Information identifiée comme étant archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’a pas été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis la date de son archivage. Les pages Web qui sont archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes applicables au Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez la demander sous d’autres formes. Ses coordonnées figurent à la page « Contactez-nous »
Require that ISP's pay a license fee, just like radio and television does. Original authors and creators must be compensated when their products are used online.
crade [2009-08-19 00:13] Nº du commentaire : 1793 Répondre à : 1775
You had might as well just add another income tax to prop up the failing labels with. The ISPs will just pass on the price (plus some extra of course) to all internet users and pretty much every household in Canada uses the internet anyway. Despite what the labels have been claiming I have a hard time believe everyone else in Canada is a criminal and so I should pay them more money.
dendee [2009-08-19 00:28] Nº du commentaire : 1795 Répondre à : 1793
or the isp's could just reduce their exorbitant profit margins and give something to the artists...who are a huge reason why people buy internet connections to begin with
crade [2009-08-19 10:55] Nº du commentaire : 1813 Répondre à : 1795
Yeah they could, if they were Mother Teresa but they wouldn't since they aren't.
I don't think entertainment is a "huge reason" people buy the internet. People pay for the internet because they need it for work and email and reaching loved ones over long distance. Entertainment for most people is just not a priority when compared against the things they actually need the internet for.
jrm [2009-08-19 14:28] Nº du commentaire : 1841 Répondre à : 1795
That is NOT a "huge reason why people buy internet connections". Face it, you are just asking for a handout.
dendee [2009-09-02 23:57] Nº du commentaire : 2181 Répondre à : 1841
reality check there friends...if free music and movies is not a big part of why the internet is used, why are you here fighting to preserve the status quo of "free" ?? do you have that much time on your hands?
crade [2009-09-04 12:49] Nº du commentaire : 2207 Répondre à : 2181
I am involved despite not caring a whit about "free music and movies" because the laws the lobbyists are pushing for are damaging to more than "free music and movies" and to more than just the internet as well.
dendee [2009-09-04 20:53] Nº du commentaire : 2217 Répondre à : 2207
crade, please provide examples
crade [2009-09-08 12:05] Nº du commentaire : 2320 Répondre à : 2217
Thanks for your interest, and sorry for the delay!
Well, the proposed legislation I think is most dangerous is with regards to anti-circumvention. Some lobbyists propose, and the last attempt at a bill included, legislation to make circumventing digital locks illegal under any circumstances. This includes when there is no copyright infringement involved at all.
There are many problems with this in my opinion. First is that this gives 100% power and control to the corporation making the digital lock. They would have veto power over fair dealing legislation simply by putting a digital lock. Usually these corporations are not interested in spending extra effort to ensure that fair dealing is not locked out even if they don't mind allowing the fair dealing. Also, many of the digital locks will come from other countries with different fair dealing legislation so it is highly unlikely in my opinion that the digital locks would ever be made in such a way that we could have our fair dealing as intended if we had this sort of anti-circumvention legislation.
These digital locks are not only used to prevent copyright infringment. They are used for various things like creating format monopolies like iTunes and preventing competition by tying media to particular brands of hardware. DVD Region codes are under fire currently in some countries because they are believed to be counter to trade agreements, and DVD players that play all regions are circumventing digital locks. Since I do not run Microsofts products at home (another boycott), I must circumvent digital locks to use much of the commercial software I have legally purchased as they were only designed to run on Microsoft's operating system and the digital locks don't unlock properly on others.
This would give legislative clout to whatever the corporations wanted to use digital locks for. There are other current examples of how digital locks are used for purposes unrelated to copyright, but the potential for abuse there is practically limitless. The damage, I believe will be mostly to transparancy and to competition.
I am opposed to another levy because these levies take my money and give it to the corporations I am trying to boycott due to their bad business practices (who in turn eventually and supposedly give it to the artists that they like best in direct contrast to the ones I would like to support). I purchase and use music, movies and software, but generally not from anyone who gets money from the current levies, and I believe this would harm my ability to support deserving (again, in my opinion) companies / artists and boycott undeserving ones. Also, these levies are dishonest, those who would bring them in claim it is to help combat piracy, yet those in place are unrelated to piracy and instead are making people pay to allow them private use of their purchased media (such as personal backups, etc and not including distribution) these private use rights in my opinion should already be built into the price of the media licenses.
In particular, I am opposed to a levy on ISPs because this would extend to everyone who uses the internet propping up these companies (and not by choice). According to statscan, In 2007, 72% of households in Canada had internet access (consistantly growing since at least 2003)
and the majority (at least in 2003) did not use it for music and movies. The highest usage at that time was Email followed by banking and online shopping. I'm sure the numbers have changed since then, but I still doubt if the majority of the usage is for downloading movies and music.
crade [2009-09-08 12:07] Nº du commentaire : 2321 Répondre à : 2320
Sorry, forgot to include the second statscan link for reference
First, where is this "strong consensus" that Canadians need or want copyright law reformed? I see no citation of sources on that, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
On the topic: The only changes to copyright law that would best foster innovation and creativity are strengthening and expanding fair use/fair dealing provisions which allow for the creation of/use in derivative works, review/criticism, personal use, etc.
This contradicts the government and industries' intention to do the opposite, making copyrighted works harder to access, illegal to modify or use without permission, impossible to format-shift, etc.
Copyright law in general stands to punish innovators and creators if and when they make use of existing work, no matter what amount. If Canada wants to foster creativity, it must *loosen* the restrictions copyright imposes, not tighten them. If Canada's copyright law is to change to reward innovators, it must put power back in the hands of the end user (individual citizens), not corporations.
Hotshotharry [2009-09-10 15:14] Nº du commentaire : 2396 Répondre à : 1725
It's strictly for big business to force us to do what they want! If content providers were with the times and actually used todays technology and offered products at reasonable prices there would be no need for the black market services.
There are thousands of songs written everyday for no other reason than the ownership of the hits and other good ones.
That's not good culture.
Music groups have replaced neighborhood baseball teams.
RIAA corporations no longer have anything at all to contribute to music-making other than status-monopoly.
My son and his friends, who are trying to prepare for jobs to help save the world, make recordings in the basement which are as good as most of those protected by RIAA-MPAA.
They mount them on the internet, participate in local events, and welcome a bit of appreciation.
It's a problem that they must write all their own songs for it, because there is no way they can hassle a rendering of something "owned".
Those who think they deserve to make a living by composing songs should try doing something useful.
The fewer impositions on music by copyrights the better.
dendee [2009-08-18 20:53] Nº du commentaire : 1772 Répondre à : 1708
what an ignorant view of the world
trimoda [2009-08-18 22:09] Nº du commentaire : 1784 Répondre à : 1772
I would like to learn.
Please educate me.
It appears to me that applying copyright to performances seriously impacts us.
Copyright was intended to apply only to the printed music. For it to be applied only in that way would enormously enrich music and our social culture.
By the way I just learned that my son's band just did Tutti Fruiti along ones they "own" at the favorite beach hang-out in Delaware. Did they break the law?
arts [2009-09-04 22:18] Nº du commentaire : 2223 Répondre à : 1708
Really? It's a "hassle" to write their own songs? I feel for them. I find it's a hassle to make my own breakfast. Should I be able to take yours anytime I want to?
Nothing in current copyright law is stopping your son and his friends from becoming famous by sharing their music on the Internet. Have at. Let the people decide.
As for whether or not creativity should make anyone a living, I think we'd have to change the entire socio-economic structure of our society, and not just copyright, to stop that. Have at that as well.