Canadian Politician Okays Copyright Violation Because Nobody Cares Anyway
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
In a way, he's right. If I chose to circumvent DRM on my own time at my own house, who would even know? It's kind of stupid that he's still pushing for a law saying otherwise though. I know Canada wants to be all buddy-buddy with America and all, but as a very red blooded American myself, nobody likes a sheep. Canada is it's own country and they are allowed to do their own thing, especially when an inane law like this comes along.
Well, he did say personal use. I really don't see the big deal as long as you only break it for yourself and don't share it with others (so people don't go "geohotz lawl").
Personal use, it just you tampering with it to make it more usable. If you've brought something and messed with it to get more access with a physical object, its completely fine, i see no reason not to do it with a piece of digital media, as long as you keep it for yourself.
Of course I might have read that wrong, in which case ignore the hell out of me. It is late and i've sworn off caffeine and am currently experiencing the withdrawal symptoms.
Personal use, it just you tampering with it to make it more usable. If you've brought something and messed with it to get more access with a physical object, its completely fine, i see no reason not to do it with a piece of digital media, as long as you keep it for yourself.
Of course I might have read that wrong, in which case ignore the hell out of me. It is late and i've sworn off caffeine and am currently experiencing the withdrawal symptoms.
Yep. Companies don't care if you use "their" products in any strange ways, like downloading to an iPod, or uploading it to Youtube. That's why people and groups like TeamFourStar and Little Kuriboh never get bothered by the owner of the products they are parodying with their own shows. Despite the fact that parody is protected by law. Oh. Wait.
Sure, you can break TPMs on digital media for personal use and it doesn't really mean anything. It's not like Sony or Fox or Music Canada is going to pursue individuals for bypassing DRM so they can burn the song they bought off iTunes and listen to it in their car.
Unless, that is, they do, in which case you, the consumer, have very clearly broken the law and left yourself open to prosecution and litigation. And if your defense is, well, Lee said it was okay, you're gonna be pretty screwed when it's your turn in front of the judge. "Don't sweat it because nobody gives a shit" is great only up to the moment when somebody does in fact decide to give a shit, and I find it very troubling that a Member of Parliament is doling out exactly that kind of advice to people.
Unless, that is, they do, in which case you, the consumer, have very clearly broken the law and left yourself open to prosecution and litigation. And if your defense is, well, Lee said it was okay, you're gonna be pretty screwed when it's your turn in front of the judge. "Don't sweat it because nobody gives a shit" is great only up to the moment when somebody does in fact decide to give a shit, and I find it very troubling that a Member of Parliament is doling out exactly that kind of advice to people.
draythefingerless said:
Ummm, just so that you know this, the lady that sued over the coffee actualy sustained a pretty severe burn, and the coffee was very ,very hot. Too hot to reasonably be serving.
From wikipedia:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[12] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[13] Two years of medical treatment followed.
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to serve coffee at 180?190 °F (82?88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.
OT: yay for our conservative government being phenominal idiots again. >_>
Well for the average consumer who doesn't CARE about music and just wants to listen to the newest pop hit with their 50c earbuds... there really isn't much of a diff between 128 and 320kbit/s.Scrumpmonkey said:
Of course the sorts of people who care about music usually try to buy retail CDs of bands that can't afford to tour, bands that tour make most of their revenue through that anyway, and retail CDs give back the largest amount to the artists.
I've personally had bands encourage pirating their music and spreading it to as many people as possible, because they recognise that gaining a fan is better then getting the few cents of a digital sale.
Edit:
I can't verify the claim and it's highly likely that this is false somehow: but I have heard of someone who sued a drill company because there wasn't an explicit warning saying "Do not stick drill up nose"...lotr rocks 0 said:
Working in retail leads you to believe stories like that though... some people are too stupid to live and if you work retail, you WILL meet one of them Q.Q
and people wonder why i have no faith in my government.(for you Americans out there we currently have in charge a guy whos bush times wesbro baptist church divided by Stalin and has a majority government to push through every one of his half baked ideas(he already tried to get rid of free healthcare for no reason whatsoever).)
"A Canadian lawmaker actively encouraging Canadian citizens to knowingly break a law that his own party is at the same time aggressively trying to sell to the public as fair and friendly to consumers?"
A few too many liberties as far as interpretation goes. Nothing he says in the snippet suggests the constituent go out and violate copyright.[footnote]And of course no one here has their interests served by spinning the story for their own gain, no sir.[/footnote]
Didn't the US recently have a motion going through the system that would prohibit people from using ANY copy written material (or so the common interpretation went), so no more fan covers of songs or displays of protected footage from movies and games unless licensed?
Our policy: Don't Piss in the pool. We know you're going to use copywritten material sooner or later, which is fine as long as it's for personal use. But if you start making wads of cash and/or denying someone else theirs, we now have 20 new ways to prosecute you. Honestly it's worked pretty well so far.
A few too many liberties as far as interpretation goes. Nothing he says in the snippet suggests the constituent go out and violate copyright.[footnote]And of course no one here has their interests served by spinning the story for their own gain, no sir.[/footnote]
Didn't the US recently have a motion going through the system that would prohibit people from using ANY copy written material (or so the common interpretation went), so no more fan covers of songs or displays of protected footage from movies and games unless licensed?
Our policy: Don't Piss in the pool. We know you're going to use copywritten material sooner or later, which is fine as long as it's for personal use. But if you start making wads of cash and/or denying someone else theirs, we now have 20 new ways to prosecute you. Honestly it's worked pretty well so far.
That right there? To try drawing direct comparison from the PM to Bush, to people who picket soldier's funerals and to a guy who mass murdered millions of his country men? That's reason to endorse the use of prophylactics right there.tg851 said:
Right, telling people that they won't face any penalties for violating copyright isn't encouraging them to ignore the law in any way whatsoever.The3rdEye said:
No sir.
Well, it's a problem with democratic first world nations that there is too much focus on getting elected that nobody wants to do anything that is going to bring about actual change or involve large scale action. There is always backlash to that, and backlash influances the chances of being elected again the next time around.
The bottom line is that these kind of copyright and intellectual property laws are needed, especially in a "big picture" sense when your looking at what nations like China have been doing for the last few decades.... laws having to be fairly consistant, you can't for example complain about China say stealing billions of dollars by manufacturing knock off goods based on someone else's patent or property (or say opening a section of an amusement park based on someone else's works) while saying it's just fine as long as the people in your own back yard do it.
The issue with Canada is that if they pass laws like this, they have to enforce them. Enforcing the laws means having to arrest people and put them in jail, and with a big issue like this it means LOTS of people being arrested and going to jail. When you see a ton of people being arresed over something that was being overlooked a few weeks ago that tends to upset people on a lot of differant levels, and influances the odds of the politicians getting elected again negatively.
As things have seemed to me, Canada has been dancing around the idea of actually enforcing copyrights and such, instead taking a stance (as explained to me) that the country will pay what it thinks is fair to the property owners and let it's people do what they want.... which is a problem on a lot of levels which I won't go into. The point here seems to be that Canada is concerned about civil liability as well, and intentionally doesn't want to pass these laws specifically because it means that they would have to allow companies coming in and making examples out of people.
Canada is pretty much waffling I think, because it understands the issues at state and the big picture, but doesn't want to deal with it on a more practical level in it's back yard. It's pretty much dancing around the issue of actually doing anything that is going to involve it actually having to enforce laws/judgements on it's own people, especially in response to a set of behaviors it has been more or less encouraging.
The fact that it's become an issue in Canada to even this point is kind of scary, and really a lot of it has to do with the economy. While I don't think Canada has been hit as badly as the US yet, I think it's realizing that China's "robber economy" is responsible for a lot of the current problems globally, all that great trade with China and its cheap knock off products is showing it's dark side where all the money lost by the countries whose patents and IPs have been stolen and knocked off is starting to catch up, and it's getting to the point that diplomatic games with China "lending" the money it stole back to countries like the US that it's been victimizing to preserve the peace aren't working.
In short I think Canada would like to actually show a united front with the US and some other countries here, despite it's relationship with China, but at the same time it doesn't want to enforce those principles on it's own people. Canada's very liberal take on patents and intellectual properties has been benefitting it for quite a while, albiet in more of a consumer piracy sense, than one where it's been knocking off and producing goods based on patterns and ideas invented/owned elsewhere to sell for it's own profit (with cheap production in sweatshops making that profit high indeed... at least for China... Canada isn't anything like that at the moment).
That's how I see it at any rate.
Now yeah, with a lot of the Canadians I've run into who have proudly bragged about their ability to pirate and violate IP laws and such, I can see how the goverment changing it's tune is NOT popular and why we're looking at situations with "do nothing" desicians being made by politicians who are afraid to pull the trigger so to speak.
Of course while I'm supporting anti-piracy legislation here, I *DO* tend to agree that there needs to be some guidelines on what companies can actually do to protect their property. I've oftentimes compared the whole "piracy" issue as a battle between gang bangers and the mafia, both sides are ridiculously corrupt and wrong, and the ones who get screwed are the bystanders who aren't directly involved. The gaming industry has gotten waaay too corperate and greedy, and absolutly ridiculous with their protection schemes which are as much about data mining and user tracking as they are about protecting themselves.
The bottom line is that these kind of copyright and intellectual property laws are needed, especially in a "big picture" sense when your looking at what nations like China have been doing for the last few decades.... laws having to be fairly consistant, you can't for example complain about China say stealing billions of dollars by manufacturing knock off goods based on someone else's patent or property (or say opening a section of an amusement park based on someone else's works) while saying it's just fine as long as the people in your own back yard do it.
The issue with Canada is that if they pass laws like this, they have to enforce them. Enforcing the laws means having to arrest people and put them in jail, and with a big issue like this it means LOTS of people being arrested and going to jail. When you see a ton of people being arresed over something that was being overlooked a few weeks ago that tends to upset people on a lot of differant levels, and influances the odds of the politicians getting elected again negatively.
As things have seemed to me, Canada has been dancing around the idea of actually enforcing copyrights and such, instead taking a stance (as explained to me) that the country will pay what it thinks is fair to the property owners and let it's people do what they want.... which is a problem on a lot of levels which I won't go into. The point here seems to be that Canada is concerned about civil liability as well, and intentionally doesn't want to pass these laws specifically because it means that they would have to allow companies coming in and making examples out of people.
Canada is pretty much waffling I think, because it understands the issues at state and the big picture, but doesn't want to deal with it on a more practical level in it's back yard. It's pretty much dancing around the issue of actually doing anything that is going to involve it actually having to enforce laws/judgements on it's own people, especially in response to a set of behaviors it has been more or less encouraging.
The fact that it's become an issue in Canada to even this point is kind of scary, and really a lot of it has to do with the economy. While I don't think Canada has been hit as badly as the US yet, I think it's realizing that China's "robber economy" is responsible for a lot of the current problems globally, all that great trade with China and its cheap knock off products is showing it's dark side where all the money lost by the countries whose patents and IPs have been stolen and knocked off is starting to catch up, and it's getting to the point that diplomatic games with China "lending" the money it stole back to countries like the US that it's been victimizing to preserve the peace aren't working.
In short I think Canada would like to actually show a united front with the US and some other countries here, despite it's relationship with China, but at the same time it doesn't want to enforce those principles on it's own people. Canada's very liberal take on patents and intellectual properties has been benefitting it for quite a while, albiet in more of a consumer piracy sense, than one where it's been knocking off and producing goods based on patterns and ideas invented/owned elsewhere to sell for it's own profit (with cheap production in sweatshops making that profit high indeed... at least for China... Canada isn't anything like that at the moment).
That's how I see it at any rate.
Now yeah, with a lot of the Canadians I've run into who have proudly bragged about their ability to pirate and violate IP laws and such, I can see how the goverment changing it's tune is NOT popular and why we're looking at situations with "do nothing" desicians being made by politicians who are afraid to pull the trigger so to speak.
Of course while I'm supporting anti-piracy legislation here, I *DO* tend to agree that there needs to be some guidelines on what companies can actually do to protect their property. I've oftentimes compared the whole "piracy" issue as a battle between gang bangers and the mafia, both sides are ridiculously corrupt and wrong, and the ones who get screwed are the bystanders who aren't directly involved. The gaming industry has gotten waaay too corperate and greedy, and absolutly ridiculous with their protection schemes which are as much about data mining and user tracking as they are about protecting themselves.
There might be some (small) hope for humanity yet.pointless point is pointless.lotr rocks 0 said:
hot coffee is heated at near boiling temperatures buddy. im sorry, i dunno how you make your coffee, but where i come from, you near water boiling temperatures. you WILL get heavy burns if you pour hot coffee all over you. no matter where it comes from. it shouldnt be mcdonalds job to advertize common sense. and while i feel for the woman, i still dont see why McDonalds was guilty and sueable(other than overall idiocy in the highly interpretative american law). drills are pretty dangerous, so its sensible if you stick a drill up your dick, to sue the drill company? :/
That doesn't read anything likeAndy Chalk said:
"If a digital lock is broken for personal use, it is not realistic that the creator would choose to file a lawsuit against the consumer, due to legal fees and time involved,"
I shall fix it for you, good sir.
Indeed, no spin at all sir.Andy Chalk said:
They have no interest in turning things into a witch hunt (usually, it's the PC party so I'd be lying if I said I was a fan of their tactics). At the same time however, there's no sense in using thirty year old laws to investigate and prosecute a relatively recent problem. Saying that it's impractical to be chasing after every person who breaks copyright/DRM so that they can watch their DVD movie w/o the DVD in their PC just confirms the rational sense of "if the company isn't losing money to it, why are they going to throw their money away on it?".
He's not saying anything we don't already know. Is that comment going to bite him in the ass? Probably. Yet it's still true.
This won't bite him in the ass or anything. /sarcasm
I agree with the notion that companies won't sue individuals based on cost to them, but they will sue groups of people to make their money back, you can count on that.
This man plans to buy 65 VTOL aircraft- Joint Strike Fighters @ $50mil a piece for a total of ~3.25 billion for the 2nd largest country in the world. Who has a mostly defensive/peacekeeping military. What is there not enough space in CANADA for runways? And why do we need stealth aircraft? Why don't we get not as shiny, but still better planes so we can re-distribute the remaining funds to something that needs it, like say... I don't know... HEALTHCARE. Or hell, you could keep the funds with the military and make sure our subs and tanks and other vehicles actually work. Just sayin'.
It boggles the mind how Harper's brain even functions, it's like shaking keys in front of an infant's face. <long double-palmed facepalm> /rant
I agree with the notion that companies won't sue individuals based on cost to them, but they will sue groups of people to make their money back, you can count on that.
Welcome to the Conservative Party my friend. The main opposition party has no head at the moment (due to the death of its leader from illness) and the other major party is looking for another piece of cardboard to put in as the party leader so that they don't get spanked again next election. Quite simply, until someone new and at least somewhat charismatic comes to the fore in the other parties, we're stuck with M2.#4RP3R aka Mr. Harper (aka beep-beep-I wanna be America-boop-beep).Therumancer said:
This man plans to buy 65 VTOL aircraft- Joint Strike Fighters @ $50mil a piece for a total of ~3.25 billion for the 2nd largest country in the world. Who has a mostly defensive/peacekeeping military. What is there not enough space in CANADA for runways? And why do we need stealth aircraft? Why don't we get not as shiny, but still better planes so we can re-distribute the remaining funds to something that needs it, like say... I don't know... HEALTHCARE. Or hell, you could keep the funds with the military and make sure our subs and tanks and other vehicles actually work. Just sayin'.
It boggles the mind how Harper's brain even functions, it's like shaking keys in front of an infant's face. <long double-palmed facepalm> /rant