Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Patent vs Copyright…
The difference between the two is that for patent application you have to SHOW some type of creative or new work. The issue with patent (and very well documented) is that people come up with the same ideas at the same time and release them and some other company patents them…(amazon single click)…the patent law is not perfect but it does have a good basis with limiting protection to a set time from time of registration…I think 17 years (please correct me).
With copyright it is different because there is no basis on putting your work through copyright…it is automatic…so if you steal someone elses idea and push it out and then defend it, it is up to the original author to bring a suit that can take years to settle…
Copyright should be for AUTHOR or creators only and a limited time like 14-20 years for comercial gain…if you have a cool gadget then patent it.
cndcitizen [2009-07-23 01:09] Comment ID: 607 Reply to: 580
Funny about abuse of middlemen in the digital economy…look what can happened…
Torrentfreak - Copyright Group Prosecuted For Failing to Pay Artists
The attorney general in Brussels has concluded a three year investigation into the money trails at the the local music royalty collecting agency SABAM. The attorney general concluded that the copyright group is not paying the artists the money owed to them, and will prosecute five managers for forgery of documents and abuse of trust.
pneves [2009-08-09 03:09] Comment ID: 1439 Reply to: 580
I'm sorry but copyright should keep its length of to life + 70. Its completely fair. The difference between patents is that your saying that a person cannot make a similar product as yours. It may be completely original. But its prohibited because the other guy has the patent. With copyright it is to deal with people creating a very specific piece of work. And its prohibiting people from copying that piece of work. That is very restrictive already. So the author should have the right to keep his work for the rest of his life. I think anything less would be theft of peoples ideas and no one would ever create things. 14-20 years is not long enough. There is a misconception that patents and copyright are related. They are not. They are two completely different things and therefore should not be treated the same.
I'm going to take this question for my discussion about copying. I think this is something that is sorely misunderstood by many people because so few of us actually know how a DVD player, or a CD player work.
Copying is REQUIRED to play any CD, DVD or Blue-Ray disc, or even mp3s and other non-physical media. I'm not going to spell out the circuits and data path of a disc player or personal music device. What you need to know is that every one of these devices must copy, in part or as a whole, the content they are to play from the source medium (disc or hard drive) into their internal memory. The only difference between this and ripping the content to another device is the level of persistence. It is illegal to steal a million dollars, even if you give it back a week later.
Copyright law should reflect technological realities as much as the purpose of use. To foster a digital economy this is essential to allow device/software creators to understand the legality of their creation based on its technical capabilities and operations.
Writing this I cannot help but see the similarities to how our brains work. We copy and imitate from birth, it is how we learn language, listen to music, watch movies, etc. Studies have even shown that the brain cannot differentiate between a memory and a current experience, which is why dreams are so real. We are copying machines, it is how we are fundamentally built.
Zac [2009-09-11 03:07] Comment ID: 2429 Reply to: 573
This is an important point. This is exactly why any technical approach to enforcing copyright is doomed to failure.
In light of this, how then should innovation be fostered? How can we insure that content creators can reap the rewards of their efforts?
Balance the rights of both consumers and producers of digital media.
For producers, this means the ability to distribute copy-protected versions of their media to regulate how's it distributed.
For consumers, this means that rights that we have for physical media - to resell it, to use it on multiple devices of our (as opposed to the producer's) choice, and to use it in perpetuity once it has been purchased - should extend to the digital realm.
What we as a society value doesn't depend on the form media occurs in - our values are our values, and we fit new media to them.
Besides being a "buzzword" what it meant by the phrase: "global, digital economy?"
Most "Intellectual Property" such as patent and trademark law appear to be beyond the scope of this consultation. However, patent and trademark law is being leveraged in an attempt to enforce Digital Rights Management. For example, I have heard rumours that digital video standards are a patent mine-field. Trademarks are use to signal "authorized players" that must license the patents in order to decode the content.
The biggest difference between "analog" and "digital" is the ability to use (forward error-correction) or (re-transmission) to facilitate loss-less copying.
I think loss-less copying is what really scares the so-called "content providers." One thing that becomes lost in the debate is: that EVERYBODY is a "content provider" to varying degrees. Digital Rights Management systems would have "content providers" pay a license fee to play only on "authorized players." The wide-spread use of DRM threatens free-speech.
Wow, that was dense.
pneves [2009-07-22 23:55] Comment ID: 595 Reply to: 553
Well, Patents are another issue all together but since we are getting into this It should be stated that patents are really not appropriate for software. The reason is a matter scale. The best way to describe why software shouldn't be patented is to refer you to video by Richard Stallman the founder of the Open Source movement. This video is long. About two hours or so but it really is the best argument against software patents.
pneves [2009-07-23 00:00] Comment ID: 598 Reply to: 595
Lets try this again. Here is the video. I think this link will work.
It is important that we do not follow or base the new copyright laws off of current, backwards copyright laws in the US or giving in to their demands to draft their DMCA in to our law. A great source for abuses of copyright law is Techdirt and Slashdot.
A) With eBooks and Audiobooks becoming more popular, laws need to be created to protect the consumer. A recent article, which is only an example of all the similar stories, on Techdirt talked about how Kindle(eBook reader from Amazon) users who legally bought copies of the book 1984 recently found it unreadable. This is because the publisher of the book changed their mind and did not want to sell eBook copies of the book AFTER it was already for sale. This would be the same as Sony coming to your house and forcefully taking back a 52" tv because they don't want to sell their products in Canada.
B) DRM(digital rights management), also known as 'copy protection', needs laws to focus it on what it was first claimed to do; protect the rights of both the consumer and enterprise. Presently this is certainly not the case and is constantly abused to protect the interests of the business at the expense of the consumer's rights. One example that made the major news circuit was one of Sony's DRM schemes that installed what is known as a rootkit, where it introduced major security flaws and provided unneeded and illegal control over a person's computer. As it stands, the general application of DRM is to protect the interests of a company by placing extreme limitations on the consumer, often to the point where legitimate use can render the product unusable and the software for the DRM oft times has flaws or short comings where a legally purchased product may not operate as it should or at all.
C) Making digital copies of products, such as DVDs, CDs, Movies, etc, should be legal. I am a part of the generation that lives by the current technologies. I have a laptop, netbook, ipod, HDTV, wii, dvd player, etc, and I don't always have the time to sit down at home. I purchased a copy of something and should have the legal right to enjoy it whenever I wish. I should be allowed to make a copy to keep on each of my devices so that I may use my purchase wherever I am.
D) Fair Use is a very important issue to properly address. Their is a huge difference between sampling or being inspired by something and plagiarism. Since the overwhelming success of the Harry Potter franchise the author has been forced in to many legal battles over others claiming that she copied or stole her ideas from their works. Almost without exception the similarities between the two works has been vague at best - a good analogue is a motorcycle company suing a bicycle company - and their should be laws to prevent and protect authors, photographers, musicians, etc, from pointless lawsuits like this.
E) Wireless phone locks. In Canada and many other countries, wireless carriers such as Rogers, Bell and Telus, engage in locking their phones so they can only be used on their private networks. I understand that this was originally done to insure that the wireless carrier recoups the money they subsidize the phone for, but there is not need for this practice to be continued. The contracts signed to get the phone at a discount protect their revenue. We should be allowed to switch to another network that supports the technology the phone uses(GSM/CDMA/etc) if not in a contract to one company and I should be allowed to purchase any phone(using the right wireless standard) and have the wireless carrier support it and enable all features.
cndcitizen [2009-07-22 18:54] Comment ID: 521 Reply to: 516
Wow, someone has come up with the 5 strongest points currently…good job. I agree on all parts.
Point A should be clarified about how you would want that handled though.
DouglasK [2009-07-22 21:52] Comment ID: 564 Reply to: 516
I agree on all points.
Also, we need to ensure that copyright terms are short enough to stimulate innovation while still protecting the creator's right to earn money off of it.
An economist at Cambridge University, Rufus Pollock, proposes in his research that the ideal Copyright term is 15 years. For reference, see: http://www.rufuspollock.org/2007/07/09/forever-minus-a-day-some-theory-and-empirics-of-optimal-copyright/
ReGenesis [2009-07-23 23:24] Comment ID: 723 Reply to: 516
I completely agree - These are excellent points.
mrpirate [2009-09-10 12:49] Comment ID: 2390 Reply to: 516
Couldn't agree more. Just because some take advantage of them, consumers rights should be the first priority.
Effets 1984 - Le droit d'auteur versus Le droit du consommateur
Je le mentionne parce que c'est arrivé il y a quelques jours. Au états-unies, via le service Kindle, le livre téléchargeable 1984 a été effacer sur tout les appareils Kindle. Dans ce cas particulier, l'explication d'Amazon (le propriétaire du service Kindle) avait spécifié que le livre avait été soumis par un éditeur ne possédant pas les droits de diffusions et qu'ils allaient rembourser intégralement les personnes qui avait acheté le livre. Ce qui est correct.
Toutefois, je crois qu'il faudrait inclure dans la loi, une disposition ne permettant pas au créateur et auteurs d'exercer un contrôle absolu sur un produit culturel tel un film, une piè ce musical, un logiciel, etc. Si le produit a été produit et acheté en conformité avec la loi, il devrait être interdit d'avoir recours à un dispositif de contrôle empêchant en partie ou en totalité son utilisation. Seul un magistrat devrait pouvoir exercer ce pouvoir.
One of the most important things is to decide to lead, rather than follow. In particular, following the USA is not the way to lead.
The global digital economy will be led by countries with extremely fast, cheap connectivity (both wired and wireless) very widely available with the users determining the best use for it, and maximum ease of use of digital material. That means a vibrant public domain, broad fair use, easy location of rightsholders, minimal number of people to deal with to clear rights, and maximum freedom to use material in a novel manner even if the rightsholders don't agree. It also means that governments at all levels need to make all the raw data they collect and the results of all the research they fund freely and easily available.
Finally, we need to lead the way internationally by pushing for agreed minimal standards for exceptions to copyright, for a follow-on to Berne that reduces the term of copyright to something more reasonable in an era when business moves much faster than it used to and more in line with the expectations of most Canadians, for no new copyright-like rights for broadcasters, and for recognition that "counterfeiting" is about deceiving the consumer, not harming the producer.
Chris Brand [2009-07-22 13:34] Comment ID: 423 Reply to: 420
Another part of ensuring broad access to digital material is ensuring the broad availability (and, of course, legality) of tools to circumvent DRM. These tools will be essential in order that material entering the public domain, material being archived, material being used under fair dealing, etc, can actually be used in the ways allowed by copyright law.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-23 14:06] Comment ID: 663 Reply to: 420
Agree. Maybe Canada needs to start it's own international IP organization and set of treaties, with an eye towards balancing producer and consumer rights, rather than kowtowing to corporate interests.
Anyone for drafting a set of first principles?
Since our internet infrastructure is so bad its hard to say how copyright laws might help/hinder online business. Bottom-line is we need more competition to see growth.
Can you fix the website so that is not locked to 800x600 some of the threads are being squished…for users that are out of the 90s we can see wider screens and would appreciate it.
mskeoch [2009-07-22 01:59] Comment ID: 365 Reply to: 362
I second this.
thecatwhisperer [2009-07-22 08:33] Comment ID: 375 Reply to: 362
Though this is off-topic, there seems to be no (obvious) place to post these messages.
I'll agree that 800x600 resolution is restricting, but it could be as a result of the standards that are put in place by GoC sites.
However, the overall design of this site is atrocious, and is bug-ridden, and incredibly user-unfriendly.
Is there an email we should use for these complaints instead?
rinzertanz [2009-07-24 10:39] Comment ID: 776 Reply to: 375
Agree. This 'stacking' forum is INCREDIBLY difficult to read and/or follow .. In fact, it's one of the poorest DESIGNED 'on line' forums I've ever seen …
Realize this could be construed as a 'budgetary restraint', but even so, there's really just no excuse for BAD DESIGN …
phillipsjk [2009-07-22 21:39] Comment ID: 557 Reply to: 362
Is there a way we can undo viewing messages was well?
I found the best way is to use the refresh button.
phillipsjk [2009-07-23 16:53] Comment ID: 695 Reply to: 557
Okay, I came back with a text-based browser known as "Lynx."
View this conversationHide this conversation.
You Hide the conversation by clicking in the same place you clicked to reveal it.
To the others wanting to make maximum use of their desktop:
Try a text-based broswer such as "lynx", "links" or "w3m".
You can strech the window for as many columns as you want. Just be sure to set the font-size first.
Or even faster for most people, simple disable Style Sheets.
View > Page Style > No Style
Note: Looks like "Hide this conversation" doesn't work if you do that.
In this global, digital world we must also consider the impact other countries decisions will have on our own system. If other countries ever revise their copyright laws to allow private sharing, the digital world we live in would enable individual Canadians to access that content regardless of what we decide on now. The only way to prevent this sharing would be to expend lots of resources on the monitoring of those communications and have a way of forcefully preventing the users in Canada from accessing that content.
The US has already presented itself as a leader in the "stronger copyright" direction, and it has resulted in the criminalization of reverse engineering and events like Dmitry Skylov, a Russian who got arrested after giving a presentation on eBook security methods in the US. They are currently trying to allow the searching iPods and computers at the border to fight against unauthorized digital copies, and normal people are getting sued for obscene amounts of money.
We could also be a leader in that direction. However, I propose we become leaders by finding and implementing a way to properly reimburse the content creators without treating on the rights of the average Canadian. This truly is uncharted territory, and right now more than ever the world needs someone to take a chance with copyright reforms that respect both the creator and the consumer. Bill C-61 as it was written was an insult to Canadians; it would have benefited a few private interest groups at the expense of the individual Canadian's right to privacy and free speech (reverse engineering - not sure where this falls). I just hope the legislators have opened their eyes since bill C-61 and are able to avoid a rehashed DMCA.
mrpirate [2009-09-10 12:56] Comment ID: 2391 Reply to: 310
I believe you are 100% correct and can only hope that we're heading in a new direction.
Reduction of copyright term to the 25-year range. Elimination of Crown Copyright. Resistance to prohibitions on reverse engineering, to media industry-influenced technical specifications in electronic devices, to a regime where a notice of infringement can suppress speech without verification of infringement.
The US model is an invitation to failure. When industry reponds to the new environment creatively instead of defensively, there may emerge more tenable methods to promote innovation and investment. DMCA sytle reactions only prolong the transition and reduce innovation.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-23 13:57] Comment ID: 661 Reply to: 297
With you on everything but the copyright term. 25 years is effective in some cases, but many works take a long time to deliver value. A book that sells consistently but not spectacularly over a long period should continue to make the author money.
Throw in the option for renewable term extensions up to a maximum (I've been saying every 10 years up to 75 years) and you've got my vote.
ReGenesis [2009-07-23 23:30] Comment ID: 724 Reply to: 661
Scott - Please elaborate on your 25 year comment because I can not think of anything covered under copyright law that would need more then 25 years of protection.
Even if there were, then one could assume that it would also take 25 years for any "copiers" to gain value, which would effectively give the original owner 50 years of profits before competition between their original work and copiers.
There should be zero renewals, no "Special Interests" and have a system that fosters creativity - not resting on your laurels for the rest of your life, and your children's lives, and your grandchildren's lives…
Scott Watkins [2009-07-24 11:51] Comment ID: 783 Reply to: 724
My objection to a 25 year period stems from the economics of artistic work. The aim of copyright law is to allow an artist to be fairly compensated for their labour. Many artists spend their whole working lives looking for a hit, largely never to find one. An artist who does should be allowed to reap the rewards.
A bestselling book or a hit movie can make very large returns in a short time. A 'cult classic', on the other hand, can sell consistently for years without ever making a big splash financially. Both may sell the same number of copies. Why should one work be favoured over the other?
My other objection to a 25 year term is political. Frankly, as far as 'Big Content' is concerned, a term that short moves your idea into 'crackpot' territory (no offense intended). A term that can last as long as what they're currently getting is much harder for them to object to. It may even cause enough dissension in their ranks to allow such a plan to slip by.
I'd like to separate derivative works from this argument. There is quite a difference between full copies and transformative works. I have seen plenty of works that have artistic value despite being built on someone else's material, and I believe these works should be protected.
Canada's 'Fair Dealing' exemption works well as far as it goes, but in some areas it is even more restrictive than US law. Parody, for example, is not a protected use under 'Fair Dealing'. Many Canadian comedians make parodies anyway, and it is rarely prosecuted, but it is a vulnerability under Canadian law.
I'm not sure what to do to make it easier to create derivative works, but I think something should be done. Perhaps some kind of compulsory licensing scheme. Open to suggestions on this one.
ReGenesis [2009-07-24 13:34] Comment ID: 792 Reply to: 783
Scott - That is fair, and I agree with the need to specifically allow parody, as it is a new work in its own right.
However, I still respectively disagree with your example of a "one hit wonder", where if they find this hit, they should be able to life off of it for the rest of their lives.
I agree that there are a lot of artists who never find their "hit", but since when are artists in it for the money? More so if they have not had much success? This is akin to winning the lottery - just looking to get paid.
If they are in it for the money, they should realize like any business you may fail. I can not think of any other business or job where I can rest on my laurels for several years and just watch the money roll in, much less after I die!
We are talking about structuring a new law, and it should not be structured around the one hit wonders. If they are true artists, they will continue to work as an artist and get paid accordingly for their new art - or move on to another profession if they can not live as an artist.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-24 13:52] Comment ID: 795 Reply to: 792
You're right that this is akin to looking for the lottery win, but that is the nature of the business right now. Entertainment is built around one hit wonders, and limiting copyright term to a short period would make it more so, not less.
Yes, many (but not all) artists don't do it for the money. Lord knows if I was in it for the money I would have given up years ago. The value of the 'one hit wonder' in these circumstances, is that a hit frees up an artist to just do art.
For most artists in it for the long haul, the reason to do it is that they can't not do it. The muse drives them. To the extent that they have to pursue their muse while working a crappy day job, it's a hardship.
If an artist creates one good hit, there's a higher chance they'll create more, but there are no guarantees. There's also a very good chance that they'll have 'sold their future', so to speak, in pursuit of the muse, long before they get a hit, or indeed after they've had one, and will wind up at retirement screwed.
Unless you want to pay us all a living wage for continuing to dive into this stuff, 'one hit wonders' is the most viable business model I can see.
ReGenesis [2009-07-24 14:34] Comment ID: 800 Reply to: 795
When we as a society look at all the professions available to us, and which ones we as society need, I think most people would agree that artists are a very important part of our culture and we need to help support them.
As such, I am not arguing for the need for copyright. I agree, for the reasons you gave, that it is in important part of the artists environment and gives the artist time to create new art.
This discussion is not about that, it is about what a "fair" amount of time is, and one for this discussion we have pegged at 25 years.
There is a distinction between jobs that people do to survive - and that people like and want to do. In economics this is measured by "utility" and of course some peoples utility for their job is higher then others.
So I think it is great that artists can have 100% utility, can embrace their muse and create art.
However, this 1 profession should not be treated above all others - it is not fair to society as a whole. A contractor, who may also have 100% utility for his job does not build 1 house and then get paid for the rest of his life - no matter how great the job is.
It is all about balance - and again for the purpose of this discussion, 25 years seems plenty.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-24 14:59] Comment ID: 802 Reply to: 800
Well, we may not see eye to eye on this. But I do respect your point of view.
I would argue that one of the main things that makes art different as a profession is how little respect artists get without adequate protection. Just ask any old blues musician, or actor from a 60's TV show about how much they feel valued for their work.
Courtney Love, of all people, deconstructed the business nicely in a Salon piece from several years ago:
Her main point is that under the standard record industry contract a band can have a hit record and still owe the label money at the end of the day.
As an artist, I've said elsewhere here that I would love to see works created based on mine. But I don't want to see a situation where my work is never fairly compensated for. A contractor may not receive long term income from building a house, but he will have made a great deal of money at the time of construction. The same generally doesn't hold true for artists.
These terms are changing with the advent of new internet business models, but we're nowhere near creating a viable mode of industry.
If you can show me a way to make real money from 25 years of copyright and allow me to have enough to retire on, then sure. 25 years would be fine.
Until it is though, I'll take a longer term on what hits I get, thank you.
ReGenesis [2009-07-24 16:06] Comment ID: 813 Reply to: 802
And that is fair. Although I would argue that in the example you provided, the issue is the draconian contracts that the record labels make artists sign. Unfortunately a lot of people have bad contracts - again this is unique to artists.
Maybe we need to have a better system to allow the creation, marketing and distribution of Music and take out the middle men.
Of course that is not a copyright issue, but one that advancements in technology can solve by embracing the internet and bringing artists in direct contact with their fans.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-24 16:33] Comment ID: 821 Reply to: 813
A better system for creation already exists, for the most part, at least when it comes to music. Home studios are pretty easy to put together now.
As for marketing and distribution, that's coming. You can distribute quite well on the internet, but getting noticed is still hard.
As for other fields, it really varies. As a writer, I have many outlets for work online, but very little of it pays. As an actor and filmmaker, it's not really possible for me (or almost anyone) to make a living from online work right now. This will hopefully change, but until then…
The other options consist basically of the old system, and I'm stuck with old models of distribution.
I'm loving the potential of the Internet, but I've got bills to pay.
I believe the copyright act is adequate for dealing with the legitimate concerns of the people of this country. It already bans the unauthorized reproduction of copyright products. What more do you want it to do? I don't see where it can do more. Where we have a problem is in compliance to the law but given current technology I don't see where we can make people comply more. In most cases such compliance is based on the good will by the citizens of the country. I personally that spirit of good will was violated by the Liberals when they instituted the CD levy on people who purchase blank CD's and other electronic devices for storing content.
phillipsjk [2009-07-22 21:50] Comment ID: 563 Reply to: 279
I think the elephant in the room is "Article II" of the 1996 WIPO treaty.
"Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law."
Of course, what is meant by "effective technological measures" is open to interpretation. The DMCA says that the DVD encryption system broken by a 14 year old kid is effective. My alternate interpretation is that the directive is largely meaningless. If it is "effective," why is legal protection needed?
pneves [2009-07-22 23:16] Comment ID: 581 Reply to: 563
Good point. It isn't effective. The digital medium has no effective copy protection. Computers were designed manipulate data. The second you take a movie or song and you digitize it the nature of that content changes forever. It is no longer a work that can be protected in any way so long as you have a copy of it on a computer. It is just data that can be manipulated and changed. Thus to protect the content providers you would have to ban the computer entirely. I for one have no desire to see that happen.
One has to also look at the fact that if they ban circumvention technology then they are violating the rights of the guy who created the circumvention technology which is also a copyrighted work. Your saying that person isn't allowed to sell their product and effectively punishing them for something that their customers might do. I don't think that is just in any way shape or form nor would it be constitutional. Software in the end is a method expression. The constitution protects freedom of expression.
Chris Brand [2009-07-23 15:34] Comment ID: 683 Reply to: 563
Well, the approach taken in C-60 was to make it illegal to circumvent a TPM "for the purposes of infringing copyright", which was believed to be sufficient to allow us to ratify this treaty. while I personally question whether these treaties have any relevance these days, given that the world didn't evolve along the lines they envisaged, if we do still want to ratify them, this is the way to do it.
phillipsjk [2009-07-23 16:35] Comment ID: 692 Reply to: 683
When I skimmed the proposed legislation over a year ago, I missed that interpretation.
I still don't like it. Remeber that bill C-60 was amending copyright laws.
So, if I circumvent the DRM on a DVD simply so I can watch it (not infinging copyright), I am in effect circumventing the clause that says I am not allowed to circumvent DRM (thus infringing copyright).
Maybe that's just my computing science background talking. Not sure what lawyers do when they encounter recursive laws.
Chris Brand [2009-07-27 16:13] Comment ID: 979 Reply to: 692
Agreed. I think the best approach is to say "those 10-year-old treaties were signed when the world was very different. Having seen the way the world has evolved, we've decided not to ratify them". Unfortunately, I suspect that this government is determined to ratify them anyway. If they do decide to do so, then the C-60 approach of "for the purposes of infringing copyright" is better than the C-61 approach of "I don't care how useful that screwdriver is, it's now illegal because you might use it to break into somebody's car".
pneves [2009-08-09 02:43] Comment ID: 1436 Reply to: 683
That provision is completely unenforcible. The makers of the tools to circumvent copyright can just put their software off shore. It could still be downloaded into the country. You wouldn't get very far with that. The other problem is who would follow that. For such a prevention strategy to work you would have to institute such policies similar to what was illustrated in the book 1984 or ban the Internet. Thats not to mention you will be outlawing the dozens of legitimate uses for such technology.
People pirate because of a few main reasons:
1. There is little to no DRM free, reasonably priced alternative (not really true anymore for music, depending on what you feel a reasonable price is)
2. There is no reliable, easy way to get the content digitally through legal means (Movies, TV, some Music, E-Books, etc).
3. Its very easy to get pirated material. Much more so then to get the digital equivalent.
The answer, IMO, is for the industry to smarten up, remove DRM form all media, and provide the media, digitally and DRM free at a reasonable price (RIAA recently conceded that DRM is dead).
Digital downloads do not require packaging or shipping, storefronts, etc. They require much less staff to produce and sell. Really, a huge portion of the costs are gone when compared to traditional media. So technically they should be cheaper than their physical counterparts.
As someone else pointed out once you've purchased the licence for a particular work, its yours, you should be able to switch formats (iPod, HTPC, CD, etc) without incurring any additional costs as long as you are not increasing the bit rate/quality. (ie: if you purchase a DVD version of a movie, it does not give you the right to download an HD version, but the opposite is true.)
- Recent studies show that piracy may in fact increase digital sales, not decrease them.
- Certain people will always pirate. If you add throttling, and web snooping capabilities they will (and are) switch to encryption and private VPNs.
- I believe that it is much more cost effective to give up this ridiculous fight and offer people cheaper, easy to use methods of getting what they want.