The Canadian Copyright Bill: Flawed But Fixable

This afternoon, the government introduced the Copyright Modernization Act (or Bill C-32), the long-awaited copyright reform bill [the bill is not yet online, but I attended the media lockup in Montreal]. It is nearly two years since C-61 was introduced and nearly a year since the national copyright consultation, yet discouragingly some things have not changed. As I reported several weeks ago, Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore won the internal fight over Industry Minister Tony Clement for a repeat of C-61's digital lock provisions and against a flexible fair dealing approach and today's bill reflects those policy victories. 

However, over the past month, Clement made steady in-roads in trying to restore some balance in the bill and achieved some wins. The bill contains some important extensions of fair dealing, including new exceptions for parody, satire, and (most notably) education.  It also contains more sensible time shifting and format shifting provisions that still feature restrictions (they do not apply where there is a digital lock) but are more technology neutral than the C-61 model.  There is also a "YouTube exception" that grants Canadians the right to create remixed user generated content for non-commercial purposes under certain circumstances. While still not as good as a flexible fair dealing provision, the compromise is a pretty good one.  Throw in notice-and-notice for Internet providers, backup copying, and some important changes to the statutory damages regime for non-commercial infringement and there are some provisions worth fighting to keep.

Yet all the attempts at balance come with a giant caveat that has huge implications for millions of Canadians.  The foundational principle of the new bill remains that anytime a digital lock is used – whether on books, movies, music, or electronic devices – the lock trumps virtually all other rights.  In other words, in the battle between two sets of property rights – those of the intellectual property rights holder and those of the consumer who has purchased the tangible or intangible property – the IP rights holder always wins.  This represents market intervention for a particular business model by a government supposedly committed to the free market and it means that the existing fair dealing rights (including research, private study, news reporting, criticism, and review) and the proposed new rights (parody, satire, education, time shifting, format shifting, backup copies) all cease to function effectively so long as the rights holder places a digital lock on their content or device.  Moreover, the digital lock approach is not limited to fair dealing – library provisions again include a requirement for digital copies to self-destruct within five days and distance learning teaching provisions require the destruction of materials 30 days after the course concludes. 

The digital lock provisions are by far the biggest flaw in the bill, rules that some will argue renders it beyond repair.  I disagree. The flaw must be fixed, but there is much to support within the proposal. There will undoubtedly be attacks on the fair dealing reforms and pressure to repeal them, along with the U.S. and the copyright lobby demanding that their digital lock provisions be left untouched.  If Canadians stay quiet, both are distinct possibilities.  If they speak out, perhaps the bill can be fixed.  I'll post an update of my 30 things you can do shortly.  In the meantime, I'm relaunching Speak Out on Copyright to focus on this bill and encouraging Canadians to join the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group (to get active) and the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook Page (to stay updated).

What's in the Copyright Modernization Act?

This is a complicated bill that will require detailed study (and envisions a mandatory review of Copyright Act every five years), but it boils down to three groups of provisions: sector-specific rules, compromise provisions, and the no compromise digital lock provisions. 

1.   Sector-specific Rules

Bill C-32 contains many provisions that are designed to address a single constituency or stakeholder concern.  I'll post more on many of these in the coming days, but immediate sector-specific changes worth highlighting include:

  • new performers rights as demanded by ACTRA (and as needed for WIPO Internet treaty implementation)
  • new photographers rights as long demanded by photographer groups
  • new exception that addresses potential concerns from companies like Research in Motion for temporary copies for technological processes
  • new BitTorrent provision which establishes infringement for providing services via the Internet that a person knows or should have known is designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement
  • new ephemeral exception as lobbied for by Canadian broadcasters
  • new library provisions to allow for digital distribution (but subject to digital locks and destroying the copies after five days)
  • new distance learning teaching exceptions that encompass podcasts (but subject to digital locks and destroying lessons within 30 days of conclusion of the course)
  • a return of the Internet exception for education
  • new "YouTube" remix exception for user generated content that permits non-commercial use of works under certain circumstances
  • new technology-neutral format and time shifting provisions legalizing common consumer activities such as recording television shows and shifting CDs to iPods (but still subject to digital locks)
  • new backup copy provision (subject to digital locks)
  • expansion of the exception for the visually impaired

The sum total of these exceptions make for a more complicated Copyright Act, but also provide something for just about every stakeholder group.

2.   Compromise Provisions

Copyright reform invariably involves compromise and several tough issues were clearly resolved with an attempt to balance interests through compromise provisions.  Three areas in particular are worthy of discussion: fair dealing, intermediary liability, and statutory damages.

Fair Dealing.  As reported earlier, the government rejected a made-in-Canada flexible fair dealing provision as Moore emerged as the anti-exception Minister.  Despite that initial starting point, there are many exceptions that address creators (parody and satire), education (education exception, education Internet exception), consumers (time shifting, format shifting, backup copies), and user generated content (USG exception).  While this leaves innovative businesses without the benefit of flexible fair dealing and Canada still short of the U.S. fair use provision, it is a pretty good compromise.

Intermediary Liability.  For the third consecutive bill, the government has opted for a notice-and-notice system for Internet providers.  The system is costly for Internet providers, but has proven successful in discouraging infringement.  It is also far more balanced than the U.S.-backed notice-and-takedown approach or the incredibly disproportionate three-strikes model that would result in terminating subscriber access.

Statutory Damages.  Many groups called for changes to the current statutory damages system that treats large-scale counterfeiting in the same manner as non-commercial cases.  The new rules reduce statutory damages for non-commercial cases to as low as $100 along with a maximum of $5000.  That is not insignificant, but it is well below the current $20,000 maximum.  In other words, there are still tough potential damages but the law finally distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial infringement.  Note that the bill also provides the prospect of targeting sites that facilitate infringement with aggressive new penalties.

3.   No Compromise Provisions

The one area where there is no compromise are the digital lock provisions. The prioritization of digital locks is the choice of the U.S. DMCA and is now the choice of the Canadian DCMA.  In fact, the Canadian digital lock provisions are arguably worse than those found in the U.S., with fewer exceptions and greater difficulty to amend the rules.  The Canadian DCMA provisions are virtually identical to the U.S. – a handful of hard-to-use exceptions, a ban on the distribution and marketing of devices (ie. software) that can be used to circumvent, and a presumption that any circumvention is an infringement.  The only significant difference between this bill and C-61 on digital locks is the inclusion of an exception for unlocking cell phones.

It is important to emphasize that this need not be the Canadian choice.  Canada could comply with the WIPO Internet treaties (which serve as the impetus for these provisions), provide legal protection for digital locks, and still preserve the copyright balance.  Doing so would simply require a provision confirming that circumvention of a digital lock is not prohibited when undertaken for lawful purposes.  Similar language can be found in other countries' digital lock legislation and – as the top issue raised during last summer's copyright consultation – should have made it into this bill.  Clement has indicated that the government is open to amendments and the opposition parties should place reform of the digital lock provisions at the very top of the list.

I will be posting much more in the days and weeks ahead on the bill, but the initial reaction depends on whether you are a glass half full or glass half empty person.  For the glass half-full, the compromise positions on fair dealing, the new exceptions, and statutory damages are not bad – not perfect – but better than C-61.  For the glass half-empty, the digital lock provisions are almost identical to C-61 and stand as among the most anti-consumer copyright provisions in Canadian history.  Not only are they worse than the U.S. DMCA, but they undermine much of the positive change found in the rest of the bill. In the days and weeks ahead, Canadians must speak out to ensure that the compromise positions found in C-32 remain intact and that the digital lock provisions move from the no-compromise category to the compromise one.


  1. How many jobs will be lost?
    If I have to use a digital service like iTunes to buy movies because I can’t transfer my locked up DVD content to my iPod, I wont go near a store like HMV. How many people at stores that sell digitizable content will lose their jobs because Canadians are forced into the path of most flexibility? I hope a reporter asks the PM that… I will be sending a letter with that question myself and I urge everyone to do the same.

  2. DVDs
    Will it be illegal to rip my personal DVD collection (Hollywood movies) so I can watch it on my iPad or netbook that doesn’t have a DVD drive?

  3. So I can transcode a CD to my iPod Touch, but not a DVD, because of the trivial digital lock. How does that make sense?

  4. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    It’s all just smoke and mirrors if everything that is “given” consumers is “taken away” by digital locks.

  5. DVD’s
    Yes it will be illegal to do that they media companies want you to re-buy everything you’ve purchased.

    “The intellectual property rights holder and those of the consumer who has purchased the tangible or intangible property – the IP rights holder always wins.”

    We need to keep fighting until James Moore get’s it through his head that digital locks only cause pain for honest consumers and not for pirates.

  6. Crockett says:

    The only way I see to get the digital lock provision to include lawful use is to petition the opposition parties, the Tories won’t do it on their own or would have included it already. They still need one of the parties support to pass the bill, let’s hope (optimism needed) that the opposition parties will actually stand up for their constituents.

  7. Laurel L. Russwurm says:

    How many more jobs will be lost…
    …in the repair business. Do we pay enough to get our technology fixed for the repair professionals to risk a jail term?

  8. I may have to sign up for Twitter just so I can ask Mr. Moore what he would consider an unfair and imbalanced law to contain. A law that provides a set of rights and simultaneously makes it theoretically impossible to exercise any of those rights is hardly a reasonable provision.

    I’ll be writing the minister, my MP, and the leaders of the various parties to express my displeasure.

  9. so, Who’s gonna pay?
    When they force the ISP’s to do this, who is going to pay the bill for the new architecture, and the additional costs to them. Does this mean that as a consumer, my bills are going to go up to cover this cost?

  10. anonymous says:

    digital locks
    I guess it is time to go back to Windows 98 and older versions of ripping software such as Nero 6 and 7, as they arent affected by these digital locks that the Music and Motion picture industry encodes into DVD’s and CD’s. The thing that bothers me most, is I am a Computer Technician, I make back up’s all the time of Windows, Mac, and other software just in case the software I buy becomes Corrupted. So now with this new bill that will become illegal if there is a digital lock on that software. So now I have to waste more money on that same software every time the disk is no longer usable. Give me a damn break. Plus I download software via bittorrent as some software isnt sold anymore. So that to will become illegal. Where does this all end. I think it is time for Canada to elect new people into parliament, like they say, out with the old and in with the new, which is basically what this new bill is too.

    I can almost guarantee, that with each new thing they say is now legal, there will be a loophole to make what you are doing illegal, and vice versa.

  11. Digital locks are unenforceable with respect to the consumer side. Businesses are the ones that will be hit hard by this.

  12. Christopher says:

    This is BS!

    Everything good in this bill is completely worthless if digital locks will override anything else. So now the content industry will just make it their standard procedure to put a digital lock on everything they produce, and all our fair dealings rights will be useless!

  13. Digital Locks
    Digital locks are enforceable all they do is take you to court or get an out of court settlement out of you. Granted the price on damages that can be claimed have come down a lot for this, it’s still to expensive. $5000 maximum for damage probably per song or media item when they sell it for $.99 – $10.00 Something is wrong here. Either way we need a fair use provision that gets rid of the digital lock. By the way everyone heard of one of the big media companies getting sued for “pirating” the anti pirating software. I love Irony. We need to write our MP’s and get this changed or boot them out!

  14. says:

    I download documentaries for my kids. I leave them on my hard drive. Will my local law enforcement have the right to tap my internet and walk into my home to seize my equipment?

  15. Chad English says:

    Digital lock provisions hurt business
    Commenters already pointed out the illogic of allowing CD backups but not DVD due to digital locks.

    The only DVD I have left is on my old computer that I rarely use. I have a media PC hooked up to my HDTV and play from a hard drive. What are they thinking? If this goes through, why would I ever try to follow that law? Are they mandating I must now buy a DVD tower and pull them all out of storage to clutter my living room?

    What is the point of fair dealings? If they are made moot by a digital lock, do they even exist?

    Finally, in business I am tasked with finding partners that we may want to work with. Logistics make it impossible (and extremely expensive) to access their IP via their permissions only to find out it is no good for us. That is the typical case. Instead, we very quickly (and cheaply) investigate whether it would be useful or not. Under the digital locks provision, I wonder how much business will be lost by business who figure it isn’t even worth the risk to try anymore.

    It’s redundant law anyway. If somebody breaks a digital lock for fair dealings, no harm is done. If they break it for infringement purposes, that’s already illegal under the law. Under what circumstances would the digital lock provision apply alone that is not already covered by other provisions, except for fair dealings cases?

    Of course we can make a pretty good guess. It seems the issue isn’t so much breaking digital locks itself, such as for fair dealings cases, but rather creating tools for breaking those locks, which make it easier for people to distribute or obtain illegal copies. In other words, it’s throwing out the baby with the bathwater because they detest the bathwater so much and they can’t think of a way to keep the baby.

  16. Everyone seems to feel that this will allow copying of a CD but not a DVD. Maybe I’m missing something, but haven’t many audio CDs have a rather weak DRM? Not even the rootkit messes ala Sony, but just a proprietary player that’s actived in Windows (and perhaps OS X) as an autoplay feature. If so, it’d seem possible that ripping that CD would circumvent the “lock” thus rendering it an illegal act.

  17. Better, but far from a viable independant solution
    I do have to credit the government on this thing:
    They have STARTED to listen to consumers.
    Case in point: Legalizing format shifting (vinyl/cd/etc. to ipod/cd/etc.)

    I do have significant issues with the time shifting for recording tv/radio/internet clause though. Sure it should be okay that you can record for later viewings but not allowed to build a library? That means the media provider would have to enforce limited viewings + forced deletion.
    Case in point: DVR with 120gb hard drive from Cogeco. Allows you to record programs for later use. No forced deletion. You now have a ‘library’ of programs!

    Region locking enforcement? Illegal to purchase out of region products? what about immigrants looking to view their content from their home country out of NA region?

    Digital lock circumvention? US media lobbying enforcement of something that limits use after purchase. Ridiculous.

    Still not good enough, LISTEN MORE TO CONSUMERS!

  18. says:

    You know what Mr. Geist, as much as you have faith in this new copyright model that it can be “fixed”, I can’t help but feel that it’s going to hell in a hand basket has our current government is plying to US (which look what “state” their in) and Europe (which banks lending to more banks is diminishing returns). We want to lead the G8+20 we should start by taking our own manifest destiny.

    It seems to me the only thing this bill will do is serve big business and bulging law courts to work their sh!t hooks some more in the doe. (pardon my language:)

    We promote electronic devices: ipad. We are proud of our technological advancements for more bandwidth: G4. Yet we want to restrict the proliferation of knowledge. I’ll be damned, it is the veritable law of conservation! Or the big fish eat the little fish.

  19. Thomas Purves says:

    DRM protection is not the end of the world. For the most part, the market has already proven it’s a dead-end business model anyway.

  20. Dylan McCall says:

    Highjacking content?
    One horror story occurs to me with digital locks, and I wonder if there is language in place to cure it:
    Say an evil corporation makes a camera that is locked into an online ecosystem, where you can’t actually access your photos directly; you can only upload them to a web service and share them through some kind of proprietary viewer.
    Would the owner of the camera (and the creator of the photographs) be within his rights to circumvent the locks involved and rescue his own content?

    “Moreover, the digital lock approach is not limited to fair dealing – library provisions again include a requirement for digital copies to self-destruct within five days and distance learning teaching provisions require the destruction of materials 30 days after the course concludes.”
    That worries me. It would be fine if computer software was a magical thing that would just work wherever you throw it, but it isn’t. Software dedicated to self-destructing content is, by design, proprietary software with broken accessibility. It is next to impossible to create software like that which is suitable for a public institution. People who don’t use Windows or MacOS, or blind people who use screen readers / braille displays, would be blocked from accessing it.
    Sure, those people can (and do) choose not to use the digital content, but then there is only one outcome: the digital approach would always be an alternative, secondary choice. (Which is a shame, because it could do wonderful things for accessibility).

  21. Ugh
    Don’t know if anyone is watching CTV’s Power Play, but Clement is on right now talking about how this bill is to stop mass pirates selling bootlegs for profit. Also the claim of Canada’s massive piracy numbers is been repeated again.

    This show needs to take letters and calls.

  22. tit-for-tat
    If the government gives this much power to digital locks, I propose the following:

    1. Content owners that place digital locks on my purchased content now bear the responsibility to deliver my content to me into perpetuity in the same format that they originally sold. In particular, DRM based on server technology must be maintained and come with a guarantee of perfect operational performance 99.99% uptime or they should face a penalty for the damages incurred to me. If they can do that, then it seems more just.

    2. If I place a digital lock on my computer or anything I own, anybody breaking it should be subject to the same fines as stated in this proposed Bill. According to copyright laws, my work is protected the moment I create it. Can I call the way I organize my files artistic and the directory structure to me is copyright so do I own get the same protection? Thus if industry were to circumvent my windows password I expect them to pay me the commercial $1mm fine for breaking that DRM.

  23. WolvenSpectre says:

    You should expand the Facebook group outside of Facebook
    After all of the things that have happened with Facebook, its privacy policies, its involvement with quesionalble 3rd parties, its mismanagement of my personal data, I left Facebook before the latest outcry hit the media.

    Then the way Facebook bald faced lied and attacked those of us who left before they gave in and mostly fixed the privacy policy settings (mostly) shattered any trust I had in them.

    I am not going to return. I am not the only one.

    If you expand the group virtually to an external page and then merge the membership of both to get the actual membership, you will also be supporting users who don’t do/won’t do Facebook. I know it kept other people from signing up last time.

    Hope you take my suggestion to heart.

  24. S L Davies says:

    Misunderstanding of current (c) law; need to adapt content for disabilities
    The upside of this (c) proposal is that it will make it easier for reporters to grasp how (c) works. There’s a long history in Canada of reporters regurgitating what lobby groups have told them.
    What is missing from the description of how (c) currently works is observance of the fact that there are (c) levies which legitimize unauthorized copies, today, right now, without a new set of (c) parameters. The unexplored issue is why (c) holders haven’t worked to expand that part of the current Cdn solution to (c). I paid a $40 levy on my MP3 player years ago, then Apple fought against the levy. Now we can’t get the levy reinstated.
    While it’s good to see some leniency, finally, toward educational use of (c) material, there is no comment so far about how a school can adapt locked content for a student with disabilities.
    Also, currently, a school must seek permission from a (c) holder to use (c) material in a physical or a virtual class. The clerical work has been horrendous as a result, plus the (c) holder can always decline permission for their work to be used. Talk about hobbling the curriculum. Education has always been treated like a cash cow for (c) holders in this country. Let’s hope this is being changed in the new proposal.

  25. S L Davies says:

    I’m trying (unsuccessfully) to comment on the Globe and Mail article, not Michael’s column. Sorry folks. Please remove……

  26. As a first small step, any copyright holder that puts DRM in their media shouldn’t receive any part of the private copying levy on blank media: it is meant to compensate for losses from private copying, and DRM plus anti-circumvention means no losses. But if we accept that there is compensation required to rights holders when their rights are limited, the same principle should apply the other way. When you impose DRM, you should be compensating consumers for the rights that you are taking away from them. A sort of negative levy is the logical requirement.

  27. Self destructing resources
    The self destruct on recorded media and educational material reminds me of the Monsanto terminator seeds that last one generation. I understand why lobbies are asking for this, but my gut instinct feels that there is something inherently wrong about destroying any useful resource (knowledge, education, nutritious food, etc…) before its time for the sake of profit. There has to be a better way. Thanks for maintaining this discussion so we can try to figure out what that is.

  28. Notice and notice is already in place…
    I’d like to blow the whistle that notice and notice is already in place at educational institutions with internet access. This is however not pressured by the government, but from movie studios losing money to downloads.

    I have no doubt that the notice and notice was instantiated by something from the entertainment industry.

  29. ISP notice-and-notice system
    This simply gives a copyright holder the right to track their content and notify your ISP that your IP address has been caught engaging in an offending activity. This seems to be the system which is already in place, at least at my ISP. I’ve received such warnings for downloading HBO stuff (Such as Dexter) which, at the time, was not legally available to me in any form, at least not on Bell or downloadable. Unless something has changed, this does NOT give copyright holder the right to request your personal information.

    It’s the anti-circumvention stuff I’m worried about.

    @Chad English
    “The only DVD I have left is on my old computer that I rarely use. I have a media PC hooked up to my HDTV and play from a hard drive. What are they thinking? If this goes through, why would I ever try to follow that law? Are they mandating I must now buy a DVD tower and pull them all out of storage to clutter my living room?”

    This should only be legal as long as you still own the original content. I had thought about doing this, but I would need a new 8TB server and it would take me months to digitise 1000+ DVD collection. So I opted against it.

  30. How is commercial vs. non-commercial defined?
    “Statutory Damages. … In other words, there are still tough potential damages but the law finally distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial infringement.”

    How is the distinction between these two defined or described? Does commercial actually require an intent of financial gain (as it should), or does it apply some other metric?

  31. “DRM protection is not the end of the world. For the most part, the market has already proven it’s a dead-end business model anyway.”

    It’s not the fact that the content is DRMed, its the collateral damage that giving so much legal protection to the locks can cause. In the end, this is a self-defeating measure, but the decision to pursue it will result in many casualties along the way.

    However, if we end up getting such laws, we might as well use them to our benefit. Presumably, the law applies to everyone, so if you create a zipped folder containing some item you hold the copyright to (maybe a short story or a photograph of your dog) and protect that file with a password (“password”, for example) you have just created a digital lock, and, I presume, it becomes illegal for anyone to break that lock, say by guessing your password. Presumably, you could include other content in that folder to which for which you are not the copyright holder, but in order for anyone to know that, they would have to open the folder which, unless they have your permission, means defeating the digital lock which protects your copyrighted work, and would therefore be illegal due to the primacy of digital locks. Of course, you might only choose to take action against infringers whose name ended in “AA”: you don’t have to sue everyone who violates your copyright or breaks your digital lock.

    It would still be preferable to have that provision modified, but remember that the law cuts both ways.

  32. I will have the entire CBC live stream of the C32 presentation uploaded to various hosts in 30 minutes. Now I just need to create bumpin groove for Mr Clement and Moore to dance to.

    It’s sad I can’t show the CBC C-32 video link to my international friends due to the geoIP blocks on cbc. How’s that for irony?

  33. If I BUY a DVD, and back it up it to my hard drive to stream to my TV, i am breaking the law. (digital lock)
    If I DOWNLOAD the DVD via torrents, and stream it to my TV, I am breaking the law. (copyright)

    Either way, I am breaking the law…..except one costs less money.

  34. says:

    About that notice-and-notice…
    We need to see a lot more info on the notice and notice provision, which requires ISPs to keep personal info. How broadly is personal info defined? Does this tie into Van Loan’s requirements for ISP surveillance which Prof. Geist covered so thoroughly in Sept 2009? It would be unsurprising if this enables certain police state ‘cybersecurity’ aspects that are being chased internationally.

    And speaking of international issues, what happens when we sit down at the CETA negotiating table with this? It could all be superceded.

  35. I wonder, if someone in Region 2 uploads a youtube video of a Region 2 DVD, and I watch it here, does that make it illegal?

    Also, can I send an email to a target individual, have it link to a site that downloads my copyright material to them, and then can I demand from the ISP his/her personal information as a result? Sounds like a great way to stalk someone.

    I think generally, if you take on the role of copyright owner, it seems like you could get the government to do a whole lot of dirty work for you.

    All in all,

  36. What about having a requirement that all media having digital locks have a clear warning? Then consumers can vote with their wallets and not buy stuff that is infested.

    I think the whole circumventing digital lock thing is a bit like jaywalking. It’s illegal too, but as long as it is safe, and no cops around, the chances of getting caught are minimal.

    captcha: before shelved

  37. PETITION NEEDED, Michael, please post the link to petition. Thanks.
    Bill C-32 is BULL…!!!

    Michael Geist already correctly noted: We don’t need a copyright reform in Canada.

    This proposed Bill C-32, is the sole result, of a suitcase full of U.S. lobby group money, landing on some Ottawa minister’s table.

    The majority of Canadians are against ANY changes to this copyright nonsense, so OTTAWA, listen up….

    We are just NOT GONNA TAKE IT, like the province of Ontario, introducing the HST!
    The HST DOES NOT HELP CONSUMERS! It only favours big business and large industrial corporations.
    Thanks, for NOT allowing us to petition against the HST introduction…….A REAL INJUSTICE.

    The introduction of Bill-C32, creates, what George Orwell named, a ‘Big Brother’ society.

    The unfair, and virtually never-fairly enforceable, 3-strike policy for ISPs.
    ANYONE CAN CLAIM, “Hey, you violated my copyright!” Even if that claim is false….
    …ISPs will be forced by Ottawa to shut you down, i.e. REMOVE YOU FROM THE INTERNET!

    Are we in China, or Canada, or wazzup???!!!!


    We are NOT Americans, but CANADIANS, who have and make their own laws.

    OK, Michael, please post the link to the new petition…. let’s go!!!



    Note: I give a rat’s rear-end about Hollywood content. I have long been boycotting content by U.S. firms, like Warner Bros., Universal, Sony, Fox…..and all the other Mega-Corporations, which have proven once again, that THEY CONTROL WHO MAKES THE LAW IN CANADA. (Obviously, not the people of Canada, who ‘democratically’ elected the current government, along with lobbygroup-bagholder Tony Clement). Kudos to you, Tony. Thanks. The irony…..and THE HORROR, THE HORROR !!!

  38. I bought it, I own it, bugger off
    So, the digital provider companies think they know what is best for the product they sold me? I bought it, I own it. Now get out of my house.

    Imagine a car you can fill with gas from only one gas company.
    Imagine a knife you can use only for chicken, not for vegetables.

    And then you will have some idea of how these companies are completely subverting democracy and your rights to do what you want with what you bought and paid for.

  39. TheRealBubba says:

    copy CD to ipod still illegal?
    When I transfer tracks from my CDs to my ipod using my linux computer I use libraries which break the encryption that Apple put to force the use of itunes (which I don’t use). I assume that this would still be illegal since it breaking digital locks placed on gadgets and media, unless I use itunes. Is this a fair worry?

  40. Let’s start protesting this. Having new rights is pointless if they are all taken away by digital locks.
    One hand gives, the other takes.

    Pirate Party of Canada

  41. end user says:

    LOL Pirate Parites!!!! Just like raves but instead people get together to watch new movies.

  42. Digital locks destroy archives
    The digitally-locked book or magazine edition you buy may suddenly disappear when a server goes offline or a supplier goes out of business. If this bill goes forward as proposed, locked material that is archived for historical purposes can be counted on to be retrievable years later.

    Moreover, the necessity of maintain such backups will inevitably mean that the law would turn the bulk of Canadians into criminals, and would as a result create contempt for the law.

  43. David Collier-Brown says:

    Are “digital locks” not fraud?
    If I buy a product, say a car, and wish to use it for a legal purpose such as renting it to my brother-in-law, the dealer has no power to prevent me. If they were to disable the car, for example via OnStar, would they not at the very least be committing fraud?

    I purchase a car or a book, and I can do anything which is legal: I can lend either, and I can quote brief passages from the book. However, if I buy a car simulator or an e-book, the seller claims that I can do neither, and without my permission disables the loan or the quote.

    That sounds to me what my old Sargent-Major called “a typical dishonest merchant trick”…. they take my money upon a false and fraudulent pretense that they sold me a product that is “suitable for the purpose sold”, knowing full well that it isn’t it cannot carry out the things that the law permits, because they want to sell me another, differently labeled copy of the same thing for the different purpose.

    If a car dealer actually tried to disable my car because I loaned it out, they would find themselves charged with car theft and fraud. I see no reason why a software or music vendor should be treated differently.


  44. DIgital Locks
    With the digital locks provision removed (for consumer use), it would seem, at first blush, that I could live with this bill. I use, and will continue to (try to) purchase, playback equipment which is not hobbled by unnecessary coding/hardware. The industry locks/checkups/verification do not belong in my home. They can DRM their theatre film stock all to hell, if they want, though.

    I would also like to see some sort of provision stating that the Chet Baker case be resolved completely before any litigation from the media industry is entertained in our courts. I want to know what value THEY put on their work, before they start extorting money from Canadians.

  45. @MattyD
    “Region locking enforcement? Illegal to purchase out of region products? what about immigrants looking to view their content from their home country out of NA region?”

    This only takes money away from the American industry since it’s only a matter of time before they acquire the rights to distribute it over here. It’s a load of CRAP. Will only the hardware be illegal (Original proposal) or the content as well?

    Has the actual bill text been published yet?

  46. Heres CBC’s Live Stream from Bill C-32 Live Stream.

  47. Liberals making some promising noises
    Story is covered by CBC here:

    “Liberal copyright critic Marc Garneau, the MP for Westmount-Ville-Marie, said the bill seems to be missing an exception that would allow people to break digital locks if it was for private, non-commercial use, but added that his party will have to study it further.

    ‘This is a bill that needs to go through the parliamentary process,” he said. “It’s going to take us a little while to assess what is being proposed.'”

    The website for the bill itself is here:

  48. Good for the underground business…
    A local DVD store is charging $5 per crack on DVD’s (mostly Indian immigrands bringing their collections). He says he can now charge $20 or more.

  49. Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what planet you folks are living on. There is at present no TPM, lock or any form of copy protection used on CDs. The only instance was Sony’s brief and limited use of the “rootkit”, which was a complete failure and has not been used in years. There is no TPM-decrypting technology in personal computers or CD players. None is going to be introduced. iTunes distributes unencrypted music tracks. They’re not going back to using TPMs on music files.

  50. 2 questions
    1. At this point this is only a bill and not law am I correct?

    2. Is there a chance this won’t pass. What does everyone herethink might happen. I know they need help from at least 1 other party correct?

  51. Agnostic says:

    The media companies are desperate
    … to cling on to their declining market share. They wanted a tax on MP3 players because nobody is buying blank CDs or DVDs anymore and the government told them no. I think that the iPod lobby is more powerful than they are, which is a good thing. I imagine that the lobby will be demanding taxes on hard disk drives, SD cards and the like for years to come.

    As for digital locks–I’m already bypassing these by using Linux as my operating system of choice. There’s a wonderful program called VLC that doesn’t care about DRM or region encoding. I’ve ripped almost any type of optical media with it.

    I confess that I do download a lot of movies, but I also buy a lot of movies (mostly boxed sets). In fact, rather than rip a DVD that I already own, I prefer the convenience of just downloading it off of a torrent and then converting the file for my iTouch. Why “rip” when somebody else has already done the dirty work for you?

    Of course, everything I just advised in the preceding will probably become illegal once this new copyright law comes into effect (if not, already). I do pay for most of my media (for example, I bought a CD of a song I downloaded because I really liked it). But I’ve spent a lot of allowance and paper route money when I was a kid to buy music cassettes. I’ll be damned if I have to re-buy my music collection digitally. I don’t feel the least bad about downloading the music collection I spent many crappy hours working crummy jobs to buy when I was a teenager.

    My advice: if anyone bypasses DRM or digital locks, just keep your mouth shut about it.

  52. Movie industry refuses to sell me cheap 1080p MKV files, instead selling overpriced DRM locked Blu-Ray obsolete optical media.
    All legal options are DRM locked and low in quality and still very overpriced. Whats a person to do.

  53. Other then that could break Digital Locks..
    What does companies have to do to let us know about the locks? Does it have to be printed on the package?

    I buy a new pc and I find preview of Nero on it to burn DVDs, after 30 days I have to buy a license to keep burning. I can’t uninstall it because they put a digital lock on it. No other program can access the dvd because of the lock.

    What if the lock doesn’t work? I run a linux machine and could loose the right to install it if Windows decides to put a digital lock on the boot sector. You know to protect against viruses.

    What if the lock doesn’t work in OSX or Linux? You might not notice it and you break the law?

    Time to start ripping my VHS to my ipod because I can..

  54. I like how this reads like a grade-school reading comprehension test;
    Provision A, B, C, and D give consumer rights, Provision E says ignore all the above if any form of digital lock is involved.

    There are digital locks on everything. >:V

    But at least this made the news here, I haven’t heard anything about copyright issues anywhere except on the internet!

  55. end user says:

    I think also if this goes through all media/electronics that contain some kind of a DRM that you need to have a key from a company to use that item should not be sold BUT leased which should also be reflected in the price and a big fat DRM sticker on the item. You lease the right to use the item. This way as Canadian consumers we have a choice to buy something else if DRM is present on the item we are purchasing.

  56. There is NO way that this can be enforced unless they search people’s homes and people’s computers.

  57. if we encrypt our hard drive are we protected by the “digital lock” uber-alles principal?
    I bet there will be compromise on the “digital lock” principal. I also bet that you’re not going to like it.

  58. Cdn bacon says:

    Self destruct on recorded media – THATS WRONG
    Self destruction on recorded media is WRONG. It’s like NBC asking me to throw away why VHS tapes after 30 days.

    What !! we are no longer aloud to keep our recorded stuff ???

    Someone start a Facebook group, this is terrible !!

  59. Maybe we can defeat the bill another way..
    Jury Nullification – We the people do not agree with this law and therefore it is no longer a law. If Canada does have this power, we the citizens need to use it to bring balance back.

  60. @boyo

    I wonder what world you live in that’s so rose coloured.

    All DVDs that are on sale or have ever been on sale have CSS encryption on them.

    Many CDs nowadays have a data layer specifically to cause your OS to skip the music section of the disk to prevent recording. This can be construed as a digital lock.

    Any BluRay has AES encryption on it.

    Very few games don’t have what could be considered a “digital lock”. So do print cartridges, even batteries(Sony InfoLithium) and memory cards(MagicGate).

    PDFs have digital locks, as do many abandonware items. Many screenreading softwares need to go around these digital locks to allow the blind to read text.

    Any cartridge game from the early 80s onward had digital locks applied. As do some music formats, many of which lost their ability to get ‘unlocked’ from the remote server due to corporate stagnation.

    Video streams already exist that contain “broadcast flags” that are intended to tell you what you can or can’t record on your VCR/PVR/HTPC.

    HDTVs have digital keys on the HDMI port to allow the digital locked content from HD players/receivers to come through. If your $3000 TV gets on a blacklist because some guy in Asia finds a way to hack it to capture signals, guess what, you are no longer allowed to play any ‘approved’ HD content unless you become a felon or buy another $3000 TV.

  61. @realyst

    Thanks for your post, I was about to post about audio CD DRM, especially the data track which can contain the proprietary players you’re supposed to use.

    I brought up audio CDs for a specific reason… many older CDs (and, as mentioned, newer ones) contain a digital lock of sorts. One of the problems I see with laws like this is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a digital lock. It doesn’t have to be some complex encryption algorithm.

  62. Sum Yung Gai says:

    VPN Encryption anyone?
    We won’t have to worry about this shit. Just rent a VPN (about $5/month) and have your entire internet connection encrypted to a different country and you can go back to your torrenting in peace. Don’t have to worry about shit.

    Don’t feed the corporations.

  63. Hindgrinder says:

    Legal Query (MG?)
    What happens if I download a file for personal use that has already had the digital lock cracked and removed completely? Am I still a criminal?

    HG – Copyfight fair use fence camping since 2009

  64. Dwight Williams says:

    The digital lock’s mere presence voiding all legitimate user rights under this bill is unacceptable.

  65. end user says:


    Yet most of them don’t state about the DRM on the product. I bet if it stated that this product has built in DRM and needs it to run properly consumers would go find one that doesn’t.

    A cd with copy protection on it is not a cd

    Whats next, you can’t play that dvd/bluray/etc… unless your dvd player is hooked up to the internet so it can connect to the DRM sever for validation. Its already happening with games just search for UBI DRM failure and how consumers got shafted.

  66. Digital locks illegal
    What we need to do is turn this right around and make it illegal for a company to digitally lock consumer products in Canada and just sending fines to companies that do. A compromise to me is you can fine me for fair use if I can fine you for locking my legally owned products.

  67. @end user
    All approved bluray players can’t play all Blurays unless they have a method of being updated online or via disk. It’s part of the spec. It’s to allow Sony to release a different encryption algo if AES is compromised on a disc series. It’s happened a few times already, actually.

  68. hoodwinked
    I’m amazed that Geist has managed to hoodwink so many of you into believing that this is all about digital locks. The RCMP will never catch you removing a digital lock for your own private purposes, unless you later upload/share the content. They will be able to catch you uploading/downloading copyrighted material. This bill is all about protecting the “rights” of corporations who are unable to adapt to changing technologies, and a small group of creators who have vested interests in the business model promoted by these corporations.

  69. Rosemary says:

    There is some serious, harmful scamming activity that goes on… and if you bring this to the RCMP’s phonebusters site you can be assured that… there aren’t nearly enough staff to handle real issues of theft via mail, phone, and internet. This copyright law doesn’t want to allow mass theft but they are going to thrash about for a few years until they come to realise that the world we NOW live demands 1) buyer beware and 2) seller as provider (not profiteer). The populace votes with its feet, not its pocket book. If Myspace is good to us, we’ll go there. If Ragweed publishing is bad to us, we won’t go there and Ragweed will whither and die. Natural laws kick in here: eye for an eye, wink for a wink. It’s hard to be a law-maker in times like these.

    PHILOSOPHY – But be patient…when they brought Napster down did music downloading cease? No. Have you ever sifted large stones through sand? Middlemen: Distributors, marketers, and companies who represent artists are in a tough place IF they choose to cling to the old strategies. So… Artists, I beg you to be bold. The world is YOUR oyster. If your product is wanted…we consumers will be knocking on your electronic door. Talent reigns!

  70. copyright term extension?
    A major problem with locking is that it effectively extends the copyright period to be forever … ie. nothing will revert to the public domain ever again.

    If any program with DRM locking can claim legal protection against tampering, does this mean that a virus/rootkit/malware program with locking can now claim legal protection against removal?

  71. Sean Hunt says:

    I’m very happy overall.
    The digital locks provisions aren’t, in my opinion, that bad. The only bit that looks really bad is that format-shifting, time-shifting, and fair dealing do not have exceptions for them. Otherwise, the exceptions seem very well thought-out, such as the one for interoperability. This means, for instance, that it’s legal to circumvent digital locks if the digital lock on software isn’t working because of that lock.

    I think it would be fair to add an exception saying allowing people to circumvent digital locks for personal use as long as that use is not infringing of copyright and the work isn’t distributed. That covers most bases pretty widely, and means that the if the circumvented copy is distributed, the exception doesn’t apply.

    The format-shifting right should also allow someone to perform the copy on behalf of someone else, and apply to rented or borrowed copies provided they are destroyed when the renting or borrowing ends.

    I’m a huge fan of the automatic CC-NC-A license on everything. That’s absolutely awesome.

  72. I believe this drm unlocking bs will affect CDs as well
    Red Book Audio, the standard for CDs, includes a copy protection flag. I believe this law would make any new software that ignored this flag vulnerable to this new law, in effect, blocking you from copying your CD collection.

    These conservatives seriously need to get out of bed with the US, it looks bad when we bring home a fresh case of crabs (drm) with every copyright bill they introduce.

    Just my options.

  73. strunk&white says:

    Hey, what happened?… I was asleep.

    Did the world end?

  74. Anonymous says:

    Time to use the internet Illegally
    Well I guess it is time to start hacking unregistered Cable modems, make a fake IP address, and have unlimited bandwidth. That will make it even harder for you to get caught downloading music, movies, games, and software. There not going to stop me or anyone else whom is persistant in doing this.

  75. Bill C-32 Presentation Links
    Copyright Bill C-32 Recorded Live stream from CBC for the people who missed it. CBC still hasn’t posted it since the stream.

    Audio ripped from the bill presentation in .ogg format. Anyone have a better source?

    Audio ripped from the bill presentation in .mp3 format. Anyone have a better source?

  76. Hephaestus says:

    Dude start a wiki ….
    If you want to change things. First squash this crap, then Create the law you want. You sit here getting the news of this out, you have fans all over the world. You are fighting the good fight but unless you create the laws and set them in stone your rights will slowly be whittled away by these IP maximalist idiots.

    “The copyright bill (or what ever you Kanooks call a bill) of the people of Canada”

    Here is how to do this. Create a wiki and a blog. Define the general bill what you want for the Kanook (Canadian) copyright Bill and place it on the wiki. For each line of the Wiki, add a blog entry with explainations and link to it for comments. Invite all canadians to participate in the bills creation. Then say we have an alternative bill that is fair and balanced. It protects both the citizens and the copyright holders.

    Done ….

  77. The way I am reading the draft bill, section 41.1(1) prohibits circumventing digital locks and 41.1(2) says that a copyright holder can recover damages against anyone who circumvents a lock protecting their work as though they had infringed copyright, but section 41.1(3) says that the copyright holder cannot recover statutory damages from someone who breaks the lock for private purposes.

    If I understand that correctly, it means that if you break a digital lock for private use, and the copyright holder of the underlying work wants to sue you, they will need to prove actual damages rather than simply claiming statutory damages. If so, at least that’s something.

    All in all, based on a quick read-through, I don’t really see a huge threat to individuals (even if it does technically turn lots of people into lawbreakers). On balance, it looks like private individuals are, effectively, better protected. The harm to free speech, criticism, innovation and competition seem to be more serious issues.

  78. Michael Dawson says:

    At least this clause is good
    “30.63 It is not an infringement of copyright for a person to reproduce a work or other subject-matter for the sole purpose, with the consent of the owner or administrator of a computer, computer system or computer network, of assessing the vulnerability of the computer, system or network or of correcting any security flaws.”

    If a media attempts to install or requires additional software, that could be considered an additional vector for attack, and this a security vulnerability. Or it could be argued that the program itself is an attack.

  79. Economic Imapct of DRM
    Some numbers to consider for the economic impact of fair use and DRM. I know there from the US and not Canada but i know of no comparable study of Canada. The CCIA recently released an economic study calculating value of “fair use”:
    `“fair use” – generated revenue of $4.7 trillion in 2007 – a 36 percent increase over 2002 revenue of $3.4 trillion` and [fair use industries] `from 2002 to 2007, expanded 5 percent and accounted for 23 percent of real economic growth`.

  80. 5000 total or..
    So is that a Max of $5000 total or per infraction? If I have an album is it the same as one song? If I have 100 songs, is it the same as 1,000,000?

  81. Why do you water down your argument in this way, if you don’t have a soundbyte you won’t reach as many people.

    “the bill’s concessions mean NOTHING because digital locks trump them all, prepare to lose region free dvd players and all competition in consumer electronics.”

  82. TheRealBubba says:

    “As for digital locks–I’m already bypassing these by using Linux as my operating system of choice. There’s a wonderful program called VLC that doesn’t care about DRM or region encoding.”
    and if this law makes doing things like that illegal, the linux distros will be thinking more than twice about distributing VLC. If libipod is illegal because it breaks the digital locks on your ipod, you can bet the distros will feel the breath of Apple down their necks…

  83. Might as well tell me which player I have to buy while you’re at it….
    This is a complete violation of fair use. In the past we have been able to transfer our tapes and CDs and whatnot to various formats and choose our players (look at mini-disc for example). If we are unable to circumvent these digital locks for our own purposes then the government might as well just tell us which player to buy and stifle all competition right now.

  84. We need a petition
    Ok, where’s the petition, URL’s, send it to CBC, lets get this going.

  85. Junji Hiroma says:

    From Wiki: According to many views,region code enforcement is a violation under WTO free trade agreement

    The cons ALREADY just violated the World Trade Organization Free Trade Agreement :3

  86. VivaElChe says:

    Yet another Corporate Assault on our personal rights and freedoms…
    Does anybody really want their internet providers to have to turn over packet logs for anything less than extreme terrorism related offences, or distributing child porn? These Corporate bastards want to monitor everything, in case they should lose a few pennies – down to the smallest degree. They want your emails, and web history, and if you think it won’t extend to monitoring political dissenters, guess again. Good excuse for having their private communications handed over to government police and military agencies. Please show me the way to the black-net, somebody…

  87. phillips says:

    The bill appears complex because they listened to feed back.
    What I found interesting was the exceptions for interoperability: It appears that you are allowed to use DCSS to play DVDs under a “Free” OS like Linux, but not under a proprietary OS like Windows Vista/7 that includes an “authorized player.”

    However, the exemption is very fragile: it appears you lose it if you ever violate copyright law. It is not clear if any copyright infringement has to have anything to do with the TPM protected work.

    There are also exemptions for network services: unless they are found to be infringing. The test is to determine if the service would be viable without copyright infringement. However, said services will likely not be infringing until they are determined to be infringing. This sounds like it is designed to shut-down services with a reputation for facilitating copyright infringement, whether substantial non-infringing uses exist or not.

    The web of loopholes and counter loop-holes appear to be designed to give crtics enough rope to hang themselves with.
    Critic: “The proposed legislation prohibits X!”
    Minister: *smiles* “You clearly haven’t read the bill: section 42.1(3)f clearly allows X.”
    Critic2: “But allowing X would allow Y!”
    Minister: “Didn’t you read section 45.1c? It says that doing Y revokes your right to do X!”

    As others have said, personal, non-infringing use is not likely to be enforceable anyway. So, they allow exceptions with the understanding that those exceptions will be revoked if you are ever caught.

  88. Sigh ... says:

    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good countries to allow neo-cons to seize office.

  89. Sontaran says:

    This bill goes way beyond music and movies.

    Criminalizing the bypassing of digital locks is dangerous because all the hobbyists who customize their calculators, car engine chip programs, and all of the millions of things that have a CPU and software nowadays will be guilty of a criminal offense punishable with prison time!!

    What about all the engineers who have to bypass a software lock to customize control devices in factories?
    What about all the people who repair equipment that has been discontinued by the manufacturer and no tech support or parts are available and who have to crack a digital lock to fix the equipment?
    They’re all going to be considered criminals !!

    All the car specialty shops that sell parts and modify engines to get more power will be impacted too. There are more people employed by those places than the game developer jobs “protected” by this bill. We may as well imprison half the hobbyists and performance mechanics in Canada.

  90. Sontaran says:

    One of the problems in this bill is that they leave it entirely up to the manufacturers as to whether it is even appropriate to put a digital lock on a device’s OS.

    It’s a license to put a digital software lock on anything that is computer-controlled (including things that can be made computer-controlled, that are not so already)!

    What can we expect in 5-10 years?
    Imagine if your watch stopped working at the end of the month because you didn’t pay your monthly subscription fee to Seiko.
    Imagine if you had to pay monthly fees to keep using the stereo in your car or your TV or your kitchen appliances or your pacemaker!
    Imagine you get sick of it all and start cracking the digital locks on everything so you can use them just like people did before everything had a digital lock on it.
    Guess what: you’re going to jail.

    Thanks, Mister Harper.

  91. Frankly I am depressed over this. After huge letter writing campaign last time, I have run out of steam.
    Is there any point in protesting this, as it seems they will do it anyway.
    The liberals would do it too.
    Any suggestions? I am ready to say we live in a dictatorship and we have no rights!!

  92. Anonymous says:

    F the Canadian government. If i bought CD ‘I got right to make backup’. SCRAP IT! AND DEAL BETTER THINGS THEN STUPID CRAP LIKE THIS

  93. Note To Harper & Corporate Masters
    F|_|(k you!

    Your truly,


  94. offer a “one copy” digital file and a “multiple copy” file for a discount
    perhaps they could establish a “one copy” digital file that is cheaper than one that can be copied 3 or 4 times.
    that way, people who only have one ipod will pay less, and for those who wish to have it on 4 devices will get a discount rate for multiple copies

  95. “soundbyte” to fight this.
    I’ve been thinking, and I finally came up with a sound byte that will work for your cause.

    “It doesn’t matter what the law allows you to do with your tires if it’s illegal to purchase a lug wrench”

  96. Enforcability
    Just because they introduce legislation which criminalizes about a third of the population, according to recent studies (The numbers are probably higher), doesn’t make it enforceable. We simply don’t have the law enforcement manpower. They’ll make an “example” of a couple people like they did in the US and stop pursuing private individual sharers, like they did in the US? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to sue your customer base. Law suits such as these generate an enormous amount of negative press which ultimately does far more damage to the copyright holder than the people they’re trying to hunt down.

    I, among others I know, will never support Metallica again, not in any way. It was one thing when they went after Napster, but quite another when they started going after individuals…in short don’t sue your customers / fans, it’s not good for business. Now, you want to talk about obscene (This was 2001 earnings)…they did nothing in 2001, no albums, no tours, nothing, they make about $18M that year in royalties. When you’re worth in the hundreds of millions and already have more money than God, suing fans for a few tawdry dollars for sharing your music just makes you look like a greed-monger. They can kiss me pasty white ass!! Along with this bill, well at least the digital locks portion. I’d be more content if they put in the provision for allowing digital locks to be broken for personal use. As it stands it’s unacceptable. Fair dealing is still in there, but really has little power if makers are given free reign to implement locks which trump all fair dealing provisions. That’s double dealing and counter-intuitive.

    As for VLC media player, Linux and open source in general…
    VLC is freeware, open source software which has been worked on by people all over the world. VLC, is FREE and is nt a “salable” product in Canada, it was designed as a universal region independent, platform independent portable player, I don’t think it was designed in Canada and it was not designed for the sole intent of circumventing copyright. I believe it would be exempt from this legislation. Why would Linux not bundle it? Perhaps RedHat or Ubuntu might listen IF such a request was made, but it makes no sense. Even then you could download it from any number of sources all over the world and install it yourself. It’s hard to force such legislation upon something that is legally free. In open-source freeware, developers, often distributed over many countries, make no money outside of donations. So the argument that they’re making money from copyright infringement is not valid. Will Microsoft release a patch to prevent VLC from running? I think not, there’s nothing really in it for them and it would just anger customers.

  97. RJWitmer says:

    Waste of consultation
    It appears that this governments definition of a “fair a balanced approach” is to give the lobby groups everything they want and give the Canadian public nothing but lip service. The digital lock trumps all approach is just supposed to be ignored because we’re saying you have the rights over here.

    The lobby groups are chasing rainbows and the Canadian public is supposed to pay the bill. In real money (trying to enforce this) and in the loss of privacy (requirement of enforcement to spy on all traffic).

    I gave the benefit of the doubt to the government on the consultation but they proved that they’re only listening to the back room dealing.

  98. @AL
    “It doesn’t matter what the law allows you to do with your tires if it’s illegal to purchase a lug wrench”

    Ahhh, but what they’re really saying is that the copyright holder has the lug wrench and it’s illegal to use it without first begging for permission. LOL Nice analogy BTW.

  99. Captain Hook says:

    Bad law creates more infringement
    So this will make more people into criminals. This will especially be the case as more and more companies adopt DRM so that they can take advantage of these new found powers to negate fair dealings.

    What will the result be? Well, people will start to figure that if they are already breaking the law to record that TV show with their PVR without permission, then it wont make much difference if they download it via P2P instead. From there it is a pretty small step to downloading the next boxoffice hit movie at the same time.

    These laws create more disrespect for copyright, which in turn creates more copyright infringers of all kinds.

  100. strunk&white says:

    I looked out my window this morning, and I could have sworn I saw some American record producers hiding in the garden. It’s starting already.

  101. @AL
    “It doesn’t matter what the law allows you to do with your tires if it’s illegal to purchase a lug wrench”

    Or maybe:

    “You are legally allowed to make apple pie, but you cannot cut apples because the skin is protected under law.”

    The more the merrier.

  102. Captain Hook says:

    Actually whitey, they’ve been there the whole time. With this Bill though, they don’t feel the need to be as well camouflaged as they were, so now you can see them. 🙂

  103. How does this help our economy?
    Reading through balancedcopyright.gc (the official government page for bill C-32), I stumbled across the priceless phrase “Creators may decide whether to use a TPM, and consumers can then decide whether to buy the product.” while very true, would force us back to the days of analog if we really wanted to avoid DRM. Balanced copyright my ass.

  104. What I really don’t understand about copyright is why it is FREE.
    I think it should only be free for a very short period say 2 years after that if it is really worth something you should have to pay to extend the copy right and it should not be cheap.

  105. Eric Johnson says:

    Copyright legistlation has not business taking away rights that do not involve copying
    Copyright legislation should not be written in such a way as to take away rights that have nothing to do with copying.

    As long as people are permitted to break digital locks as long as they do not violate other laws, they can freely unlock cellphones, equip their computer printer with aftermarket cartridges, have their automobile serviced at indpendent dealers, switch home security companies etc. This freedom is imperitive in order to have a free market in which companies cannot collude to create suites of products and services that ‘lock in’ consumers for live and prevent them from ever choosing competitors’ goods and services.

    If we think that problem is bad today, it will be 1000% worse in the next few years as embedded digital devices find their way into increasing numbers of things.

    What the govenment is doing here is to enshrine in law a tool by which companies can, will, and currently do behave in anticompetitive ways to the detriment of Canadian consumers.

    The idea that it’s OK because it’s possible to later legislate around the problem is ridiculous. It should not be illegal in the first place to break a digital lock in order to simply use, without copying, goods that you own outright. For an ordinary consumer to battle big business to get subsequent laws and statutes revised effectively puts the remedy outside the grasp of any normal consumer.

  106. Truly sorry to intrude on this conversation, but i have a favour to ask.
    I personally am quite vexed with this new bill, but sadly I do not have enough knowledge pertaining to Legal Mumbo jumbo/Law language. That being said, could one of you commenters that have already posted (Or are going to post) explain whats legal/illegal with this new bill in Layman’s terms? Specifically with emphasis on:

    -What are these digital locks and do they only apply when transfering a physical medium to a digital state (Or Vice versa) and what the horrors are about them trumping all other things?
    -I am a frequent user of a youtube video downloading website. would this new law make said site and it’s actions illegal from now on? (The site is
    -My friends are ones that use roms for cartridge games and play them on there PC’s and Playstation Portables. Would this digital lock just mean that one could not transfer there collection to the computer, or does it also make downloading of these ROM’s from a webpage also illegal?
    -Would i have to delete everything I have in my PVR?

    Thank you for reading/taking the time to answer my questions. I am again sorry for intruding on any possible conversations that were going on, but I am quite worried about this bill, and i would just want some simple answers.

  107. Kevin Hendricks says:

    Professor of Operations Management and Information technology
    Hi Michael,

    If you firmly believe this is fixable, please push to include the rights to develop and distribute software to break DRM (as long as it is targeted only for personal use – a hard thing to determine at best). As it stands now, I use such software to move Kindle based e-books (both normal and Topaz style) to my Sony e-reader. Without access to these python scripts, this would be impossible and Amazon would have “locked me in” to both their software (e-books) and hardware. This is simply not what the average consumer wants when they purchase e-books, cds, etc.

    Very few people have the skills to write such software on their own. And increasingly software developers are completely stripping and obfuscating their code, or only making the code available on “locked platforms”, which makes reverse engineering the DRM software much much harder to do.

    So pushing to allow personal use to “break-locks” would be worthless for most of the public if they can not legally and easily get access to the software that allows them to use the material they bought in the first place.

    We truly need both. The rights to break DRM as long as it is for personal use, and the right to create and publish DRM removal software on websites so that the general public can actually find the tools they need to break the lock, without fear of being tracked down for a “crime”.

    Thanks for all your efforts.


  108. strunk&white says:

    “Creators may decide whether to use a TPM, and consumers can then decide whether to buy the product.”

    Man, it’s like “I” wrote that section. Maybe I AM a corproate shill.

  109. IPv6 and DRM
    Why are some of you even raising the lack of enforcement? Do you want to win by having enemies stay home? In that case, your enemies will simply show up at later times, or they’re at home laughing right now because they already won.

    Anyhow, please think about IPv6 and DRM’s importance to it. The Business’ plan is to have every electronic device (fridge, thermostat, etc…) access and be controllable over the internet. If C-32 becomes law, then this government will be transfering all of Canadians’ freedoms to the corporations. Basically everything electronic now has some form of DRM. This is why there is no compromise for DRM whatsoever. DRM is the Ivory Tower, while everything else is its reflection, an illusion.

    This bill essentially says Canadians can have fair dealing only if some corporation allows it. This is just funny; we have freedom already, and we don’t need anyone to give it to us. I hope this bill becomes law, so we can prove how wrong it is. Then, all compromises end, and the public wins.

    The Harper government loves to use illusions to mesmerize Canadians, but a laugh will dispel their tricks. If they really believe in fair dealing, they wouldn’t even bother with the DMCA.


  110. RE: Truly sorry to intrude on this conversation, but i have a favour to ask.
    “What are these digital locks and do they only apply when transfering a physical medium to a digital state (Or Vice versa) and what the horrors are about them trumping all other things?”

    In simple terms, digital locks are are basically types of encryption or other software which is intended to limit, prevent or dictate how a user will use digital media. No, it would also apply if copying digital to digital (WMA to MP3 to remove DRM) and it would also count if you’re circumventing DRM to straight from physical to physical (Say you have a computer with two drives and want to do a direct disk copy). Under this new bill, digital locks trump all fair dealing. You cannot legally copy, backup, format shift, time shift, PVR, or anything else a locked media. By default DVDs and BluRay are encrypted. This means you cannot legally make backup copies of any DVDs or BluRay movies or transfer them to an iPod, iPad or any other device..

    “I am a frequent user of a youtube video downloading website. would this new law make said site and it’s actions illegal from now on? (The site is”

    I’m not sure if Flash video uses some sort of encryption to prevent straight downloading, but I suspect this would also become illegal.

    “My friends are ones that use roms for cartridge games and play them on there PC’s and Playstation Portables. Would this digital lock just mean that one could not transfer there collection to the computer, or does it also make downloading of these ROM’s from a webpage also illegal?”

    If you have to break a digital lock…ALL illegal. Downloading ROMs is illegal now I believe.

    “Would i have to delete everything I have in my PVR?”

    Most of it. The provision is that you can store it for a “reasonable” amount of time to allow you (and ONLY you) to view it. Building a media library will be considered illegal. This one hurts me because with little kids we have little free time to watch TV so we copy or download TV shows and store them until we have time to watch them. This will be illegal.

  111. Nigel Williams says:

    What has happened to Canada?
    I have the RIGHT to lend or transfer ownership of any property that I have purchased regardless of a digital lock. The C-32 bill is an utter travesty, and removes our basic rights as Canadians. Soon I will no longer be able to lend my favorite video game, movie, tv series, or album to a friend due to the circumvention of direct rights management.

    The copyright imposed for Canada (American DMCA) only caters to the large corporations and does not take into consideration the rights of the consumer.

    James Moore is a hack, IMO. If you voted for the conservatives, then I hope you enjoy having your rights taken away from you one by one, and I put full blame on all of you for having my own rights taken away.

    How can this law be imposed without a single legal online streaming website in Canada? We lack anything comparable to Netflix or Hulu for online streaming. I do not understand how Canada is so slow to develop an online media source, when we control most of the worlds satellite communications.

    There is also no way for me to protect my purchased material. I have lost so many cd cases over the years, loosing so many great music albums on which I spent thousands of dollars in total.

    Half of my student debt (more than $10 000) was spent on different entertainment media (xbox ad pc video games, dvds, music albums, movie tickets, etc). How can someone who is not financially stable be able to maintain a comparable standard of living? Do our friends not deserve the same equal rights? This is going to widen the separation between the rich and middle class. Just because someone makes a decent salary, does not give them more rights than any other person in our country.

    I lend dvds, music albums, and video games to my friends to make them interested in the things I enjoy. Without this aspect of our culture, will the commercial markets remain stable in future economic recessions?

    Remember that Paul Martin was the one who had the vision to keep Canada financially stable in a time of global economic recession. Steven Harper had relatively little to do with it in comparison. Harper cares more about keeping American happy, than protecting Canadians happiness. We have the right to protect our rights.

  112. says:

    When the time comes and our children, brothers, parents, neighbours are being sued by the agents of Bill-C32, *all of you intelligent people who have contributed your sentiments insofar had better stand up and DO something about it!

  113. I have to say
    How does this bill affect photographers and visual media professionals ? The stock industry is already coined to be dead but a lot of my sales come from non-commercial companies or not for profits buying stock to promote their organization…so now under this bill, that would mean that they could get my work for free??

    how is noncommercial and commercial defined?

  114. Analog Hole
    Does the bill consider using the “analog hole” to be breaking the digital lock? I.e. if it’s legal to transcode video to put it on my iPod, but illegal to break the trivial DRM on a DVD, will it be legal to point a high-quality camera at my DVD-player to make the iPod video?

  115. @ Travis
    “Does the bill consider using the “analog hole” to be breaking the digital lock? I.e. if it’s legal to transcode video to put it on my iPod, but illegal to break the trivial DRM on a DVD, will it be legal to point a high-quality camera at my DVD-player to make the iPod video? ”

    That is not a hole, it’s still circumventing the DRM, i.e. Illegal. Same goes for buying an ancient pre-DRM enable PC for the sole purpose of circumventing. If you already own such a PC, the area may be a little more grey.

  116. strunk&white says:

    @Travis — A very good question, I think. I was wondering the same thing as a solution for documentary makers. I’m not at all sure courts would interpret “quoting” from other video, film or audio sources by recording portions of them again through the lens or microphone as breaking DRM. It seems ot me this is a way to have DRM, and respect fair dealing.

    Very interesting.

  117. Dad With Dog says:

    So how many times am I expected to buy the same movie or music CD?
    Purchase 1 gets scratched by the kids. $20
    Purchase 2 go missing. $40
    Purchase 3 gets warped by excessive heat. $60
    Purchase 4 is in a different format. $80
    Purchase 5 etc… etc… etc… $hundreds….

    No wonder these Music and Movie execs drive fancy cars and snort Cocaine!

  118. Using a camera to copy DRM protected material.
    It will be just as illegal as taking a camera in to a movie theater, just not as enforcable. Read section 29.22 in the bill. The language is plenty broad enough that this could, and would, be interpreted as circumventing DRM for the purpose of making a copy. We need the fair use provision added in.

  119. stop playing politics
    let us be clear of one point that current government is an Minority government, so all bill has to get the approval/buy-in of the opposition parties. So, it means that The liberal party and the NDP party are letting this to pass; so if the Liberal and the NDPs are really interested in the well being/rights of all people all that good stuff on this specific bill/issue; then they could have put in the changes. The fact/outcome remains — that is there are really no real opposition to this bill from the opposition parties. So, supporters of the opposition party, stop pointing your fingers, stop playing politics. If the issue is important(I believe it is); then call your Liberal/NDP/(even Tories) MP, and make your voices heard.

  120. section 41.1.3 – no statutory damages if technological controls are circumvented for personal use?!?
    If I read this section correctly, it still makes it unlawful to circumvent technical protection measure, the owner of the copyright can only recover damages, not statutory penalties. Since the onus on the plaintiff is to prove revenues, and the defendant to prove elements of claimed damages, and in the case where all of the it seems that there are no actual damages to be assessed. Is this a correct reading of sections and laws related to reproduction for private purposes?

    (3) The owner of the copyright in a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) has been contravened may not elect under section 38.1 to recover statutory damages from an individual who contravened that paragraph only for his or her own private purposes.

  121. Greg A. Woods says:

    the “single” backup copy provision is bogus
    I don’t understand why you think the backup provision in the new bill is OK.

    It’s not. It’s bogus.

    Having even thousands or millions of digital copies of a protected work should be allowed provided they are kept only for personal use.

    In the digital world there is literally no difference between one copy and an infinite number of copies.

    The issue must be only one of what is done with those copies. So long as they are not sold, nor distributed for free in any way, then no infringement of the owner’s rights has occurred. Unless the law agrees with this premise then we are stepping into a police state.

  122. accessible media?
    To be perfectly honest, I use torrents for A LOT of content. Why? Because I want to be able to obtain ONE song. Or I don’t want a physical CD. Or I want ONE EPISODE of a tv show. Give me a way that’s affordable that I can buy these things, and let there be competition! There should be no reason HMV can’t sell songs online – why are we forced to only use iTunes?!

    Also, does the user-generated “youtube” clause include user-created subtitled films?

  123. phillipsjk says:

    Breaking digital locks must be allowed for comercial use,
    I disagree Kevin Hendricks’ position that we should be allowed to break digital locks, but only for “personal use.”

    TPMs will hurt industry: computers are used everywhere from process control to documentation. If industry is not allowed to break TPMs, even more manufacturing will move overseas.

    As Mr. Hendricks pointed out, the average user does not have the means to break the more sophisticated DRM systems. A commercial entity like a software or computer vendor will have more resources to throw at the problem.

    It should be noted that “digital locks” are distinct from “rights management information.” Article 11 of the 1996 WIPO copyright treaty deals with “digital locks” (called effective technological measures), while article 12 of the same treaty deals with rights management information.

    You don’t need a digital lock to convey “rights management information”: just about every book you can find in a Library or book store will have a copyright page listing that information.

    It should also be noted that DRM only hurts legitimate consumers: the “pirates” don’t care because there are very compelling technical reason to believe DRM can never work.

    One example that forces me to question my assumption the industry is acting in good faith is Nokia’s DRM-free music offering… in China. The move, backed by several major music publishing companies, seems to suggest that best way to defeat draconian DRM is rampant piracy to the point that “legitimate” copies are hard to find. China is the *only* country where Nokia is offering DRM-free music.

    The proposed legislation says you don’t get to enjoy any of the exceptions if you try to participate in civil disobedience by copying copyrighted works. It reminds me of the laws where your punishment is more severe for burglary if you bring your own “burglary tools” such as screw-drivers.

  124. @bubbles
    “Give me a way that’s affordable that I can buy these things, and let there be competition! There should be no reason HMV can’t sell songs online – why are we forced to only use iTunes?!”

    For music Napster and Puretacks are “bad”, but better than iTunes.

  125. Puretracks
    Spelled it wrong…here’s the site

  126. Thank you IamME for your prompt response.
    One last question I have regarding this bill however is this:
    -Under this new bill, would recording via video tape also become illegal? I don’t think blank VHS’s have digital locks on them, however i could be greatly mistaken with the over-technification of the world right now.

  127. SevPrince says:

    Not Good Enough …
    … for the *AA’s. Whatever they get with this DCMA,they still want more.
    Check out:

    Makes me wonder if they’ve ever heard about it being impossible to extract blood from turnips. Oh well …

    Anybody know how I can put DRM on my dollars? Because if Big Content can dictate what I can (NOT) do with my
    media then it’s only “fair and balanced” if I have the right to dictate what they can do with my money.

    And back it up with unbreakable digital locks. Forever.

  128. cndcitizen says:

    Copyright violation more sever then burglery
    If you look sentences, it would be cheaper for you to break into someone house or office and steal all their CD/DVD/Media hiding it and get the 30 days in Jail and $50 dollar fine then paying up to $5000 dollars for each song you steal…kind of stupid….but then again, Cons are never smart (I mean the political party).

  129. Adam Goode says:

    How utterly pathetic…
    “You WILL buy our useless crap over and over again and you WILL enjoy it! Or else you will go to jail forever!”

    That appears to be the mantra. Media Pigs are blaming everything but themselves for a declining market and must bribe our parliament to push their written laws onto us so they can continue to suck more money from us at our expense. How pathetic. Welcome to the new Canada: Bought and paid for by corporate shills.

    Also, we the people get to spend our resources, time and effort hounding our own citizens to help preserve the profits of fat corporate bastards who do not deserve our money to begin with…? I don’t know about you, but I see something seriously wrong with this picture!

    Angry yet to do something about this?

    It’s a good thing that our food and energy industries (Stuff we actually NEED, not a mere luxury) don’t have these same kind of laws or else it would be impossible for any of us to survive.

  130. in response to ygjb, re: 41.1.3 / question about streaming
    That’s how I read it too (but I’m not a lawyer) — it appears the copyright holder would have to prove actual damages if someone circumvents a digital lock, e.g. by daring to watch an encrypted DVD on a computer running Linux. It seems nobody has been sued in the US for using libdvdcss for this purpose (i.e. watching their own DVDs on an operating system for which no copyright holder-approved decryption system exists), despite DMCA.

    On another note, if I set up a music server for myself (say with software such as Ampache) and allow individual friends to stream music to their computers from my server (but not to download the mp3 or whatever), would this be legal under the revised act? The bill talks about “telecommunication to the public” on several occasions, but it’s not obvious how streaming “in private” would be dealt with. Of course, recording a stream is a fairly trivial task, but it does kind of emphasize the problem with the concept of “copying” in the digital age.

  131. phillipsjk says:

    Mr.??? : ” Under this new bill, would recording via video tape also become illegal? I don’t think blank VHS’s have digital locks on them, however i could be greatly mistaken with the over-technification of the world right now.”

    No, VHS VCRs don’t have “digital locks” (they are analog), but the do implement a Technological Protection Measure known as Macrovision. If you try to copy a Tape or DVD onto a VHS tape, non-standard voltage spikes during the vertical blanking interval mess up the Automatic Gain Control. This can be circumvented by disabling the automatic gain control, but would be illegal under the proposed legislation.

    @cndcitizen: That has little to do with my point: copyright infringement is already illegal. Now, under the proposed legislation, merely circumventing the “digital locks” adds the jail time and fines you describe. I think the fines are higher for burglary if your carry tools such as lock-picks while committing the offence. As I pointed out, the proposed legislation goes even further: in many cases, circumventing the “Digital locks” is legal, unless you have been deemed to done something illegal.

    The legislation is too recursive for my taste, right down to the definition of “Technological Protection Measure”: …” any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation, . . .”

  132. cndcitizen says:

    @cndcitizen: That has little to do with my point: copyright infringement is already illegal…

    Sorry, not all is illegal as copying a CD from a friend or someone giving it to you to load into your system is technically legal (we pay a tax for that right), what they are proposing is that if you screw up your CD and don’t want to pay for a new one, it is cheaper to throw a rock through a window of someones house and go steal their CD’s. I understand your point that if you use tools (maybe they think a rock is a tool) then you go to jail longer, but still no where near what the penalty for backing up your system by breaking the “protective measures”.

    It would be like your neibour locks them out of their car and a police office sees you opening the lock for your neibour and arrests you for circumventing the TPM. Since you don’t own the right to print the keys for said car or locking mechanism, the neibour should have contacted the dealer to come open the car for them. When you take this law out of the contect of the internet, you are opening up a whole other world of abuse by companies. Someone mentioned about printer refills, under the new law that would be illegal, you would have to pay HP $80 for a cartrige instead of your local print refiller store $20 bucks….

    This is all about securing the perpetual rights…no wonder the are selling printers for less then the cartriges that are used to print the documents…they will soon have a lock so only you can buy fro authorized sources, limiting competition and inovation. This whole bill is 100 steps back in progress. Someone else posted very nice above that CopyRight should be 2-5 years with the holder having to pay to have the copyright renewed with only provisions for infrigment for comercial gain. These complex and if you do A but not B but also do C you are safe but if you do D also you are doing something illegal is useless.

    Simple, if you profit from something then you are breaking the exiting law, if you are not, go away.

  133. strunk&white says:

    @Dad — it sounds to me like you need to take better care of your CDs and DVDs. Do you expect to get a free new copy of that book you dropped in the bath?

    I’d say if this bill gives you the right to even one back-up copy, you should say “thanks for the new right.”

  134. cndcitizen says:

    Books in Bathware???
    @strunk&white – Do you expect to get a free new copy of that book you dropped in the bath?

    This is not the same thing as books don’t fall into the same catagory. A book is a physical media that is hard to reproduce alought it is every day in China (scan and print). Most people keep their physical media safe (books, CD’s, DVD’s etc). It is like making photocopies of your passport when you travel in case it is lost or stolen and you need to get a new one. You cover your butt, granted accidents happen but you take all protection possible to prevent those things from happening including backing up key things like birth certificate, drivers license, passport, DVD’s that they children will be playing with. CD’s that are scratched every time they go in and out of a CD player, so they are the most common to be backed up first. If you are a lemming, then you would follow allong and buy the same new CD that you purchased 10 times before because it is scratched and skipped. That is not the way it works, you have already payed for the license to view/review the material, if you break the physical medial then too bad, so you protect your investment by making backups. I mirror all my work server images nightly, if I have to restore those images for any reason I can do that, I copy data accross multiple servers and locations so their is no one single point of failure to protect the data of clients. Since there are applications, web-services, servers, software, data, etc, if companies started putting the install based on the hard-drive unique ID and not being able to launch it if it is not on the same hard drive that it was installed to, then how would backups be done in the industry. This whole digital lock thing can be abused too far…

    No provision for any type of digital locks.

  135. … “Do you expect to get a free new copy of that book you dropped in the bath?”

    And this exemplifies the difference between living in the digital age and living in the past. The book is an example of copyright before the digital age, the DVD is an example of modern digital media (abet a bit dated). The book cannot be easily copied or backed up, while the DVD can. Expectations are different when you actually live in the digital age.

  136. Downloading TV shows?
    How does this affect downloading tv shows that aired on tv the night before? Somebody else recorded the show and uploaded it to a downloading service and then you download it because you missed the show last night.

    Downloading recorded tv shows acts as a PVR.

  137. @someone – RE:Downloading TV shows?
    This is currently illegal, and will continue to be so, though I don’t think it should be if you legally pay for a service, such as Shaw Cable, Bell ExpressVu, etc., which you have access to the show. I think the thought is that the downloaded version already has the commercials cut out and the PVR version does not.

  138. isn’t this just about money?
    it seems that the whole copyright issue is about executives making enough money for porsches and cocaine and mansions. it used to be that a movie played in the theatre and recovered the production costs. no longer. they play in the movie house for two weeks and then go to dvd and rental to make the big money. the distributors planned to drop the price of dvd’s in china to $3.99 or thereabouts because they were being pirated. the reasoning was that if they sold them that cheaply that perhaps consumers would buy a legal copy. if they could do that in china, then why do they feel it is fair to price the dvd’s at $25 – $30 here and then have the gov’t enact laws to make sure you pay up. does it not seem reasonable that if the movies were sold for $4.99 in a cheap sleeve instead of an oversized useless plastic box that eats up your cupboard space, that people would buy them instead of downloading them?

    one aside. tv commercial by a major isp in b.c. “subscribe to high speed internet. download huge files fast!” isn’t this cross purposes? what huge files are the average internet subscriber downloading (besides tv shows, movies, and music)? perhaps they will have to change the ad to “download your email superfast!!”

  139. DVD/Bluray Fair Use
    I have spent over $12,000 building a collection of over 500 DVD and 75 Bluray original features/documentaries/TV Series etc. I do not have the space to build shelving for all these discs and would find it very inconvenient to search through my collection to put a movie on for the kids or just sit, relax and watch an old episode of a TV show. Instead I use a movie server (there are may out there either based on Windows and Linux). The software on this movie server will allow me to rip my DVD and Bluray discs in full quality to a server housing 40TB of storage space. The software will organize my collection alphabetically, chronologically and by genre so it easy to find and playback a movie. Since this server is also connected to my multi-room A/V distribution switch, I am able to watch that program in any room in my house that has a TV. This is a very easy, convenient and enjoyable way to watch content I have purchased. Since installing this system my DVD and Bluray purchases have accelerated.

    In order for this system to work I have to break the digital lock to copy the DVD or Bluray to hard disk storage.

    There HAS TO BE a provision for this type of personal Fair Use. It shouldn’t matter if the content is music, movies, photos or e-books. If you legally purchased it and you are only using for you or your family’s private entertainment in your own home, vehicle, personal storage device or vacation property you should be able to do so without fear you are breaking the law. I do not want to break the law, even if it is a law that can’t be enforced or there is little or no consequence.

    Stand up for Fair Use, If they don’t want to give us that then hit them where it hurts, Boycott the purchase of anything with digital locks!

  140. Consumer Rights!
    Power to the consumer! We should be able to do what we want with what we purchase with our own hard earned money!

  141. maddadam says:

    What Year is this?
    This bill is attempting to fix a problem it has that is completely out of control and apparently beyond comprehension…kind of like the huge BP oil spill in the Gulf! The future is in streaming content. Industry should probably get that under control now before it too spins away. All that bill will do is start a useless market for content that is more copyable than others. Most “locks” and infringed uploaded content that Canadians consume are perpetrated out of country. I doubt we’ll see a lot of fines and court cases against individuals though, which is a good thing! Industry should stop trying to beat up the people they want to be friends with.

    What digital content copyright holders really need and are really, really going to need in the future is revenue from streaming content. The Industry needs to directly tax isp’s for content streamed. It could be monitored and partially paid for by the websites that stream the content as well as the consumers of the content. Yet if history is a teacher than it will probably be after they force bands to sue their fans and a huge movie studio takes a college student to court for millions…again.


  142. cndcitizen says:

    DVD/Blue Ray
    @Don “If you legally purchased it and you are only using for you or your family’s private entertainment in your own home, vehicle”

    That is what the cartels don’t want you to do. Just like game licenses now, they want you to buy one license for each person that will play the game even if it is on the same computer. So you have 3 kids, they all need a copy of the same game or 3 different accounts to play the same game unless they all use the same account (which is againts the EULA). For single player or even multiplayer games, playing something on one computer should be allowed, which is why most people fist thing they do when they buy a game is to remove the DRM and aplly the patch to disable the CD/DVD lookup so that the physical media is protected and you don’t have to connect to any unstable DRM server (Ubisoft).

    Anyway, yes it is all about the money and the expense of consumer normal practices…just wait until they make you all sign-in to seperate accounts to watch a TV show..

  143. Dad With Dog says:

    To grandpa strunk&white or dumb&dumber
    I knew my comment would bring a Dummy or two out of the woodwork! Currently I can purchase “LICENSES” to use a software. If the media containing the software goes missing or is destroyed, I can login and see all the products I’ve purchased and download them again and again OR I can request that media be mailed to me at a minimal replacement cost.

    strunk&white, if you run out of toilet paper and have to use several pages of your book to wipe your bottom, you should be able to request another copy, but it will be a lot more costly than a 25 cent dvd or cd!!! AND goodluck trying to download a hardcopy of that book!!! Dummy

  144. Breaking the Law with Linux
    I am a law breaker. I use hacks to turn off copy protection on legally purchased Windows games so I can play them in Wine under Linux. The DVD decoders in Linux are unsanctioned so watching commercial DVD’s in Linux is effectively outlawed.

  145. Dean Owen says:

    Copying Levy being removed?
    Is the rip-off copying levy applied to blank media such as CD’s being eliminated in this new bill? Over the years I’ve paid hundreds of dollars in this fee for the right to copy MY content – photos, data backups, home videos, and music that I write and perform. What about the so-called iPod levy? If this fee stays in place then we should have the right to make copies free of DRM. The entertainment goons can’t have it both ways.

  146. Commercial Infringement
    I had asked earlier:
    “How is commercial vs. non-commercial defined?
    “Statutory Damages. … In other words, there are still tough potential damages but the law finally distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial infringement.”

    How is the distinction between these two defined or described? Does commercial actually require an intent of financial gain (as it should), or does it apply some other metric? ”

    I got a reply from Clement via Twitter:

    ” “Commercial” incl acts 4 profit or fin advantage”

    Which is a little ambiguous as it could encompass personal blogs which happen to have Google ads on them for microscopic profit.

    CAPTCHA: earliest return

  147. Fed Up in Vancouver says:

    We need a Consumer Charter of Digital Rights
    We need a Consumer charter of digital rights ! Government of the day whether Tory or Liberal will keep facing pressure from Hollywood Media Companies. We need to Guarantee our rights – for example
    1. Clear labeling of digital locks and its implications.
    2. Allow format shifting for invididual use
    3. Allow breaking of digital locks where the owner of the lock doesn’t have a media player for a platform like Linux.
    4. Allow reaking of digital locks in order to make One backup or force media companies to replace media for a small fee when it is damaged in perpetuity.

    Its time for the Canadians to DEMAND that their representatives act in their best interests and not those of Media companies and US.

  148. @Don – RE: DVD/Bluray Fair Use
    I feel your pain. I can’t be bothered to digitize my entire ~1100 DVD/BluRay collection. I converted a double closet and have two cabinets outside the closet which hold my collection. I estimate it would take me the better portion of 700 hours to digitize but that’s not to say I wouldn’t consider it if the the technology got faster and to hell with their anti-fair-use crap!!! Like you, space constraints will soon become an issue for me. But, I would need a larger server. My 4.5TB server just wouldn’t cut it….40TB!?!?!, wholy CRAP man, that must have cost a fortune. You certainly have room to expand. 😀

  149. phillipsjk says:

    People seem confused over digital vs analog.
    For the most part, we live in an analog world (ignoring concepts such as the plank length). People can be forgiven for assuming their DVD or Blu-ray collection is in “analog” form. Indeed, “illegal” copies distributed over the Internet tend to be trans-coded with a loss of quality much like you would see with a crappy VHS copy.

    The simplified “digital locks” term used in the media is also confusing because that legislation was carefully worded to avoid applying to only to digital technology.

    Analog: Having an infinite number of possible states; mimicking another.

    Digital: Having a finite set of discrete states; or anything pertaining to fingers.

    Copyright itself was a response to new, cheap and reliable digital copying techniques: the printing press. (The character set can be considered a set of discrete states)

    Why does this matter?
    Both analog and digital technology have advantages and disadvantages. Digital has the (potential) benefit of lossless copying; especially if used with forward error correction. Analog technology has the (potential) benefit of more accurate reproduction and graceful degradation. IMO, for a while “digital” was being marketed much like “solid state” used to be. In many cases “digital” means “cheap,” not necessarily better

    However, if you buy a new computer you can not use an analog display (CRT) if you want to play back Blu-ray media: The Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator (AACS LA) requires a “protected path” for playback. They are currently in the process of phasing out all analog outputs; not just limiting them to DVD resolution. In effect, your choice of computing technology is being dictated by a few licensing consortia.

  150. @phillipsjk
    “”protected path” for playback.”

    What do you mean by this? HDMI? I’ve played BluRay on a standard def TV from my computer using only the composite video out on the back of my video card. It’s looked bad and I’ve thankfully since upgraded, but many BD-players have regular video (Composite, component, or both) outputs and I’ve seen several without HDMI at all.

  151. New Rights are unusable [Cartoon Needed]
    Someone should make a cartoon of what this law represents for average people:

    A list of new Rights inside a glass case with the words “Breaking this “digital lock” will be punishable by law”

  152. Big servers
    With 2TB drives running around $130-150 nowadays, you can easily build a Linux based, 10TB raid5 server for under $1000. Such a system would have cost 30-50K just 5 years ago. Where will we be 5 years from now?

    The technology always outpaces the average thinking and perceptions. But it isn’t “magic” by any stretch of the imagination. It still operates within certain constraints, if you know what they are.
    This is why attempts to legislate uses of this technology will nearly always be useless. The problem isn’t the tech, it’s the social uses of this tech. It’s a social problem and MUST be addressed at a social level.

  153. cndcitizen says:

    Big Server & Big Pipes
    @OldGuy – completely aggree with you but would also add,

    Think of now that some areas are getting fibre to their homes, this about 100 times faster then todays services. Think of having the bandwith of a medium office and be able to download a uncompressed Blu-Ray in 30 seconds. Add to it that drives are getting smaller, faster and cheaper.. so much so that you would be able to transmit the complete libray of congress or complete media library in a matter of hours. That is just a couple years down the road. Any digital lock that has ever been implemented on a large scale has been broken and with faster and faster computers out in the wild any technology protection measure today would not last long. Look at the claims of unbreakable blu-ray protection. I think it took 24 hours to break it when it was first released.

    It has to be a social change, legislation will not be able to keep up with the technology and unless distribution companies changes their model and fees, it will always be a fight against technology.

    Even today people are beaming/sharring music and movies across PDA’s, laptops and phone in public places outside of file sharing sites which no one can control…sort of like the old Sneaker Network of tape dubbing, but faster and without media or network connections.

  154. RE: Big Servers
    So true. Unfortunately few people have the technical skill to build such a server. I know I couldn’t do it, at least not in Linux and without a great deal of research. Yes, 10TB is doable for cheap…what’s that 6 drives? 40TB (In RAID-5) would require at least 21 2TB drives and special hardware to support that many drives or at the very least a very convoluted distributed Linux software RAID setup over multiple externals. I know people who are linux gurus and are quite capable of building their own, but usually opt just buy pre-built RAID solutions. They’re generally only marginally more expensive, quieter, much smaller and use considerably less power.

    Technology will always outpace legislation, that’s why laws such as this one tend to make the lobbyists happy, but are generally unenforcable, or quickly become so. I agree with you totally!!! More effort should be placed on educating people on the more social consequeces of piracy.

  155. The bill is not ‘fixable’
    The current ‘Canadian’ government has sold out to big business: it should be painfully obvious to even the least intellectually gifted that the current government does not have your best interest at heart. This bill should be called the ‘Digital Slavery and Repression Act.’

    Next I expect to see the ‘Canada No Health Care Act.’ The Corporate government will waste massive amounts of money on things that only benefit big business, and then claim they need to cut the budget Health care will get the axe next, because private health ‘insurance’ is far more profitable than real health care.

  156. phillipsjk says:

    ‘The “Analog Sunset” will be staggered. New players after December 31, 2010 must limit analog video output of BD content to interlaced standard definition (480i/576i). Then, 2013 is the expiration date for analog video: no player that passes “Decrypted AACS Content” to analog video outputs may be manufactured or sold after December 31, 2013’
    – Posted June 8, 2009 05:31 AM by Juan Calonge

    Recently, I learned about an entire network stack designed to allow you to play “protected” content over a network (but does not allow copying) called “Digital Living Network Alliance” (DLNA). It uses an alphabet soup of standards from “Digital Transmission Content Protection” (DTCP) for “link protection” (layer 2 of the OSI model) up to “Universal Plug and Play” (UPnP) (layer 7 of the OSI model) that allows commercial streams to poke holes in your router for peer to peer (P2P) transmission. Bias warning: Less objectionable are the other layers of the stack such as Ethernet (layer 1) or HTTP (about layer 4).

  157. Thanks Phillip for the clarification and the info about DNLA. I give it a matter of weeks after it’s first commercial release before some way to circumvent it comes out. Whether this is good or bad, it’s not for me to say…it is what it is.

  158. Big servers
    “Unfortunately few people have the technical skill to build such a server.”

    True enough for the older crowd, but a piece of cake for most technical university students or even some geeky high school students. Offer them a 24 pack for “labour” and you can probably get one done for cost and the “fun” of building it.

    40TB is a little more out of reach, but still doable. 8 port SATA/SAS cards are about $120 today. The problem is getting all those drives mounted in cases with power supplies. A little unwieldy for the average user.

    For a 10TB or bigger system, I would build it as raid6. Slightly more expensive but better in the long run.

    From an empty starting point in today’s world, I could build a 20TB Linux software raid6 server with case, power, 8GB ram, quad core, etc, for around $2300-2500. About the same as a 10TB server I built 2 years ago for a development project. About the same as I paid for a “high powered” simple desktop system 12 years ago, that had less of everything than you get on an iPod today. The tech keeps advancing.
    If I can do it for that price, nearly any geek can as well.

    The point is not that it can be done, but it can be done within the the realm of the average person today, never mind in 5 years time. Society will change again. Time limits on “format shifting” or limitations on “libraries” of archived, sorted, easily accessible, content make zero sense when viewed in that light. DRM *will* be bypassed to accommodate these users. We needs laws and a marketplace, that will stand the test of time. What has just been introduced is simply a stopgap measure, already outdated. It doesn’t address the root of the problem, our changing society. Maybe next time.

  159. phillipsjk says:

    I just realized, that in certain cases, locked doors and walls can be considered “Technological Protection Measures.” For example, I you steal a studio copy of a movie before DRM is applied. That can be construed as circumventing the DRM. I think the existence of libraries would make such a case harder to prove for breaking into the average house though (unless you steal personal work that is automatically copyrighted).

    @IamME, DLNA is implemented by over 5000 devices including Windows 7 (Windows Media Player 12 according to Wikipedia). Windows Vista has partial support including DTCP.

  160. Gooeybaby says:

    hey, I use Torrents to download TV shows that I miss and the odd old hard to find movie (rarely newer titles). All of this is for personal use. Nothing leaves my hard drive and is only there temporarily. I agree artists should be paid for their work, and I do contribute substantially. I have a large purchased DVD collection and have a handfull of BluRays. I go to the theater several times a month and rent blurays and PS3 games from my local Blockbuster all the time. By the sounds of things, with this new bill I would receive heavy fines for my torrent activity even tho it’s not substantial and I do not profit from it’s use by any means. Please correct me if I’m wrong. But I feel this bill really should be geared towards extreme high end downloaders that are obviously using it for profit. Treat it like drug possession. If you’re caught with “X” amount it’s considered “trafficking”. Well, if your data transfer is over say, 200GB a month, then it’s clear you’re not just catching up of TV shows or checking out a couple songs or movies that are hard to come by conventionally. I fear that I’ll be going bankrupt here. For example, we had a flood and it damaged a lot of my stuff, I had to move a lot of things to storage including my TV and entire home theater for almost 2 months. So to keep myself entertained, I’d download the TV shows I’d usually watch/PVR and even the odd movie to watch on my PC. A couple of those movies I actually owned, I just felt like watching them and they were in storage. What if this comes up again? I wont be able to use this method and would be plum out of luck. Further more, sometimes it’s just easier and quicker to download a song for play back then it is to go digging threw ones CD collection to find it. So just a clarification question, if I continue this type of activity could it be assumed that I would in fact be infringing of the new bill, and could expect large fines?

    but that’s just my opinion….hence the right one.

  161. This is ridiculous
    How is this bill fixable?

  162. Captain Hook says:

    That’s easy. You put it on a piece of wood, then hammer a few nails through it, soak it in gasoline, then set it on fire.

    Arrrrrrrrrr, that’ll fix it!

  163. who’s country is this?
    in reading the comments on this blog, i see nearly everyone complaining about the bill and giving excuses about ‘i own this copy’ and ‘i can’t play it on my media player’ and on and on. it sounds like the stories you tell the cop when you get pulled over on the highway.

    this bill is an extension of the old copyright law that was basically unenforceable. when cassette tapes came out, it was illegal to copy your favourite songs onto a ‘favourite hits’ tape to play in your car. how many people do you know were arrested for that heinous crime? not one, i am guessing. the only difference now is the lobbying of OUR gov’t by the music and movie industry moguls in order that they can enlarge their profits. do they need to worry? the piracy does not seem to affect their bottom line as much as they are saying. so far, the new shrek movie has pulled in 133M, iron man 275M, and alice in wonderland 333M, all before they have even gone to video. how f***ing much money do these people want? and the bands are not hurting, as was described earlier. OUR gov’t has made laws against drugs, stealing cars, owning guns, and many more that already are not working. it is the scare tactic that you might be the one that is targeted with the million dollar fine like the single mother in the u.s. with the riaa witch hunt. they made soft drugs illegal and now you have to buy from criminals. it didn’t stop the problem. they made a new law here that prohibits use of a cell phone while driving. it didn’t work either. i see people doing it every day.

    the point is, if they are going to allow isp’s to rat you out for downloading a song, don’t you feel a little creeped out. is it then ok for the police to peer in your computer room window with an infrared camera to see if you are ripping a dvd and then break into your house and arrest you. remind you of another regime in europe half a century ago? the police are having a difficult enough time gaining probable cause to enter houses that they know are grow-ops and have been for some time. i wouldn’t lose much sleep over this.

  164. RE: who’s country is this?
    I suspect they’ll try to make an “example” out of a few people in this country and, again, come to the conclusion that it doesn’t pay to sue your customers. Again, it’ll be some college student or some single mother since yhe people they’re “really” after have the technical knowhow to NOT get caught. So, they use scare tactics, which will ultimately be ineffective….

  165. who’s country is this?
    we were chatting the other day about this. examples come to mind. one was the gun registry. they spent into billions trying to register $100K worth of weapons by people who were willfully participating.

    we were trying to imagine the setup they would need to track torrent downloads for copyrighted content, the ip that downloaded it, the isp provider of the ip, sending them a warning, the isp provider sending the subscriber a warning, then ultimately proving in court that you did in fact download that file and use it. the logistics of that are staggering, never mind the costs. where i live they are crying about not enough policing (rcmp) due to budget restraints. how will we fund this exercise? perhaps from the hst. do you think the average taxpayer would mind funding a project for a few billion dollars in order that we can stop a few people from downloading movies from millionaires? my first thought is how about affordable housing.

    a lawyer friend who works in this field assures me that as long as the gov’t is charging the ‘stolen stuff’ levy on recordable media that we are safe. he maintains that he/we have paid for the stolen material through that levy and they can’t charge you money for something you are not allowed to do. catch 22?

    of course there is always the golden rule to consider. “them that have the gold make the rules.”

    i am not condoning theft. what i do not understand is why, after the fact, that for instance the 2010 olympics from ctv were not available for download to watch again. i believe the costs were covered by advertisers. this should go to public domain. are they likely to rebroadcast this as re-runs? no. and also tv shows that are on network television. if i can record them on a vcr or dvr why not a downloaded copy from someone who has done the recording already? something like me lending you my book to read. omg, i wonder if they have thought of that. maybe that’s illegal too!!

  166. RE: who’s country is this?
    They would like nothing more than to make loaning, borrowing and even giving away all illegal. I’m sure the only reason they don’t pursue it is that even they know this is entirely not enforceable and traceable. They also would love to make second-hand sales illegal, but this would put an enormous amount people out of work, so it would never fly. Where are we headed though? I bet within 5 years everything will have to be registered, connected to the Internet and will only work for the original owner. This is all great an wonderful until you change ISPs and get a new IP address or get new hardware. Again, this eventuality make this approach difficult and prone to error.

    I was once told that downloading a TV show from a torrent was illegal because the commercials had already been removed…I consider it a grey area at best. If I copy something on a PVR that I plan to keep, I’m going to save it to a hard-drive and remove the commercials myself…probably before I watch it. I did receive a notice one time for a Dexter episode that had just aired at the time. I suppose it was justified since it was not available to me in any way since Bell doesn’t carry Showtime and at the time I think Showtime served their own stuff but only to the US. The notice listed services that I could use to get their content legally. Amazon Video and Blockbuster video, both only available to the US. They also offered iTunes, but I suspect it would also be limited. What about some of these premium/free services, such as Hulu? Now that we’ll be subjected to the same rules as the US, will these services be opened up to Canada? I have my doubts.

    So we have considerably less services, less freedoms (If fair use and DRM passes as is) and stricter rules than the US…that seems fair…but let’s not delude ourselves and think anything about this is “fair”…it’s all about lining executive pockets and really little to do with helping the actual creators, since they rarely own their own content anymore and make little or nothing on royalties. Sure they were probably paid and perhaps some were paid well, but the Internet offers far more lucrative opportunities if done properly.

  167. godofkazaa says:

    they keep deleting my posts
    its fine but the simple fact is all of you are cowards , thats why im censored , i cant wait to see you all crying behind the barbwire , you are allowing the nazis to take over and you deserve what you get


    I’m tired of all the GREED in this world. It’s not enough that you ‘OWN’ or ‘BOUGHT’ music, movies, etc years ago and then when a new format comes out you end up getting it again and put out more money. When the industry got more digital it was a chance to enjoy and replace or acquire existing or never before enjoyed materials to see what they were about. It was a chance to see or hear things at your leisure and not when the industries like radio or networks decide to put it on and edit it for content.

    Why should I have to buy something again when I bought it the first time? We ‘ALL’ know how much it costs the industry to make a CD or DVD and yet it costs this outrageous amount because of middle men and GREED in the industry. A movie like ‘AVATAR’ makes millions at the box office but they still need another $20 to own the DVD? If you paid at the theatre why not get it at a discount at the store because they want you to pay again.

    Let’s put the real question out there… Why do people download and copy or share media? They do it because it’s affordable to their budget. NO ONE can afford to purchase everything they collect on their media devices. How much would your computer cost if you bought every program even if you rarely or barely use it? How many times will you watch a movie or listen to a CD album? It varies on your interests, but not that much in certain cases. We are all just looking to fill our time with something since we have nothing else to occupy it.

    Why is the industry (a.k.a. The States) putting pressure on other countries because the States like to have their finger in everyone’s business and if you don’t conform they might just decide to pressure you into submission or better yet blow your butts out of the water because they are trigger happy! It amazes me how the Canadian Government can’t stand their ground to the Bully States! We’re too timid and back down too often. When do we CANADIANS stand up to the industries, Governments and other Countries and say ‘Don’t tell us how to run our country because this is NOT a DICTATORSHIP!!!

    CANADIANS need to come together and show the industry we’re tired of being taken advantage of and being subject to over inflated pricing. Stop going to the theatre or concerts and buying these things to show them how much they loose by trying to control us.

    Yes, there should be a happy AFFORDABLE medium, but one way or the other neither side will agree. I wish our society could get to the ideals of the STAR TREK world of a utopian life style. We all have our jobs in life but everything you need is there if you require it.

  169. Eric Brooke says:

    Digital Locks and Immigration
    So I have moved to Canada and I have DVDs from each country I have lived in e.g. Argentina, Australia, Thailand, UK and now Canada. The way I read it is that it is illegal for me to watch my DVDs from other regions, unless I have a different DVD player for each. What this law has done to computers e.g. you can flip your region only so many times or you have to buy ‘chipped’ DVD players so can have one DVD player rather than 5..

  170. Captain Hook says:

    Please, you have to think of the DVD manufacturers. DVD manufactures have a right to make a living from their works. If you were not forced to buy all these DVD players, then there would be fewer DVD players in the world and many DVD player manufacturers would be out of work. Honestly man. Get some sense of priority.

  171. Genius
    It is absurd that a “digital lock” (which is a very general term that encompasses encryption as well as other techniques to prevent the use of content or services) should be enforced by law.

    The fact that a content provider should choose to employ encryption should be taken as a FULL ASSUMPTION OF ALL RISKS INVOLVED in the distribution of that content. If you don’t want to take the risk, don’t distribute the content. After all, the purpose of the encryption is nothing other than to protect the content! If YOU employ encryption that is NOT SUFFICIENT to protect your content, then YOU should use better encryption! ***I***, as a tax payer, should NOT have to pay for YOUR FAILURES.

  172. To be more specific, IF content is protected by encryption, that encryption, by itself, should legally be considered ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE AUTHORIZATION for ANYONE to decrypt and make use of that content.

    And FURTHER:
    IF YOU PAY to buy something, you should OWN IT and have the right to do whatever you want with it.
    If ***I*** buy a DVD in the store, it *SHOULD* be my right to decrypt it and distribute it, unless a specific contract is made between me and the content provider to the effect that I can’t, and then, it should be exclusively up to CIVIL COURT to enforce damages based entirely on BREACH OF CONTRACT and nothing else.

  173. a pondering
    perhaps it is the model that is flawed and is the reason this whole process is so difficult for the people at the top. think about this example and if the public would go along.

    i am a photographer and shoot a wedding at which there are 200 guests. i charge the couple $3000 to shoot for the day. then i process the photos and pick out the best shots and make an album. i charge them for the album. if they want to show the pictures to all of their guests, they have to purchase 200 additional albums from me. if, subsequently, their guests each want to show the pictures to ten friends, then they would have to buy 2000 more albums. now i have sold 2201 albums and made a pile of money, essentially forcing people to pay me 2000 times for a job i did once. and with the copyright law, if the couple show the album to someone without paying me, i can sue them for $5000 for each photo that they showed and they will go to jail. or, god forbid, they scan their photos and email them to relatives overseas. now we are into interpol territory. good customer relations.

    that would be a nice way to make a living, don’t you think? do one job and get paid over and over. how many jobs do you think i would get before the word got around?

    well, folks, isn’t that exactly what is going on here with the music and movie industry? bands tour and make money. actors get paid very well to make movies and tv shows. maybe we should leave it at that. maybe the copyright law is so restrictive in order to protect this flawed model. i have no problem paying for creative work and i don’t mind that actors get paid for their work. but, for instance, the cast of ‘friends’, who reportedly made $1 million dollars each per episode to make the show, and seinfeld, who reportedly makes more money from reruns in a year than most working people make in a lifetime, can sit back on royalties and live a better than average life without ever working again, while their agents try to sue you and put you in jail for refusing to play along.

    crying about it doesn’t help. if you want to fix it, do what you would do about my photo work. don’t hire me. the gov’t is making laws to placate the big money people. most government people are big money people. they help each other, not you. if you stop going to the theatre to line their pockets and stop buying the cd’s and dvd’s, what would happen? ‘alice in wonderland’ has pulled in over $300 million at the box office. that money came from you, the general public. you lined up to give them your money. what if only twelve people went to the show and the gross for the weekend was $120 (dollars, not millions)? the end of the model as such. power overcomes force every time. the solution is within your control. if i don’t feed the dragon, nobody cares. if nobody feeds the dragon, he cannot survive.

    you have the power. they don’t take your money. you give it to them willingly. you grumble but you do it. you ultimately control it all with your wallet. and they can’t make a law about that!

  174. Wiskey Foxtrot says:

    Trouble with laws that are arbitrarily enforceable
    As with many things like speeding, marijuana use, drinking under-age, and other offenses, this is a deterrence measure which will inhibit but not prohibit the activity. The point touched on earlier is one of market economics. 

    If the cost of a rental or purchase was below the tipping point of time/effort to pirate it, then the issue would self correct. The tipping point is dependent on the financial wherewithal of the consumer himself. As a software publisher I have trivial digital locks on my product. They are easy to defeat. Those who would seek to defeat this mechanism would likely not be customers anyway. I do not seek to grossly increase the revenues beyond that which the market will bear. If a person is unable to pay the threshold they don’t see enough value in the product. 

    The bill as it stands serves to artificially float revenues by increasing the burden to the point where it’s not worth a person who has the means to pirate it to actually do so.  

    Where it goes off course is when it creates criminals out of persons whose behaviours and established activities have been generally accepted for many years and there is a market solution. Of course assuming that 1/5 of the cost would render 5 times the sales is not a fair assumption, but if the government can establish regulations for interest rates (margin) why shouldn’t it attempt to establish reasonable gross margins on unit sales if they are going to establish what is effectively an artificial revenue floor.

    There is significant risk in spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on making a film without any guarantee of a minimum revenue… Welcome to free market economincs. It’s a bit sad that when the system milked for so many years dries up, the government is lobbied/paid off to pump it up for awhile longer.

    Certainly offenses perpetrated by those with a one to many provider to consumer  (such as those seeking financial gain) are often enforced at a higher priority than those which require rooting out one by one. This is not a damage related decision, it’s just reality of utilitarian enforcement of artificially supported greed policy. 

    Folks might not drop their ethics so far if they felt the consideration were returned on a system of freedom and honour. When people make millions while others starve and that system is codified into law it motivates the mete mortal and drives down ethics level even lower to a point where poor behaviour is made normal.

    So to summarize, if there is artificial protection of revenue, why not capping margin?


  175. Dr. Strangelove says:

    Join the Facebook page “James Moore is a Poopy Pants”

  176. Multiple parts… comment too long?

    Here’s the problem…. it isn’t capitalism, it isn’t the conservative party…. it is small minded individuals who are scared of the magical digital voodoo that they don’t understand. Remember that this garbage all started 15 years ago with C-60 under the liberals. Since then, its just been popping up from time to time whenever some moron gets a little extra padding in his back pocket.

    To be honest, I don’t blame the content providers for this… it is only natural that you want to control everything and take more of everybody’s money than you should. The problem is that we are subject to a system that is attempting to create an unnatural balance. When you regulate something, it created inequities in the market, forcing you to regulate several other things, which creates further inequities requiring even more adjustment. Get a nasty cycle that goes completely out of control, leading certain groups into much more power and control than they would naturally have. The two-way telecommunications oligopoly (rogers/bell) was created out of this type of thing, which required further regulation in order to create some competition (by setting aside certain frequency bands strictly for NEW COMPETITORS in the business of cell service). Well now we have a little more competition, but it still isn’t nearly good enough.

    I will state my OPINION here, feel free to disagree with it if you like: PURE capitalism balances out. When a new market proves itself profitable, competition will show up to take advantage of it and ultimately (there will be ups and downs), the number of players in that market will balance out against DEMAND and REASONABLE PROFITABILITY. Not being so profitable that you end up with too large of players, not so small that it isn’t worth participating. When a market proves itself weak, participants will leave in search of more profitable markets. A whole bunch of people are going to say things about the great depression proving that it doesn’t work this way, but you are actually WRONG since there was actually a LOT of regulation over the markets at that time (read about the gold standard). IN FACT, I am unaware of ANY market in the history of the world that has been allowed to experience PURE capitalism — this experiment has literally NEVER BEEN DONE. In theory, it works, just that the theory has never actually been tested!

    Under pure capitalism, you get to do what you want to do. You, as a content provider, have to COMPETE with other content providers, which means that you will actually lose customers by trying to ram DRM down their throats. There wouldn’t be any provision for a cartel, and there would be no way to force hardware makers to implement your DRM…. in fact, you could be assured that hardware makers would intentionally DEFEAT your DRM.

    As an example of this, right now, process of video from a DRM-infested HD disk, like a bluray, goes like this;
    1) Encrypted data on the disk is sent to the AACS [possibly BD+] decrypt hardware,
    2) UNencrypted data from the AACS decrypt hardware is sent to the video decoder,
    3) The video decoder expands the compressed data for transmission to the viewer, and sends it to the HDCP encrypt hardware,
    4) HDCP encrypted expanded data is sent to the viewer’s HDCP decrypt hardware,
    5) From the viewer’s HDCP decrypt, you are BACK to unencrypted and expanded data, so that gets displayed.

    The snag in this process is that the AACS decrypt, video decode, and HDCP encrypt all happen within the same magic black box (typically the graphics processor / GPU), thus rendering the entire stream “protected”. Note that the HDCP master key was somehow “released” yesterday, so it isn’t really all that protected any more. And AACS is fairly easy — just need to know the decrypt key. Presumably, there is some master key for that as well. The one thing preventing full BD decoding is now the BD+, which has the unfortunate tendency to be DYNAMIC.

  177. First off, the PURPOSE of “digital locks”. Digital locks, in particular encryption, don’t exist simply for the purpose of TELLING you not to do something, they exist (in theory) to MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE for you to do something. As the content provider, YOU PERSONALLY make the selection of what form of encryption to use in order to protect your content. You CAN choose CSS, AACS, BD+, ***IF YOU LIKE***, but as the content provider, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to.

    Given that it is your CHOICE how to make it impossible for people to use your content, it should ALSO be at YOUR RISK unless the “digital lock” is SO trivial that it amounts to a simple copyright notice.

    In other words, the content is protected in a way that PROVES that they ACKNOWLEDGE AND ACCEPT the FACT that people will be trying to make use of that content in ways that they want to prevent. The FACT that they ACCEPT that people will try to break the DRM combined with the FACT that they make that content available ANYWAY, is CLEAR AND WILL-FULL ACCEPTANCE of the FULL RESPONSIBILITY of protecting that content! It should therefore NOT be protected by copyright law, but BEING locked/encrypted should SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE that content from ANY legal protection at all!

    In other words, if you want legal protection over your content, it should NOT be encrypted in ANY WAY or contain ANY provision to make it INCOMPATIBLE or INCONVENIENT to make use of that content outside of the specific copyright assigned to that content. Instead, it should contain ONLY a notice of copyright.

    Further: proprietary and/or license encumbered and/or undocumented transmission or storage schemes should, under the above descriptions, be considered as a digital lock, so h264 would be excluded from legal protection, but VP8 wouldn’t. Also anything stored on a disk formatted as NTFS would NOT be protected despite being well known and understood since it is proprietary and undocumented.

    Now I would like to ask one question: At what point does it make sense to add extra protection over “digital locks”? If the lock is TRIVIAL, is it even a lock? How does a TRIVIAL lock (like a keep out sign) differ from a copyright notice? A copyright notice, apparently is NOT afforded the extra protection of digital locks… but a digital lock can be so trivial that it amounts to nothing. If triviality of the “digital lock” is enough to cancel the extra protection (as it SHOULD be), then at what point can it be deemed trivial? For example, CSS is so well documented that bypassing it IS TRIVIAL. In other words, it doesn’t actually ACCOMPLISH anything, and anyone producing content using that encryption KNOWS IT. Should that not reduce it to the same effect as a copyright notice? I.e., applying CSS to some data REALLY doesn’t amount to anything more than simply “we know that you can decrypt this, but we just want some extra legal protection.”

    I.e., IN ADDITION to previously suggested assumption of liability, KNOWING that your “digital lock” is wide open and trivial should DISQUALIFY any extra protection as a digital lock. Same goes for AACS/BD+/HDCP. These have been broken and are KNOWN to be ineffective.

    I say this:
    1) If you encrypt, YOU are responsible.
    2) If you sell, the buyer OWNS it.
    3) A trivial lock is no lock at all.
    4) Triviality of a lock isn’t measured in complexity of technical description, but in the fact that its workings are known to and reproducible by the public.

  178. really ???
    Captain Hook said:
    Please, you have to think of the DVD manufacturers. DVD manufactures have a right to make a living from their works. If you were not forced to buy all these DVD players, then there would be fewer DVD players in the world and many DVD player manufacturers would be out of work. Honestly man. Get some sense of priority.
    June 10, 2010
    See its things like this that hurt humanity , people who can only see things from one side. THIS IS NOT ABOUT MEDIA COPY RIGHTS IDIOTS. did we go to war in Iraq to liberate or because of WMDs ?????. This Bill C-32 is about pharmaceutical and agricultural patents, Law is based on precedent not on laws in books this is the first thing you better get through your heads, secondly when they start to mold our laws to suit corporations suddenly you will be paying what americans are for prescription drugs and our industries will fail, an example of this is when canada refused to go to the middle east and america decided to breach our trade laws and refuse certain products like wood and medicine mostly vaccines. this resulted in no actions against them from what ive seen since, now this is their new way to show us we had better not pull out of their illegal war else we will suddenly have our resources taken away from us because we cannot be trusted to properly care for them and sell them at a loss as we have for close to 100 years. I dare any of you to look into what we sell our gas , water , natural gas , and vaccines to americans for, and then compare that to what we charge our own citizens. Just give it a go , i bet you will suddenly understand why i am so venomous

  179. Taylor Cutforth says:

    Adding internal Expiration Dates to DMA Locks
    I’ve sent an email to the committee regarding this.

    If Victor Hugo was alive today I think he would weigh into account the concept of artificial scarcity and expect the copyrights to not hold as much length as say 50 years! Which in itself is ancient in the digital world.

    Something closer between 5, 10 or 15 years seems more appropriate depending on the content and its usage or purpose. Films can require a whole host of cost and contracts to be arranged in order to fulfill the desired goal of what the content creator is trying to achieve. The fault lines of success line more in their overambitious ideas than necessarily the potential costs from someone downloading their work. Assuming that would of been a genuine customer in the first place. Authors who have who accept donations to their projects and have unset prices have been able to fair well even without enforcing their copyrights on those to check out their work from downloading it. With the use of unset prices a creator can receive a few cents per purchase or a few grand out of support.
    Using the DMA Expiration, they could charge whatever they like or need for the first 5 to 15 years then move on to unset prices or none at all.

    5 to 10 years is still along time to wait for some, but creators & producers need to be able to not only get a return on their investments, not having to directly compete with their own content released only a couple years prior. Having to compete with free content that was previously released does force creators to make more than just artificial or cosmetic tweaks to their software, but to go the extra mile to build loyalty to with their customer base. Relying less on the established formulaic processes of aiming for the lowest common denominators. Having to top yourself helps to raise the bar and specialize in the quality of content rather then units sold. As software continues to get easier for creators to utilize, running out of ideas will be the least of their worries.

    Free market capitalist are pro-competition not monopolization, which can come from both governments and the private sector. It’s more of a crony-capitalist view that props up the established businesses who have been around for a long time; that seeks to expand & exploit copyright law beyond it’s legitimate range of use.

    Arguments for higher ranges (20 to 30 years) miss the point in that for the past generation (or three) most companies still get by without much enforcement as it is. If their biggest financial worry is getting the most out of copyright laws than they have few financial problems indeed. Particularly compared to the bulk of people they hope to enforce against.

    At any rate, theres no need to make partisan attacks since the file has been left to cabinet ministers Clement and Moore. Unseating those MP’s would make more sense that to change the entire government only to get the same results by some other group. Including even the NDP unless isolation and protectionism is at the top for their agenda.

    One could make the argument that–if the conservative party had all the seats in parliament, the different dividedly united libertarian capitalist groups within the party would be hashing this for & against copyrights in both directions.
    If there were such groups amongst the currently elected opposition the same effect could be accomplished without brinksmanship. I personally don’t see that to be the case nor expect to.

    Either way it really serves no good to make this about party politics no matter which way you look at it.



    As a matter of fact Iraq had both chemical & biological weapons and used them in the past against Iran. The term WMDs isn’t limited to nuclear weapons.
    ^Managing to bring any of that into a discussion on copyright issues isn’t really furthering the topic along.

  180. Arshid Malik says:

    Forex Trading Best Business
    forex trading is good business in this world very fast and easy earn a one month 5000 to 15000
    $ dollar and get rich quickly more detail visit: us :

  181. retro jordans says:
    I suppose maybe you have interests in sporting.What brand would you like? I think
    new jordan shoes are wonderful,right? New jordan shoes make us powerful and
    comfortable, jordan shoes also let our body feel breathable exactly!

  182. cheap clothes online says:
    Well,it makes me feel surprise.I wonder if you may like sports,you can take
    jordan shoes into consideration.I believe it is wonderful.It makes us feel
    like a bird flying on the sky.Our body will be light-footed and swift while

  183. cheap clothes online says:
    It sounds really amazing !I suppose if you like sports?I think choose right sporting clothes is very important!

  184. Comprehensive Information
    There’s alot of comprehensive bill information here. Thank you. Ben from EU Pull Up Banners

  185. Kamagra
    Hey, Really great work,I would like to join your blog anyway so please continue sharing with us, |

  186. Kamagra
    Thank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that..This is really a fascinating blog, lots of stuff that I can get into. One thing I just want to say is that your Blog is so perfect!

  187. myefox
    Happy to see your blog as it is just what I’ve looking for and excited to read all the posts. I am looking forward to another great article from you.

    Meizu M9

  188. Rosetta Stone Language says:

    rosetta stone japanese
    rosetta stone japanese

  189. Rosetta Stone Language says:

    Kamagrahank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that.. Kamagra
    Thank you for sharing to us.Please one more post about that..

  190. free shipping Promotional Products says:

    free shipping Promotional Products
    thank you very much! i like your post !

  191. free shipping Educational Toys says:

    free shipping Educational Toys
    you are right !thank you !

  192. promotional mugs says:

    I am a law breaker
    I am a law breaker. I use hacks to turn off the protection against copying of legally purchased Windows game, so I can play them in Wine under Linux. DVD decoders on Linux is sanctioned to view commercial DVDs on Linux is actually prohibited.

  193. says:
    Hey just becoming a member, glad to be here! I’m Aliya and I’m inspired by my near death experience, I’m a fan of running and becoming healthy and balanced 🙂

  194. saga remy says:

    saga remy
    I am a law breaker. I use hacks to turn off the protection against copying of legally purchased Windows game, so I can play them in Wine under Linux. DVD decoders on Linux is sanctioned to view commercial DVDs on Linux is actually prohibited.saga remy

  195. .
    Just another way that people can see that this is NOT a free country

  196. Monster Beats says:

    Monster Beats Dre Washable in-ear headphones should be the brand new warm development within your non-public audio tracks game. Earlier this calendar month Pioneer introduced its new Washable Earphones, Beats By Dre and also this 7 days Monster—the business at the rear of Beats by Dr. Dre—announced its ideas to launch its non-public Discount Monster Headphones washable headphones recognized since the iSport. as opposed to Pioneer’s model, the iSport function the Immersion in-ear clip that retain the headphones protected when you’re executing your workout, and an adjustable ear pipe to Monster Headphones Sale be certain the iSport can suit ears of all shapes and sizes.

  197. nike air max tn says:
    Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this,like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pictures to drive the message home a little bit,but other than that,this is great blog.A great read.I will certainly be back.

  198. cheap timberland boots for men says:
    Thank you to tell us so useful information.It is very useful for us.Thanks so much.

  199. Seo Expert Services says:

    Seo Expert Services
    I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work.Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!
    Seo Expert Services


  200. Seo Expert Services says:

    Seo Expert Services
    I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work.Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!
    Seo Expert Services


  201. String Bikini says:

    String Bikini
    Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

  202. HI

    Good stuff as per usual, thanks. I do hope this kind of thing gets more exposure.
    Die Steel

    I have read a few of the articles on your website now, and I really like your style of blogging. I added it to my favorites weblog list and will be checking back soon.
    khuyen mai|cungmua|hotdeal

  204. Forum Posting says:

    Forum Posting
    Forum Posting Best forum services provides by Esenzendya

  205. 威哥王 says:

    花痴 :

  206. 女性用媚薬 says:


  207. トリーバーチ スリッパー says:

    トリーバーチ スリッパー
    トリーバーチ バレエ シューズ:
    トリーバーチ ハイヒール:
    トリーバーチ ハイヒールシューズ:
    トリーバーチ フラットシューズ:
    トリーバーチ サンダル:
    トリーバーチ スリッパー:

  208. Christuusgnosis says:

    Pirates are the new terrorists to the media monopolists
    When you bought a record or video you could make lots of tape dubs for your friends.

    The real problem with these rules is the amount of policing they add to society, while taking actual police resources from real violent crime.

    What REALLY burns me is the fact that U.S. media is constantly ripping people off of their intellectual and creative property, yet they are the loudest crybabies if someone who has no money to buy their stolen crap, downloads some of it.

    This law is the enabler that will allow more intrusive monitoring by Canadian police forces that are already corrupt and stretched too thin to monitor their OWN people.

  209. Buy Clomid 50 mg Online says:

    Buy Clomid
    This is one of the highly informatics and attractive blogs that has not only educated also informed me in a very effective manner. There are very few blog like this one I have read.

  210. Link Building Services says:

    Thank you for another essential article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a complete way of writing? I have a presentation incoming week, and I am on the lookout for such information. Link Building Services | Kompetisi Web Kompas MuDA & Pertamina

  211. johan arianto says:
    Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

  212. Propecia 1mg says:

    Propecia 1mg
    It’s awesome blog post here. really very interesting for reading Propecia 1mg I enjoyed it.

  213. Gucci Outlet says:

    Gucci Outlet
    I keep learning new things about these interesting topics every day from post like these.

  214. BILL C-32
    May be one thing the people in power could do to stop those multiple law suit is force the compagnie to get a court order for every IP address they want and for every infraction so that way they should actually look at the people that do it for profit. It used to be 5$ for 2 movie 1 chocolate bar 1 popcorn and a drink about 40 years ago I know, now it is 10$ for 1 movie 7 to 10$ for 5 cent worth of popcorn 6$ for 5 cent worth of pop 4$ for a chocolate bar so about 30$ for only one movie so over 600% increase minimum wage did not go up 600% so if they are loosing money may be they should fire the PDG for miss management of money???

    It is not because someone download a movie that they did not go see it, a DVD cost about 50 cents to make and sell for any where between 10$ and 100$ and they say they loose money???? If the price made more sence people would actualy buy ie instead of pirating it. why is it that digital copy is the same price as DVD or paper copy there is no cost to a digital copy.

    where is the 100 to 5000$ fine coming from at the worst the producer lost about 20$ for a person that did not buy a DVD but copied it what a god way to increase your profit on a movie sue peoples.

    The only way to stop copy riht is to make the equipment used to copy illegal so may be those producer should start there in their law suit, but they wont because those people actualy have the money and the good lawyer to defend themself where as for regular people we dont have that kind of money so it is easy for the producing companies to sue.

    May be the people in power should start to also defend the elector not just the multi billion $ companie that can manipulate the information and lobbying in there favor while the rest of us have to work for a few buck.


  215. Jadwal semi final
    I keep learning new things about these interesting topics every day from post like these.

  216. Menjadi Teknisi Komputer Yang Terampil
    BILL C-32
    May be one thing the people in power could do to stop those multiple law suit is force the compagnie to get a court order for every IP address they want and for every infraction so that way they should actually look at the people that do it for profit. It used to be 5$ for 2 movie 1 chocolate bar 1 popcorn and a drink about 40 years ago I know, now it is 10$ for 1 movie 7 to 10$ for 5 cent worth of popcorn 6$ for 5 cent worth of pop 4$ for a chocolate bar so about 30$ for only one movie so over 600% increase minimum wage did not go up 600% so if they are loosing money may be they should fire the PDG for miss management of money???

    The only way to stop copy riht is to make the equipment used to copy illegal so may be those producer should start there in their law suit, but they wont because those people actualy have the money and the good lawyer to defend themself where as for regular people we dont have that kind of money so it is easy for the producing companies to sue.

    May be the people in power should start to also defend the elector not just the multi billion $ companie that can manipulate the information and lobbying in there favor while the rest of us have to work for a few buck.

  218. web hosting bangalore says:

    This is such a Great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. It gives in depth information. Thanks for this valuable information.

  219. ericktecno says:

    Champhions 2012
    I keep learning new things about these interesting topics every day from post like these.Champions League Final was held May 19, 2012 at the Allianz Arena Germany at 20:45 local time in Indonesia celebrated on May 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm dawn surely RCTI will broadcast live.

  220. natural weight loss
    Know how to Lose Body fat With These 5 Easy Tricks

  221. kashif
    Know how to Lose Body fat With These 5 Easy Tricks natural weight loss

  222. Housse iPhone 4S says:

    Housse iphone 4s
    Trouvaille bon marché et mode Housse iPhone 4,Coque iPhone 4S,Housse iPad 2.

    Housse HTC ,Coque HTC,Housse Samsung,Coque Samsung,Housse Samsung Galaxy,Housse Samsung Galaxy Note

    Housse HTC Desire HD,Housse HTC One X,Housse HTC Sensation,Housse HTC Desire S,Housse A9191,Coque HTC Desire HD
    Etui Cuir HTC,Coque Cuir HTC,Housse Curi HTC,Housse Plastique HTC
    Housse Cuir iPhone 4,Coque iPhone 4S
    Housse iPhone 4 Melkco,Housse iPhone4 véritable,Housse Cuir HOCO iPhone 4.
    Housse iPhone 4 cuir stand
    Housse Aluminium iPhone 4,Coque Alu iPhone 4S
    Bumper Alu Element Vapor Pro iPhone 4,Bumper Alu Element Vapor COMP iPhone 4S,Coque Alu Deff Cleave,Bumper Dcaro IV,Bumper Alu iPhone 4S
    Housse iPhone 4 SGP,Housse iPhone4 Speck,Housse iPhone 4 moshi,Housse iPhone 4 Swarovski,Housse iPhone 4S Swarovski,Housse iPhone 4 Diamant
    Housse Silicone iPhone 4,Coque iPhone 4 Switcheasy,Housse iPhone4 Hello Kitty,Housse iPhone 4 cristal
    Housse iPhone 4 Paul Frank,Coque silicone paul frank
    Housse Cuir iPad 2,Housse véritable cuir iPad2,Coque iPad 2 avec stand
    Accessoires iPhone 4 S:Supports iPhone 4,??Stylet iPhone 4,Chargeur iPhone 4,Adaptateur iPhone 4,Câble iPhone 4,Protecteur d’écran iPhone 4 4S  ,Adaptateur iPhone 4
    Accessoires iPad 2 : Support iPad 2,Adaptateur iPad 2,Chargeur iPad 2,Protection d’écran iPad 2,Stylet iPad 2,Clavier iPad 2,Câble iPad2

  223. CLICKBET88 says:

    This is such a Great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. It gives in depth information. Thanks for this valuable information. for CLICKBET88.COM AGEN BOLA TERPERCAYA UNTUK PIALA EURO 2012

  224. world of warcraft hintsis a Massively Multiplayer Game on The Web.
    I liked this game

  225. seo services
    Internet is such full of articles….oopps I means garbage…but your article is a true masterpiece. Commendably beautiful you have captured the whole theme. Common now, you should tell us what inspired you to write this??

  226. I have lately been missing intended for a few time, though presently I accept in brain why My partner and that i conversant in like this world wide web location. express gratitude you, i am going to try to discover back much more oftentimes. The means oftentimes do i restore your own site? credit card processor

  227. Bridal saree says:

    Bridal saree indian
    Thank you very much for sharing all this great information with us! It’s definitely appreciated. Well worth the time in reading! Vaginal Mesh Lawyers Bridal saree