52 replies to this topic

[sebberry]

I wanted to start a thread on copyright reform in Canada.

As you may or may not know, the Canadian Government (I refuse to call it the "Harper Government") has reintroduced Bill C-32 as Bill C-11 which imposes among other things stringent rules surrounding digital locks that are used to protect content.

These so called locks are being used more and more to protect anything from e-books to music to movies and are intended to protect the copyright holders and content producers.

Because the locks are about as commonplace as the media they protect, such mechanisims will have a huge variety of implications on content consumers.

I don't want to get too detailed in this post, I mostly wanted to see where other people stood on this matter.

A lot of great information can be had at the website of Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.


.

[LJ]

I wanted to start a thread on copyright reform in Canada.

As you may or may not know, the Canadian Government (I refuse to call it the "Harper Government") has reintroduced Bill C-32 as Bill C-11 which imposes among other things stringent rules surrounding digital locks that are used to protect content.

These so called locks are being used more and more to protect anything from e-books to music to movies and are intended to protect the copyright holders and content producers.

Because the locks are about as commonplace as the media they protect, such mechanisims will have a huge variety of implications on content consumers.

I don't want to get too detailed in this post, I mostly wanted to see where other people stood on this matter.

A lot of great information can be had at the website of Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.


.

You should refuse to call it the Harper Government, it is, as you say, the Canadian government.


I have mixed feelings about the copyright law, it seems you can get most things you want from the original source for minimal fees. I want to be paid for my work as I imagine you do for yours.

[sebberry]

Copyright law in Canada always has protected the owner of the work against infringing acts.

What this does is take it to the next level - it makes it a crime to break the digital lock protecting the content - even if no infringement occurs.

There are many activities that are considered non-infringing under current copyright law.

For example: A teacher uses a piece of video in a presentation to his students. Not an infringing act. However, if that piece of video is protected by a digital lock and the lock needs to be broken in order to copy a portion of the video into the presentation, the teacher has now engaged in the criminal act of breaking the lock.

Or another example: I archive all my DVDs onto the computer. That way when I sit down at the TV and want to watch one, I use my media player to bring up the list of my movies on the screen, select one and play it. No infringement has occurred, no illegal distribution has occurred and I still have the original discs. Yet the act of breaking the digital lock will become a criminal offence.


The big problem with this bill is how the digital lock rules will be enforced - should the digital lock rules be enforced for all acts of breaking the locks or only when infringement occurs?


I agree that content creators need to be paid for their work, but I also believe that content consumers should be able to enjoy that work in any way they please.

[Sparky]

This is a very interesting topic Seb, and I am sure we will receive a number of different opinions.

For starters may I suggest that anyone that wants to come up to speed with "Digital Locks" and DRM "Digital Rights Management" brush up on their reading.

http://en.wikipedia....ghts_management

In addition to the copyright topic, I recently discovered for instance that when you purchase a language teaching product called Rosetta Stone, you in fact do not own it, you have only purchased a non transferable user license and can not sell it when you are finished with it. Watch out for the fine print.

[Baro]

Basically laws like this are designed to make everyone a criminal. Once everyone is a criminal the government can target anyone they don't like to harass. It's easy to do, just take a topic most people are ignorant of, create a victim-less crime, and then selectively punish people you don't like.

[sebberry]

In addition to the copyright topic, I recently discovered for instance that when you purchase a language teaching product called Rosetta Stone, you in fact do not own it, you have only purchased a non transferable user license and can not sell it when you are finished with it. Watch out for the fine print.

Imagine if books were non-transferable. There would be no used-book stores. If vinyl records were tied to the original purchaser music lovers today wouldn't be able to collect old LPs.

It's common for some software products to be tied to either the PC it was first installed onto or in other ways non-transferable. Imagine if it was illegal for used-book stores to sell any book marked "not sellable once used". The government could fine every book store in town thousands of dollars per book.

I can't make a copy of a blu-ray movie onto my movie server (an act which does not infringe nor create a loss for the producer) but I can sell the disc once I am done with it (an act which does represent a lost sale for the producer.)



Here's one: Napster recently announced that they will be pulling out of Canada. Napster is now a legal service for people to purchase music through.

Since their music is DRM protected, once they terminate their service in Canada anyone with DRM protected music will encounter the following problems:

-Users won't be able to burn their purchased music to CD
-Users won't be able to listen to their purchased music if they ever have to reinstall the Napster player, reinstall Windows or god forbid buy a new computer.

Napster is suggesting that purchasers of the DRM protected music files burn the files as audio tracks to a CD. This way the DRM is removed from the tracks and the user can listen to the music on any CD player.
The act of burning the music to a CD effectively breaks the digital lock. Bill C-11 would make such lock circumvention a crime.


So what's worse? A kid downloading and sharing a few songs on the internet or a company like Napster hitting the kill-switch on thousands, if not millions of purchased songs?

[sebberry]

http://xkcd.com/488/

[LJ]

well I wasn't familiar with the DRM system at all. As it is described by Seb and Wiki I would have to say I would be firmly against it.

[sebberry]

well I wasn't familiar with the DRM system at all. As it is described by Seb and Wiki I would have to say I would be firmly against it.

At the end of the day DRM does little, if anything at all, to stop piracy.

In order for DRM to be "effective", it must place severe constraints on how a user can use the protected media.

Often these constraints are so frustrating to deal with that the consumer ends up skipping over buying the product and goes straight to downloading it illegally.

[sebberry]

Conservatives Defeat Liberal & NDP Bid to Block C-11

Thursday December 01, 2011

The majority Conservatives on Monday defeated a motion raised by the Liberals to stop Bill C-11 from being sent to committee and effectively kill the bill. While the vote was a foregone conclusion, the motion highlights the political divide that has emerged on the current copyright bill. All opposition parties - NDP, Liberals, Bloc, and Greens - supported the motion which read:

[...]

More at: http://www.michaelge.../view/6178/125/

I suppose democracy and debate goes out the window when a majority government is elected...


.

[D.L.]

Seb, majority rules in a democracy.

[gumgum]

And ?

[sebberry]

And ?

It is unclear as to whom your question is directed.

[sebberry]

It's important to remember that the circumvention of a digital lock is not the same as copyright infringement.

Bill C-11 would make it illegal to circumvent a digital lock even for non-infringing activities, activities that copyright law do in fact permit.

[sebberry]

Tories on e-snooping: ‘Stand with us or with the child **rnographers’

Canada’s privacy commissioners will be surprised to hear it, but the Conservatives are accusing anyone who opposes their bill to give police new powers to monitor the Internet of supporting child **rnography.

A similar comment might have cost Stephen Harper the 2004 election. But with the next election years away, it’s hard to know whether or when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will change his tune.

[...]

Article

.

[sebberry]

This is going beyond goofy:

The Other Shoe Drops: Music Reps Want SOPA-Style Website Blocking Added To Copyright Bill

The Bill C-11 committee conducts its final witness hearing on copyright reform today and not a moment too soon. Based on the demands from music industry witnesses this week, shutting down the Internet must surely be coming next. The week started with the Canadian Independent Music Association seeking changes to the enabler provision that would create liability risk for social networking sites, search engines, blogging platforms, video sites, and many other websites featuring third party contributions. It also called for a new iPod tax, an extension in the term of copyright, a removal of protections for user generated content, parody, and satire, as well as an unlimited statutory damage awards and a content takedown system with no court oversight. CIMA was followed by ADISQ, which wants its own lawful access approach that would require Internet providers to disclose subscriber information without court oversight based on allegations of infringement (the attack on fair dealing is covered in a separate post).

[...]

Source: http://www.michaelge...3/125/#comments

[Sparky]

I did not see this one coming.

How about paying a copyright fee for playing music at a wedding?

http://news.ca.msn.c...c-at-weddings-2

[Mike K.]

Being in the licensing business I can side with Re:Sound. Bottom line is someone is paid to provide music at an event, be it a wedding, a fashion show or a gala, and they presumably have acquired legitimate rights to replay the music at such events. If Re:Sound wants to charge $10 to license their music at an event they have the right to, particularly if the event is for-profit (as weddings are -- obviously not for the bride and groom, but for of those hired to put on the event).

[mysage]

Who pays for the music played at the small live venues around the City such as Logans etc?

[Matt R.]

That type of thing is covered through tariffs to SOCAN. Cheap!!

My understanding is that Re:Sound is meant to cover the areas that SOCAN does not, such as playing recorded music at weddings.

Money well spent.

Matt.