Good read, well except the first paragraph. Sorta sucks how DRM is going to royally screw you guys over even more then it is now.
The Needles: Goodbye, Mr. (Mod)Chips
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This happens for pretty much every government descsion everywhere.Keava said:
I'm not Canadian but it seems that this bill is just a little bit ridiculous. What is wrong with the current Canadian copyright laws anyway?
Two huge problems with this law as it stands that will ultimately cause it to work against it's self. First and foremost the more you tell most people not to do something the more they are going to want to do it. Sure, you might get a few people listening and walking the straight and narrow but most people will want to do it out of curiosity or spite.
The second and possibly larger problem is this law is almost entirely impossible to enforce. Hell they may as well outlaw eating breathing and shitting while they are at it. They would have just as much success in actually preventing any of the three of those things as they will this. I guess it looks good on paper though.
The second and possibly larger problem is this law is almost entirely impossible to enforce. Hell they may as well outlaw eating breathing and shitting while they are at it. They would have just as much success in actually preventing any of the three of those things as they will this. I guess it looks good on paper though.
Oh yes..making mod chips illegal will completely prevent anyone from obtaining them, just like since drugs were prohibited they have become totally impossible to get.
They're terrible. This bill is an improvement, honestly, but then it fucks itself up.Keepitclean said:
(did you know that under canadain fair dealing law, parody use of copyrighted material is not currently protected from copyright infringement claims?)
-m
What the fuck is happening to the world? They would really throw people in jail and fine them with enormous amount of money just for making their own copies of stuff they legally own? If they go through with this there should be a riot. People rally can't let this one slide. I would be pissed off if I was Canadian. Just hearing about this makes me angry. I understand that capitalism is about making as much money as you can, but there should be a line somewhere that forbids you to fuck with people like this. Didn't they consider the probability that people will just stop buying stuff in the first place? When you buy something you should have the right to do with your stuff whatever the fuck you want. You just can't fuck with customers like this. What happened to the right of ownership?
I would love to see them enforce this law. Like really enforce it. Its gonna turn out to be a 'parking ticket' kind of law, get a small fine and you go on with your life. Cause they can't in their right mind imprison everyone who does it.
As your tweet said, I have to agree. Probably one of your best (also remaining very fair and unbiased) articles on a subject that seriously needs a good hard look. Keep up the good work!
Piracy is a term that I feel gets used and abused wayyy too broadly sometimes. So it's not a problem for me if a body of law wants to define it either - heck, it has to and I've come to expect it to do as such (even if different bodies of law define it differently). But it is a problem for me when the term 'piracy' is slapped onto every single last freaking thing that even so much as looks like stealing.
And as for the Escapist's 'policy' on piracy...well. I'd rather not comment on it all myself, suffice it to say that putting a lot of thought into something is one thing. But the undertones behind what the person doing the thinking does for a living tend to be a bit more important than the thinking itself. If one meets with industry people regularly, as well as the people, who depend on sound copyright laws to get them their money, then of course they are bound to have an undertone against the concept of piracy. Just as someone who isn't in that sort of business and who can come up with a working alternative to it, will have an undertone for the concept.
There is no neutrality or unbiased opinion when it comes to piracy in the end I think. No matter how much thought you put either for or against it. Which is why, as said, it's nice to at least come across an article that does its best to avoid that cyclical argument, as Penny Arcade put it very well in one of their comics, and instead focuses moreso on the practical effects of copyright laws. Really, it's what for me makes good journalism. To focus a bit moreso on the causality behind things rather than their philosophical or conceptual validity.
Piracy is a term that I feel gets used and abused wayyy too broadly sometimes. So it's not a problem for me if a body of law wants to define it either - heck, it has to and I've come to expect it to do as such (even if different bodies of law define it differently). But it is a problem for me when the term 'piracy' is slapped onto every single last freaking thing that even so much as looks like stealing.
And as for the Escapist's 'policy' on piracy...well. I'd rather not comment on it all myself, suffice it to say that putting a lot of thought into something is one thing. But the undertones behind what the person doing the thinking does for a living tend to be a bit more important than the thinking itself. If one meets with industry people regularly, as well as the people, who depend on sound copyright laws to get them their money, then of course they are bound to have an undertone against the concept of piracy. Just as someone who isn't in that sort of business and who can come up with a working alternative to it, will have an undertone for the concept.
There is no neutrality or unbiased opinion when it comes to piracy in the end I think. No matter how much thought you put either for or against it. Which is why, as said, it's nice to at least come across an article that does its best to avoid that cyclical argument, as Penny Arcade put it very well in one of their comics, and instead focuses moreso on the practical effects of copyright laws. Really, it's what for me makes good journalism. To focus a bit moreso on the causality behind things rather than their philosophical or conceptual validity.
It is just about impossible to enforce, yes, until they decide to enforce it. And then one day, somebody turns up a little political heat, the police do a little digging and suddenly a few people are having their property confiscated and being slapped with big fines. Probably won't be you, but it could be.Xanthious said:
And as noted, it's not just individuals making copies of their music who are at risk. Do you use an OS that doesn't have a licence to play protected media? (Which is to say, pretty much anything but Windows?) You might find yourself in contravention of the law, or you might just find it harder to play your shit because the software that allows you to do so is in contravention of the law and is thus harder to get. Modchips will still be available from somewhere, sure, and you'll be able to get them as long as you don't mind importing them from Macau and they don't get seized by Customs.
The fact is that this bill seeks to criminalize non-criminal behaviour and, even more odiously, it tells Canadians that their rights are dependent upon the whims of massive corporations. That the legality of their actions is ruled not by law, but by the desires of big business.
How do you feel about that? Because I'm pretty goddamn unhappy about it.
In this article the writer states,
You cannot legally make a backup copy, you cannot burn the music you purchased from iTunes onto a disc to listen to in your car and you cannot make a recording of a broadcast to watch later
However, my interpretation of both our current copyright law as well as the proposed changes in this bill lead me to believe that this isn't true.
s. 29.24, of the proposed changes does indeed lend creedence to the author's argument in this case, however, it comes after s. 29.22 "Reproduction for Private Purposes" and s. 29.23 "Fixing Signals and Recording Programs for Later Listening or Viewing"
29.22 states more or less the same thing as 29.24, with the exception of subsection (3) which states that in the case of a musical recording, subsection (1), which has the same DRM protecting clause that the author pointed out in S. 29.24, does not apply if copied onto an audio recording medium as outlined in s. 79 of the copyright act. This means that in the case of music recordings, we fall back on the laws set in s. 80 "Copying for private use"
As for recording of a broadcast, s. 29.23 is again more or less the same as 29.24. However, along with the fact there there is unlikely to be DRM protecting a Broadcast, subsection (2) states that (1) does not apply to an on-demand service. This means that recording a TV or radio broadcast is legal as it is DRM free, and that making a copy of an internet broadcast would be legal because I believe it could be considered on-demand as outlined by subsection (3). Again the laws fall back on s. 80. All of this is of course on the condition that it is purely for personal use.
Backup of things like programs, movies and games though is still covered by s. 29.24, leaving us with DRM problems in those cases.
You cannot legally make a backup copy, you cannot burn the music you purchased from iTunes onto a disc to listen to in your car and you cannot make a recording of a broadcast to watch later
However, my interpretation of both our current copyright law as well as the proposed changes in this bill lead me to believe that this isn't true.
s. 29.24, of the proposed changes does indeed lend creedence to the author's argument in this case, however, it comes after s. 29.22 "Reproduction for Private Purposes" and s. 29.23 "Fixing Signals and Recording Programs for Later Listening or Viewing"
29.22 states more or less the same thing as 29.24, with the exception of subsection (3) which states that in the case of a musical recording, subsection (1), which has the same DRM protecting clause that the author pointed out in S. 29.24, does not apply if copied onto an audio recording medium as outlined in s. 79 of the copyright act. This means that in the case of music recordings, we fall back on the laws set in s. 80 "Copying for private use"
As for recording of a broadcast, s. 29.23 is again more or less the same as 29.24. However, along with the fact there there is unlikely to be DRM protecting a Broadcast, subsection (2) states that (1) does not apply to an on-demand service. This means that recording a TV or radio broadcast is legal as it is DRM free, and that making a copy of an internet broadcast would be legal because I believe it could be considered on-demand as outlined by subsection (3). Again the laws fall back on s. 80. All of this is of course on the condition that it is purely for personal use.
Backup of things like programs, movies and games though is still covered by s. 29.24, leaving us with DRM problems in those cases.
Well, until Ignatieff finally stops sitting on his fucking hands and defeats this moron government, we'll still have stupid bills like this.
Seriously, fuck you, Harper!
Seriously, fuck you, Harper!
Ah yes, the little orange island in the blue sea of Alberta...I lol'd when I saw that on election night...Eukaryote said:
I'm going to have to object to that on the grounds that I prefer my nuclear explosions to be considerably more than 10 kilometers from my house.Soviet Heavy said:
Eh, I suppose, its only about sixty kilometers from my place.SachielOne said:
How 'bout we just send them into North Korean Airspace in an unauthorized jetliner?
That's a good question. They'd either have to have some sort of government watch-dog program running on every computer, or force the ISP's to turn against their customers and monitor everything we download.Starkiller8965 said:
That's an interesting slant, but it could butt up against two limitations. One, the definition of "sound recording" in this day and age is nebulous at best, and two, you're assuming that content creators, publishers, broadcasters, etc., don't come up with some way to implement some form of DRM in conventional broadcasts. The definition of "on-demand" is also a potentially dicey issue.GeekOfAllTrades said:
Like all good Canadian laws, this one won't necessarily mean much until it's been dragged through the courts. And if your assumptions are correct, that's great, although hardly a game-changer. But I don't think I want the future of copyright in Canada to have to rely on friendly court decisions.