During the consultations, creators told us they needed new rights and protections to succeed in a digital environment, and so the bill before us implements those kinds of rights and protections of the WIPO Internet Treaties and paves the way for a future decision on ratification.
Copyright holders told us that their 21st-century business model depends on strong technological protection measures. And we listened: Bill C-32 contains protection measures such as digital locks to protect against piracy and to allow creators to choose how they wish to protect their works.
The Liberal Party has problems with digital locks and technological protection measures, or TPMs. The Liberal Party has concerns with the application of new TPM circumvention amendments in Bill C-32. Specifically as it applies to music, video and other digital media, the Liberal Party believes the Copyright Act must allow Canadians who have legitimately purchased a CD, DVD or other product the ability to transfer their purchase onto other personal devices, such as an iPod, or make a personal backup copy on their computers so long as they are not doing so for the purposes of sale or transfer to others. We do not believe that Bill C-32 achieves that principle at this time. There are various ways in which a solution could be found and we look forward to examining the different options in committee.
The digital locks make a mockery of any claim of giving fair rights. The government says that we will get fair dealing rights for education and for reproduction for private purposes. People can make back-up copies; there will be copying rights for the print disabled; there is the so-called YouTube mash-up provision. But if there is a digital lock in place, all those rights are erased. Clause 41.1 lays out very clear technological protection measures, which supersede the rights that citizens would otherwise enjoy. Thus Bill C-32 offers citizens’ rights that they will not actually be able to access. What the government is doing is creating a two-tiered set of rights between digital and non-digital products. Instead of legal certainty, Canadian citizens will face arbitrary limitations on what should be their legal right of access.
This bill is totally unbalanced because it benefits major U.S. companies and major computer gaming software companies to the detriment of artists. There are two totally disheartening approaches in this bill and seven deadly sins, if I can put it that way. The first approach is one using digital locks. Sure, we can say that digital locks are necessary, and that they must be respected, but to base an entire bill on them is a bit much. With this bill, the government is telling artists that if they want to make money, all they have to do is put digital locks on their musical works to prevent anyone from copying them. If people want to make a copy for themselves, or to transfer the music to another format, it would be absurd to make them buy the original work again. That makes no sense, and it will not work. We are talking about the survival of artists and their art here, and this is important for many reasons. An approach based on digital locks is completely ludicrous.
…
So John, what say you to this? All three opposition parties use words/phrases like “Concern”, “Mockery”, “Absurd”, “Ludicrous”, “Detriment of artists”, “Two-tiered”, “Problems”?
I guess they’re all “radical extremists”!!! I bet Moore is choking on those words now…in two words he undermined his entire position, and put everyone with concerns on the defensive.
When your position is VASTLY the minority opinion, who really is the extremist?
Some further quotes from Garneau that seem to have been omitted
“I, at no time, said anything against digital locks and TPMs. What I said, and I hope he will understand it this time, is that if people legitimately purchase a copyrighted product, and remember, they paid for it at the front end, if they want to transfer it to another device for their purposes, for copying or for their personal convenience, and it has nothing to do with reselling or commercial exploitation of that product, then they should be allowed to do so. We will work with the committee to try to find a way to make that possible. That is all I said and I hope that is clear to the minister at this point.”
” The issue of digital locks and TPMs are certainly very central to this whole thing. Let me repeat that the concept of digital locks or TPMs is not a subject with which we disagree. We want to make clear that individuals who purchase a product should be allowed to move that from one device to another for their personal use.”
The only people who think that digital locks work to actually stop what they claim they do and protect the creator has not really been paying attention over the last 10+ years as the various TPMs keep on failing to do what they were advertised.
The only way to make sure your work is never going to be copied is to never release it.
My comment not withstanding above, if TPM protection needs to be in the bill, it should only count for when there are cases of actual copyright breach and not overall.
My thoughts and political analysis here:
Lobbyists Start Your Engines, Canadian Copyright has arrived!
http://bit.ly/bieN3r
Dear John,
@Degen “I just love democracy”
The digital locks provision is a tax
They know their going to have a hard time stopping piracy, so the average consumer that spends his hard earned money on creative works they want to tax. Pay 2-3 times for the same thing depending on what the device is. Pirates go on their way and the consumers get hit with more costs to make up the difference
@Jeff Power
I think what’s likely to happen is that consumer will still format shift their media no matter what the law says, seeing as it’s illegal now anyway and people do it. If Mr. Moore is to be believed anyway.
Re: Moore’s quote
Did he just say that he agrees with rewriting federal law to maintain one industry’s outdated business models?
Isn’t the lesson of a failing business model to find a different model that won’t fail?
…
Of course people will continue to format shift. The digital locks provisions are unenforcible at the civil level. It a market control thing. As written, C-32 makes software such as VLC media player illegal in Canada, it makes unlocked devices such as region-free DVD players illegal. It’s all about big business trying to control the market!!!
…
Adam said:
“Did he just say that he agrees with rewriting federal law to maintain one industry’s outdated business models?”
Absolutely that’s what he said. I hope the industry lined his pockets well because, with any luck, this will be the end of his career in politics.
@Adam: This is hardly news; why would a business go through the pain of modifying their business model when it is cheaper to convince a politician to pass a law that protects their existing model?
@IamME: I wouldn’t count on it. The people of Canada have a notoriously short memory for things like this, and the politicians know it. Why do you think things like the HST went in about a year before the next Ont provincial election? While they may lose a few votes (compared to the total numbers of votes cast) from those that remember, for the most part I suspect the copyright reform issue will be in the noise for most voters compared with the economy, the federal deficit, etc.
Anon-K
“I suspect the copyright reform issue will be in the noise for most voters compared with the economy, the federal deficit, etc.”
I very much disagree with this especially if one of the 3 major parties come out in support of the graduated response. I think that would polarize the next election. It would be a smart move by all political parties to come out swinging against this policy if copyright is to remain on the short term memories of voters.
What I think Mr Moore is failing to understand is that not all copying that occurs without the consent of the copyright holder is piracy. Heck, the fair dealing provisions alone that exist in our current copyright bill should illustrate that this is a truism. Heck, I can memorize or even simply write down the lyrics to a song, essentially creating what by all rights is a wholly unauthorized copy of the song for my own private use. Does that make me a pirate? Of course not.
So given that not all unauthorized copying is piracy, C32 goes beyond simply trying to prevent piracy (which it will not succeed in anyways, as people who wish to break the law will go and do so sufficiently below the radar that they aren’t going to get caught), and simply outlaws copying in general at the sole discretion of the copyright holder who can obtain it simply by utilizing any digital lock they desire. All that is going to accomplish, of course, is otherwise law-abiding people privately concluding for themselves that this law is a bad law, and summarily ignoring it, making private copies of works for themselves as they have become accustomed to doing, and creating millions of criminals almost overnight with the passing of this bill.
I understand that the desire to try to put some sort of stopper on the epidemic of piracy is paramount here, but Bill C32 simply goes too far in that regard… it won’t succeed in its goals, and will make even the Canadians who don’t download movies or music online into criminals, when all they simply want to do is exercise what has formerly always been a reasonable expectation on their part, the ability to privately copy and format shift any work they have legally come to possess as their own needs would bid them, and *not* be considered a criminal for having done so.
They can’t even get around this by just saying that they won’t bother to enforce the law in such cases, because… well… for one thing, it would be an open admission that they actually have no intent to seriously try to enforce the law, but a bigger issue is that a person who does that sort of thing would still technically be breaking the law, and that could still potentially be held against the person in the future.
If they want an explicit law that might help curb the piracy epidemic of today, I’d suggest putting a limitation on the notion of “private use”, such that 1) a private use exemption to copyright infringement cannot be claimed if the work they are copying from is, itself, already infringing, and 2) any applicable private use exemption to copyright infringement immediately ceases apply to any work that is offered for distribution to anyone else, so that such a copy becomes infringing unless it was otherwise made with the consent of the copyright holder (this latter notion may require clarification to exclude the notion of copying a computer application or other digital information into a computer’s volatile storage (ram) for use by a single person at one time from being considered as a form of distribution). Such limitations would be, I believe, congenial with the underlying intent of copyright, preserving the interests of the artist to the limit that the law can actually enforce them, while at the same time still giving Canadians the freedom to continue to legally engage in the private copying and format shifting we’ve already become accustomed to.
…
“This bill is a key pillar in the commitment this government made in the Speech from the Throne to position Canada as a leader in the global digital economy.” (Tony Clement)
It isn’t a law overprotective to monopolies that will help Canada become an economic leader. May I remind Mr. Clement that those media & software monopolies are mainly US based. And they are already well protected in the US – they have there the best laws that money can buy. Witness how RIM got battered with patent lawsuits by “Intelectual Property” (i.e. which don’t make any product) companies there. Do we want to help RIM getting battered at home too?
Nap.
Groundhog day …
@Moore “Bill C-32 contains protection measures such as digital locks to protect against piracy and to allow creators to choose how they wish to protect their works.”
Mr. Moore is either stupid or a liar if he believes this. [If so why is he a senior minister]?
Bill C-32 will in no way stop or hinder piracy. It will only give more control to big media on how many times they can ding law abiding citizens. This is not acceptable to the vast majority of the Canadian public, thus passing laws that outlaw generally accepted behavior is not only unwise but bound to fail.
At least through common sense, or more probably expediency, the opposition parties are making political hay out of this. Let’s hope they hold the line and not cave via some back room deal. I will be voting, and encouraging as many others as possible to do the same, on the outcomes of Bill C-32 issues. That is unless this drags on in committee till next Spring and a likely election, in which case it’s back to the drawing board and we’ll be doing this all over again in another year .. oh boy.
This is Funny
Radio was a distribution channel for the media empires to sell physical media….
They protested the blank cassette and received the blank media levy.
VCR’s challenged the movie theatres
They protested the blank VCR.DVD’s and received the blank media levy.
Out of this they received untold free advertising that was paid for by the companies that advertised on the radio and then a second industry was born for rental of video tapes.
The rental was not a big deal for the media because it was a small time gain, the problem was that movies and entertainment (games, video, music, etc) could be resold. They wanted to get rid of this market so second sale was no longer an option. So basically if you are through with something you could not sell it to someone that might enjoy it…
of course with digital media, a copy has no cost to reproduce….if something is worth nothing then how will they balance the supply and demand? I guess it has to be put to the politicians to put a value on a renewable resource that is worth nothing to the end user…if I can make 1000000 copies of something on my system for free what is it worth…the whole supply and demand is non-existent anymore. If you supply something that someone will pay for then you create value, but if it is only worth the preview or the 30 seconds before deletion then what is it worth.
With all other markets making sure their customers are happy and giving 30, 90, 1 year refunds on stuff not up to par, then if I buy a entertainments thing…why can I not return it for full cost including taxes. I think the whole “entertainment industry” has gottent a golden spoon to be able to provide something without any warranty or way to return it for a refund.
I think the real issue should be making copyright infringement for the purposes of commercial gain illegal, which it already is. The government needs to focus on what should actually be illegal, and leave the technological countermeasures to the technology companies. If a company can make a Digital Restriction Management scheme that cannot be circumvented, then some people are going to make a lot of money. However, that is quite unlikely. DRM is a silly concept right from the ground up, and any DRM scheme that someone can invent, someone else will figure out how to circumvent. The government should stop worrying about what circumstances DRM circumvention should be or not be allowed, and merely focus on what forms of copyright protections are legal, and which are not, and under which circumstances people are allowed to copy all or part of a copyrighted work. If my copyright on a work is violated in a way that the law says is illegal, then I have the right to take legal action. No more need to be done by the government law makers. It is like if I pick the lock on your house, enter, and steal your television and stereo. I get caught, and I am convicted for break and enter, and theft. The fact that I picked the lock rather than kicked the door in is irrelevant. The theft itself is what matters. The same goes for copyright infringement.
DRM is about protecting a weak, vulnerable, and outdated business model, not protecting copyright. Just ask Microsoft. All the people who pirated Windows back in the day certainly didn’t destroy Microsoft, did they? In fact, the piracy helped them attain the OS lock-in they so desperately crave.
I can think of several albums that I would never have purchased if I hadn’t been exposed to the album or artist through file sharing services first. I have discovered many new artists that I now love and support through album purchases that I never would have found through the traditional music store model. In fact, many new up-and-coming artists are more afraid of obscurity than they are of piracy. Who cares about a few hundred people pirating your album if only a few thousand people have even heard of you. Piracy and freely giving away of albums can, and has, raised the profile of many artists, and enabled them to improve their earnings from their works. And the mega-earners whose works are pirated, and whose copyright is violated, have every right to seek legal recourse, whether or not DRM has been circumvented or not.
DRM does not affect the legality of copyright infringement, so it should be taken out of the legislation all together.
This law is unjust for these three reasons
1- IP spoofing. It’s easy for any kid who doesn’t want to get caught downloading to make it look like it’s actually YOU doing it. Not to mention that you can’t know if a service like grooveshark or graboid is legal, even though they’ve been taking VISA for years. Many bands give away their music for free, but you can’t know whether a site that does so is their “official” site, or just a fan site. And the list goes on. They should be going after uploaders first, not downloaders.
2- There is NO defence against an accusation. They only drop cases where it turns out that you couldn’t have been downloading because either you didn’t have a computer or you were dead at the time. You can’t prove you didn’t do it, and they don’t have to prove that you did do it. And in Canada fines imposed by a court cannot be avoided by bankruptcy. And the fine is $20 thousand, not the $5 thousand, because even CD’s have technical protection mechanisms.
3- Where only a couple law firms were filing lawsuits last year, a dozen firms started in this ‘business’ this year, and hundreds have plans to start next year. In France the copyright racket is making ten thousand accusation a day, with plans to get to a hundred thousand a day.
@Stephen, while just targeting commercial infringement might sound good in theory, it has a loophole big enough to drive a whole shopping store through. Any infringement, regardless of how it might appear to an outside, has the potential to have some underlying commercial intent. For example, a person who works for a large corporation might decide to privately distribute a smaller competitor’s work for free so as to effectively cut off much of the competitor’s potential revenue stream and thereby help out his own company. Or maybe he gets a good friend who lives in another state to do it for him to avoid even that incriminating evidence. Sorry… targeting only obvious commercial infringements doesn’t work. Copyright is supposed to be the exclusive right to copy a work (without permission) anyways, and allowing unlimited amounts of copying without permission by anybody as long as it’s not commercial in nature hardly seems to fit the notion of exclusive.
The rest of your comment is right on the money, however.
@Boothie: “…but you can’t know whether a site that does so is their “official” site, or just a fan site. ” Cite examples, please. I can’t think of any. In general, to the best of my knowledge, this is not simply not true… if it’s on a public site like facebook or a personal blog, or searched out with whatever peer to peer file sharing program one happens to be using, unless it’s being done by one of the crew who made the product (and if that’s the case they will be pretty damn obvious about it, because they are trying to promote themselves in that case), then it’s not something you could or should safely assume is on the up-and-up. If it’s a well known company distributing it, however, like watching a TV show online on CTV’s website, then you’d probably be pretty safe to watch those works online, particularly since companies like CTV can be much more easily held accountable for copyright infringement than can private individuals whose potential audience is going to be much smaller anyways.
Also, to the best of my understanding, even bill C32 requires proof of infringement in order to impose any financial penalties.
Breaking TPMs
The key issue here isn’t how the end user could be held liable for breaking a TPM for legitimate purposes. The issue is how we deal with the hackers who break these TPMs in the first place. When someone rips a DVD, they are using software provided by someone else. It doesn’t matter if someone has the right to break a TPM if they don’t have access to the tools. The tools need to be legal, but only when used for legitimate purposes.
Re: Mark
“If it’s a well known company distributing it, however, like watching a TV show online on CTV’s website, then you’d probably be pretty safe to watch those works online…” Yes, Mark, you’ve nailed it there!! The only media that will be safe to watch are the incumbants. Really promotes innovation, doesn’t it?!?
“…even bill C32 requires proof of infringement in order to impose any financial penalties.” What more proof can they have but a number in a logfile? That’s easily spoofed (faked) and why wouldn’t a criminal want to hide their tracks?
No, this law is downright stupid. People who support it have no clue beyond “Oh, it’s to help the poor artists!!” Unbelieveable!!
Worst mistake we’ll ever make, and there’s absolutely zero big media coverage! (I wonder why?)
…
And what does “breaking TPM” really mean? Because in the end each and every playback chain will convert from encrypted format on the media to a human usable analog sound/image. Or does it mean “by law our media is usable only with the devices that we provide/approve”? Wouldn’t this give them undue control over whatever device we want to manufacture/import?
How about I modify the software in my Blu-Ray player so that I could skip advertising? I would be “breaking TPM” and infringing COPYRIGHT law? Even while no copies are ever made? Ain’t this ludicrous?
The DRM provisions should be completely removed from C-32, they have no place there.
Nap.
Breaking TPMs
@Napalm
Breaking a TPM generally means bypassing or decrypting a TPM in a manner which was not intended by whoever put the TPM there in the first place. Basically, the TPM itself isn’t necessarily the protection. Its the laws that protect TPMs. It really doesn’t matter if you can bypass the TPM. Obviously it will eventually happen. Everyone knows that. What the TPM is actually doing is preventing unauthorized people from giving you the ability to access that information. Basically, they want to lock you to one format or platform, and lock out other platforms, so they can control distribution through licensing (collecting their cut $$$)
For example, this is why unlicensed 3rd parties can’t make games for a console. The original NES famously incorporated a lockout chip. Although the chip was simple and could easily be duplicated, its design was patented. Basically, they can use patent law or copyright law to prohibit interoperability. If someone tries to copy the chip, they sue them. TPMs work like this too.
They are not trying to stop you from breaking TPMs. They are trying to stop you from doing it for someone else.
TPMs are just a little bit of legal trickery. They don’t even have to be secure or effective to be enforced.
…
@Barrett: “Breaking a TPM generally means bypassing or decrypting a TPM in a manner which was not intended by whoever put the TPM there in the first place.”
So my example with skipping advertising on a DVD holds? How about hacking it to remove region lock? Like in making me able to watch a DVD that I legally bought in Hong Kong and that’s not available in North America at all?
Dear Mr. Clement and Moore: your C-32 bill is probably severely flawed. It should be about making copies not skipping advertising or watching movies bought elsewhere.
Nap.
P.S. A little googling will show that it is possible to import or modify DVD players so that they “track/fast forward” even when the DVD author has “forbidden” the operation, and that also would play all regions coding. Many times it’s just about entering a “secret” code on the remote to “unlock” these functions. So would these DVD players become illegal in Canada? Under the COPYright law, although they don’t make any copies?
Tory Response Utter and Complete BULLSHIT… As usual.
How do these idiot Conservative politicians explain iTunes?
When Apple removed the locks on it’s songs the sales EXPLODED.
Like the Tory MINORITY hopefully will if King Stephen grows an honest pair and calls an election like he’s promised twice before… oh never mind.
…
@mliving: “[…]if King Stephen grows an honest pair and calls an election like he’s promised twice before… oh never mind.”
He actually meant “prorogue the parliament”.
“When I use a word, […] it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” (Lewis Caroll, “Alice In Wonderland”).
Nap.
…
Angus: “The digital locks make a mockery of any claim of giving fair rights.”
Can’t have said it any better. Angus is my hero.
Nap.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that after Michael Geist posts something on his blog, I am automatically addressed in the comments and expected to defend my position. I must have missed that memo.
So, where to start? Crockett — yes I do love democracy. Confirmed.
IAmMe – All the opposition parties said a lot of things in the transcript I read. As James Gannon points out, there is a — very typical for this blog – creative picking and choosing going on over here to make concerns about the bill seem to lean only in one direction. That’s some good unbiased research.
To the actual debate:
My opinion is that Charlie Angus is unfortunately wed to copyleft dogma and can’t seem to find a way out of it, even as he tries to represent artists. The number of Canadian artists who support protected TPMs far outnumbers those who do not, so there is an unfortunate miscalculation in Angus’s past, in which he is now trapped.
The Bloq is extremely well-meaning in their support for artists, and I love their insistence on a public information campaign. They need to start that campaign within their own ranks because Ms. Lavallée has bought a bit too much of the anti-corporate, anti-American blather that has been a staple of copyright criticism for a few years now. I don’t blame her for her confusion. It’s been a pernicious campaign. But I do hope the Bloq comes to a more nuanced understanding of the TPM question.
James has made clear that Marc Garneau’s position on TPMs is far more subtle and complex than Geist suggests in his post, and let me just repeat a quote of Garneau’s that I used on my own blog yesterday:
“With regard to the exemption for the education sector, the Liberal Party will attempt to amend the bill by proposing to clarify what exactly constitutes “fair dealingâ€.”
Clear… legislative… guidance. One small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind. (Because he’s been to space… that’s why I did that)
What I’m enjoying most about the debate is how many of the participants seem intent on fixing key points and then getting the legislation done.
I love democracy. Have I mentioned that?
@Nap
“A little googling will show that it is possible to import or modify DVD players so that they “track/fast forward” even when the DVD author has “forbidden” the operation, and that also would play all regions coding. Many times it’s just about entering a “secret” code on the remote to “unlock” these functions. So would these DVD players become illegal in Canada? Under the COPYright law, although they don’t make any copies?”
Yes, this makes them a “circumvention device”. Run down to “China-town” and get ’em now if you need em, before this becomes law. It will also expressly forbid the import of out-of-region DVDs/BDs, even if the content has never been released here. In my thinking, this would be a violation of my rights under the Berne Convention, but I’m not sure.
@Napalm
Selling or importing modified DVD players could be considered illegal. Importing an unmodified, foreign DVD player would not be illegal however.
Anything they make = legal
Anything YOU make = illegal
What they are making illegal is selling or distributing anything that bypasses a TPM,
or you could say distributing or selling anything which isn’t licensed (by them) to bypass the TPM.
In essence, the only difference between a DVD player and something like DVD Decrypter, is that the DVD player has a licence to play DVDs. DVD Decrypter does not.
…also, they can revoke that licence on a specific device on whatever terms they wish. Kinda like how Microsoft is allowed to permanently ban modified XBox 360s, even if your not using them to pirate games.
If you modify a DVD player in any fashion, they could make that a violation of the licensing terms, and revoke its licence. Then the device becomes illegal.
The fact of the matter is that the old media industry thrived on limited channels of distribution. A small minority controlling what channels we see on TV, which albums end up on the radio, what books make it to the shelves. To publish a book or album, you would have to give some or all of your copyrights away. Companies have to pay huge dollars to get advertising on TV, which then funds a mass media monopoly.
Governments can work with and regulate this monopoly and censor information and spread propaganda and lies.
The internet will destroy all of this. The value of things like advertising will be reduced. These big media companies will no longer have a monopoly… WIKILEAKS!
The only way to fight this is if they can control the computer or device at the playback end. Control what applications it can run or what music and video you can purchase with that device. Trying to recreate those limited channels in the digital age.
This is what TPMs are!
Internet piracy is just an excuse, and the first phase of the media loosing control.
@Barrett
“Anything they make = legal”
Yes, but who are “they” and are we sure they’re properly licensed? If such devices are actually legal, they why aren’t the big manufacturers also making making them? None, that I’ve ever seen, of the big electronics producers, those widely distributed on this side of the pond, make region/system free players. I’d be surprised if my off-brand region-free, system-free Chinese-imported players would be considered “legal” under C-32 and would have great concerns about our customs dept when importing such devices. I’d like to get a region-free BluRay player (Yes, they exist), but am going to wait to see the results of C-32 before I do. I could get the player now, but after C-32, if I can’t import content and the player becomes illegal. It’s now useless and I can’t even resell it.
“they” = the ones who have a licence
Any device that plays a DVD, not made by them is illegal.
What I meant was that imported DVD players that can play discs from their respective region are not illegal, whereas modified devices are or will be.
…
Ahhh, OK, that makes more sense. I have doubts that anyone holding a valid license is allowed to produce region/system free players.
@boothie: You seem to have missed my point in that it is always glaringly obvious when someone has authorization to be distributing a work, because they are quick to explicitly say so, on account of the fact that they are trying to promote themselves. Do any of the systems which have pirated content explicitly announce that they have the authorization to be distributing the content? I don’t know of any… and it’s not like even if they did, whether or not something was genuine or just lip service to some sort of disclaimer would not be glaringly obvious to anybody.
@Mark
Mark said: “Do any of the systems which have pirated content explicitly announce that they have the authorization to be distributing the content?”
Yes, they do!! I mentioned Grooveshark and Graboid and that they have been taking VISA for years. They also claim that they are legal. Do you really expect them to admit that they aren’t? I could cite a dozen other equally professional looking sites, but I don’t want to promote them.
Thanks for your reply, Mark, but it is you that is missing my point. You and everyone else, it seems.
…
@IanME: “Yes, but who are “they” and are we sure they’re properly licensed? If such devices are actually legal, they why aren’t the big manufacturers also making making them?”
They are actually making them, except that in “factory” state they are compliant with MPAA’s rules so they could import them in US without getting sued. See example here:
http://www.videohelp.com/dvdhacks/samsung-dvd-hd850/5528
It is absolutely idiotic to be legal to own 5 different players each one locked to a different region, but illegal to own one that is region-free.
And isn’t region locking against WIPO “free commerce” treaties? Or do we apply them selectively, only when they fit our purpose? Or maybe MPAA got an exemption?
OTOH, are DVD players licensed or sold? I want to know for sure as I didn’t find any “license agreement” in the box. I always thought I bought it and it’s mine and I can do whatever with it.
And again DVD players DON’T MAKE COPIES. Why would they be covered by COPYRIGHT laws?
Nap.
Correction
WTO not WIPO. Sorry
…
It’s the decryption algorithm that is licensed to the manufacturer of the player. The player is then “sold” to us. But since there has been a crack for CSS for years, many companies implement devices without an actual license, opting for open-source solutions instead.
There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not region coding violates WTO treaties. In my thinking, of course it’s a violation of free commerce, but, as with so many other things, the US only follows the rules, treaties and agreements that suit their views. That being said, unlocking a DVD player is perfectly legal in the US. Effectively, you are only modifying hardware that you already purchased and own. There is all kids of precident in US court to allow this.
…
@IanME: “…as with so many other things, the US only follows the rules, treaties and agreements that suit their views.”
So what would be the purpose of signing ACTA with them?
Nap. 🙂
…
NONE, as far as I’m concerned.
Back in the 80’s Metallica wrote a song called Dyers Eve. The lyrics could easily be applied to the US…
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/dyers-eve-lyrics-metallica/3143de2910f6c97e4825688d0033c7a1
@boothie: Neither grooveshark nor graboid actually distribute any copyrighted content, so technically the services themselves *ARE* legal. Heck, you can find sources of copyrighted content just with google. However, as I said… the real legitimacy on the issue of the actual content is invariably quite clear to anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of copyright law (bearing in mind that ignorance of a law has never been accepted as a valid excuse to break it). Smaller bands who want to distribute their music won’t generally be using such services to distribute anyways because such services do not adequately promote the band directly – they would be much more likely to set up their own little website, where it would be quite obvious that they legitimately represented their own interests. Now *COULD* legally distributable content be found through such services? Most definitely… but the reality of the online culture in which we participate suggests that the notion of finding something like that only through such services is quite dubious, and should reasonably be more carefully investigated before actually engaging in.
Bwahaha
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1869340/operation-payback-hits-copyright-office
How long before they will be declared “terrorists” and waterboarded?
Nap. 🙂
So which one is it?
If Grooveshark and Graboid are legal, and you can get absolutely anything there for free, then what’s the problem? Why do we need a new law? If they’re legal because they’re not the uploaders, and only the uploaders are acting illegally, then why make downloading illegal? But if, on the other hand, we make downloading illegal, then I say again, how can we know when it is illegal and when it is legal to download, beyond the household names which are, as you say, obviously safe? Why can’t we just say that anything you can find online is legal, and go after the uploaders instead? After all, they are the ones who are sending out the copies!
…
@Boothie: “Why do we need a new law?”
Because “the industry” wants to be able to collect a $5000 “infringement fee” from each and every Canadian?
Nap.
@Degen “The number of Canadian artists who support protected TPMs far outnumbers those who do not.”
John, could you please link your source for that quote? I have often wondered on that figure.
Also, do you have any information on the number of Canadian consumers that support TPMs or not?
Cooler heads prevail …
Looks like the UK is taking a step back from their proposed controversial Digital Economy Bill.
The Canadian government should take notice before they go down the same road.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11695416
My post to a music industry site …
As a consumer right advocate my views may be a little different than many of those here, but I do agree that artists and consumers ‘rights’ do not have to be exclusive.
Right off I want to make clear that as one who advocates fair use of media for consumers, I do not in any way condone piracy or think artists should not be compensated for their work (unless they choose to give it away). I buy directly from artists whenever possible.
My main assertion in this post is the relationship between the artists and the consumers is broken. Artists feel animosity to down-loaders and consumers feel ripped off by the distribution companies who want to ding for everything and deny flexibility in the use of legitimately purchased content.
There used to be a time (and still is thankfully to some extent) where fans respected, even loved?, their performers. I’m sure most artists are not just in it for the money, appreciate their fans and want to please them with their talents. Yet we have have high profile examples such as Gene Simmons who oozes greed and hate. Then we have the RIAA suing people for MILLIONS of dollars for a couple dozen songs? This level of punishment to damages far exceeds that of much more serious crimes such as fraud or even serious traffic violations (which can lead to death). This is what people remember and creates an atmosphere disrespect for all artists, not just the fat/rich/myopic ones.
Artists who say they deserve to be compensated for their hard work are correct, they do. But hard work does not nessasarily guarentee any compensation. As an artist you are selling a product, yourself, to the public. If the public does not value your work then they will not compensate you for it. Part of your value is your public perception, if this is tainted by the ridiculous behavior of such organizations such as the RIAA/MPAA and by extension the CRIA then your product decreases in value in the eyes of the consumer.
Those who download and never give back are theives in the sense that they are a drain on society. Just as are welfare bums, incarcinated prisoners, tax dogers etc. On the other hand some people who download are often some of the biggest purchasers of media where downloading is used as a preview and discovery tool.
To sum up: TPMs will be bypassed, downloading will continue and laws or lawsuits will not change that because of the scale involved. The solution I think is to switch from a punitive advesarial approach to one of education and good will. Instead of crying how piracy hurts artists, instead make efforts to offer products and solutions that consumers want. The world has changed, it’s said time and time again but it’s true that ‘Business models need to change’ as well. The adveserial approach will not fix anything. We need to think outside the box and this will disenfranchise many of the industry players, but it still has to be done. A proactive, positive approach is the only way to do this sucessfully. The incumbant indutry will not go along with this unless enough artists stand up to them instead of going along with their ‘attack on consumers’ diversion tactics.
Bill C-32 is not perfect but adding a simple ‘for non infringing purposes’ to the bypass TPM clause would do wonders to regaining consumer trust and will not cause any increases in the amount of piracy. Pirates don’t care about laws.
Artist TMP Support
“The number of Canadian artists who support protected TPMs far outnumbers those who do not…”
And pretty much everyone one of them fails to understand technology and why they don’t work. TPMs do nothing to prevent people from breaking copyright, copy an item X times, etc. Once I have digital information, I can copy it as many times as I want TPMs not withstanding. Yes it requires breaking the TPMs, but that hasn’t gone away despite the number of places that have made doing so illegal in some means. Even if the tools themselves are illegal, people will still be able to get them and do it. TPMs prevent piracy in the same way that a piece of paper towel is a good thing to fix a leaky pipe with.
Though like Crockette, I’d be interested in the actual numbers.
@Crockett – Post to a music industry site
I agree with what you posted. I think that there are too many artists/creators who lump people who don’t support their view as not caring about the artist/creator rather than trying to understand their view.
…
@Chris A:
An artist that doesn’t understand his public will fail more or less.
Of course there will always exist some brainless “public” that would attend anything just because their friends said that it’s “cool”. Or just because it was heavily advertised. And the “artists” catering to that public definitely need “the industry’s” advertising / brain washing machine.
Nap.
Crockett,
How ’bout you link to the source disproving my claim?
The Creators Copyright Coalition alone represents over 80,000 creative professionals in Canada — that’s PROFESSIONALS. Having attended many CCC meetings, I can say they feel as I do – TPMs will mostly fade from the marketplace once copyright is clarified, but their protection is essential to that clarification.
You may be misunderstanding the central point in that position, though. Artists don’t want to trump fair dealing rights with TPMs, as is so often suggested over here. They simply don’t believe legal protection or TPMs as written into C-32 will stop anyone from exercising fair dealing. Fair dealing does not guarantee technological parallels, and never has. As well, no-one wants TPMs to be necessary, but denying the right of legal protection is a terrible starting place for creator confidence in professional endeavor.
Chris A,
When will this side understand that a TPM is not a lock? It is a no trespassing sign.
No trespassing signs don’t work either. People still trespass. But with the sign, when trespassers get taken to court for criminal trespass, they have no excuse.
…
@Degen: “When will this side understand that a TPM is not a lock? It is a no trespassing sign.”
No trespassing into what? Skipping advertising? “The industry” has some really tough demands, eh? Like in “bend over and BTW we declared vaseline illegal too”?
And since when is trespassing the object of the COPYRIGHT law? It should be about copying, right?
Nap.
@degen
so by that logic if someone infringes copyright without a tpm than they have an excuse, but if it has a tpm than they’re guilty, not getting the logic.
The main reason tpm’s are stupid, infringing is illegal whether they’re present or not.
Also degen …..
you cleverly avoided the question over where you get the numbers for artists supporting tpm’s, but of course you can’t supply that can you, just more misinformation
Fences do not always make good neighbors …
@Degen “When will this side understand that a TPM is not a lock? It is a no trespassing sign.”
Even in cases where there are no trespassing signs, there are still instances when one is allowed to ‘access’ the land. Such as a right of way, or mineral rights (claim), legal entry for emergency or security services etc. Fair uses are like those exceptions, yet a putting on a TPM is like erecting a wall around your property to keep out even those who have valid reason for access.
Not gonna’ work and rather unneighborly.
…
Well when will the other side understand that none of us is proposing to copy their work for free?
We’re talking about TPM and their effects when using legally purchased original disks. C-32 would limit us to use them only in a brand name DVD player period. And Mr. Clement has the audacity of describing C-32 as helping Canada becoming a leader in the digital age. How? By innovating what? Since everything but a bog standard DVD player would be illegal?
Nap.
For the purpose of clarity.
So John, please help me to understand if these are your positions on TPM?
1) TPMs prevent infringement?
2) No bypassing TPM for any reason?
3) Sue people who bypass TPM even if it is for a recognized fair use?
4) TPM benefits artists more than distributors/collectives?
Thanks,
Crockett
@Boothie: again, the ones which are safe are always self evident as such. Small players that are only trying to promote themselves on their tiny website do so in a prominent enough way that it is obvious to anyone that the product is their own and they are distributing it for their own promotion. Peer to peer filesharing search engines do not make any such claims… they certainly don’t pretend to say that they themselves are representing the copyright holders’ interests, even though they may claim to be legal. Ironically, if all of the content really *were* legal, they probably wouldn’t even have to say so simply because the legality of the distribution would, again, be self-evident.
Crockett,
I have no idea what you’re asking. Please write questions in sentences.
For everyone’s benefit, I actually DID answer the question about artists and TPMs, but that answer has rather mysteriously disappeared into the admin abyss. This happens a lot around here.
Why don’t we all wait for the “admin” to approve my answer. That would be the democratic and fair thing to do. Honestly guys, somewhere deep in your cynical hearts you must be wondering if you’re hearing the full story.
Crockett,
Check the bill again. There are lots of trespass exceptions. Your analogy is correct, but your position on it does not compute.
John,
There’s the rub which you don’t seem to get, or choose to ignore. There are exceptions but they are trumped/negated/blocked by any digital lock. Almost all media has some type of digital lock, so those exceptions in such cases are meaningless.
How many times do we have to make this point for it to sink in?
Please explain how the fair use exemptions in Bill C-32, as it is currently written, can be exercised in the presence of digital locks?
Oh, wait .. they can’t. Never mind.
Strange and stranger …
@Degen “Why don’t we all wait for the “admin” to approve my answer. That would be the democratic and fair thing to do.”
Good question! I’m still waiting for my polite comment on your article posted on balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca to show up … 3 WEEKS LATER.
But I suppose not allowing comments or debate on that industry backed site is not a problem for them. Democracy then is only alive and well for the pions who haunt Geist’s site.
@Degen “Crockett, How ’bout you link to the source disproving my claim?”
John, that’s like saying “No I’m not .. but what about you!” I did not make a claim in the first place, you did. If you cannot back it up don’t be childish about it.
crockett
Artists are very individualist- the claim that 80,000 artists all agree (on anything) is less plausible than the afghan election results.
In Australia the chief lobbyist for the copyright collective Viscopy, claimed to represent the ‘vast majority ‘of Australian visual artists and claimed that everyone really wanted to be compulsorily managed by Viscopy. This lobbyist has few paid up members, and most of those paid up members that it dos have, are ‘arts’ managers with a natural interest in maximizing management costs
AC is seeking is a mandated compulsory sole right of representation. Because it is very uncompetitive.
@Degen
“When will this side understand that a TPM is not a lock? It is a no trespassing sign.
No trespassing signs don’t work either. People still trespass. But with the sign, when trespassers get taken to court for criminal trespass, they have no excuse.”
Teh, I like this one. What you don’t mention though John, is that it’s the developer that sold me my house who decided it would be a good idea to put the no trespass sign in my front garden. I came home from work and within an hour the police were at my front door to arrest me for trespassing into my own home.
When will your side understand that TPM which restrict what I can to with MY HARDWARE is a violation of my private property rights? Come up with a TPM which does not place any restrictions on my hardware John, and we’ll talk. OK?
@Mark
So, Mark, why don’t they make uploading illegal instead of making downloading illegal? So far you’ve pointed out that this way, through fear, uncertainty and doubt people will only download from the big brand name media sites. The ones who have been pushing for this kind of law, this kind of confusing law. Now, you say it’s not confusing, if you find it on sites like grooveshark and graboid then they are legal, you said, and if you find it on facebook it’s not legal, you said, and if the website is “tiny” and has “small players” that are promoting their product in a prominent enough way then it is obvious to anyone, you said. But then you say that if the content really were legal, they probably wouldn’t even have to say so, because it would be self-evident. Mark, I have to ask, did you help these guys to write this bill?
These analogies don’t really work very well. If your going to call a TPM a no trespassing sign, that sign would be facing the inside of the property, keeping you, your thoughts and ideas, and your purchased content locked away from the rest of the world.
“When will this side understand that a TPM is not a lock? It is a no trespassing sign.
No trespassing signs don’t work either. People still trespass. But with the sign, when trespassers get taken to court for criminal trespass, they have no excuse. ”
Um…no. The no trespassing sign is basic copyright law. TPMs are not, TPMs are locks.
@Degen If tpm’s are a no trespassing sign….
then the sign should be ignored if you have legal reason to be there
Boy, you folks have trouble accepting an analogy at face value. So, which way does a No Trespassing sign have to be facing for it to mean No Trespassing?
Crockett, I’m sorry you decided to stop reading my comments after the first sentence. I answered your question and await some sort of dismissive rebuttal about 80,000 professional creators not being verifiable despite paid membership and democratic process. After you do dismiss all those artists, perhaps you could provide us all with numbers disproving my claim.
And if it’s commenting you are looking to do, try ACTAWatch.ca with its brand new, fully fixed problem free commenting mechanism… ohhhhh, that’s right, it still doersn’t accept comments. I guess you’ll have to be satisfied with making attacks against professional artists at the Balanced Copyright for Canada Facebook page which accepts all comments.
Second reading completed! On to committee!
@Degen
ACTAWatch does accept comments and has for a few weeks. I just tested it myself and encountered no problems in submitting a comment and having it posted.
MG
@Degen
“When will this side understand that a TPM is not a lock? It is a no trespassing sign.”
That’s no more than splitting hairs and you know it. In one hand you’re telling me I’m not allowed to go in and on the other hand you’re locking me out. The net effect is exactly same.
“The number of Canadian artists who support protected TPMs far outnumbers those who do not.”
I though I posted this yesterday, but I must not have hit the Add Comment button. However, I’d also like to see the source for this. It’s a fact that many Canadian musicians are against TPMs and have created a coalition to that effect. The Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Since it’s inception, over 200 recording artists have signed on in opposing TPMs and punishing fans, including many of Canada’s largest, internationally successful, musicians. These include musicians such as Our Lady Peace, Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne, Fiest, Barenaked Ladies, Three Days Grace, Sam Roberts, Randy Bachman, Matthew Good, Blue rodeo, Chantal Kreviazuk, Billy Talent, alexisonfire and so many more from all genres.
http://www.musiccreators.ca/wp/
This is a quote taken directly from their web site…
“Until now, a group of multinational record labels has done most of the talking about what Canadian artists need out of copyright. Record companies and music publishers are not our enemies, but let’s be clear: lobbyists for major labels are looking out for their shareholders, and seldom speak for Canadian artists. Legislative proposals that would facilitate lawsuits against our fans or increase the labels’ control over the enjoyment of music are made not in our names, but on behalf of the labels’ foreign parent companies.”
Raine Maida of Our Lady Peace says it best in this quote…
“I think you’re going to find that the major labels are not speaking on behalf of the artists anymore and the coalition is going to make sure the artists — which are the people that make the songs and drive the business — have a voice.”
While there are surely artists that support DRM/TPM schemes, Gene Simmons of Kiss and our “beloved” Loreena McKennitt being prime examples. At least I can respect them for standing up for their beliefs. Like Metallica, I probably won’t buy any more of their albums simply because they have no respect for their fans and I won’t support that, but at least they’re honest and I can respect that.
Interesting, because I have also tested it several times recently and each time my comment does not appear. And I don’t see any comment on any of the articles on the home page.
I think at this point only Crockett cares whether or not you accept comments on actawatch, so I officially withdraw from the discussion.
For all y’all frothing and watching creatively edited youTube versions of the C-32 TPM debate, here’s an interesting summary of the bill’s address of the technological No Trespassing signs:
http://jamesgannon.ca/2010/10/26/charlie-angus-c-32-blunder/
@Degan
“Boy, you folks have trouble accepting an analogy at face value. So, which way does a No Trespassing sign have to be facing for it to mean No Trespassing?”
That’s because it’s an analogy that doesn’t work. Copyright law already says what you can and can’t do with someone’s copyrighted work, so by your own admission here by using that analogy is that TPMs protection is not needed since the law already covers it and you can take someone to court over it, much like you can now with no TPM protection in our copyright.
TPMs have nothing to do with preventing piracy other than to make shareholders/some creators feel better, but anyone who actually understands what they do and how they work realize that they don’t and never will. A new lock will be picked every time someone comes up with one.
Plus there’s the whole problem that they generally end up punishing the people who actually want to legally get your stuff as opposed to the people you want to stop getting your stuff for free. You don’t make your legitimate consumers happy and want to continue buying your stuff by punishing them to do so.
@Degan
“For all y’all frothing and watching creatively edited youTube versions of the C-32 TPM debate, here’s an interesting summary of the bill’s address of the technological No Trespassing signs:
http://jamesgannon.ca/2010/10/26/charlie-angus-c-32-blunder/ ”
I’ve read over the TPM protection section twice so far. In none does it only mention that it will be used for commercial enforcement only. And no, I don’t believe your link because it’s not as obvious as it says it is despite it listing things there.
Chris A,
It’s already illegal to take stuff from a store without paying for it. Why have security measures in the store? Easily defeatable security measures, btw.
It’s already illegal to trespass on private property, so why would anyone put up a sign? And yet they do.
It’s a crazy, mixed up world. What we need is some clarity, some guidance some might say. Clear legislative guidance.
@Degan
“It’s already illegal to take stuff from a store without paying for it. Why have security measures in the store? Easily defeatable security measures, btw.
It’s already illegal to trespass on private property, so why would anyone put up a sign? And yet they do.”
Yeah, no. That doesn’t really address anything I said. Basically what your saying is that they should include signs on things saying “Selling copies of this is illegal”, which is fine in my opinion.
“It’s a crazy, mixed up world. What we need is some clarity, some guidance some might say. Clear legislative guidance. ”
Except of course that the TPM protection section is far from clear on what it means.
Digital Locks
I tell you now, even if digital locks and anticircumvention is passed as-is, NOONE with listen, NOONE will respect it…it will be unenforcible and if anything it’s cause an increase in piracy like we saw in the US with DMCA and in France with 3-strikes and HADOPI. For people to follow a law, they have to respect it, they have to believe in it!!! A law specifically designed to line big business pockets will not achieve this!!! If they REALLY wanted to help artists, they would be looking at legislating the contract agreements between the industry and the artist…more often than not, the artist gets scr3w3d by these contracts…but C-32 isn’t about helping artists is it???
Speaking of unenforcible…how many of us here know it’s actually illegal to drive a quad, dirt bike or skidoo (Any motor vehicle) down the right-of-way on the side of a highway? NOONE listens to that, it’s commonly considered to be dumb law and it’s completely unenforcible. You could ride right by an RCMP officer and he’ll give you nothing more than a wave and a smile. That’s what’s going to happen here with digital locks and anticircumvention…if it gets passed in its current form.
@IamME
And unfortunate far too many artist/politicians have bought into the industry spin that these things are needed to prevent piracy.
@Boothie: Currently, in Canada, downloading *IS* legal… so “making” downloading legal would be an entirely moot point. I personally do not think it should be, however, when the content one is downloading happens to be infringing, and was originally proposing that an explicit law be drafted to make things such. The concern you raised about this notion over only having to trust the big players is more of a theoretical issue than something which reflects reality, because as I said, the true legality of the content (and not necessarily the site itself) is usually self-evident, regardless of the profile of the host, except to the extent that people may be ignorant of how copyright itself actually works. However, ignorance of a law is not (nor should it be) an excuse to violate it.
To address your last question, no I did not help them draft the bill. I am wholly appalled at how the bill wholly locks out copying for private use and fair dealings at the copyright holder’s discretion simply if the copyright holder puts a digital lock on it. There is *NO* reason that a digital lock should make any difference whatsoever to what end user activities are actually legally permitted to be done. I’d be quite happy if this bill did not have any mention of digital locks at all, but I realize that the reality in which we live makes that unlikely. To that end, I would propose a more balanced approach which would suggest that the bypassing of such locks should *ONLY* be unlawful under the circumstance that the person bypassing them is doing so for the purpose of *OTHERWISE* violating copyright (“otherwise” being key, since the provision could be made effectively moot by having circumvention itself be considered copyright infringement… much like how the current bill makes acts of fair dealing and private copying, both acts that the bill has wording to apparently offer explicit protection for, wholly moot by allowing digital locks to trump them, considering we live in an age where virtually all new content is stored digitally, and even an ever-increasing amount of old content is migrating to digital storage as well). Do I think that “private use” should extend even to the point of facilitating other people’s infringement on copyright, however? No… and to that end, I had proposed that the notion of any claim of “private use” be forfeit in those cases. This does not in any way impact people who are using legitimate content for private use, it only impacts people who were using services whose content, as I said, was dubious from the start. It does, I believe, give a lot more teeth to copyright law, while at the same time both being consistent with the underlying intentions of copyright, and maintaining people’s abilities to still do what they would like with the copyrighted content in ways that are fully compatible with those intentions, such as privately copy or format shift a legitimate work for themselves as often as and whenever they wish. (It can easily be shown that such notions are not incompatible with copyright since, in reality, there would not even be any way of knowing that the act had even been done in the first place if the copy was truly for the private use of the copier, and if one can’t even know that something has happened at all because there has been no perceptible impact on the system by the act, then how can it be argued that it can still adversely affect that system?) While there is the notion that a person downloading unauthorized copyrighted content for themselves may not be affecting the system directly, they *ARE* facilitating somebody else’s action which does (and as a result, it creates a perceptible [possibly tiny, but still perceptible] impact on the system), and as such was merely proposing that the “private use” claim be forfeit in such cases because I believe that to continue to allow it is not compatible with the underlying intentions of copyright.
I would have got away with it too if it weren’t for you meddling kids …
@Degen “Interesting, because I have also tested it several times recently and each time my comment does not appear. And I don’t see any comment on any of the articles on the home page. I think at this point only Crockett cares whether or not you accept comments on actawatch, so I officially withdraw from the discussion.”
Ok John, that’s fine, hate to see you concede a point.
I did though leave you a short greeting in the comments section on Actawatch.ca
http://acta.michaelgeist.ca/blog/acta-conclusion-leaves-flexibility-made-canada-approach
I submitted a similar greeting on your article on balancedcopyright.ca but alas it’s nere to be seen for weeks now.
Ah, so the comments work for you, but not for me. I didn’t catch that part of the explanation. That seems perfectly fair and balanced.
Anyone and everyone is welcome to comment at Balanced Copyright using their Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/balancedcopyright
@Degen
“Anyone and everyone is welcome to comment at Balanced Copyright using their Facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/balancedcopyright”
Only 1100 “likes” on facebook…that’s pretty grim…considering.
What concerns me most about this group is that nowhere can you get a list of members. That seems pretty shady to me!!! I would like to see a list of all the member organizations/groups/musicians. If I sign in using my facebook account, will I then be able to see the membership?
Gotta love Google because it indexes everything. There used to be a page,
http://balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca/members/
Why was it taken down? If the group is so high and mighty on itself and so convinced they’re doing the right thing “FOR CANADIAN ARTISTS” then why does the membersip hide in the shadows?
@Degen “…Ah, so the comments work for you, but not for me.”
They work fine everyone John, go ahead and you will see. Pretending otherwise is very disingenuous.
P.S. @Degen “I think at this point only Crockett cares whether or not you accept comments on actawatch, so I officially withdraw from the discussion.”
John, I don’t think withdraw means what you think it means 😉
…nice reading here
Since we’re talking about “the digital age”:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/10/steal_book
“Allowing such ersatz lending is a pretence by booksellers. They wish you to engage in two separate hallucinations. First, that their limited licence to read a work on a device or within software of their choosing is equivalent to the purchase of a physical item. Second, that the vast majority of e-books are persistent objects rather than disposable culture.”
Yes, that’s exactly what DRM is for. Creating “disposable culture”.
Nap.
Levys
Looks like the EU might be looking at a levy system, much like our conservatives have so admittedly condemned. Levies on memory sticks, optical drives, MP3 players and recordable media.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2010/11/05/europe-to-get-copyright-overhaul-40090768/
Gotte love spellcheck…
…not admittedly….adamantly. As much as I complain about the levy, it’s something I would support much more than digital locks. At least I KNOW the levy is actually helping artists. Digital locks do nothing to help artists and SOLELY benefit the industry. I still don’t think those who choose employ digital locks should get to partake of the levy.