's choice. If thats not ok, the solution is very simple..NO MORE MANGO FOR YOU! (harsh yes I know, but love is a battlefield) Is that what you want? You can't live without the Mango so NO!!
June 25, 2012

haha said:

@mango
I think I can live without the Mango.
June 25, 2012

Crockett said:

...
Hi Mango, I must say it is very creative to refer to your self in the third person. As for DRM, you are welcome and most correct to use it if you wish. I suspect though the loss you would incur from people avoiding your goods may be greater than that lost to 'piracy'. It's going to be cracked and up on the inter-tubes regardless, by giving people the DRM free option they desire you may earn more simply by good will.

Just sayin'
June 25, 2012

mango said:

@crockett
Hi Crockette, Mango appreciates your adoration but doesn't understand. I tried giving my landlord a cheque for good will last month and it didnt work very well. It was a fruit salad everywhere. I hear where you are coming from and Mango does indeed respect the opinions of his fans, but what does one do when they give and give and give and still see them megauploaded all over the place. I know Mango is is high demand but that won't do. Can I even consider a limited edition? Mango is so lost with all these big words ie: copyright & tubes... All i hope for is a middle ground and MORE MANGO.

ps. Mango accepts your apology Crockett
June 25, 2012

haha said:

@mango
What about www.kickstarter.com or something similar (kickstarter is far from perfect)?
Get paid and then deliver. Maybe our economy is changing, but I think DRM just alienates fans. I don't think copyright should even enter into it.
June 25, 2012

haha said:

@mango
kickstarter is just a canned way of asking for project funding, but you can do it from your blog from your chiffon robe in your apartment, as long as people know you are legit. The government should have been working on laws that helped entrepreneurs rather than giving distributors another gun against the public, especially one that was so strongly decried. Canada feels like a dictatorship now.
June 25, 2012

Napalm said:

...
Hey Mango, have you considered working for the advertising business, they produce expensive copyrighted materials that apparently don't need no DRM...
June 25, 2012

Old Geezer said:

"This is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put"
Enough of this - The very concept of Intellectual Property and copyright is intellectually and socially repugnant and antithetical to our species evolution It is merely an attempt to gain extended lucre by assigning a value to the ethereal and intangible A word of warning to the Luddite characters of the would be media mogul ilk and also the bought or sold politicians of any nation That which can be digitized and thence rendered Universal will be digitized Repeat after me "These are not the droids we are looking for" .
June 26, 2012

Write comment
smaller | bigger

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