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 »
Above all the rights of the individual to freedom of use of a purchased product must supersede any rights given the Corporations.
Copy rights legislation should apply only to commercial (for money) infractions of any future law implemented.
garrein [2009-07-28 22:46] Nº du commentaire : 1083 Reply to: 1080
When it comes to file sharing networks or any sharing of products, to which, copyright legislation applies (even when it is not for commercial gain) - you are potentially reducing the number of customers the work's creator might profit from. Why should someone buy a product that they have already gained access to legally via such sharing?
Would you be willing to work without payment for 6 months? A year? Two years? (It can often take these sorts of timeframes to create such work)
Pal [2009-07-28 23:54] Nº du commentaire : 1085 Reply to: 1083
It is a well documented fact that contrary to your misinformed claims files sharing promotes sales . File sharers buy more DVDs/CDs than anyone else… I prefer sticking to the facts. It works for me.
garrein [2009-07-29 00:12] Nº du commentaire : 1087 Reply to: 1085
Would you mind sharing your source for this information? I'm interested in how the statistics were gathered - if misinformed, I'll be happy to withdraw my comment.
That being said, here are some questions I have regarding these "facts":
- How was the information gathered? If by survey, who responded (type of user) and how many?
- Were responses generally submitted by those who share files (and would generally have to purchase media first to do so), or was there also a large number of "freeloaders" that responded?
- How was the data broken down, statistically?
email@example.com [2009-07-29 02:38] Nº du commentaire : 1090 Reply to: 1087
Oddly, the above post about sales is right for the wrong reasons.
Macroeconomics proves what is good for an individual is not necessarily good for society.
Physical media sales have fallen, but the market shifted into online sales such as iTunes.
Hard formats accounted for 99.3% of the market, but will drop to 72.9% in 2010.
2300% sales increase:
23% sales increase:
396% sales increase:
There will be more barriers to market entry if people let their personal economic interests override their common sense. Note, smaller bands currently being published would simply not exsist in a consolidated monopolistic competitive market.
This is a matter of a 783 million dollar international incentive getting microeconomists to ruin 3.9 billion dollars of market growth.
garrein [2009-07-29 05:47] Nº du commentaire : 1096 Reply to: 1090
Having looked over most (but admittedly, not all) of the information referenced in the previous 2 comments - I have to say that I still find myself sitting on the fence with this one. This is because there doesn't seem to be a truly accurate way of gathering the required information with regard to how P2P downloads impact sales. Though the Industry Canada report is far more thorough than any others I've seen - much of the data collected (especially in terms of P2P downloads) could be considered "non-behavioural" or "don't know" responses - requiring hypothetical post-hoc analyses (this was stated in the report itself). Therefore (for the time being), I won't withdraw my inference that P2P downloading "potentially [reduces]" a copyright owner's potential customer base. Perhaps I will once I've finished reading each of the sources quoted. However, I do admit that I am focusing on individual copyright owners - as the Act does, itself.
this does not change the fact that as consumers, we are not purchasing a part ownership in the copyright - we are purchasing the privilege to use it as deemed appropriate by the copyright owner. Meaning (in most cases) that we should not be copying or distributing the work unless we have been granted permission to do so. This is left to the discretion of the creator/owner. As is the pursuit of copyright infringements that relate to their work.
Furthermore, there are a number of ways for a copyright owner to distribute his/her work - whether in print, on recorded media, via the Internet or through P2P networks - to name just a few. I'd say that the market is far from "monopolistic." The choice in how their work is distributed remains in the hands of the copyright owner.
firstname.lastname@example.org [2009-07-29 07:20] Nº du commentaire : 1097 Reply to: 1096
"we are purchasing the privilege to use it"
Renting is not ownership despite what the Sony backed MPAA media releases would have you believe.
"The choice in how their work is distributed remains in the hands of the copyright owner."
Negative, there are 6 majority publishers:
Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group
Columbia Pictures (Sony Corporation)
Paramount Pictures (Viacom)
20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
Monopolistic competition does not infer a singular entity, but rather a behavior associated with oligopoly. Simply refer to the kinked demand curve in every single one of these entities. They have manipulated the consumer market for years, and have enough money to outlast even government litigation.
They still don't want market fragmentation, but it has already occurred.
drew_sky [2009-07-30 09:52] Nº du commentaire : 1144 Reply to: 1096
"we are not purchasing a part ownership in the copyright - we are purchasing the privilege to use it as deemed appropriate by the copyright owner."
I agree with this statement. My concern is that, to carry this to a ridiculous extreme, should the copyright owner have the right to dictate that I must listen to their music (as an example) using only Sony audio equipment and only while wearing a red shirt?
I believe that an important issue is where the line gets drawn over what rights the copyright owner can reasonably expect to dictate.
To me, it is not reasonable that the copyright owner should be allowed to dictate that I can listen to a musical selection on my computer, but can't move it to my iPod;or that I can watch a movie on my TV via a DVD player, but not transfer it to my computer.
That's where the issue over DRM comes into play and it is a very important one. I also believe, though, that the majority of content creators (as opposed to copyright owners, which may simply be distribution companies) just want a fair compensation for their work and don't really care if I move their work to a different medium provided I don't offer it for distribution to others.
Jkobo [2009-07-29 02:48] Nº du commentaire : 1091 Reply to: 1087
garrein, Pal is referring to an Industry Canada (our Government) Report which can be found under the Resources section of this page. Here is the direct link:
Media Industry tried to rebut this research, and here is the Author of the Industry Canada report with her response to the industry rebuttal:
It's also important to note that the Industry Canada report on file sharing was also personally backed up by a member of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development with applicable research quoted:
Since this response was backed up and submitted in 2007, the media industry has yet to respond to this, nor provide substantial research to back up their assertions with respect to P2P.
There is absolutely no credible independent evidence that rebuts the Industry Canada report as it stands.
Maybe you should engage in a little reading, and rather than condemn people using P2P understand all sides of the argument. It has been proven that not all of what you have been told by the media industries position is the truth.
KickingRaven [2009-07-29 13:42] Nº du commentaire : 1104 Reply to: 1091
There is also an interesting working paper from Harvard Business School titled "File-Sharing and Copyright" by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf which can be seen at http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf.
Pal [2009-07-29 15:15] Nº du commentaire : 1111 Reply to: 1087
As to verification. You would do well to apply your question to your own earlier statements. You have failed to qualify your own statements. If you are truly open to new info and the possibility that you are mistaken. Then know this. What I stated earlier is in the public record and the facts are easy to find. All that is required is the will to do so…
Manipulation and disinformation while not exclusive, have been shown to belong to the corporate camp where their bottom line has very little to do with old fashioned honesty.
As far as I can tell this consultation is a barometer of peoples attitudes and opinions. Not so much about changing peoples minds through argument…
Oh.. Purchasing the right to use but not own is called renting… Books, Music and Software that are for sale are purchased not rented…!!! Any other description is just colorful language designed to manipulate…
Billboardproducer [2009-09-03 00:13] Nº du commentaire : 2182 Reply to: 1111
Pal, your argument that P2P trading helps grow various industries is moot. Are you suggesting that the government should tell a business how to operate? These studies should be noted when growing a business but should have NO bearing on the laws that should govern copyright.
Once (hopefully) our laws are amended, companies/individuals will finally be able to CHOOSE to share their music or software if they feel it is a good business decision.
At this point, there is no choice for a creator. Once it's created, it is pretty much accessible to the general population to consume, at no cost, and without penalty.
It is clearly immoral when an individual takes something that doesn't belong to them. When did it become ok to steal?
Seems to me its suddenly ok because everyone else is doing it… That's not what Canada should be about.
Pal [2009-09-06 00:18] Nº du commentaire : 2262 Reply to: 2182
Yes I am suggesting that the government on behalf of the people should tell Businesses how to operate. Absolutely…! It's about protecting the people first. In whose name the government works. Corporations exist to serve. Without people there would be no corporations.
Copyrights were invented to give an extra hand up to the original inventors and authors. The little guys. Not for the corporate monstrosities that through lawyers, wield giant hammers, to crush those that get in the way of their corporate greed culture. There have been numerous examples of the corporates collecting money in the name of musicians. Then failing, after years, to give the money to those they supposedly collected for…
As far as theft. Intellectual property rights were invented not so long ago by some corporate loving bozos who spotted a money stream and could not resist.
Once I've bought something I will do as I please with it. I'll share as I like. It's mine I bought it! I don't however approve of selling that which you did not buy. Making money off others work would indeed be wrong and that's where I draw the line…
And lets NOT forget that up till now it's the corporates through greed have created the mess.
Failing to modernize their operations. Stifling innovation to protect their dinosaur and failing…
Also people who download, have been found to buy more cd/dvds. Go ahead argue and deny but the facts are in the public domain. Don't ask me to quote the study. You know how to Google… it's all there…
In the final analysis it's the will of the people not the greed of the Corporates that counts for me.
Billboardproducer [2009-09-06 15:15] Nº du commentaire : 2278 Reply to: 2262
I've read things about the corporate monstrosities, and seen first hand examples where there have been damages awarded to major record companies, and that money has not been forwarded to the Artists, or credited to their accounts.
Contractually, they generally don't have to pass this on to the Artists. I don't like this, but there is no language in most Artist contracts to cover situations like this. It just wasn't anticipated.
This though, is just an example of the kaos that exists because of weak, murky and out of date copyright laws. It's not a secret that the Music Industry is in trouble. Companies and individuals (Creators) are going out of business because there is very little protection right now and this is why there seem to be so many gorilla tactics to defend their copyrights.
And so, kaos exists in a lawless land.
If laws were clarified, revenue streams would also be clearer, and ultimately Artists would be making more money. There are many corporations, sole proprietors, partnerships and individual creators that own copyrights, and they all deserve protection.
Clearly, the major record companies have a massive PR problem on their hands which started almost 20 years ago and continues to get worse and worse. BUT -It is an extremely weak argument to say that things shouldn't be changed because they don't deserve to be helped. The creators are suffering and need help, but still copyright laws should apply to all.
As a side note -the fact that many Artists have signed poor Agreements with major record companies is really their own fault. No Artist has ever been forced to sign a deal (except perhaps the mofia style tactics rumored to have happened between Vanilla Ice and Suge Knight). In any case, these days are long behind us now.
I want to be able to copy my media from the format I originally purchased it, to one that allows me to use the media in a form that benefits me for personal use. In the 90's I used to buy CD's and transfer them to cassettes tapes for my walkman, and car stereo.
I want to be able to take a DVD, create a digital copy so that I can watch it on my computer and not have that be illegal, whether I am circumventing DRM or not.
What should happen to the digital copy should I decide to sell or give away the original DVD? I don't know. I would like to retain possession of it indefinitely, but more realistically I should delete it after a prescribed grace period.
I think the grace period should also apply to IP that I borrow.
For example I borrow a DVD from the library. I make a copy for my personal use. I return the DVD to the Library. I watch the movie when it suits me. I delete it after a prescribed amount of time.
None of this should be illegal.
mtaylor [2009-08-02 21:01] Nº du commentaire : 1273 Reply to: 1076
I couldn't agree more. Copyright provisions that limit fair use of material are absurd. If I pay for a CD, why shouldn't I be able to listen to it on a mp3 player? My experience with DRM has been horrible. I had a Sony MP3 Discman for a while, and the software I had to install on my computer to use it nearly crippled my computer. Copyright legislation needs to focus on fair compensation for artists, and not on preventing users of making use of what they have paid for.
Canada's existing copyright laws have a chilling effect on my work and on my life. These laws should be modernized by taking into account the diverse ways through which Canadians create and innovate.
En l'état actuel des choses, les lois canadiennes sur le droit d'auteur ont un effet de contrainte sur ma vie personnelle, académique, artistique et professionnelle. Par exemple, les risques liés aux lois actuelles sur le droit d'auteur me poussent à ne pas diffuser certains éléments du matériel que j'utilise en enseignement.
Les lois devraient être actualisées en favorisant l'utilisation légitime des oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur. Elles devraient s'éloigner de l'approche punitive et encourager une approche collaborative de la création. Elles devraient aussi reconnaître que la démarcation entre créateurs et "consommateurs" est souvent illusoire.
En somme, les lois canadiennes sur le droit d'auteur devraient protéger les Canadiennes et les Canadiens, leur permettant de créer et d'innover le plus librement possible.
One area of concern is the rights of the perceptually disabled (blind and dyslexic). As more and more material becomes digital, the perceptually disabled are vulnerable to digital rights management. I think future laws need to not only be clear that the perceptually disabled have the right to circumvent DRMs but that the software to do so is readily available. The Copyright Act should also be clear that no contract provisions can waive the rights of the perceptually disabled to circumvent DRM to material that they need.
If you look at last year's Canadian Assocation for Research Libraries study of e-books, part of the study looked at nine separate contracts signed by libraries. In eight of the contracts the libraries had unintentionally signed away the rights of the perceptually disabled to circumvent digital locks to e-books. How much more often is that happening now with libraries and educational institutions?
crade [2009-07-28 17:03] Nº du commentaire : 1068 Reply to: 1065
I agree but I would add that our other fair dealing rights must also be protected in this way for the same reasons.
meikipp [2009-07-31 14:05] Nº du commentaire : 1193 Reply to: 1065
This is a very important issue and one which was not adequately covered by Bill C-61. By protecting our fair use rights to make reasonable use of materials, we can also protect the rights of the perceptually disabled to circumvent digital locks and format shift for access to materials.
All you need to do is look at the Amazon Kindle's read aloud feature and how it was essentially crippled by publishers to see this is still a huge issue.
I think that the Copyright Act should be re-written to eliminate elements that are specific to particular media formats, etc - in essence, a simplified set of rules to govern all intellectual property, for which, copyright applies.
It has always been the responsibility of an intellectual property's creator(s) to track/investigate infringements concerning their work - so that violators can be held accountable under law.
This being said, it seems that the creator(s) of such work must ask themselves the following question: how do I wish to be rewarded or recognized for my work. If the answer is to maximize monetary gain based on their work or ensure that proper credit is given - then it is worth considering that this information should be secured in some manner - and access to the material limited. If the goal is to share ideas and information to the greatest number of people - limiting access to material(s) might be of less concern.
The various media formats all have different (potential) concerns when it comes to securing and/or limiting availability to information. It should be the responsibility of the creator(s) of intellectual property to choose what level/manner of security suits them best - not a decision made by government/law (such as in the case of digital locks). However, the consequences of infringement should be legislated - so that owners of such intellectual property, regardless of type or format or methods of distribution chosen, have some backing upon discovering that their copyright has been violated - should they choose to pursue the matter.
canadada [2009-07-28 10:57] Nº du commentaire : 1045 Reply to: 1036
Artists want and need to work on their art, not play merry-go-round or catch-up with legal eagles & thieves. Talk about 'time wasted' … geesh.
The law has to protect artists original creations from unlawful infringement.
It would be great if there was sort of advocacy group, central service, that MONITORS violators and infringements on behalf of artists: an organization that 'fights' on their behalf and 'defends' their creations.
Perhaps a small portion of the artist's 'licensing/distribution' deal(s) could go to the creation of such an institution … ?
crade [2009-07-28 14:24] Nº du commentaire : 1062 Reply to: 1045
Umm.. This is what we have now, except the organizations take everything then gives a "small portion" back to the creator instead.
Personally I would like to see the artists / creators (myself included of course) have to sue people themselves. Maybe then they would only make claims when it actually matters instead of doing it to silence a political debate or in an attempt to terrorize the general population. If the artists had to sue the thieves (who are also their fans / customers) themselves, the public could boycott them when they act in ways that their would-be customers see as intolerable and market forces could help weed them out and leave a beautiful lawn. :)
garrein [2009-07-28 18:00] Nº du commentaire : 1073 Reply to: 1062
The point is that we all know that it is wrong to infringe on other peoples' copyrights and other forms of intellectual property (such as patents and trademarks). The Copyright Act itself does not need to be over-complicated by specifically addressing legal issues that can be addressed under other Acts and Codes within Canadian legislation.
For instance, Gojira54 brought up the topic of DVD Region Codes (in my opinion - a rather needless feature). If a DVD or other media format is not to be used outside a specific area - this would appear to be something that pertains to export compliance and customs laws in those nations affected. Additionally, such Region Codes generally only affect original (likely purchased legally) media - not any pirated versions. Furthermore, if it is to be deemed illegal to circumvent this technology and the act of doing so is punishable in some manner - there are other places to address such things - such as the Criminal Code. However, who is to investigate or enforce such things (if ever) - other than the creators themselves? The overhead and expenses involved with having a public institution do so would be huge.
When it comes to your intellectual property it should be your responsibility to keep it as secure as you deem appropriate. When considering the distribution/usage of such information from a business perspective, one of the most basic factors comes back to risk vs reward. If making your property available puts it at too great a risk (or if deterring/preventing and following up on potential infringement requires too many time/monetary/other resources), perhaps it is time to reconsider how it will be shared, if at all.
In response to the following comment from canadada, "Artists want and need to work on their art, … Talk about 'time wasted'" - speaking as a business owner - I also want and need to work on the services my business provides. I might not enjoy the other necessary tasks that are involved, however I must - and there aren't any government provided services that will take care of my accounting, etc for me - at least, not that I'm aware of. If artists would like to contribte to a private company/agency that can do this for them - I see nothing wrong with that.
My opinion is that the Copyright Act should follow the KISS principle to limit confusion - basically, this is how copyright works, this is what it applies to, this is what constitutes infringement (based on creator permissions, etc) don't steal or these are the fines and punishment you face (perhaps becoming subject to any area of Canadian law that applies). Getting specific about different formats and methods used to infringe isn't necessary in the Act itself. What it comes down to is whether or not someone has obtained the appropriate permission to use the property as they have. Not the methods used to do so.
crade [2009-07-28 21:33] Nº du commentaire : 1081 Reply to: 1073
The trouble is we also all (or at least those of us who have ever had to deal with it) know it's wrong to abuse a license agreement. It's wrong to block blind people from using tools to help them read. It's wrong to ransom information to public schools. It's wrong to retrofit things people already purchased in good faith with new restrictions. It's wrong to extort money out of people who rely on your software and you have their work trapped in your proprietary file formats so they have no choice to continue paying or sacrifice their work. It's wrong to try to prevent people from format shifting their media or software so you can make them pay over again for the same thing.
But there is no legal recourse, or if there is, it's completely ineffective.
We need some consumer protections in our legislation.
garrein [2009-07-28 22:27] Nº du commentaire : 1082 Reply to: 1081
Perhaps we do. However, the legislation in regard to any form of intellectual property is in place to protect the rights of those who create it - not the consumer. It has often been argued that a competitive free market provides such balance. In essence, so long as there are alternative options available to the owners of such work when deciding how their property is distributed - the owner should be able to choose the approach that meets his/her needs, and hopefully their consumer base, as well - without the need for government intervention. This is because if there is a need for better products, softwares, services, etc - a competitor will most likely emerge - offering yet another choice. In addition to this, it is up to a product's creator to clarify what constitutes acceptible use of their intellectual property. As an example, how many computers a piece of software can be installed on.
In essence, by offering consumers protection under legislation by limiting the rights of the artists/creators (across the board) - the free market becomes less free.
I'm not saying that I disagree with you crade, but when it comes to moving toward a more socialist form of economics - I do not think that the Copyright Act is the place to start. Furthermore, it would probably take a far greater sampling of public opinion than this currently offers to justify it. After all, it seems that North Americans in general, have come to (needlessly) fear such socialist concepts - largely because of the American media and rhetoric.
crade [2009-07-29 00:20] Nº du commentaire : 1088 Reply to: 1082
Respectfully, I believe you are mistaken about this.
The current copyright law gives some protection to consumers, the fair dealing restrictions are an example of this. There are quite a few holes in these rights that are currently being exploited and there are some proposals that will make even more. There is no good reason to strip consumers rights out of the copyright legislation.
I also believe whoever argued that competitive free market would automatically balance out unfair copyright legislation was also mistaken. We have very recent history and our own experience to draw from on this. I'm not even sure it even applies in this case when the market is entirely fabricated out of legislated rights. The legislation they drafted to try to help creators profit from their work may be intended to simulate a free market, but if it was, it doesn't seem to be working very well.
In copyright legislation, we aren't moving towards a socialist form of economics we have been there all along. Both the rights of the creators and the rights of the consumers are fabricated by legislators trying to decide what would make a good balance and would make a good market.
Copyright legistlation, even the current copyright legislation was intended to strike a proper balance between granting creators the ability to profit from their work and granting the public access to it. It is not all about creators rights.
garrein [2009-07-29 03:56] Nº du commentaire : 1093 Reply to: 1088
The "Fair Dealings" legislation still bears in mind Section 27(2)(b) of the Copyright Act which states "it is an infringement of copyright for any person to distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright." Many of the exceptions to copyright and "fair dealing" are also based on the copyright owner(s) being remunerated by way of royalties. For instance, when dealing with blank recording media such as a tape or CD - the royalties can be included as part of the purchase price - and are paid for only by those who purchase the blank media. However, the difference with today's technology is that any number of digital formats can be stored to not only one hard drive, but any number of hard drives or storage media, anywhere in the world in what amounts to an instant. Furthermore, this sort of transference can be performed with most any (if not all) work, to which, copyright applies; and, there is little that can be done to control this. Keeping this in mind - how are copyright owners to receive similar remuneration for their work? It might be possible to include royalties on all storage device purchases - but this raises the question of why someone who is not making these sorts of copies is paying royalties on behalf of those who do.
I didn't mean to imply that copyright legislation (alone) would move us toward a more socialist economy. The truth is that I agree with crade's comment that "we have been there all along." However, I still respectfully disagree that the Act was "intended to strike a proper balance between granting creators the ability to profit from their work and granting the public access to it." This is because as consumers we are not purchasing a part ownership in the copyright - we are purchasing the privilege to use it as deemed appropriate by the copyright owner. By giving all consumers legislated rights to copy any intellectual property upon its purchase - we would essentially be forcing the creators & current owners of that same material to share the rights to their creation(s). That was never the intention of the Act - and could be seen as government interference in a free market.
That being said, my earlier arguments in regard to a free market providing some balance was meant in regard to many of the "It is wrong" statements you made in your earlier post, crade.
crade [2009-07-29 12:05] Nº du commentaire : 1100 Reply to: 1093
Well, I could be wrong about the original intent of the legislators, I can only speculate based on the result, but it would seem even from the intoduction as the top of this page that they are considering consumers rights:
"Canadian copyright law needs to be updated to give Canadian creators and consumers the tools they need to engage with confidence in the digital marketplace."
"we are purchasing the privilege to use it as deemed appropriate by the copyright owner."
This is only true to the extent that the terms of the agreement abide by the law. There are some terms currently that are not allowed even though they are allowed elsewhere and there are some that I believe are harmful to competition and should not be alowed.
I certainly never suggested we should give consumers unlimited rights, or rights to "copy any intellectual property upon its purchase ". I do not believe this at all. Our current system works relatively well and I think only requires some minor repairs. The consumers rights (or limitations on owners rights if you prefer to look at it that way) I would like to see are not at all of this sort.
I would like to see owners not have legal protection on digital locks, since these locks are used to prevent fair dealing uses.
I would like to see them not have the right to dictate that the content you license can only be used in a particular format, since I believe this is harmful to innovation and takes away both from the need to create new material and the will to create new and innovative devices to view material.
These are just a couple things I personally think are important.
I do not believe these things or similar consumer protections would be seen as interference in a free market. Consumers have protections against abuse in other markets.
Your last paragraph confused me… I am aware your arguments that competition in a free market would provide balance was in response to my "it is wrong" rant, I just don't believe that is the case both because I don't believe the rules that govern free markets apply in this case when the seller has control over supply and because I can see that it is not working.
I don't think years of production marketing rhetoric turning copyright infringement into a litigation nightmare would be wise.
The international intellectual property obligations and rules are generally unique to each country. Thus, larger conglomerates can deal with such fiscal barriers to exports, and gain more protection from market fragmentation. By inference, we may therefore assume Canada allows monopolistic firms to lobby in collusion for competitive barriers.
Similar laws like the DMCA have not generated any financial improvements in the US, and generally were simply re-purposed into a thinly veiled excuse to bypass privacy laws prior to the misleading "Patriot Act" instantiation. Ultimately, the laws just escalated the technologies available to fix the network problem some mistakenly assume is a social one, and allowed institutions to data-mine their own people. Reductio ad absurdum consequently turned researchers, teenagers, and technically even the last president into a criminal.
Historically, the Sony rootkit essentially violated Canadian privacy laws in addition to covertly modifying municipal government owned computer systems. Yet, not one single organization stood up to to point out how DRM also allows a publisher to cripple content (DVD/BlueRay/Kindle), block broadcast playback (DTV feature), or embed private information as a watermark (Apple DRM-free content / Adobe & Microsoft applications).
* The Amazon Kindle deleted legally purchased e-books from consumer's machines.
* Anyone who lost their entire legally purchased Apple iPhone music collection because they did not follow obscure back-up guidelines.
* One could never really own the record they purchased, but rather rent it until the publisher degrades like the Microsoft Zune DRM Key servers.
Accordingly, this bill will only help foreign publishers transition from antiquated printing business models into a denial-of-service based industry.
In my opinion, C-61 was as ludicrous as the postal office demanding compensation in lost stamps for every e-mail sent worldwide. There is no rational fiscal incentive for restitution if the accused is not profiting directly or indirectly from copyrighted work.
This type of thinking has proven it will only consolidate national social media and news sources. The Canadian identity simply will become another consumer market sector as the artistic diversity is commercialized.
Note, China/UK/Australia/Iran attempts to halt or monitor the democratic distribution of technical knowledge have always failed.
Anyone that supports this type of idealized judgment thinking will lose my support. People will simply relocate their research to more democratic countries with less ignorance.
johnkgrande [2009-07-28 18:53] Nº du commentaire : 1077 Reply to: 1035
I agree with comments being made here but we need to have a constructive alternative as well that goes with the tehnology as it exists today…
A writer and author in Montreal
email@example.com [2009-07-29 07:49] Nº du commentaire : 1098 Reply to: 1077
Under CIPO your rights are already explicitly protected with the (c), but you likely don't have the financial incentive or lawyers to protect your work.
Chances are like most writers you signed over these rights to one of the limited number of publishing firms.
Unless you use the web…
The real cost of the loss of net neutrality should have writers very concerned.
I e-mailed this in as a formal submission, but I think it should be posted here so it can be discussed too (plus it's taking a long time to make it to the formal submission page).
I am a huge fan of Japanese films and music and there are several copyright related issues I encounter as a Canadian consumer of foreign media that I am sure many other people in this country face as well. Though I was born and raised in this country, Canada is a multicultural nation and prides itself on being such. People from other nationalities often keep an interest in media from their home countries, and I believe that it is very important that the Government of Canada keep the multicultural aspect of Canada in mind while they craft this new piece of legislation.
The copyright issues I will deal with below are all issues that have affected me or have the potential to affect me personally at some point. Some of these issues are unique to me, some are unique to foreign media consumers in general, and others are copyright issues all Canadians face in this increasingly digital and globalized world.
DVD REGION CODING
When it comes to foreign films, there is no guarantee that the film you've been waiting for will ever get released in North America. For example, it took 50 years for the original Godzilla film from 1954 to be released uncut in North America in any format (including theatrical and television) and the uncut version of "King Kong vs. Godzilla" from 1962 has yet to be released here at all. I have DVDs imported from Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, and even one from the UK. Some of these I have bought because they were the first home video version I could get my hands on ("X-Cross", "Gamera the Brave") and others I have because they have not been released here yet and probably never will be ("Battle Royale", "Crying out Love, in the Centre of the World"). In Bill C-61 there was a section that would have legally forbid the circumventing of digital locks and the punishment for doing so was to pay $20,000 in damages. This provision would have essentially made it a punishable offense of $20,000 for me to watch my own legally bought DVDs. Also, Bill C-61 would have banned the distribution of devices and software lets me, other foreign film fans, and this nation's many immigrants watch the films they love but cannot acquire on Region 1 DVD.
It is very important that we do not ban the circumventing of region coding in the new copyright bill. There is really no reason to do so and it really just doesn't make sense in a country that prides itself in its multiculturalism. Also, importation of media and the sale of imported media must not be limited or made illegal.
DVDs and CDs are extremely delicate. People who see me handle my disks often comment on how I am so careful with them. Yet, despite my best efforts, the disks somehow manage to find a way to get scratched or damaged. I am also finding that many DVDs don't properly clip into their cases and soon the centre of the disk starts to crack, eventually leading to the destruction of the disk all together. Other times the clips are too loose or break, causing the disk to come loose in its case and get scratched up while being transported. In short, DVDs and CDs are generally destined to wear out over a few years if you use them regularly, no matter how well you treat them.
The music I buy from Japan is from the girl group Hello! Project (which is broken down into several small subgroups such as Morning Musume, Berryz Koubou, and C-ute) and Hello! Project releases are generally distributed in a very specific structure. For singles there are 4 releases: the regular edition, the limited edition A, the limited edition B, and the Single V. The limited editions only have a few thousand copies produced each. For this paragraph, I want to focus on the limited editions in particular. The limited editions include the CD single (also available in the regular edition) and a DVD that may contain a dance version of the single's music video, a close up version of the group's members singing the single, a making of the single's official music video, or a making of the cover art of the single. Whatever is included on the DVDs in the limited editions is generally only ever released on that DVD. In short, within a few weeks they are all sold out and there is no buying a second copy if the original breaks.
When it comes to using disks of any kind, whenever I want to watch a different movie or listen to a different song I have to go pop open the player, take the disk out, put it away, pull out the other disk, pop it in, and hit play. This can be particularly annoying with those music video releases I mentioned in the above paragraph as often the DVDs contain just one or two 5 minute music videos (and an equally long copyright warning at the beginning that you can't skip). To get around this nuisance, I have a USB memory stick full of music videos that I have ripped from the DVDs. Whenever I want to watch music videos I pop in the USB memory stick and I can choose any music video I want when I want without having to change the disk every single time and without wasting my time sitting through the copyright warning each time. Whenever I buy music, I immediately copy it to my laptop hard drive so I can switch songs without changing disks and then I also copy it to my mp3 player so I can take it anywhere without having to carry a heavy backpack full of CDs around with me, and risk damaging them in the process. Also, filling my laptop hard drive with movies makes traveling so much easier because I can take all my favourite movies on vacation without having a suitcase dedicated solely to DVDs.
What I would like to see in the new copyright bill is the legal right to backup the media I have purchased (music, video, or other) onto any medium of my choosing, in any format of my choosing, for personal use, regardless of whether or not there is a digital lock on the media of any form.
Once upon a time people got around riding on a horse and buggy. People made a living making whips, horse shoes, and wagons. Then came the car and all those jobs disappeared. The same is happening in the music industry right now.
Though I am from Toronto, I spent two years studying film production in Thunder Bay. While I was there, I discovered Hello! Project for the first time on youtube and then began to seek out more of their music through filesharing sites. After becoming a big Hello! Project fan through filesharing, I returned to Toronto at the beginning of May 2008. I quickly found a little shop that carried imported Hello! Project CDs and began buying them there. Now, one year and three months later, I have spent approx. $1300 on Hello! Project CDs, DVDs, and even two Hello! Project posters. Interestingly, I found that the majority of the first Hello! Project merchandise I purchased were all things I had already downloaded while I was in Thunder Bay. The reason for this was because I was already hooked on those specific songs and videos and I wanted a physical copy of them. Rather than hurting Hello! Project's sales, my downloading habit became a form of free advertising and turned me into a paying fan. I can honestly say I'd be willing to spend literally thousands of dollars on Hello! Project CDs and DVDs if I had the money. I am now planning to go Japan to see a Hello! Project concert in January.
Filesharing is also great for allowing the consumer to have any song they want instantly from anywhere in the world without having to go to the store right that second. Even Itunes doesn't offer that since they restrict by region. For me especially, filesharing allows me to have new songs released in Japan while I wait for the physical CDs to make their way over the Pacific Ocean where I can get then buy them. I actually listened to a downloaded copy of Morning Musume's single "Mikan" on the bus as I went to the store to purchase the "Mikan" CD.
As a new independent Canadian filmmaker, I have to say I think the internet is actually one of the greatest tools I have. In the past I would have had only a really tiny chance of ever being able to create my own film. Even if I managed to get a film made, I'd have to rely on a company to take a risk on releasing my film across Canada and then I'd have to rely on foreign companies to distribute that film in around the world. Now the internet has presented me with a worldwide audience I would never have been able to reach 10 years ago, and it is all thanks to filesharing. For no more than the cost of their internet bill, Canadian artists have a place to advertise, build a fanbase, share their culture, and distribute their work worldwide. If they want to make money, artists can ask for donations, sell merchandise, and/or create websites funded by advertisements. Some will eventually become popular around the world and end up making lots of money, and others won't. Being an artist is not a guaranteed way to get rich and never has been, but the internet certainly offers a great opportunity to Canadian artists that didn't exist just a few years ago.
In the 1980s, American film companies lobbied the US Government hard to get the VCR declared an illegal device because it allowed for copyright infringement. When it was finally declared fully legal, the movie companies then had to find a way to make money off it and the home video market was born. This has become a major source of income for the film companies and a huge source of tax revenue for the Government. The same needs to be done with filesharing. Rather than try and do the impossible task of eradicating filesharing, we should focus on what is possible: turning filesharing into a source of revenue for artists and the Government, even if that means the huge record labels have to significantly change or even die.
Filesharing is here to stay and Canadians, especially the new generation, don't want to see it made illegal. Rather than waste time and money trying to create a piece of legislation Canadians don't want and is doomed to fail anyways, Canada should take the initiative and show the rest of the world what a great thing filesharing can be for artists.
PORTABLE ENTERTAINMENT DEVICES
I think anyone should be able to copy any legally acquired music and video onto their own portable entertainment devices (Ipods, mp3 players, etc). There is absolutely no reason not to allow this and the new copyright bill should expressly allow this sort of transfer.
When I was about 8 or 9 my mom made what she probably considers the biggest mistake of her life. She taped the dubbed and edited version of "King Kong vs. Godzilla" off television for me. I kept that tape for years and rewatched it over and over again. I quickly became a Godzilla fan and spent all my available money (which wasn't much at the time) on Godzilla videos. Now, a decade and a half later, I am a huge fan of Japanese films in general. I have bought every single Godzilla film (many of them more than once) and my shelves are completely loaded with DVDs. I also have a huge tub sitting in my room full of DVDs because I have no more room to put them anywhere else. This whole collection, which I have spent thousands of dollars building, is an indirect result of my mom taping "King Kong vs. Godzilla" off TV on a VCR; an act the media companies fought long and hard to have made illegal in the late 70s/early 80s.
Please don't make it illegal to record things off TV. Please don't put a time limit on how long those recordings can be kept. If my mom had to get rid of "King Kong vs. Godzilla" after I watched it as a kid I would have been devastated and I would probably not have spent so much of my money on movies over the last decade and a half. Putting such restrictive controls on how one can use television recordings is a bad idea all around and I am sure the Government of Canada knows it as well as I do.
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
I am sure you have had the concept of disconnecting repeat filesharers' internet connections proposed to you at some point. This is complete insanity on so many levels and should not even be considered at all. Don't even go here. Just don't. No.
focal [2009-08-02 00:48] Nº du commentaire : 1263 Reply to: 1033
I fully support your points, albeit a bit lengthy.
You may find this (free) book interesting:
tyrell_turing [2009-09-01 03:05] Nº du commentaire : 2151 Reply to: 1033
This was a well thought-out comment and I hope the politicians crafting our new legislation pay attention to it.
However, I would point out that it is a bit disingenuous when people claim that downloading is a form of advertising that leads to increased sales. That is demonstrably not true for many people, myself included. The real worthwhile argument is the one you made by analogy with the horse and buggy. The entertainment industry must restructure itself as its current business model is broken, and no amount of punitive legislation is going to fix it for them. For example, as someone who downloads music, both legally and illegally, I would jump at the opportunity to pay a reasonable price for DRM free music. But, the music industry has been loathe to provide me with this service, and has instead only ever tried to sell me over-priced, DRM laced garbage. Consider this: a CD includes
15 songs and costs
$15, so just about a $1 a song. This presumably covers artists' fees, distributors, and all of the manufacturing and shipping costs. Yet iTunes wants to sell me songs at a $1 a piece that don't include any product to be manufactured or shipped. What? Where did the extra costs come from? The answer is, I believe, that they don't actually want to out-price CDs, because the various players in the industry have made it clear they don't want downloading to supplant CDs. But, it will and they can't stop it. I just hope the government forces them to realize this sooner rather than later by not giving in to the anti-competitive, anti-free-market concept of a government legislated cap on the use of technology.