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.
Keeping everything legal "For Personal Use" is the answer here. I don't believe it is in the best interests of the population to have our already-stretched taxpayer dollars used to service the entertainment industry's financial interests.
People copy for personal use because they don't believe it is morally wrong. Of course arguing morality is pointless because it's subjective, but that is why it happens. No matter how hard the industry tries to tell us copying is wrong, people just don't buy into it.
Our laws should reflect the will of the people, not the will of a dinosaur industry with its army of lobbyists.
Just look at the state of things in the US; they have a system where even the innocent will pay to settle when the RIAA come knocking - because it's always cheaper than fighting against their infinite legal machine.
cndcitizen [2009-07-23 00:01] Comment ID: 600 Reply to: 592
I was only going to post one comment but ended up too many…
The thing about morality changes and I will agree with you that the lobby groups want to keep their perpetual monopoly on culture to themselves…
What we are seeing here is a ground swell or a rightsizing in what Canadians consider a value add…
If the US deems that they will no longer release US music to Canada then our own artist will take the place…
proping up archaic institutions does not help the common or the future…please ask these people to go.
I have scanned most of the comments on this board; and have yet to see a comment that is for the direction this copyright reform seems to be taking.
I really do hope that the politicians actually read these comments and that all of this is not just lip service. - some of the comments on this board are incredibly insightful and thought out.
I personally would like to see 'in a perfect world' a central location on the internet to get all of my entertainment needs; be it TV shows, movies, music, etc.
It could be run by an arms length crown corporation, or private; it doesn't matter to me (but I am of the opinion that more outside revenue for the gov. means less taxes)
Artists could then get compensated properly, and alot of the 'evil' corporations could be held at bay - and media could be reasonably priced.
Anyways, I'm going on a tangent, but the bottom line is: make it easy to be legit and the majority of people will.
I have absolutely no problems paying money for my entertainment needs, but I hate feeling gouged for everything, and then treated like a criminal.
I also want to set up a home media centre. But am holding off at the moment as everything that is legal has 'do not record flags' and drm and other bs. It is really holding tech back.
Please politicians, listen to the people on this one, and do it properly. I am very tired of Canada never taking a lead in anything.
I understand you are under tremendous pressure from vested interests, but you represent us, not them.
matt.bouchard [2009-07-23 12:39] Comment ID: 651 Reply to: 588
Bravo! I have long said that people just want a good product at a fair price. If you offered fast downloads of new movies for a fair price in a variety of non-drm formats, people would pay. If you offered free, downloadable tv with commercials and cheap downloadable tv without commercials, people would pay. Torrents are fairly convenient, but a pay model could be better, providing it's done right. The trouble is that capitalism only works when the best interests of consumers coincides with the best interests of the companies. I think the US debacle has proven that in the case of copyright, they do not.
Please, please, please consider the people. Certainly large companies represent taxes and jobs, but the free market sword must cut both ways. The free market cannot only be used to argue against consumer protection. Change the rules to help consumers and companies will adjust or perish. We are finally starting to be a big enough market that good companies will do business here and not just because we entice them with tax breaks and friendly laws.
Where is the Net Neutrality discussion? Basically all of the arguments made here apply there as well.
Steve L [2009-08-06 04:17] Comment ID: 1375 Reply to: 588
Exactly! We are "gouged for everything," then treated like criminals when technology enables us to get some things at low cost. (But it's still not free, since we pay for the technology to get and store it.) If CDs and DVDs were reasonably priced for what they are (i.e., easily reproducible digital files copied onto cheap plastic disks), people would be able to afford them more often. But maybe they are becoming obsolete anyway as media, so the companies are desperately trying to secure control over the digital files as well as the disks they're copied on. They're preparing to monopolize the new means of distribution, whatever it is.
"Nearly any creative work can be shown to be built upon the works of those who came before.
"?People still want to create the way they always have, but the industry of the last century, that has relied on copyright law to make its product seem different and 'original' freaks out about this ongoing content creation
"… people recognize that all works are created based on the works of others, and it's inherently silly to try"
Taken from "The Myth Of Original Creators," http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090629/0230145396.shtml
cagolatru [2009-07-22 21:50] Comment ID: 562 Reply to: 559
"…and it's inherently silly to try to charge everyone to pay back each and every one of their influences in creating a new work."
Canada's current copyright laws currently affect me very little. The levy on recordable media is barely noticeable, since I barely record anything onto a disc anymore.
In my opinion, existing laws should be modified very little. I do recognise the rights of the copyright holder; however the rights of the user must be preserved and not be allowed to sink to the dismal state that the U.S. has. The RIAA (and through logical extension the music companies), through the fact of having enough funds to do so, has become its own private police force, using the civil courts to terrorise citizens. Through out-of-court settlements, they extort money simply because a trial would be costly to defend against. The trials they have won have had outrageous awards in the millions for songs that are sold for dollars. They claim millions lost to piracy, but cannot verify that those who did pirate would have bought from them in the first place. All the while, they collect the lion's share of the profits and little goes to the artist.
Technology changes and they do not. They dig in their heels and indulge in a fantasy that since they have have always taken in great sums of money, they are entitled to keep on doing so. Rather than adapt, they influence politicians to subvert democracy, enacting laws that go against the will of the people, that benefit the wealthy and rob the rights of the common man.
Once again a fiefdom has arisen. They are the new lords over the serfs; they rule not through religious or military force, but by unadulterated avarice. Kings annointed by the Almighty dollar. We can never allow ourselves to sink into this state.
Laws that benefit the rights of the privileged few over the majority of the people are undemocratic and unjust. Sneaking laws through, destroying our rights behind closed doors, is a despicable, cowardly and repugnant ACTA… I mean act.
If lawmakers want to modernise laws, they should first start by coming into the twenty-first century and out of the twelfth.
I am a computer programmer by day and a consumer of media by night; while it may not be a colloquial definition, writing computer code is consider copyrightable literary work under the Copyright Act of Canada. Thus I am affected by copyright law on both the production, and end consumption sides.
The fact that some of the most frequently pirated software's legitimately sells for ten to one hundred times more than your average music CD or movie ticket leads many to believe that the software industry has taken a far greater hit then ether the music or movie industries.
As both a man whose primary income is derived from software and a lover of money it would be reasonable to think that I would be up in arms over the piracy to purchase ratio, so why aren't it? It has be very well established that the primary consumers of pirated software aren't the wealthy elite, they aren't your average well off milled class family, nor are the businesses; from the studies that I have read, the majority consumer of pirated software seem to be children, teenagers, and the mildly impoverished (at least enough not to afford a $1000 suite of software), none of whom possess the resources to obtain the software legitimately.
While their behavior is not excused by their inability to properly obtain the software, we must temper any proposed legislation and pro-ip measures with the knowledge that any fraction of piracy which we do eliminate will have a significantly diminished return. Moreover, I doubt that most children and teenagers have the mental wherewithal to appreciate how what they're doing is wrong, beyond simply being told by an authority figure that it is in fact wrong point blank. Again, the lack of mens rea doesn't excuse the behavior; however draconian copyright legislation would not help the situation at all.
Instead we need legislation that targets copyright violation for profit; while I may not care about the above mentioned cases I do seriously care about companies who use my software to profit without remunerating me. Furthermore, in such cases the foremost priority of any legislation should be the forced repayment of royalties and fees to the copyright holder; I am skeptical of incarcerations ability to solve the copyright challenges that we face.
brent [2009-07-23 14:43] Comment ID: 674 Reply to: 555
I think you brought up an excellent point with minors and copyright violation for profit. These two things could be combined- if a minor pirates a copy of Photoshop, is he/she really going to be using it for profit? The difficult part is on the entertainment side where people derive benefits from enjoyment. So what do we do if a minor pirates a video game?
Just thought I'd mention that you forgot the Quantity side of the Price x Quantity = Revenue
"The fact that some of the most frequently pirated software's legitimately sells for ten to one hundred times more than your average music CD or movie ticket leads many to believe that the software industry has taken a far greater hit then ether the music or movie industries."
Canada's copyright laws make it so that I can't afford to listen to emerging new Canadian artists, because I don't have money to buy CDs. I love music, I love the work that artists produce for us, but I can't afford to pay for it. While the obvious retort is 'if you can't pay for it, you can't have it', this is not fair when it comes to music, art, or anything whose value is subjective- music, art, and literature serve important roles by providing avenues for thought and discussion for all Canadians, regardless of income.
Copyright should defend the author's intellectual property from someone else wanting to profit from it, but personal use shouldn't be covered under this. The internet is an incredible tool towards equalizing access to information, media, and entertainment for all people regardless of income, and this should be encouraged. It is inconceivable that the government would want to tighten copyright laws (making it harder to get access to music and movies without paying) while at the same time cutting funding to Canada's public braodcaster- where are people with little disposable income supposed to get their art and entertainment from?
Musicians make very little money from the record companies (the companies that sue Americans for tens of thousands of dollars per 'infringement'); the bulk of their income comes from concerts. If their music is more accessible, more people hear it, so more people come to concerts? I'm not willing to drop $15 on an album I've never heard, but if I know I like a band I'm happy to spend $15 on a concert.
smartcan [2009-07-22 21:08] Comment ID: 552 Reply to: 544
If CDs and movies were cheaper, most people would prefer to buy them and have the real stuff! :)
cjsf [2009-08-14 17:52] Comment ID: 1667 Reply to: 544
The non-profit, volunteer-based campus and community radio sector is one place where you can hear emerging artists on the airwaves. But with the multiplication of tariffs from different copyright collectives and different uses (radio, streaming, podcasting, archiving), these non-profit stations are having problems paying to broadcast these artists using new technologies. The sector is trying to give exposure to emerging artists and doesn't have the revenue available to pay as much to tariffs as big commercial broadcasters - its harder to sell ads on a station playing smaller/unknown artists. But they can't keep up with all the tariffs; some sort of caps are needed. In this case, the copyright tariff system is then not helping emerging artists get the exposure they need to become more successful and get the royalties they deserve.
MatthewSherrard [2009-08-15 14:37] Comment ID: 1675 Reply to: 1667
I used to be the Music Director at CHSR in Fredericton, NB, and I sat on the organisation executive as well.
The tariffs being extorted from rights organisations were completely ridiculous. What possible justification could there be for charging a tariff just to archive something? or to transfer it from one medium to another?
Here we were, attempting to provide a public service, with most of our DJs playing music they loved because they wanted to have it heard, and ALL of the music being sent to us for free by the labels and the artists, and these organisations want to charge us money as if we're making a profit? Then charge AGAIN for podcasting, and AGAIN for streaming, and AGAIN for copying it from CD to data? It's vile!
In my opinion, copyrights should solely mean that no one can change, modify, someone's creation and protect the original author against usurpation. This mean no one can take my song or my poem and claim it is his own creation, and no one can take parts of my song and make another song with it. It shoulkd be a law that protects the creator.
Actually, it is a law that only protect a privildged few to make money with it. When people share the creations (by any means, it has no importance which one), the companies complain that it hurts the creator while they are the one making money with the creator's works!
To illegalize the sharing of certain information is hypocrisy, and to implement control of that sharing is faschism.
That is my opinion, thank you for reading!
silencekiller [2009-07-22 20:49] Comment ID: 548 Reply to: 538
No one should be allowed to profit from your copyrighted music without your consent. However, most musicians I know are ecstatic when someone modifies their song by way of reinterpreting or remixing it.
In the same way, if someone "samples" a riff from your song and uses it for their own original creation, they're not profiting from your song, since one riff isn't what made it your song.
Right now, the examples I gave *are* illegal, but they should not be. Outlawing derivative works stifles creativity.
smartcan [2009-07-22 21:06] Comment ID: 551 Reply to: 548
Ah! You bring a new light to this, thank you! ^^ I do agree with you, although the musician who "borrows" a part of my song should name me somewhere in the credits! :)
silencekiller [2009-07-22 23:26] Comment ID: 584 Reply to: 551
Absolutely! But musicians who make sample-based music like hip-hop and breakbeat cannot credit their "unauthorised" sources as long as the law provides those sources with the means to sue them.
beep1942 [2009-07-23 03:19] Comment ID: 615 Reply to: 551
We were talking about this in our class a few days ago: when writing academic papers, use of previous works are allowed provided the source is cited correctly. Can something like this work with music too?
Most of us in the class agrees that it can work given that it works with academic papers and books. I was wondering what would your thought on this be?
Steve L [2009-08-06 03:46] Comment ID: 1373 Reply to: 538
You seem to ignore that the original author deserves compensation if someone uses his/her work for commercial gain. Copyright still ought to entitle the creator of a work to receive any profits generated from that work.
End them. Copyright is dead. And for good reason.
This isn't a question of what we should do. The digital revolution has destroyed any notion of commercial copyright. It is a foolish, and futile.
This is the worst internet forum setup I have ever seen. Did we pay some poet in Nunavut to code this instead of using the excellent off-the-shelf forum software currently available?
cndcitizen [2009-07-22 19:08] Comment ID: 528 Reply to: 525
That is not cool.
bstirrett [2009-07-29 14:50] Comment ID: 1105 Reply to: 525
Even though I don't agree with your tone, I have to agree with the fact that this website was most likely put together to annoy people, and to dissuade participation.
That's our federal government at work…
I sent the following in an email to the consultation before I found this forum. I'm reposing it here in case anyone wishes to comment on it.
I hope to make a formal submission later, but wanted to help get the conversation started.
In 2001 I made multiple submissions to the consultation that was made at that time, and have spent much of my volunteer in the 8 years since dedicated to trying to engage people in some pretty key aspects of what was discussed at that time.
My 2001 submission had a few key themes: http://www.flora.ca/copyright-2001.shtml
- "A new economy, or a new product for the old economy?"
The question is whether the proposals that much of the copyright consultations at that time, as well as those of today, are based on thinking that knowledge is a new product to be added to the old economy, or whether we are discussing something new. I believe that the zero marginal cost (to the producer) nature of knowledge expands the possibilities beyond those of tangible property, and much of the excitement around the new knowledge economy have been about the ways that knowledge is different than tangible goods.
Much of the policy that came out of the USA's 1995 National Information Infrastructure Task Force was focused in the opposite direction, which is what could be done to cripple modern technology in order to make knowledge more scarce -- more like tangible >$0 marginal
cost goods. The USA policy laundered these backward ideas through WIPO in 1996, and passed them within the USA via the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). There has been pressure from the USA for Canada to equally cripple its position within the emerging knowledge economy by adopting similar backward-facing policy.
I feel that the term "Intellectual Property" has blinded far too many people to the ways in which knowledge is nothing like tangible property. Many of the most effective solutions to problems we find in the new economy, including copyright infringement, come from recognising these differences. It has encouraged people to equate entirely unrelated concepts such as copyright infringement and "theft". I go into more details in an article on the Digital Copyright Canada website: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_Debate
- "The Three Rights"
The basis of much of the copyright conversation in Canada since we indicated interest in 1996 (interest! not obligation!) by signing the treaty has been the policy laundered WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). These treaties radically expand the concepts within Canadian copyright to not only including "moral rights" and "mass-copying rights" (commercial uses of copyrighted works), but now to "access rights" where copyright holders are presumed to be able to control how, when, and with what specific brands of technological assistance audiences are able to access copyrighted material.
I strongly believe we should be going the opposite direction, mandating that copyright not be allowed to be abused to dictate to audiences any aspect of their own personal technology choices. I believe that any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses, VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen and not a third party.
To understand the nature of the attack on the rights of technology property owners we see from some "copyright" proposals, see: Protecting property rights in a digital world http://www.flora.ca/documents/digital-ownership.shtml
- Popular software business models
As a software author I discussed a few different business models utilised in software. It is important to realise that the Business Software Alliance (BSA, CAAST, etc) represents only a few firms utilising a specific business model. They do not represent the entire software sector. Their proposals are aimed more at harming competing business models than they are at reducing copyright infringement. The statistics they use to justify their proposals are critically flawed in that they do not accurately differentiate infringing software from software created and distributed using alternative business methods.
The invalidity of statistics that claimed to demonstrate "harm" for the major studio movie sector, the major recording labels (note: not the "music" industry), and the BSA members was shown with the recent recall of a "study" by the Conference Board of Canada. We need to move forward with a science based approach to this policy, not the science fiction brought forward by companies trying to protect themselves from new economy competition.
- Potential conflicts with other Public Policy
I discussed how many of the proposals made, such as those in the 1996 WIPO treaties, have implications far beyond copyright into areas such as competition law and existing trade agreements. This is above the conflicts with tangible property law already mentioned.
While 8 years have passed, it is my impression that the Canadian government is still stuck in the 1995 thinking that became the 1996 WIPO treaties. We should not be looking at technology owners as a threat and using anti-circumvention legislation to circumvent their technology property rights. We should not be introducing new concepts into copyright such as the undefinable "making available" right which simply makes clearing copyright related rights so expensive that only the old-economy style companies will be able to do so.
We should also not be giving old economy phone and cable companies further excuses to inspect and filter our communications by holding them liable for communications that they do not censor based on an unfounded accusation of a copyright infringement (the so-called "Notice and Take-Down" regime). We need to be moving forward to encouraging companies that want to offer proper Internet Services under the original innovative end-to-end design to eventually replace the phone and cable companies. Economic textbooks including "The Innovators Dilemma" explain well why phone and cable companies will be the least able to offer services which -- when they are configured correctly -- replace what was previously offered by phone and cable services.
Copyright needs to be clarified and simplified if it is to regulate the activities of private citizens. Rules which were created to only regulate commercial activities in a historical technological context cannot simply be carried forward (or made worse, as has thus far been proposed) and regulate non-commercial private activities. Modernising copyright should include rejecting the backward direction proposed in the 1996 WIPO treaties, and heading in a very different direction.
cndcitizen [2009-07-22 18:58] Comment ID: 523 Reply to: 517
If I came up with an idea and posted on a copyrighted blog and then a company implemented that idea…would I still be able to sue that company for copyright infringment for stealing that idea…
For a joke, say I say it would be cool to provide free access to wi-fi in the city (ours currently does)…if someone acted on that, can I sue them?
Russell McOrmond [2009-07-23 17:24] Comment ID: 698 Reply to: 523
Don't know if the entire reply was a joke, but you can't copyright "ideas". Copyright is a bundle of rights which give you the right to require permission to do specific activities with respect to a work you are the copyright holder for. Copyright is on expressions of ideas, not ideas, and you don't even own the expression -- but that right to require permission for a limited set of activities.
bstirrett [2009-07-29 15:05] Comment ID: 1108 Reply to: 517
Wow, excellent post. If I get more time today, I'll check out your footnotes.
It's nice to see that some people in this country are fighting for the rights of Canadian Citizens, rather than the rights of business to control our lives.
This federal gov't loves the status quo.
Russell McOrmond [2009-07-30 07:16] Comment ID: 1140 Reply to: 1108
This federal gov't is doing things very similar to what the then Liberal government did in the summer of 2001. In fact, I found that process more open than this one. The written submission portion went over a few months (like this one), but then it was the spring of the next year when they had the cross-Canada round tables (old-economy intermediaries on publisher and library/school side) and town halls (open invitation to all Canadians).
The extra short timelines, with mixed information about the process, suggest to me that there is little interest for these consultations to actually influence a future bill.
It is interesting how there are people who weren't fully aware of the last consultation are calling this one so open. This consultation has this forum, but that is of mixed value: on one hand there will be a summary of this specific forum submitted by Nik, but on the other hand it will be deleted. This is different than other public forums from the 2001 consultation that have been openly available to researchers ever since (and can be contributed to still today).
Like the last time, the real meetings appear to be happening with the old-economy intermediaries who can't be said to represent either creators or the general public any longer.
Il n'est pas utile de revoir les lois actuelles. Sauf pour préciser les droits des consommateurs qui ayant acheté une oeuvre en toute légalité ne devraient pas être soumis à des droits supplémentaires pour des copies à des fins personnelles. L'acquisition d'une oeuvre devrait garantir le droit d'en jouir en toute liberté. C'est-à -dire qu'il ne devrait pas y avoir de dispositions limitatives dans les oeuvres numériques qui ne permettent leur utilisation qu'avec des équipements et/ou systèmes d'exploitation désignés. Ā titre d'exemple, lorsque j'achète un DVD, je m'attends à pouvoir l'écouter sur n'importe quel équipement, incluant une plateforme ouverte Linux, ce qui n'est pas le cas à cause de la protection par codage et chiffrement dont les clés ne sont pas rendues disponibles pour les utilisateurs Linux. Pourtant, j'ai payé l'oeuvre le même prix que mon voisin, je ne vois pas pourquoi il faudrait en plus payer une taxe à Microsoft ou Apple pour pouvoir en jouir librement.
Noudjali [2009-08-18 19:55] Comment ID: 1768 Reply to: 496
Bien d'accord pour que l'acheteur fasse à sa guise avec l'objet dûment acquis. De là à pouvoir le mettre à la disposition du monde entier sur Internet sans que l'auteur n'en bénéficie, il ne faut pas charrier! Or, c'est ce que bien des gens font, sans même s'en rendre compte…
Marie Adèle [2009-08-19 14:12] Comment ID: 1839 Reply to: 496
Y a-t-il une façon de s'assurer de la compatibilité avec les autres systèmes lorsqu'on achète un DVD, CD? Le droit d'auteur, vise en premier lieu à protéger la reproduction de l'oeuvre, de son contenu!? L'usage sur d'autres appareils, d'autres logiciels ne devrait pas donner lieu à des taxes à Microsoft ou Apple… !!! Je suis complètement d'accord!
Daniel Bouliane [2009-08-19 14:28] Comment ID: 1842 Reply to: 1839
Ces taxes devraient être soumises au contrôle du gouvernement sous forme de rapport. Il faut tenir compte qu'Apple avec son système Itune est un des pionniers dans les redevances perçues qui retourne à l'artiste directement. En fait je lève mon chapeau à une telle initiative.
Cependant, il serait aussi juste de protéger les auteurs qui se font avoir dans le principe de "récupération". Les vendeurs de disques usagés font 100% de profits avec la vente de CD dont 0% vont à l'auteur. Encore une fois une injustice parmi d'autres. Je propose qu'avec les "watermarks" il soit possible de suivre l'évolution d'un produit dans son utilisation.
It's important to realize that the internet is the most dramatic change to the way we transmit information since the invention of the printing press. The internet was designed to move information indiscriminately, that is its sole purpose. The flow of information cannot be controlled without destroying this purpose. It's very important to keep this in mind when deciding on new copyright laws, because in essence we are asking ourselves if the internet as we know it now is worth keeping.
I would imagine the invention of the printing press posed a similar problem in its time. Many people relied on the business of hand written copies for their livelihood, which the printing press put in jeopardy. However we decided, as a society, that the benefits of the printing press outweighed the losses that came with it. Imagine how the world would look today had we decided against it to preserve the "old way" of doing things.
Of course the current dilemma with copyright laws is far more complex than this, but the principle is the same. Do we, as a society, value the free and open exchange of ideas and information provided by the internet? Are we willing to rethink our ideas on intellectual property and ownership of information to preserve this medium? Or will we decide to outlaw the printing press to preserve the status quo?
We CAN change our ideas on copyright. We CAN create a new system that works together with the internet, instead of against it. It won't come without a price; industries and business models will have to be changed, corporations too old or unwilling to adapt will falter, but new ventures will spring up in their place. This is a new age rife with opportunity, and the power to realize these opportunities rests on our willingness to leave the old ways behind. It is my hope that we find the courage to take this step, rather than cling to old ideas that are simply incompatible with the world we now find ourselves in.
The most effective type of copyright bill would be principles-based.
There are simply too many variables that exist in the digital world, and new ones that are created each day.
Example: if you have purchased media in x format, you may turn that media in x format into y format and z format. However, it would be illegal to obtain a superior format to x without purchasing a license for the version with superior quality.
While I don't like paying for a movie on DVD and Blu-Ray, it is ultimately up to the distributor to provide incentives to "upgrade" and it is ultimately up to the consumer to make a decision to buy it or not.
Philippe Latulippe [2009-07-22 22:08] Comment ID: 566 Reply to: 488
Your example is rather radical for a suggestion of a "principles-based" law. If I buy a song, I should not have to pay for it again, even if the format has changed. The re-release of music on CD, when this format was new, was an illogical money-grab that should not be defended by law.
brent [2009-07-23 12:38] Comment ID: 650 Reply to: 566
I'm saying that if the format has IMPROVED (I specifically mentioned quality). Not simply a "format change."
If people aren't willing to pay for improved technology, then there will be no incentive to develop it.
Allan Barnes [2009-07-23 14:29] Comment ID: 668 Reply to: 650
So you're saying if someone converts there wavs to mp3s they should have to pay for the format change, even though they own the music? What if they did the conversion themselves?
brent [2009-07-23 14:48] Comment ID: 677 Reply to: 668
You can use your original format any way you please. However, for a superior format, you should not be entitled to that for free.
You're talking about downgrading the original media from wav to mp3. That would not be illegal.
Allan Barnes [2009-07-24 01:52] Comment ID: 740 Reply to: 677
Ok, so companies should be allowed then to put things out in formats we cannot convert either due to software locks or hardware incompatibilities, such as cartridges for video games or vinyl records, where you can only use them in one very specific manner?
Tell me, honestly, how is that fair? Look at all the people who had to buy their movies twice from VHS to DVD, and now DVD to Blu-ray (though if you're smart, you'd just use hard-drives instead). I guess the question is, are you paying for the content or a license to use the content? According to the EULA, you're paying for a license, but according to Canadian law, you are entitled to uses of your product that are disallowed in most EULAs, like making back-up copies for personal use.
This of course being the reason that when EULAs are challenged in court they fail, as they deny the consumer rights promised to them by the law.
brent [2009-07-24 09:32] Comment ID: 763 Reply to: 740
"Ok, so companies should be allowed then to put things out in formats we cannot convert either due to software locks or hardware incompatibilities"
Tell me one format that hasn't been converted! Cartridges for video games have been, and you can record a vinyl record can't you?
Nobody has had to buy their movies twice. You can still plug a VHS into an LCD. I believe there is actual value going from VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray.
"I guess the question is, are you paying for the content or a license to use the content?"
That is indeed what needs to be reformed. My suggestion is that you are paying for a license to use the content that is defined by Canadian law- not the EULA set out by the creator. My suggestion for the license is in my first post in this thread.
TheHolyLancer [2009-07-24 09:50] Comment ID: 765 Reply to: 763
Look at it this way, if we spend our own resources to convert something old to newer standards, then it is free, if we wish to buy the new format, then it is paid for.
For example, DVD-> blu ray, we should be able to upscale it if we wish, with quality loss.
blu ray -> dvd we should be able to get that on there easy with computer resources.
Now, if it was something that offers no better quality and is only industry introduced (say HD-DVD vs Blu ray) then there should not be an extra cost. This means that if one music was brought for the ipod (lets assume old standard, DRMed version), and you want to put it on your cellphone as a ringtone, that should be doable as long as your cell can play that song, you can convert it from the old version to the phone version without worries, even if that means breaking the DRM on the ipod version.
This means that the government needs to put in qualified specialists that evaluate technology and deem their quality, if not then at least determine it at a high level and leave it at that.
eye.zak [2009-07-22 22:20] Comment ID: 569 Reply to: 488
Interesting idea about format shifting, however you failed to consider that you can up-convert formats and as computing power gets ever cheaper individuals will have the same capabilities as content creators to enhance their work to bring it to a new format.
For example, you can purchase Blue-Ray movies which were filmed in sub-DVD quality. I could potentially make an equal-quality disc myself, or perhaps even better by using cutting-edge algorithms or software of my own creation. Are you saying it should be illegal for me to up-convert them to Blue-Ray quality? Or just to acquire the content creators version?
brent [2009-07-23 12:57] Comment ID: 656 Reply to: 569
From wikipedia: "video information can only be retained or lost in each successive conversion step, but not created."
Therefore, up-converting may be able to better display the original format at higher resolutions, but the actual quality of the original format cannot be increased.
What do you mean by Blu-Ray movies filmed in sub-DVD quality?
eye.zak [2009-07-23 13:32] Comment ID: 659 Reply to: 656
Many movies are being re-released on BlueRay or 'digitally remastered', when they were filmed with cameras capable of only capturing DVD or sub-DVD quality. Example: you can by the original Terminator movie on Blue-Ray.
When I'm comparing quality, I was thinking of the comparison between different remastering/upconverting techniques not in comparison to the original format.
About video information - we cannot perceive all of the information in a video so an increase in quality for me is the increased perception of video information. That's where post-processing comes in: it can make it appear better to the human eye. Maybe I am biased because I am colour blind and as such a correctly tuned colour filter will allow me to perceive a significantly higher quality.
brent [2009-07-23 14:01] Comment ID: 662 Reply to: 659
I'm still not quite sure what you're saying as my understanding is that movies have been filmed with 35mm film for decades that have about 4k to 6k lines of horizontal resolution (compared to blu-ray's 2k).
When I'm comparing quality, I'm thinking more of a technical measure (ie bit rate). We cannot perceive all of the information in a video, but a computer can do it for us.
eye.zak [2009-07-23 14:16] Comment ID: 664 Reply to: 662
For myself, quality is defined by my viewing experience but I guess that is a personal thing. My real question was about your concept of paying for up-conversion and the consumer's increasing ability to do it for themselves. Would you allow me to distribute my up-converted format to owners of the original format ? Or would it be illegal even for me to do it ?
brent [2009-07-23 14:33] Comment ID: 670 Reply to: 664
Quality doesn't need to be as ambiguous or subjective as you suggest it to be. There are very scientific and accurate ways of measuring it with digital files.
It would not be illegal as up-converting is not technically increasing quality.
eye.zak [2009-07-23 14:50] Comment ID: 678 Reply to: 670
Thanks for the clarification, I do agree with you about format shifting. Since I am not a scientific instrument / computer my only perception of quality is that which I can directly see or hear. I wouldn't pay for or value an increase in quality that is unperceivable to me, would you?
brent [2009-07-23 14:55] Comment ID: 679 Reply to: 678
If you don't want to pay for something that has no noticeable quality increase to you, then don't! :)
Given the current extortion methods of America's RIAA, and as a musician, I would not like Canada's RIAA equivalent (CRIA) to follow in the same manner. It discourages potential fans from buying my works if I am being represented by a lobbyist group similar to RIAA. There are even websites out there that track RIAA-free albums so people can decide to buy, or not buy an album due to its RIAA associativity.
There is no real guarantee safeguard against piracy. When a anti-piracy measure is developed, someone will figure a way to counter it. If my fans really enjoyed my works, they would support me at shows or by purchasing my music related merchandise such as t-shirts. It's difficult to see the RIAA actually taking their obscene amounts of money won from lawsuits being given to the artists they represent (who really see an extremely small cut, if any). It would still be nice to have laws that target large piracy groups who make profit off of pirated music, software, or movies, instead of a typical college student.
The way I see it, is that stopping large piracy groups will likely have more of an effect than fear inflicting methods of targeting several college students and young adults as a method of "making an example of". The latter method is a cruel and outdated medieval tactic in my mind.
Another issue I want to discuss, is in light of the recent RIAA cases, particularly the Thomas-Rasset case, where she is being fined approximately $2 million USD in damages. It should really come to a point where groups like the RIAA should have their limits. Piracy is similar to stealing, and is a crime that should not go unnoticed. But as a musician, I feel it is ridiculous and unfair for close to $80,000 in damages per song! (My numbers may be off, but the idea is there.) That amount is quite ridiculous, and the money should really go towards the artist (although hopefully it isn't that gruesomely high) and not so much towards their next lawyer fees, if RIAA and equivalents decide to still pursue individuals as such.
intrinsic808 [2009-07-22 19:10] Comment ID: 530 Reply to: 486
HUGE thumbs up here. I agree that punishing a college student or a single mother of three (Thomas-Rasset) is cruel, and I don't think it has quite the effect originally intended by lawmakers. Does anyone really believe that people are downloading less on Kazaa because of that verdict?
The website I like to use to avoid RIAA is http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp.
It just so happens that almost all of my favourite bands get the green "SAFE!" thumbs up. And I don't have any proof of this, but I think the very fact that they have nothing to do with the RIAA gives them much more artistic freedom - major record labels seem to put out the same crap all the time. Innovation happens at a grassroots level.
Nice comment LP.
Allan Barnes [2009-07-23 14:34] Comment ID: 671 Reply to: 530
I agree Legendary Pirate, slapping around the regular Joe with lawsuits is the legal equivalent of hostage taking and terrorism. What a terrible way of handling things… hit the groups that make profit off other people's work. I can't believe how many people I've seen make money selling pirated movies, music, and even copies of Windows, among other things. That wasn't right.
But your average college student is not worth chasing down… and $80,000 in damages per song is totally not fair.
stevenha [2009-07-26 12:28] Comment ID: 918 Reply to: 486
Strongly Agree. The previous attempt to pass a new copyright law, would have allowed corporations to sue families into bankruptcy, if their teenage child downloaded hundreds of songs. It was outrageous.
As both a producer and consumer I don't believe that I have conflicting views.
What is important is the ability of the consumer to make backups of all multimedia they have purchased.
Electronic media, hard drives, dvds, etc. all fail. It is not as if it is my fault if my hard drive crashes and all media is lost. Why do I need to buy my movies and songs again? Legal backups should be an intrinsic part of the copyright legislation.
intrinsic808 [2009-07-22 19:18] Comment ID: 534 Reply to: 485
At the very least legal backups should be allowed. I'd even go so far as to say that if it wasn't backed up in the first place, it isn't the end of the world if you download it again - as long as you paid for it in the first place. Of course this implies that we'll have to keep our receipts from now on, but who cares?
vancoUVer Records [2009-07-30 14:56] Comment ID: 1156 Reply to: 485
If you are a DJ using peoples material without a license to make a living .that would be part of the problem we are having .for those people whom are not aware of infringment.
Jkobo [2009-07-30 19:49] Comment ID: 1167 Reply to: 1156
I agree with this if you are making a living through DJ'ing school dances, and weddings. Professional Club DJ's should expect the venue's to be licensed, same with hosting providers for podcasts. From your symbiont brothers at the other side of the pond, and the ones you rely on to pump out your releases to the masses ;)
There are 2 groups of discussions that apply to how copyrights affect me. As a consumer, and as a creator.
As a consumer I have the following Concerns:
1. A license for use is a license for use - and should be, regardless of the medium used. As a result, Consumers should be allowed to timeshift, backup, and transcode for transfer to electronic devices without penalty for personal use. There should be no limitations on how this is achieved. For instance, if the medium for which one's licensed material is stored should fail, the licensee should be legally allowed to acquire a copy of their licensed material, in lieu of a backup. this right to your purchased content should not be impeded by copy protection schemes, encryptions, or any other technology. If you bought a license, you should be able to use the product as you see fit, for private use.
2. Electronic distribution methods, such as peer-to-peer file sharing, should not be deemed a copyright infringement automatically. Bittorrent, for example, is a legitimate protocol that can be used to transfer all types of files - it is a legitimate delivery channel that can be used for illegitimate means. Don't outlaw bittorrent for that. Instead, outlaw the commercial (ie: pay-for-use) distribution of unlicensed copyrighted material.
3. Private, personal use needs clarification and needs to remain freely available to the public. Canada has been very proactive by trying to legitimize personal use by allowing levies on blank media. although it is unpopular to add taxes to blank media, especially for multimedia formats that can be used for data as well as media, it is the lesser of two evils for consumers.
Next, as a creator, there are several points that need to be clear:
1. Commercial use needs to see the artist compensated in a manner consistent with the copyright holder's wishes. These include public performance or display of said works, Distributing licensed material for profit, and unfair unlicensed reuse of material in a commercial venture. It's one thing to do a mashup - it's another thing to sell it without crediting and compensating the original creators.
2. Fair use needs to be clearly defined for both content creators and consumers. Educational use and political satire are already strong fair-use reasons, and allow artists to innovate on other people's works. Clarifying when people can make derivative works such as mashups, and defining when content needs or does not need license is going to be the tricky balancing act for creator/consumers. These liberties MUST remain available, and clarifying the guidelines in simple language, would definitely ensure people do not break copyight law by accident.
3. Educational use should give educators the freedom to teach their students, where limitations on the students' use of materials should be dictated as personal use of unlicensed material. Students may use the tools (ie: computer programs), read the photocopies, etc… but not be allowed to publish, perform, or use tools for commercial purposes, unless the student obtains a license to do so (ie: purchase the computer software in question).
4. With the taxation of media, the money distribution methods to content creators need to be revised so that artists get paid more directly by the government, as opposed to having the money filtered through a lobby group of some sorts. In the digital distribution age, Audio and video-only formats should have their proceeds go to those specific providers, but as a digital medium is usually a multimedia format where authors, programmers, painters, photographers, musicians and videographers all have equal chances of being stored on the same medium, Fair taxation and distribution becomes more difficult, and is where the levy falls apart. Lesser levy needs to be put on digital media that can be used for data purposes. More artists and less middlemen need to get a cut of the media tax.
cjskahn [2009-07-22 17:43] Comment ID: 498 Reply to: 471
I fully agree.
The independence of intellectual property from its delivered-on medium will be very important. If I pay for a license for a movie, I should be able to copy and use this movie on any medium I see fit.
A license should be for use of the copyrighted work itself, irregardless of the medium.
I view myself as a typical consumer of movies, music and computer video games.
I agree that copyright laws must protect the producer of the material so that their intellectual property is protected. This will allow continued investment and create sustainable businss model to create wealth.
On the other hand, average consumers should not be sued for using or sharing copyrighted material they have purchased. Consumers must have "fair use" of the material for educational and personal uses.
How to balance these competing interests? I have two proposals:
1. Allow personal, non-commercial sharing of all copyrighted material. If I buy a CD or rent a DVD and make a copy and share the copy on the internet, as long as I do not gain from engaging in this activity in a monetary way, it should be allowed.
2. If this arrangement is too much for music artists, tv and movie studios to swallow, then I would support a VOLUNTARY fee, applied on an opt-in basis, charged by my ISP or internet provider. These fees would flow to the copyright holder. This fee would be a nominal fee and would be no where near the amounts being levied against plaintiffs in the US for sharing music online ($85,000 a song - ridiculous). A reasonable fee for unrestricted downloading would be 10 bucks a month, for example.
This copy would be portable as well - ipod, PC, car, the file would not have DRM so as to make it unusable but in certain specific circumstances. Copyright holders - remember the alternative is the status quo - free, and illegal, off the internet.
cndcitizen [2009-07-22 18:04] Comment ID: 506 Reply to: 469
Jasper, we already have one tax on Blank media to suppor the music and movie industry…taxing internet use is not an option…look at the studies that places around the world have looked at…which have rejected it.
I think the issue here is that different media (mediums) are being affected differently and I would go so far as say that copyright might have to have different rules for different media types but the underlying is that personal, government and educational use would be exempt.
JasperPants [2009-07-22 18:14] Comment ID: 510 Reply to: 506
The offer of a non-mandatory fee is meant to be a compromise offer to the powerful tv, movie, music lobby. I would prefer not to have it, but…
Also, this fee, is not a tax, because a) its not mandatory and b) its not remitted to the government.
These are important differences. I would challenge you on the "looked at and rejected in other jurisdictions" comment. What type of fee regime? Where was it rejected?
cndcitizen [2009-07-22 23:02] Comment ID: 578 Reply to: 510
The problem with a volentary fee is that how will it be policed, that would force ISP's to release your data trafic so that a private company could sift through it to look for potential infringment…with the free wi-fi's that most people put up now and even cities that setup free wi-fi access points then you have to wonder who is actually who is infringing? Let alone the ability to change your MAC address on your computer with a free program.
with the logs released to a private company to sift through then can they then go through what sites you are visiting and if you are visiting PC sites all the time sell that information to the PC party…any type of private monitoring of the internet should be completely banned. I get enough telemarketers calls on my line now with my number already registered as do not call list to doubt the private sector if they know if I shop at amazon or at the neibourhood video store…
Your idea only leads to having some entity go through the past logs then verify what or if that person paid for blanket media download…I for one would drop the carrier that allowed private companies to collect data on my shopping or banking habbits…
With the above, if a crime (not civil) is commited then the full force of the law should be allowed to grab the logs with a warrent and prosecute…not private companies.
Net Neutrality should be a given right and should be…othwise people would just open up their wireless to allow anyone to use it to created crap data for these companies…
JasperPants [2009-07-23 08:39] Comment ID: 626 Reply to: 578
Ok, we are talking about option #2 - a fee for unlimited downloads.
Recall that this option is to accomodate copyright owners concerns about the reduction in the size of their markets if we allow free, non-commercial downloading.
My response to your objection based on privacy issues, is that if a company wants to access your downloading history, they must go to a judge and apply for a warrant. If the judge decides that there is probable cause, then access will be granted.
Given the cost involved, I seriously doubt that copyright holders will have the patience or financial resources to start prosecuting these kinds of cases.
If there is abuse on behalf of the copyrightholders as we have seen in the US, then rescind the fee and allow non-commercial downloading.
Another idea is to have a sunset clause on the new law- say 5 years. Formalize a review process and in theory, if the law serves the public as intended, it will be renewed, Otherwise, the law will expire and the old regime comes into play.
intrinsic808 [2009-07-22 19:25] Comment ID: 537 Reply to: 469
This a very refreshing idea. Unfortunately (no sarcasm here) I doubt they'll take any of this into consideration…
JasperPants [2009-07-22 19:59] Comment ID: 541 Reply to: 537
Well, I guess that's what this forum is for! Hopefully people who will write the legislation will actually read these comments!