The Needles: Goodbye, Mr. (Mod)Chips

[Andy Chalk]

This means that in the case of music recordings, we fall back on the laws set in s. 80 "Copying for private use"

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.

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.

 

[jabrwock]

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.

High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection

Sasktel recently told all it's "Max HD" customers that it will soon be required by broadcasters to turn on HDCP, and if you are using older equipment that doesn't support HDCP, you must use component cables instead of HDMI in order to continue watching.

There's also the US's "broadcast flag". I bet broadcasters would claim that this qualifies as "DRM"...

 

[JEBWrench]

This happens for pretty much every government descsion everywhere.

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?

They're terrible. This bill is an improvement, honestly, but then it fucks itself up.

(did you know that under canadain fair dealing law, parody use of copyrighted material is not currently protected from copyright infringement claims?)

-m

Well Hell, you're talking about a country that curtails freedom of speech on free to air broadcasts. (God save the Canadian Content laws!)

And Canada's freedom of speech? Well, according the charter, here are the only things freedom of speech applies to: "A law will be found to restrict expression if it has the effect of frustrating "the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing"." (Ruling from Ramsden v. Peterborough. Stupid Peterborough.)

In Canada, it can be illegal to LIE.

 

[MGlBlaze]

In a recent speech, Heritage Minister James Moore, an ardent champion of the bill, called opponents "radical extremists" who "don't believe in copyright at all" and presumably seek to create some sort of intellectual property Wild West.

This is a Strawman Fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man] if I've ever seen one.

DRM is asinine enough as it is. I'd rather it not be given total president. I say circumventing these systems should be alright if it doesn't lead to copyright infringement, I.E. you have a legal copy and want to make backups of it or get around protection methods that, for whatever reason, stop you using the product when you should be able to use it.

 

[newfiegirl 110]

Basically this tells me that if I want a copy of a song on my laptop, and I also want it on my iPod or desktop, then I have to purchase two copies?! And if you have kids, you have to buy individual copies of the Jonas Brothers songs for each child?!?! Craziness. Looks like I'll never see a current tv show again, seeing as though I usually record the shows I want and watch them when it's convenient. Sucks all the way around. Gonna have to contact my MP about this. Just hope the darn thing doesn't pass til they fix that line.

 

[Gindil]

Go ahead, Canada. Hamstring your technical industry.

The rest of the world will go to technology conferences in other countries - Singapore, maybe, or Hong Kong - and we will tell the venture capitalists:"Hey, whatever you do, *don't* start a tech company in Canada, the government wants to arrest anyone who understands computers."

Canada's loss is Asia's gain.

You forgot that the ACTA takes care of Asia. If both of these pass through, it's going to be a world of hurt in the tech industry. All for the sake of protecting a few key monopolies.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Great, one of the reasons I love my Country is disappearing! I guess I'll have to get used to spending more money now...

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I think if I order a pizza, and they deliver it to me in a damn locked safe, and the safe is delivered as mine, as part of the order, I should have the right to blow that safe door open to get my pizza. I didn't ask for a safe around my pizza, Me and my friends just wanted dinner, and we're not going to buy a large each, we're going to share, and I guess we'll just have to watch the pizza industry fall around our ears as we do so.

Terrible analogy aside, aren't sales of just about everything still going up, despite us being in supposedly the worst worldwide recession since Ugg traded 3 pebbles for a small rock?

I think Mick Jagger said recently that it used to be that making music was just a job, like any other, from travelling minstrels up til the start of the 20th century, then around the 50s people started making real money, and maybe in 10 years the age of superstars will be over and it'll be back to people just making music as a job, not for fame and fortune, and that he considers himself lucky to have got in while the money was around. (I'm sure he said it in a much better and more succinct way than I did.)

You know what we'll lose from that happening? X Factor, American Idol, the Disney stars, etc.

Anyone with enough passion for music will carry on.

I do genuinely think despite there being a high rate of piracy, things will always sell, just the markets and the way things are sold will change.

 

[Rick1940]

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.

Not only is it impossible to enforce, it is guaranteed to stir up tensions between China and other Asian countries.

The Chinese government stands to lose a lot if they lose their skilled reverse engineers. Thus they might pretend to oppose reverse engineering, but in fact they're wedded to it.

Also, it looks like the Chinese government doesn't like ACTA anyway, if Wacky-pedia isn't totally wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

so Gindil's claim that ACTA will cover all of Asia seems suspect. Perhaps ACTA will cover Korea, Japan, and Singapore...

 

[Jachwe]

Sorry to breack it to you guys but your whining is overreacting. If you live in a country where those laws are enforced (which I am) you will start noticing the funny truth that all you worry about is not to come.
I will tell you of the real consequences (unless you believe Canada is a country at the bring of abandoning democracy) such a law will invoke. You are right. The enforcement will never reach the average leecher and little Timmy is still able to leech the new album, game or movie. The uploaders will be persecuted and brought to justice. Because they are the ones doing the most damage. It is also right that companies put a DRM (I will refer to all kind of protection as DRM because it is so convenient to type) on almost any copy so you are not allowed to back it up. There is enough data that has no DRM on it like a picture you take with your digital camera. You are not an outlaw to copy that. This is what the law is about. Content protected by DRM is not to be copied by YOU and content without DRM is allowed to be copied by YOU. I admit having run into trouble myself with such things but it was not the fault of politicians or the law itself, but my DVD-Player did not allow me to play videos without DRM so the film of my holidays was for nuts.
Furthermore did you speak of making people outlaws who use programs/devices to cicumvent DRM (like "And PSP hacking? [...]it has nothing to do with improving the web browsing, [...] or playback of more than the small handful of supported media formats and sizes." by RvLeshrac) Yes that is illegal too. You see Microsoft pays deer money for licenses so they are allowed to play those formats. Any device read modchip who enables your PSP to play more media formats is ripping of the formats owners because they did not receive money from Sony so their PSP could do so.
You must see why publishers have to brand their copies like cattle in the Wild West. They can tell which copy is licensed and thus was legelly purchased. If you have any better idea than that please tell me or better yet tell the publishers and get rich.
If you are able to copy and paste data from A to B it is fine because it is not friggin protected that is what protection is for. Preventing to illegaly copy data. Most people won´t notice the law because it does not concern them because they purchase their stuff and don´t need any back up because they take care of the one copy they have. But the bad ones who infringe on copyrights by circumventing DRM by hacking and the ones uploading hacked program will be severly punished.Publishers are also happy because the law protects their right to protect their content.
And don´t tell me there would not be more pirating if little Timmy who lacks any knowledge how a computer works but to run a game could just "back up" his game because of the lack of DRM, and give his friends one copy each. There is no resistance and thus no guilt in the act, believe me.
Sound too harsh? Then you should probably go back in your cave and dust of you Amstrad because back than there were no such problems. Nowadays licensors have to be able to protect their product/service. Because that is what you are paying for, a product/service-hybrid-something not a product which you can do whatever you want to do with it. We have to accept this fact because our infrastructure has advanced so rapidly that downloading a program that is 7gb big is no chore anymore and thus endangering the industries and their profits. Remember we believe those industries to be worth billions but it can easily turn into nothing if you greenlighting anti-DRM piracy.