test

I hear you lance...but the idea of Libs being in 'power' again to present the carbon tax sickens me, knowing that it won't only be carbon tax...it will be all the other mamby-pamby, airy-fairy silly Liberal amoral,socialistic, power tripping garbage.
Please let's do what we can NOW to get the attention of the CPC.I am replying to their request for funding with specifics about why I am not sending $$$ right now.
There is a certain group that will be effected by this. Majority of Canadians won't have a clue, therefore it could slipped by the radar. That in itself is evidence that supports your point. They are pandering to some small groups.

Well said lance - the Cons are proving out to be greasy politicians pandering to lobbyists - instead of a conservative party with the interests of Canadians first and foremost.

Withhold your donations, write your MP, and call the Cons out on proposing Bill C-61. Prentice is a lightweight - a low grade bureaucrat from the Indian Industry. What a shame that after having a year to get this out, he takes so little input from Canadians, and treats facts so lightly.

It doesn't matter who is cutting down your freedom - whether Librano or Con - your freedom is being eroded to secure a revenue stream for Big Business & their lobbyists.

Call Prentice on that.

I agree with bluetech. Since the CP's have got into power they have turned into to the Liberals. Liberals rarely returned email or letters now,good luck getting any response from any CPC MP's. They get told here every time they call looking for funding why I will not be renewing my membership. Sadly, the list of reasons is growing......

The Tories are most definitely on the wrong side of this issue. I have similarly questioned my loyalty to the party as a result of this bill.

It is lunacy to turn people into criminals for using products they have legimately bought. The technological provisions of this bill have to be amended to allow fair use.

"Given the lack of any concrete action regarding Section 13, given C-61's draconian anti-liberty statutes I will most likely be withholding, declining, or voiding my vote come the election."

Aww, cmon lance, use it to support your riding's Libertarian candidate. (That would be me...) With enough support we'll at least send a strong message to the current mainstream parties that Canadians will not continue to tolerate having their liberties squashed.

KS, email me, lance at catprint dot ca.

I have to agree the Conservatives are taking actions that I find troubling. So much so that I have now decided to just abstain from the next Federal election. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck no matter the name on the lable.

When the media plays through to the stereo amp system here, it can be recorded.

The computer line feeds through the amp system to hi-fi speakers.

Locks only prevent recording to CD on the computer. Correct? Once music reaches the Amp it can be recorded to tape and CD, if not directly to CD.

As long as there are music sources on the web, and there are millions, there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Don*t download music, just play it when in the mood and record your favourites.

In any case, I bought some CD and LP collections and have a lot of excellent music. Seldom have any urge to record much.

Vinyl is great BTW, you can lift the tone arm and easily replay a riff you want to get on the guitar. = TG

TG, the fact that you can play or record it isn't the point.

Anyone with an extended knowledge of computer programming can intercept data on it's way to the sound or video devices. Circumventing the digital "locks" while non-trivial is eminently doable.

The point is that this bill makes that action illegal. In fact, the above example is explicitly allowed but only if the researcher receives permission from content providers before doing the research. The bill makes it illegal to learn unless Disney gives you permission.

Ludicrous.

Cheers,
lance

"I will most likely be withholding, declining, or voiding my vote come the election. "

Big surprise there.

Are there any actual Conservatives in Canada?

Or just REALLY DRAMATIC secretly left wing people, who claim to be Conservative supporters but, in search of the perfect "burn", pick the most preposterously obscure of legislation upon which to claim, super uncredibly, that they simply cannot bring themselves to vote Conservative this time, as if their penchant for drama and inability to reason doesn't tip them off as Liberals to begin with?

The federal government of Canada is big. You have no idea how big. It spend two hundred and twenty five billion dollars a year, and enforces a really huge legal code and regulatory framework.

To pick one obscure piece of legislation and claim you are witholding your vote on that basis IS THE STUPIDEST GODDAMN THING I HAVE EVER $@%@$$#@ SEEN IN MY %$%$@#%$ LIFE PLEASE STOP DOING IT YOU ARE HARMING CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Logical Person: I am Conservative, will never vote liberal. BUT you must stand by your principals and the money pot is the only way to get their attention. The CP's seem to have a deaf ear lately, that's not good for Canada either.

"Given the lack of any concrete action regarding Section 13, given C-61's draconian anti-liberty statutes"

It isn't one obscure piece of legislation, it's everything else too. Look at bill C-51. Do you see any Canadians demanding herbal remedies be regulated? No. Do CPC cabinet ministers laugh at the idea it shouldn't be regulated despite the fact it hasn't been to this point and that hasn't really caused any major problems? Yes.

Give Me A Break.

I posted this 15 minites ago & the connection was lost. I appologize if I get a double posting.

For the last few months after watching the CPC I have come to the conclusion that I was a naive idiot to have thought they where different. I actually feel like a mark, with a lot of shame.
Its bills like this that they inch by inch kill our liberties for NGO's or lobby groups. Canada is just a laboratory attached to a bank called Canadians that they fund there insane scams with the populaces taxes, while they live outside the nut house there creating paying no tax.
Voting for the Liberals will hasten the fall of this Country. Its a good reason. Under the CPC where dying the death of a thousand cuts. This from a guy who was there when The Reform party was created. One of the most exciting nights of my life. Who knew the progeny of this movement would all be Ottawashed in 3 /12 years of political power. I have supported them all my life, hoping for real conversion of this Nation into a real democracy. More the fool me.

Instead we get the same fascist policies of the Crietian or Martin government. The populace is bad, criminals or adolescents according to the liberals Marxist or "SOFT fascism is the way. The conservative it seems have adopted this paradigm. For the moonbeams reading this , we do unlike you, get disgusted with liars , cheats & anti-democratic pandering fools. Which the Progressive CPC ids evolving into. They too think where all just children with the portion of our checks called "Lost revenue opportunities” they can’t tax yet, by these looters. Politician in this Nation have nothing but contempt of those they govern. Time for a New Canada with its freedoms back. With the courts & other parties in collusion over this bill or the HRC’s except for a dark comedy of a show they put on of lovers of freedom, while devouring its spirit. I think its time we replaced them all, or Alberta to leave for good as a Republic with our old bill of rights which of course was based on the American one.

We now see the majority we hoped for in the CPC will do nothing but consolidate yet another Party trying to bury us under the jackboot with a human face. Thank you MSM for allowing this mindset to flourish for 4o years. Now your losing freedom. No Senate seat will help you in the end. Your profession will be gutted. Who needs a free press or opinion in a Banana republic?

Lance, I must agree with you. If this was a one-off that would be one thing. But I don't really know where the conservatives are at these days. They have missed a lot of good opportunities to distinguish themselves from the Liberals.

- income splitting -> they have ignored the issue altogether

- seal hunt -> they let Loyola Hearn beat his chest about how wonderful the seal hunt is. The consequence: alienation of women voters en masse.

- animal cruelty -> Canada's laws are way out of date. Again, the consequence is alienation of women voters.

- Bill C-61 -> you nailed it on the head

- Bill C-51 -> why did they bother to stir that hornets nest?

And so on...

I still think Harper is one of the better Prime Minsters we've had in a long while, but as a party they are not executing well. And that's disappointing because the last thing on earth we need is another Liberal running the country.

Here is a write-up in the NP about C-61:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=590280

Revenant Dream ...I was there too. Do you recall Harper stating in his Vancouver speech that the west could not hold the "balance of power" in a divided parliament (this is what Preston was advocating)because the Liberals, NDP and the PC's were the "three heads of the same monster"!

Harper is now one of the heads and he was just liberal enough to get a minority. To win a majority he and his cabinet will become more liberal.

I have suggested before, send them $1000.00 cheques and then stop your cheques!
That will get you a phone call.

I am an original Reformer in Ontario.

We morphed to Canadian Alliance and then to the current Conservative party.

All well and good, so far.

I am truly uneasy about the HRC situation and now the copying issue pops up.

I have indicated to a CPC fund raiser from Ottawa (Sunday no less) that I am withholding my financial support until I see some solid action on the HRC debacle.

Artists are entitled to be compensated for their work, however once I have paid for their work, I should be entitled to reproduce it for my own use in any way I damned well choose, for free, LEGALLY!!

The copyright issue is far from law yet, therefore pressure can be brought to our conservative MP's in my view.

The Red Tory faction may be holding sway over Harper, so direct hard copy 'postage free' snail mail may be the best procedure, marked as "Pesronal and Private" to Stephen Harper to get his attention on these two issues.
It's time to crap or get off the pot as far as conservatism and less government is concerned.


On a slightly off topic issue, Harper should start getting his conservative message out( if he has any left) directly to Canadians by-passing the corrupt MSM entirely.

Because the native Reformers are getting restless.

I agree with some posters regarding the behavior of the government I voted for. However, I realize that no one, not even the PM, will be happy with everything done by the government. Politics is not clean and honorable. Idealism doesn't survive long when you must compromise in order to govern. For those who will vote for the Liberals over this issue (Abdication is a vote for "OTHER" likely Liberal as they are the only other party which stands a chance), don't be silly. A carbon tax is what you need. After all, wouldn't it be better to pay extra for everything than to break a law that is un-enforceable anyway?

Have any of you guys considered that this legislation will make it illegal to tune your car's engine?

Modern cars have encrypted code in their engine control computers. Its easy to crack, and there are lots and lots of after-market scanners/tuners out there to do exactly that. But, and this is where life starts to get interesting, you have to defeat the lame-o encryption if you want to change the values for your spark curve, spark advance, transmission shift points, fuel injection tables, knock sensor, blah blah blah.

Basically you either break the law, or you can't strap a supercharger on your engine. Or install water injection, or put on new exhaust headers and cylinder heads for some more horsepower, or upgrade your cam, or back off the ignition because its knocking, OR ANY DAMN THING AT ALL.

It ain't just about backing up you copy of Spiderman 3.

Then there's the whole "Who owns this machine?" question. If its mine, I can take it apart, hack the electronics, decode the software, copy the software, chop it, drop it, channel it, change it beyond all recognition and pretty much do anything I want. Because its MINE.

If there's some blanket legislation criminalizing me if I meddle with the innards of my DVD player, car, IPod or whatever, is it mine anymore? Or am I renting/leasing it? Did I buy the thing itself, or did I buy a limited-use license?

Do I want to be buying a limited use license on a car? How about a camera? Boat? DVD player? Computer?

Can I sell it again?

Now, having said all that, I think Lance is taking the Lazy Man's Way. The CPC did a bad thing, they suck, I'm not voting CPC anymore, whine moan mope woe is me.

You do not abandon your party when they do something stupid (and this is Big "S" Stupid). What you do is, you kick them in the balls until they fix it. You raise hell until the bone heads who made the decision are turfed out in disgrace and replaced with a guy who has a brain.

You insist on the ideology of Conservatism being applied. Smaller government, less regulations, lower taxes, get out of my face and out of my wallet. You find out who's responsible for this lapse, and you CHUCK THEM OUT.

Lance's way is for quitters. Its the reason the Liberals have run the show for 40 years my friends. Don't quit. Go get your Louisville Slugger, polish it up and take it to your Conservative Party meetings. Use it widely and well.

Very well stated Lance, the CPC sadly has their head up their arse again.

Phantom, I'm just guessing but I would bet Lance would vote for the CPC if they got their act together. Let's face it the alternatives really are awful.

What ticks me off however is that the Conservatives are missing even the easy opportunities. Why do we have to take time out of our busy schedules to hold their hands on easy opportunities?

Beating on your local MP may do some good, but it is the brains in the inner circle in the party that need to be replaced. And it's for Harper to take that action. We can make noise until the cows come home but if Harper isn't listening nothing will change.

Well said and good idea(s) KS.

"Liberty loving Conservatives? Not likely."

That's a new one, lance, where liberty means the unfettered right to someone else's private property.

There must be something to that definition of liberty, 'cause a lot of lefties certainly evince an excited feeling that that's exactly what liberty -- "freedom!" -- will mean, once they have their way.

C-61 addresses problems that have arisen directly from the technological abilities to reproduce and distribute copyrighted material. It had to come at some point. Thirty years ago, if someone wrote a university history text everyone poring over it had their hands on a copy of the book. Now, for everyone who's got the book there might be forty people who have a copy of it on their hard drive after someone scanned it in and passed it around.

In the last few years it's suddenly possible to amass a library of books and music that one never paid a penny for; how is that reasonable to the writers and artists? Forty years ago, if someone rigged up a printing press and banged out copies of a particular book, everyone would have understood that that was an infringement, yet now seemingly millions of people seem to think that by virtue of a newer, easier-to-use technology that makes it even easier to perform this action, that the fundamental nature of the infringement is somehow obviated. I mean, no one comes out and says that, because it's an impossible case to defend, so the new argument, as far as I can tell, is "I've been doing X, and you have too, right? -- yeah, right, I thought so -- so how can X be in any way wrong?'

I saw a local Health Reporter on CTV bald-assed stating that under the Conservative's new legislation on natural remedies, *vitamins* might be made illegal. What she was saying -- broadcasting, spreading -- was pure, absolute, pandering, lying crap, but there you go -- it's out there now. And I'm hearing a lot of the same insinuated misinformation about C-61. One commenter (not here) said that under the new legislation you could get arrested for recording a TV program, or for recording a CD on your computer for your own use, at which point other putative conservatives turned suddenly into hillbillies, acknowledging as gospel the specious hearsay they'd been hearing, perhaps so they'd look like they were up to speed on this "fascist", police-state legislation.

Just purely ridiculous. The sky is not falling; it's exactly where it was two weeks ago. The things that people typically do, like recording something they wish to view later, is not illegal at all unless the source is illegal, as in, you've stolen your neighbour's cable signal or bought the material from a bootlegger, which are illegal anyway.

Thank God for EBD.
One voice of sanity in this hysterical thread.

EBD, I explicitly stated that thieves should be punished. This goes so far beyond that it isn't even funny.

You're incorrect regarding the amendment not expanding illegalities. Section 41 explicitly states that circumventing _any_ "technological means" is going to be illegal. See Phantom's comment on unintended consequences.

Which means for you to read the following ROT13 is illegal because "I expressly deny EBD the rights to this paragraph."

V rkcerffyl qral ROQ gur evtugf gb guvf cnentencu.

Cheers,
lance

Even if you buy a CD and play it in a Mac (rather than a Windows based PC) you could be breaking this law because all anti-priacy software on CDs is designed to work on Windows not a Mac ...

With Harpers NCC background and clear thinking, and talking, back in 87 at the birth of "Reform" we should not have to persuade him of the correctness and traditional observable truths, directing conservative thought and the positive outcomes they achieve.

I thought he was a believer, a statesman, but he is proving to be a politician…having surrounded himself with Mulroney insiders and red Tory hacks.

If he truly believed in the “conservative/ libertarian” view of the world he would not find it necessary to please and pander to the left while ignoring the concerns of western duck hunters etc. Telling us to be patient…shucks…we brought him to the dance!!

Sorry “logical person” but you are not logical… this is not a hockey game, where we support “our team” no matter how dirty they play. This is far more serious than that, it’s about liberty. If there were less people with your attitude out here then perhaps we would get phone calls not asking for financial support, but rather to ask us what they can do for us today to decrease the influence of government…or what they can do to make us freer!! Or how they can get out of our way!

So far all I have received is the former…they need the cash to buy more support in the “Golden Triangle”!

When and if they get it…guess who will set the agenda?

"The things that people typically do, like recording something they wish to view later, is not illegal at all unless the source is illegal, as in, you've stolen your neighbour's cable signal or bought the material from a bootlegger, which are illegal anyway."

Unless, of course, you're recording digital content, and the broadcaster doesn't wish for you to view it later. (See: broadcast flag)

More to the point, the government is admitting that this is the case in plain English:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01161e.html
"Limitations [on private copying]:. . .You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make the copy."

Thanks for the reasonable comments EBD: "Just purely ridiculous. The sky is not falling; it's exactly where it was two weeks ago. "

My EDA is holding it's AGM next month as well as a Delegation selection meeting. I think I will attend an speak to the people who can do something about it. The Administration arm of the CPC is not firmly joined at the hip to the Political arm. There is a disconnect there. The CPC will be a dead party before the news gets passed on. If you feel strongly about this go personally to your EDA office and talk to the staff there or your MP.

When you have a service complaint at McDonald's do you complain to the floor sweeper or the restaurant manager?

Luckily the Conservatives don't need you.

They have an easy majority.

All of the media really likes them.

The country has a history of Conservative govts.

The Senate is a chamber of sober second thought.

The courts are very Conservative oriented.

Canadians are well informed and politically savvy.

The school system oozes Conservativeness from start to finish.

Conservatives are well known for cohesiveness and team play.

Nice guys finish first in politics.

The Conservative Party has a long history of singing from the same songbook.

Stephen Harper never said he would have to govern just like the Liberal Party.

Stephen Harper never said change would be slow and incremental.

There is never "the rest of the story".

Are you people NEW?

Lance's way is for quitters. Its the reason the Liberals have run the show for 40 years my friends. Don't quit. Go get your Louisville Slugger, polish it up and take it to your Conservative Party meetings. Use it widely and well.Posted by: The Phantom at June 17, 2008 2:28 PM

Nonsense Phantom. Total bull. A conservative party, and conservative government introduces ideologically coherent legislation.

This ain't a one-off. The Reds have eaten the party, its' all over.

The disappointment I felt when Harper appointed an un-elected Conservative Party bagman to the Senate and Cabinet - said it all.

I had hoped for change, for positive improvements, and for leadership.

We got a pamphlet, selective tax breaks, the largest increase in federal spending in the history of the nation, and ongoing operational issues like the unjust treatment of Caledonians by their government, of Kate & Shaidle by the HRC's. The Cons are in charge, and have proven to be of no significant difference than the Libranos.

Reform II is coming. Bet on it. And if it takes another decade in the wilderness for the Cons to get it, so be it. It is better to live the ideology one believes in, than to live a lie.

Are you people NEW? Posted by: summom bonum at June 17, 2008 3:44 PM

Who was driving the turnip truck you just fell off of?

Libranos can form a big tent because they lack morals, ideological guidance, and will broker ethnic votes with tax dollars shamelessly.

When the Cons start diverging from their base ideology, they ARE the Libranos. That's the point.

This is incredibly odd. On his blog Michael Geist wrote that

"Bill C-61 explicitly prohibits recording internet-only broadcasts (Section 29.23 (3))."

But C-61 says exactly the opposite. 29.23 (1) spells out restrictions and conditions for recording a broadcast, then 29.23 (3) says that subsection (1) does not apply to Internet broadcasts.

Maybe I need my eyes checked, or I'm not parsing something correctly, but it seems to me that Geist is saying something that is flat-out false.

So, hardboiled, when the Conservatives move to protect private property, that means "the reds have eaten the party"?

Aren't the "reds" the ones opposed to private property?

If the Liberals get back in power and finish the job they started with PET, we can thank putative conservatives who'll gladly -- noisily, while standing on a chair -- cut off their nose to spite their face.

Sheeesh.

I forgot one.

Liberals never pretend to be hardboiled Conservatives and quit loudly at the first opportunity.

Just purely ridiculous. The sky is not falling; it's exactly where it was two weeks ago Posted by: EBD at June 17, 2008 2:59 PM

That's right man. Just lay back, close your eyes, and think of nothing. Better? That's good.

And don't mind that ISP's will be obligated by law to perform deep packet inspection on all of your transmissions. All of them. Everything you send, and will recieve.

Just lay back, close your eyes, and think of nothing. Better? That's good. Nice and easy.

(...nice cost shifting there of enforcement too...wonder who is going to pay for that? any ideas?)

So, hardboiled, when the Conservatives move to protect private property, that means "the reds have eaten the party"?Posted by: EBD at June 17, 2008 3:54 PM

Not at all. And I strongly believe in stopping theives. This legislation is poorly written, and not in the best interests of Canadians. That's all.

And its' part of a larger trend in the party. Whether its' incrementalism, or whatever, this is not Conservative legislation. that's all.

A couple of points on this topic.

1. When you consider what passes for music and movies these days, I don't know why anyone is working so hard to have access to that crap anywhere anytime and under any circumstances. I suggest this may be a good time to get back to reading books. On average there are more books worth reading that there are movies worth watching. Who cares ... really? It's all crap!

2. Stephen Harper and his party are not what I consider to be conservative. They may have started out that way, but they are in Ottawa now and they have caught that power virus that makes politicians even more stupid than they already are.

The CPC have lost my vote long ago. If they get rid of the CHRC and the gun registry, I will consider coming back. Meanwhile I will vote for an obscure party if there is one running other than the Liberals, NDP or Greens.

EBD, Section 29.23(1) defines where it is legal to copy a communications signal, 29.23(3) excludes internet only broadcasts from being covered by 29.23(1).

Cheers,
lance

It would be highly instructive, and helpful, if those who make claims about what C-61 says would refer to the specific section of the bill that says that rather than to the avalanche of hearsay on the issue.

Fortunately lance has provided the direct link to C-61, so it's not hard to find the back-up for any assertion. If we quote the applicable section, then reasonable discussion can begin.

Hardboiled, you said that if C-61 passes "ISPs will be obligated by law to perform deep packet inspections of all your transmissions. All of them. Everything you send, and will receive."

That's what you're saying, and I have no doubt that someone else had said that somewhere else. But shouldn't you you find and provide the section of the act that says that? Do you know what I'm saying? I'm not saying it's not IN there, I'm just saying that I can't find it.
A lot of the more ominous-sounding statements flying around seem, when you read the legislation, like either incorrect interpretations, utter falsehoods and and/or gross overstatement. This diffuse rage has turned into a rolling wildfire of uninformed scaremongering.

There IS going to be a public consultation, BTW. Breathe.

Anyhoo, why NOT refer to the section of the legislation that backs up what you claim it says? It's sitting right there, for everyone, and yet somehow, for SOME reason....

Ahem.

You may not want to hear this, but paying a carbon tax and abdicating more of your liberties are not mutually exclusive. You could get both.

Lance,

Yes I hear you, yet I refuse to be much concearned because asking Disney, Microsoft or anyone *Permission* is outside most Canadian*s idea of normal.

Life is too short for *sillystuff*.

Canadians are simply resouceful.

If I buy it, I own it, I make all the copies I want to as long as I do not sell any. = TG

I don't know lance, I don't think so, lance, but I've been wrong before -- why, I remember, I believe it was back in the spring of '82...

Section 29.23(1) says that six particular conditions must be met in order for a recording to be considered legal. 29.23(3) says 29.23(1) does not apply to Internet programs. Hmm. Interpretationville.

Unlike TV, say, almost all internet programs one listens are, by definition, recorded, in that even if you aren't downloading the show your computer buffers the information so that you can easily -- in all instances I've ever been aware of -- replay the event again, as long as your computer hasn't been shut down. I assume this is why they exempted -- IMO, in my interpretation -- internet broadcasts from any restrictions on recording.

I don't know. Any bureaucrat lawyers out there who can parse or explain that section?

EBD: This government published site makes it very clear what the intent of the bill is in plain English.

I just can't post a link here since it goes straight to the spam filter. Google "copyright reform" and read any of the "limitations" sections under "fact sheets"

Yeah, the gun registry is still here. This one is hard to argue.

Done, KS; Which particular passage do you consider to be a harbinger of bad news in some self-evident way? You don't need to give the link, but could you type out or cut and paste the passage(s) you refer to?

There's a lot of allusions to there being somethin' in the woodshed, as it were, and perhaps there is, but...

EBD:

# You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make the copy.

# You could not make a copy of a song that has been downloaded from the Internet and where you have entered into a contract that governs the extent to which you may make copies of the song. In such cases, the terms of the contract would prevail.

# Creators would have a wide range of legal remedies in relation to the digital locks they may use, including:
...criminal remedies in certain cases

All current fair use rights are overriden by these limitations.

What a revolting country. Grown men and women looking for any excuse they can find, the more asinine the better apparently, to *not* vote for a conservative party. Ugh.

Will the Liberals become the first party in world history elected on a promise to introduce a huge new tax?

During a period of negative real GDP growth?

Oh yeah. Canada is easily gross enough to pull that off.

EBD: This provision under Format-Shifting is even more blunt:

# With respect to audiovisual material such as films, the format-shifting provision would apply only to videocassettes and would not allow you to make copies of material stored on other media, such as DVDs.

Because DVDs contain a digital lock... savvy?

Not voting at all is not punishing the Conservatives but helping the Liberals.

Okay, thanks KS -- that's useful because it's tangible and overt.

Let me ask you a few questions:

"You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make the copy." If you choose to buy a product that is explicitly copy-protected -- locked -- do you think it should be considered perfectly legal to pick the lock, as it were?

2. "You could not make a copy of a song that has been downloaded from the Internet and where you have entered into a contract that governs the extent to which you may make copies of the song. In such cases, the terms of the contract would prevail." If you enter into a contract stating that if you purchase X you may not copy it, on what basis, legally or morally, do you believe you should have a legal right to copy it?

3. "Creators would have a wide range of legal remedies in relation to the digital locks they may use, including:...criminal remedies in certain cases." Are you saying that there should be no legal remedies against someone who picks a lock to make counterfeit copies of copyright material?

These aren't rhetorical questions, obviously.

Huzzah for SDA. I was wondering if a story like this would get posted here, and it reinforces my faith that SDA is a non-partisan blog.

As to C-61, it's total balls. It's the American's version of DMCA with a bunch of extra bells and whistles that the recording industry has successfully stuffed in there.

I'm just so sick of the way intellectual property and copyright are going these days. As a computer scientist myself, it drives me absolute up the wall when companies sell software as "licenses", or other such BS to preserve their right to control what you do with a product YOU purchased. There's currently a bill going through the U.S. senate that would allow kill switches to be inserted into legally bought products that if the company felt that the user was using their product in an unauthorized manner, they could shut it down, possibly creating a scenario where mission-critical data is now inaccessible.

It's just all the more reason to support the Open Source movement, open source formats (odf isntead of ooxml), organizations like the Mozilla foundation (remember to download today to help them break the world record for the most number of downloads in a single day!), and other such initiatives that seek to improve the internet, as well as improve accessibility to information.

EBD: Regarding 29.23. If you look to the left of 29.23(3) in the link to Bill you'll notice the word, "Limitation".

I'm not sure, but Limitation in my dictionary means a limit on the rights granted, no?

With regards to the Internet Service Providers monitoring your stuff, read 41.26(1)(b). Here it is:

(b) retain records that will allow the identity of the person to whom the electronic location belongs to be determined, and do so for six months beginning on the day on which the notice of claimed infringement is received or, if the claimant commences proceedings relating to the claimed infringement and so notifies the person before the end of those six months, for one year after the day on which the person receives the notice of claimed infringement.

Now, the ISP in this case is someone that "An owner of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter may send a notice of claimed infringement to a person who provides" (41.25*) and on receipt of that notice, the ISP must inform the end-user and monitor the end user.

This is a power that our police don't even have without a court order.

Cheers,
lance

EBD,

The problem is that the digital media business itself has become an exceedingly controlling entity that wants to govern exactly what I do with a product that I have purchased. I have no recourse because in almost all cases I have no alternatives, and as a result, can't vote with my wallet.

Now, as to contracts, sure, they're legal, but imagine this:

You buy a car and sign a contract. Let's assume that all cars are signed under this specific contract. In the contract it says you're not allowed to ever modify your vehicle; you're not allowed to fix it, add to it, take from it, sell it, lease it to someone else, rent it to someone else, or essentially do anything except drive it.

In such a case I'm sure you'd agree that the terms of the contract are onerous, but indeed, you have no alternatives, so you're completely out of luck.

In the case of open source software like the various distributions of Linux out there, they use software that is free. They do not use software that requires licenses, which some media formats require for decoding. So that essentially means that no one using Linux is allowed to watch their own DVD's that they have purchased.

Once again, the recording industry and the film industry are trying to dictate to me how I use a product I've BOUGHT. It's MINE. I can do whatever the hell I want with it. When I buy a book I don't agree to read it only in my home, I can read it anywhere. So why can't I watch or listen to my digital media on any medium I choose?

What a revolting country. Grown men and women looking for any excuse they can find, the more asinine the better apparently, to *not* vote for a conservative party. Ugh. (logical person)

That's right...logically...cause there isn't one!

Your so easily fooled!

EBD,

My belief is that intellectual property shouldn't be given a legal status greater than real property.

I have no problem with this law with respect to renting/leasing media.

As a libertarian, however, I see no value in any law explicitly prohibiting certain private uses of something I have purchased the rights to (in this case playback of a movie) in perpetuity. There are only two options if this is the case: 1. The law doesn't get enforced (making it useless). 2. Nanny state intervention. Obviously I am vehemently opposed to option #2.

If a hardware store sold me a shovel and included 'terms and conditions' on it's receipt that it couldn't be used in anything but shale after I took possession of it, the free market would laugh that hardware store out of existence.

So perhaps in the end we just need to have more faith in the free market here, however, I don't believe that justifies implementing this law in the first place.

Just wondering, what is forcing all of you to spend you money on CDs, and DVDs anyway? This is beside the point, but if you don't like the laws that the industry is pushing, and the quality of the content is declining, why are you still paying?

It seems to me the whole copyright discussion is moot if people are not buying the content in the first place. There is nothing in the law saying each citizen will henceforth have to buy 75 CDs a year to fatten industry.

You want industry to suffer for foisting onerous rules on you? Then make industry suffer. I am sure that after a few months of zero sales, they will take a more conciliatory approach. You have the power to affect change, and it does not even require you to move from your easy chair, all you have to do is nothing.

Lance, 41.26 begins by saying that an internet provider who receives notice of claimed copyright infringement will (a) either forward the infringer's IP addy to the person alleging the infringement, or, if applicable, explain why it's not possible to do so, and (b) "retain records that will allow the identity of the person to whom the electronic location belongs to be determined, and to do so for six months beginning on the day on which the notice if claimed infringement is received..."

There's a million people out there watching YouTubes and sharing the odd tune and so on. IF an entity goes to the considerable expense of initiating legal action, it would likely be because the target had been widely distributing explicitly copyrighted material; the provision you refer to merely lets the copyright holder or agents find out the identity of the unauthorized distributer. This, I suggest, is a far cry from the onerous "I seen somethin' in the woodshed" case made above, and which I questioned, that we'll all be inspected for unauthorized uses, and that we'll be subject to, quote "Deep packet inspections of all your transmissions. All of them. Everything you send, and will receive."

Sorry, but that's just pure, prurient scaremongering BS. First of all, the person or entity who is making a legal case that their copyright has been violated has to take legal action first before the less-than-ominous actions you mentioned are taken; then the copyright violator's identity, or address, and not their emails, say, will be made available to the person bringing the action. This identification is not remarkable, and does not set a new precedent. Anyone who commits some other, different legal violation online, say, engaging in outright, malicious lying slander, can certainly be identified. And the IDing of him doesn't mean at all that everyone else on earth will have big brother reader all their emails.

Barjebus, you wouldn't buy a car that you were contractually not allowed to fix, or use as you see fit, but if you did, you would be agreeing to that contract. The more salient point is that as long as there was a free market, and private property, other companies selling cars without such ridiculous contracts attached would drive the ridiculous company out of business.

You refer to "a product I've BOUGHT. It's MINE. I can do whatever the hell I want with it" -- So, if you buy a printing press -- it's yours, you own it, you bought it -- can you use it to print twenty dollar bills?

When are we going to treat intelectual property like patents? After so many years,public domain.Besides that Mr.Trudeau said that we havent got property rights.They are not in the constution.The movie and music industry are based in the USA where they do have property rights.Welcome to Canada.

"What ticks me off however is that the Conservatives are missing even the easy opportunities. Why do we have to take time out of our busy schedules to hold their hands on easy opportunities?"

I couldn't read all of the comments so I'm not sure if something along these lines has been said. There is no need to jump the gun on major divisive issues at this time, S.Harper virtually has a majority already, rocking the boat will jepardize this. As long as the CPC keep passing common sense bills (i.e. crime, tax breaks) the CPC can carry on with government, while at the same time create a positive track record showing they can govern. One of the difficulties the Reform/CPC had in the past is the criticism that they are inexperienced, this has been quashed. This copyright bill sucks, but like others said, this is not the battle to die on. The Lib's and the rest can only hope that a fu-bar like this can break the conservative alliance. Get out and vote for the best party out there, period. If that is Lib or NDP for you so be it, but don't P***y out because you can't handle the game plan.

Yes, what's the difference what party is in power if they are all going to do the same things. Some will simply do it faster than others, but in the end they are all scum bags who are doing whatever they have to do to keep their cushy jobs. The usually means moving to the left more and more each day.

None of them are there to serve the interests of their conservative constituents, so why should I waste my time going out to cast a ballot for someone who doesn't care. I cannot even get my MP to return an email or a phone call. We have tried several times to just get his view on a given issue.

Screw them all. I think the Hells Angels have it right. They just do whatever the hell they want and get rich doing it. Perhaps thats the best model for the joke of a country that Canada has become.

Other than reduce the GST what the hell has the Harper government done that is conservative or even profound in nature. Not much. They did break the income trust promise. So far the gun registry is in place. Now they are going along with the so called arts community to protect their mediocre products. Big deal. Those idiots who steal music, music and other software will continue to do so, because, as usual, there will be no deterrents that matter.

Even the USA has no conservatives left in the running. They have a foolish old man whose views are softening with age and a really dumb shit young Negro who wants to take down capitalism.

It seems the only truly conservative counties left are in the Middle East. No gun registries there, no gay marriage there, no drug dealers running wild there. The weather looks a lot better too.

EBD,

You made a fundamental mistake:

"The more salient point is that as long as there was a free market, and private property, other companies selling cars without such ridiculous contracts attached would drive the ridiculous company out of business."

That's the problem, regardless of how free our market is, this is government legislation saying that if you own digital media, it cannot be copied more than X number of times, or that it cannot be viewed under Linux, or that you cannot do this or that with it. Regardless of what services or products get offered, these laws will still exist. I will still be committing a crime by performing them. Now, a company may decide they don't agree with that, and won't pursue legal action against such people that decide to break the terms of a GOVERNMENT legislated contract, but that doesn't change the fact that I've still got a sword hanging over my head.

My question is why are you so obsessed with upholding restrictions on digital media? What makes it so different from other forms of media, other property that I purchase that allows others to dictate it's exact use to me? Why would you intentionally support the business practice of locking people into using their products in the manner they desire, restricting your free use rights? What consumer ever would support such things?

As to the printing press, what you're describing is fraud and counterfeiting. What I'm describing is called "fair use". What I'm describing is the fair and equitable use of a product that I've purchased for myself, and having a desire to not be restricted as to where I can copy it, or what I can do with it (outside of actually distributing it or what have you).

So let's get this straight.
Lance thinks that because his pet issues are not getting the treatment he wants them to get suggests that it is better to vote for the Kleptocrats who are responsible for 99% of the problems we have to deal with today.

I want what I want and I want it now! Says Lance or else.....

Think about it.

And speaking of rights - we have a Eastern Ontario township who are basically violating their residences and their businesses by passing a by-law which requires that their signage must be "bilingual" - even though its owner may only have English only or French only employees.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=e248b488-03ec-4c70-b859-2ff634915e6b

The zeolots have this disease that just keeps spreading and spreading.

The new copyright law has been discussed here so I thought i would point out the hypocrisy of the Canadian media industry.

If it is wrong to get something that you did not pay for then it must also be wrong to force people to pay for something they do not want. Yet this is the basis of the entire Canadian entertainment industry. From the CBC to the Canadian Recording Industry to Telefilm Canada, etc. they are all reaching into the taxpayers pocket.

It seems to me the message here is that their attitude is what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine.

Indiana,

"Get out and vote for the best party out there, period. If that is Lib or NDP for you so be it, but don't P***y out because you can't handle the game plan."

Personally, I'll be doing that. The problem is that none of the Conservatives, Liberals, or NDP give two hoots about liberty. And voting your conscience for any smaller party is criticized by a lot of people as either 'splitting the vote' or 'wasting your vote'. The main parties have absolutely no incentive to give a damn what real Canadians want and they know it.

Barjebus, C-61 is to protect copyright, I though. Are you saying there's something in it that says you can't copy something I give or sell to you even if you have my permission to do so? I mean, what if I say, "here's the master CD of a record I made, make me a thousand copies?" -- is that now banned, i.e. are you saying the government is legislating that digital media cannot be copied more than X number of times?

You said earlier that, once you've bought something, it's yours to do with as you please, and then and I brought up the example of a printing press, how owning one does not make you legally entitled to print up wads of twenty dollar bills. You said that that's different, because that would be illegal, i.e. it's illegal because you acknowledge that it's illegal. Whereas if you do something illegal that you deem legal, as in "What I'm describing is the fair and equitable use of a product that I've purchased for myself", then the law no longer applies?

I must admit here that, as someone who purchases the music I want to hear, and the (non-open source) software I use, I don't necessarily understand why multiple copying past a certain point is even necessary, so I'm likely missing something.

Anyhoo, black skies here, extreme thunderstorm warning on EC website, UPS already beeping and clicking, plus I'm on a rural grid -- pretty much always adds up to "no power"...

Snuck this last one in here. Haha!
...

Lance, this thread does not interest me too much because like a lot of people I find the current output of music and movies to be mostly crap, the idea of copying any of it is repugnant. Perhaps I am missing the primary issue.

What I am curious about is the tax that the Libranos put on all tapes, disks, recordable CDs, DVDs, iPods etc this was rationalized on the basis it would offset losses to Canadian artists from legitimate copying eg I copy my store bought CD so that I can have a copy in the car as well as in the living room. It was the brain child of Sheila Copps. Will this tax be rescinded?

I also have a request, this thread has unearthed a vein of dissatisfaction with CPC policy from current supporters, it would be interesting to me (and many others I hope) if you could open a thread where posters could enumerate these issues. Conservative MPs monitor this site, I think they need to understand the depth of ill-will they have unleashed by not promoting a conservative agenda.

"...Alberta to leave for good as a Republic ...

Fat chance Lance. This province couldn't even bat 500 in the last election, giving "fast Eddie" and his gang carte blanche with a majority consisting of just 25% of the eligible vote! Only 41% even bothered to vote! Albertans are just another herd of sheep, headed for the abbatoir.

The poli's are right - Canadians are the biggest, stupid, bone-headed, vapid waste of air, feed and water on the planet. They deserve to be "gulaged" by these cretins we call polititians.

I hope that Deeyawn gets in and implements his carbon tax, whatever, because finally, maybe the sheep will realize they are being hosed and reach our "Boston Tea Party" revelation. Until then, watch the show.

Yes OMMAG, do what I want or don't receive my vote. That's exactly what I'm saying. Good for you in understanding the basic concept of democracy.

You wouldn't give Layton your vote would you?

The fact that I've advocated for the CPC, supported the CPC, volunteered for the CPC and voted for the CPC in the past has nothing . . . nothing to do with the next election.

The CPC isn't and hasn't acted like the party I thought it was, oops, my bad. Fortunately I get the opportunity to correct that mistake.

Yeah, it's a pet issue for me. So was C-68 for gun owners, so are the HRC's for free-speechers; pet issues define how we vote. Indeed, they polarize votes. You get idiots like me posting blackmail on blogs, going through Bills line by line and being revolted.

How many Liberals are second-thinking the HRC's? The Gun Law? Oops, too late.

I can't stop C-61 from happening. Kelly Block (the CPC nominee here) isn't even elected and Carol is retiring. The Libs have Dion and that idiot will sell his mother to cover his debts before he brings down the gov't.

The only thing I can do is stop doing what I did before to support those whose _actions_ are at odds with my principles. I can only ensure the people I don't agree with don't get my $1.75/yr.

Just like everyone else.

Cheers,
lance

"I mean, what if I say, "here's the master CD of a record I made, make me a thousand copies?" -- is that now banned, i.e. are you saying the government is legislating that digital media cannot be copied more than X number of times?"

You're being deliberately ignorant. It's been stated many times that if a recording company puts digital locks on their CD's, not matter how trivial, then you are not allowed to copy that music to your computer, to your ipod, to another CD, or to any other medium for any other reason. This is a violation of fair use policy which attempts to allow me to do what I please with a product I purchase.

If it is in fact not a purchase, and I am merely licensing the music or video, then there's a whole host of other taxes and other hoops that media organizations will be required to jump through. It's got to be one or the other; either I own my music and videos or I don't.

"You said earlier that, once you've bought something, it's yours to do with as you please, and then and I brought up the example of a printing press, how owning one does not make you legally entitled to print up wads of twenty dollar bills. You said that that's different, because that would be illegal, i.e. it's illegal because you acknowledge that it's illegal."

Again, you're being redundant. The definition of fraud and counterfeiting is ripping off someone else's work and selling it, or gaining money through misleading means. Buying an album and putting it on my computer is no such thing, and neither is cracking a DVD's proprietary format so I can watch my DVD's on a linux box. The reason I deem those to be "legal" acts, and believe that they shouldn't be "illegal", is that these restrictions are ridiculous and serve no purpose other than to restrict our civil liberties so that the recording industry or the film industry (or cable tv and all those others who will benefit from this) can treat property that I BUY as something I'm licensing or entering into a contract with.

Your Darn Right Lance. This Bill is Pure Lunacy. What happend to the CPC that would stand for more Freedoms?

I was going to vote for the CPC in my first Federal election, But now I don't know what to do.

Wordsworth?
...-

"What are words worth - an AP Analysis [fun with the cost-per-word numbers]

So, the AP has now riposted to The Brouhaha with a re-post of its pricing for quoting its words (see here for the price tabs):

There are 3 rates - For Profits, Educationals, and Registered not for profits. The Educationals and Not for Profits have the same pricing. I will now perform my own value-added analysis, which last time I looked qualifies as Fair Usage. If you graph the rates, it looks like this:"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2032488/posts

Many of the posters here sound like people several centuries ago who objected to enclosure.

"That's common property! We have the right to go there and graze our sheep!"

Many here simply can't understand that we are moving into a new world, as those several hundred years ago did, where property is more precisely defined.

Private property is an essential component of a civilized and successful society.

We must protect intellectual property just as we protect real property and we forbid slavery. After all, to take the fruit of another's labour, without their permission, is theft.

"After all, to take the fruit of another's labour, without their permission, is theft."

And demanding another payment for something you've already sold to a private individual because you think they might be using it in a way you didn't intend for is extortion.

Quite the exchange. Barjebus, you had written -- verbatim -- "This is government legislation saying that if you own digital media, it cannot be copied more than X number of times."

I believed that to be untrue, and asked "Are you saying that the government is legislating that digital media cannot be copied more than X number of times?"

You replied: "You're being deliberately ignorant. It's been stated many times that if a recording company puts digital locks on their CDs...then you are not allowed to copy that..."

Legislation giving content producers the long overdue right, IF THEY WISH, to try to prevent unauthorized reproduction of their product is not legislation saying that digital media cannot be copied more than X number of times. Just trying to point that out.

quid pro quo (maybe)

Bill C-61 stinks for all the reasons posted above. It is a regressive piece of legislation that is closing the barn door after the fact. Technology has made media available and transferable across many formats. This cannot be undone. The Genie is out of the bottle.It is poor law as I can't see it being enforced.
I hated to see the Conservatives wearing this albatross around their neck for the summer while the Libs are selling a carbon tax fraud.
However;
This may have been necessary to take on the major players in the cell phone industry. Rogers, Bell et al have been fighting and lobbying against the deregulation of this market.Increased competion is going to cut into their profit margin big time. They want to "rent" media out via wireless to make up for this shortfall.

I can put up with the stink of this bill if it cracks open the wireless market in Canada. C-61 had better serve a greater purpose due to its very bad optics. This bill will have more sticking power in the minds of youth than any taxation issue, hence the bad optics regarding the Conservatives.

G

This is the common problem with DRM EBD.

Think of a line, where at one end, there's no piracy, and at the other end, almost everything gets pirated.

Now, on that same line, at the end where there is no piracy, you've also got most of your customer base alienated because of ridiculous content controls. For example, the game Mass Effect previously proposed that the game must be validated online every 10 days to continue playing it, even though you've already paid for your copy of the game and have a right to play it any time you like.

They decided to relax that after users by their thousands objected to it, and instead allowed users to install it 3 times, and after that your copy became locked. Now, those three installs can be used up very quickly since even changing your hardware (i.e. swapping your video card for a new one, or getting a new motherboard) can cause one of those installs to be subtracted.

The end result? People who are pissed off and unable to play, and you know what? Pirated copies of the game are everywhere on the internet, with tons of easy ways that even the stupidest user can circumvent the copyright controls.

Here's another example of horrible DRM lock in: Microsoft is shutting down it's online music service. Every song sold from them has DRM keys associated with your machine and your OS. If you want to put it on a new OS (like switching from XP to Vista, or Linux to something else), you need to log in, and get a key. The only problem is that now the service is being shut down, along with the key generating service. So, if anyone ever changes their operating system, gets a new hard drive or new hardware, or wants to play their music from a new computer; they cannot. They are ROBBED of their music.

So is it little wonder that I will never in my life under any circumstances support DRM? Preventing unauthorized copies from being distributed has NEVER worked. Let me repeat this for you: Not once in the history of software has copyright protections ever stopped piracy, or prevented people from gaining access so as to distribute that music for free or for profit.

All it ever does is make criminals out of the legitimate users, the one's who run linux, or get hooked into a DRM scheme and then lose their music, so they just go on bittorrent and download it, and then get a law suit brought against them!!! It's outrageous.

"Legislation giving content producers the long overdue right, IF THEY WISH, to try to prevent unauthorized reproduction of their product is not legislation saying that digital media cannot be copied more than X number of times"

Yes they are saying that. They're saying if the distribution company doesn't want their CD to be copied onto a computer from a legitimate owner (so I can play it on my computer or iPod) that it's illegal to do that if they don't want you to do that. They don't have to encrypt anything, they don't have to make any special schemes...all they say is that there's one bit on the disc that says whether it should be allowed to be ripped to the computer. If that's flagged, and you rip it, then you're breaking the law for putting your OWN music on your computer.

If I buy a DVD and bring it home and put it on my video iPod so I can watch it on the go, that's illegal. I've just broken the law according to this new legislation. This is not fear mongering, this is not scare tactics, it is part of the explicit provisions of this legislation.

I'd just like to point out to you Lance that your choice of operating systems is why you can't play DVDs. It was YOUR choice to run linux. And it's the linux community's choice to not pay the licensing fee in order to offer a legal DVD player for the platform. Breaking the encryption in order to play it on linux is still a violation of the copyright, even if you're not profiting from it. Am I allowed to hack a Nintendo product because it doesn't run on my Playstation? The answer is no. That being said, what you do with your DVDs in the privacy of your own home is your own business, and I don't think you would need to worry about being prosecuted unless you're sharing with others.

Lance ... I'll bet that if you go think about it for a few days you'll see that turning your back is not the solution.

Your choice... sit in the peanut gallery and bitch or get your licks in at the party!

You say "The fact that I've advocated for the CPC, supported the CPC, volunteered for the CPC and voted for the CPC in the past has nothing . . . nothing to do with the next election."

I notice you don't say that you joined the EDA and put yourself up as a director. Did you go to a convention? Did you participate in policy discussions? Did you participate in candidate selection?

If not then I suggest that's what you might try.

And just for the record I am frustrated by the policy positions we are getting from the Harper Government as well and I've told my MP Bruinooge that I may not be continuing my support. Like you I can make him think about the consequences of sitting around and going along with bad decisions.

Unlike you I will be supporting another candidate in another riding by working to get him elected.

It's a long long way from being time to give this incarnation of the PC's the Mulroney treatment and the options are simply giving up and allowing things to return to that intolerable past.

Everyone in Canada is going to be a criminal thanks to the new legislation. Do you know a single person over the age of 5 who doesn't own an MP3, CD or DVD player? And who doesn't play *any* copied or downloaded content? I don't. They want to ding people $500 for copying a song that would cost $1 to download. They will want powers to spy on everybody so they can enforce their draconian law. That will mean expanded powers of eavesdropping, search and seizure, etc. Probably they will introduce and widely promote a toll-free number so everyone can inform on everyone else. And introduce mandatory classroom curricula teaching kids from J-K on up the joys of turning in friends and family members with illicit DVD-cracking software.

They're turning everyone into criminals, threatening people with draconian punishments for trivial crimes and to have any hope of enforcing the laws they will have to turn the country into a nation of police, spies and informers. Not too authoritarian.

I can't stand that bunch of crooked, thieving rats called the Liberal Party, or their leftie buddies the Greens, Dippers or Blocs. I would just as soon vote "None of the above". But on the balance I think that the gang of Liberal mafiosi are wee bit more intelligent, more practical and less destructive than the lunatic would-be fascists running the Conservative Party.

You know why Canada is such a screwed up place? It's cause you've got the *worst* human beings in the country organizing themselves into opposing political associations and then tag-teaming the populace with headbutts and dropkicks.

"OK I'll pay your stupid carbon tax, just stop spying on me and stop threatening to throw Grandma in jail for playing that CD I made for her!"

barjebus, nobody ever said that you can't view DVDs under linux. All that is required is for someone to write a DVD player application, and pay the required licensing fee. But for some reason, the linux community refuses to do this, instead preferring to hack the DVD format in order to play it. This is a choice made by the linux community, not something that is being forced on them by government legislation.

Hobson's Choice: "They're turning everyone into criminals"

uh, pirating or downloading is the exact same as shoplifting. It's not the law that's turning people into criminals, it's the anonymity of pirating that is turning people into criminals. How bad would shoplifting be if stores were unattended and operated on the honour system?

I understand that Linux was my choice Pete. I understand that I have to wait until some ingenious Norwegian manages to reverse engineer the encryption scheme on xyz product before I'll be able to watch/listen/read it.

What I don't understand is why my doing that makes me a criminal.

That's the issue, it isn't that I'm afraid I'll be persecuted, that's ridiculous.

It's as ridiculous as all the gun-nuts whining because C-68 made search and seizure all but an open door if you registered your firearm.

It's as ridiculous as all the free-speechers complaining because writing politically incorrect stuff costs them legal fees, a public apology and a few pages of a magazine. It isn't me. I don't have anything to worry about.

I don't own guns, no one is taking my rights. I don't write anything that has the potential to create hate, I'm not at risk. I don't use Linux, or a Mac, no one is going to charge me with copyright infringement.

I don't appreciate being created a criminal simply because I chose not to pay the Microsoft Tax.

Cheers,
lance

No, Lance, you have it all wrong. You have every right to play your DVD on a device or on software for which a DVD licensing fee was paid. DVD players are $40 now. You don't have to pay the Microsoft tax. Macs also play DVD's. What you are doing is choosing to wilfully break a copy protection in order to play the DVD with unlicensed software. Do you understand the subtle difference here? It is perfectly legal for you to play your DVD on any device or operating system you want to. All you have to do is play it with a licensed player. From what I remember, it's something like $15000 for a CSS key. The CSS key is platform independent. It can be used for DVD players, windows software, mac software, linux software, game consoles, and more. There are no restrictions on how it is to be used. Again, the linux community refuses to produce a DVD player that is licensed. Surely there are 15000 linux users that would be willing to donate $1 towards making a legit player? Instead, they have chosen to champion deCSS with the argument that they have to break the CSS encryption in order to play DVDs on linux. The really, really BIG GAPING HOLE in their argument is this: deCSS was originally released as a windows executable.

How refreshing to find many here are as frustrated as I with the CPC's apparent loss of identity.This bill along with the various HRC's continuing along unmolested are clear evidence to me that decisions are once again being made by people more obsessed with polls than doing the best thing for the people.

Here's some food for thought.

It's well past time that western civilization as a whole invent a democracy that functions without the party system.

Because we are all being slowly suffocated by ENDLESS partisan posturing and bickering.

In other words.....It's the system, stupid.

"uh, pirating or downloading is the exact same as shoplifting"

A CD which I brought home from the store is mine, it doesn't belong to someone else, no matter what they got some puffed-up politicians to write on a piece of paper about their "right" to something I bought. Private property applies to that which is scarce. The order of arrangement of microscopic dots on a plastic disc is not a scarce piece of property. The *disc* is property. The *pattern* of dots is not. You might as well try to own sound waves or thoughts (oops! having the same idea as someone else - someone with a large legal team of patent attorneys and litigators - is illegal too)

Copyright laws are a flat-out injustice, which was created in order to subsidize the incomes of politically-connected owners of large publishing houses. The excuse used was that they stimulate creativity, but anyone who has read Homer or listened to Bach knows that this is nonsense. Even now you see very few artists lobbying hard for draconian extensions to the laws, but lots of extremely large corporations with hordes of lobbyists and lawyers working for them.

Even if you were correct, do you really want to live in a country where everyone's home and business is considered to be a public place, with guards and spies everywhere to make sure that nobody "shoplifts" a movie by watching it on their computer? Do you consider a punishment 500 times more severe than the alleged crime to be just? A punishment which, due to the extremely universal prevalence of the so-called crime, will inevitably be dropped like a grand piano on the heads of a very small group of very unlucky mugs who happen to get caught?

Add me to the list of fairly die-hard CPC supporters who is both frustrated and puzzled by the need for this particular bill at this particular time.

We will lose a generation of young voters with this approach, and it seems like the wrong announcement at the wrong time.

I know it's not all about votes every time, but this is guaranteed to lose the CPC votes. In what way does Canada benefit from this legislation? Why waste that capital on a non-issue like this? Why not deal with real issues, like the HRCs, or the ever growing government web of regulations.

This is just a plain stupid political move. All downside, no upside. Has Stephen Harper lost it?

And that is exactly the problem pete. Why would I need to pay for software just to watch my own DVD's? Linux is based on the ethos of the free distribution of information, content, and media without restriction. There is no such thing as licensing fee's with linux. It's the main reason why flash and mp3 compatibility is not built into linux distro's by default due to licensing fee's.

That Linux has to use deCSS has nothing to do with piracy, it's all about the GNU public license and the GPL; licenses that mandate that if you release code under that license, it must be made freely avaliable to everyone to use, edit, and distribute. Hence the reason why deCSS is used and not some licensed player that can't have it's code distributed for free.

"uh, pirating or downloading is the exact same as shoplifting. It's not the law that's turning people into criminals, it's the anonymity of pirating that is turning people into criminals. How bad would shoplifting be if stores were unattended and operated on the honour system?"

So what you're trying to tell me is that copying music off a legally bought CD onto my computer is the same as shoplifting? Riiiight, now I see why laws like this are so easily passed without public objection.

Hobson, I totally agree that the CD you bought is yours. However, if you rip it into MP3 format and deposit into a folder which is shared to the internet, and someone downloads it, you're now pirating. Same as shoplifting. You took something (a copy of your CD which you then distributed) without paying for it. I'm not debating the new bill or the need for it or anything like that. I'm simply trying to impress on yourself and Lance that what you both are complaining about, is something that has been illegal since day one. And no matter how you try and justify it, the fact remains that until the law is changed, decrypting a DVD is piracy.

Actually pete, distributing a decrypted work isn't illegal.

The SCoC ruled on that last year. That's one of the reasons for this Bill and as I stated in the post and in the comments I agree with that reason for this Bill. Thieves should be punished.

The act of simply using an unlicensed library to decrypt a DVD so I can watch it with Totem or VLC is not distribution, it's fair use.

Fair use allows us to photocopy at a Library. Fair use allows us to make dupes of CD's so that the original isn't scratched by the kids in the car.

Fair use _is not and never has been_ distribution.

This Bill is so draconian, it has to specifically add amendments so that Libraries can continue to offer photocopy services. Does that sound like reason to you?

Cheers,
lance

"is something that has been illegal since day one"

It hasn't been illegal since day one. Remember Homer, Shakespeare, Bach, Beethoven? Remember how only a decade or so ago, copyright on older works was supposed to actually expire at some point?

Two things have changed since then. Number one, the technology is evolving to the point where it's possible for thieves in three-piece suits to spy on, harass and extort the citizens in any way they see fit. Number two, the citizens' ideas about what is property and what isn't property have been hopelessly muddled by government education, to the point where they're ready to be bamboozled by any property-stealing racket that comes along, to the point that they're willing to be harassed and extorted in any way that the villains in three-piece suits see fit.

Why would I need to pay for software just to watch my own DVD's?

are you for real? You need to pay for a DVD player to watch them on your TV. When you bought your DVD player, the manufacturer bought a CSS key. Likewise, when you buy a Windows box or a mac, they also come with software. The developer of the software bought a CSS key. When you buy a DVD burner, and it comes with WinDVD, the makers of WinDVD bought a CSS key. Why should linux be any different?

"uh, pirating or downloading is the exact same as shoplifting. It's not the law that's turning people into criminals, it's the anonymity of pirating that is turning people into criminals. How bad would shoplifting be if stores were unattended and operated on the honour system?"

So what you're trying to tell me is that copying music off a legally bought CD onto my computer is the same as shoplifting? Riiiight, now I see why laws like this are so easily passed without public objection.

no, I'm not trying to tell you that copying music off a legally bought CD is the same as shoplifting. Downloading that CD off of the internet without paying for it is the same as shoplifting. Borrowing your friend's CD and pirating it is the same as shoplifting.

As for the lovely speech about how wonderful the GPL of linux is, it doesn't hide the fact that you can indeed release software that runs on linux that would pay the proper licensing fee for the CSS key and allow you to watch DVD movies. CSS is a standard, just like any other. If you're not willing to work with it, and pay the dues like everyone else, then you should be working with an alternative product and developing a niche market. deCSS isn't doing that. It's pirating for those unwilling to work within the CSS standard.

pete:

"How bad would shoplifting be if stores were unattended operated on the honour system?"

I have a quote for you:

"'Jim', a vendor in New York City, set up shop and sold coffee and donuts to passersby. . . he noticed that the wait time discouraged many customers who left and went elsewhere. . . Finally, Jim simply put a small basket on the side of his stand filled with dollar bills and coins, trusting his customers to make their own change. . . By extending trust in this way, Jim was able to double his revenues without adding any new cost."

From "The Speed of Trust" by Stephen M R Covey, page 16.

I wouldn't try this social experiment with large screen TVs, but I think a donut business isn't terribly far off from a 99 cent/song music service.

Disclaimer: I have been a professional software developer since 1971. I've used Unix since '76, and have run various duly licensed versions of it and derivatives on my own hardware since '81. I bought a $49.95 DVD player to feed into the video inputs of the TV tuner card I bought for my current Red Hat incarnation of said software. I've never broken a hardware, software, or content lock. I think deCSS is a burglar's tool.

My equity position in the fruit of my brow is principally protected by copyright law. I've seen and been through every IP trend since '71. The key to the problem, in my opinion, is the free volitional contractual market. If some producers are being unreasonable, and we have a free market, then some other bright producer will step up, offer a more reasonable product, and reap his just profit for his product or service well provided, according to the actual market's definition of well.

But that will happen only if our system of justice protects our contract law. I have a problem with thieves and marxists stealing private intellectual property traded solely according to contract terms that they agreed to and then want to violate, and so I agree with EBD. So does Terence Corcoran at the National Post: tinyurl.com/6qqbye

Consider the following analogy. Let's say you purchase a legal copy of a physical device that isn't principally a collection if bit representations, for example, a TV, a pen, a book, &c. Let's say it's stolen, or breaks down. Should you now be able to steal another one to replace it because you've already paid for one? Let's say you buy one for your living room. Should you be able to steal another one for your bedroom, or your office, because you've already paid for one?

Ok, let's say that like our new-fangled bit-copiers you had an atom-copier. Should you be able to put the device you bought in your atom-copier and use the result in another room, or give the result to your friend, thus denying compensation to the holder of the intellectual property rights of the device design that you or your friend would have had to duly account for if you had bought your second device in the contractual transaction market? People are confused because this bit-copying technology is new, and they don't yet appreciate the atom-copying analogue.

I think that one of the reasons that we don't yet have a proper functioning micro-payments market for on-line copyright content is that the extent of theft of said content makes such market currently intractable. However, if we succeed in limiting such theft, then I think that a micro-payments infrastructure would flourish.

Why I can't I pay, say, a dollar an hour to watch massive libraries of all recorded video, audio, and text, for profit, instead of just the stuff that leaks out to Google & YouTube? Why can't I watch any Johnny Carson show ever, for a dollar an hour? Why? Because right now, it's too easy to steal, so there's no market to fix that. People won't pay the dollar, they'll steal the content, because they are immoral, and/or there's no effective punitive penalty, and/or therefore there's no alternative tractable mechanism.

The market contract for your purchase or your YouTube video view should determine what you can and can't do with it. The purchase transaction contract may include specific limitations, such as anti-copying locks. Are you buying the medium or the song? Look at the contract. If you don't like the contract, don't buy. Don't become a safe-cracker. After all, who do you think you are? Why shouldn't the law apply to you? Try singing instead. You can sing, can't you?

distributing a decrypted work isn't illegal.

The SCoC ruled on that last year.

that's not quite what the ruling said. It said merely placing a file in a shared folder is not proof of distribution or authorization to reproduce copyrighted materials. And nowhere did the ruling touch on decrypted works.

Don't get me wrong on this subject, I don't support this bill. I'm just trying to clarify some of the falsehoods being posted. The linux community has been complaining about this for years like it's some conspiracy to deny them of DVD's on their platform of choice. But in reality, it is their own stubbornness to work within the CSS standard and pay the fee for the CSS key that prevents linux from having a legal DVD player.

Stricker, the problem is all to do with anonymity. On a busy street in New York, you're never alone. Most people tend to be more honest when there are witnesses. But on the internet, you're alone, and nobody's watching.

Hobson, how on earth can you argue about copyright law in the time of Homer? Anyway, when I said "day one", I wasn't referring to the beginning of time. I was referring to the deCSS program. It's always been illegal, as you are violating the agreement under which you bought the product. In order to use a DVD with linux and claim fair use, you have to play it from a LICENSED PLAYER, and capture the playback.

Vit, DeCSS is a burglars tool if it's used as a burglars tool. You're using the same argument that leads to firearm bans. It's just as ridiculous in this context.

Your question is poignant, "Are you buying the medium or the song?" To my mind, I'm buying the medium which contains the data.

I am not stealing a DVD when I move it from my Playstation 2 to the DVD player in my Linux desktop.

I _am_ stealing if I use the tools to distribute said DVD.

As far as your commercial arguments, there are already many (not most) artists and DRM-free content sellers now. They're growing...fast.

Cheers,
lance

It may be the case, Lance, that to [your] mind, [you're] buying the medium which contains the data, but to my mind, you're buying what the contract says you're buying.

I think, Lance, that whether or not you are stealing a DVD when [you] move it from [your] Playstation 2 to the DVD player in [your] Linux desktop should depend entirely on the contractual terms under which you purchased the DVD. If it has a lock that normally requires a licensed player, which translates back into income for the DVD IP owner, then I think that if you pick that lock, you are a safe-cracker and a burglar.

Fair use is current law Vit. Moving the DVD to my Linux Desktop constitutes fair use under current law. This Bill will change that and I'm against it. It basically allows any EULA to determine what you can do and you and I both know that _no one_ reads EULA's.

Your income derives from intellectual property rights, I sympathize with your stance. Mine derives from having as many Linux Desktops in existence as possible. Sympathize with my stand.

It's moot anyway. As I mentioned at Abandoned Stuff, this Bill will pass pending a prorogue or election.

I've no options, no repast, but to tell my clients that the Conservatives are going to make them criminals because they choose and I've sold a better OS.

And the folks here will continue to berate me for not voting for the CPC next election.

C'est la vie. I guess I'll join the ranks of those who haven't registered their firearms. Criminal.

Cheers,
lance

"Has Stephen Harper lost it?"

No, he hasn't. He is picking his battles. Don't underestimate him.
As an economist he probably favors deregulation of the CRTC.
Allowing competition in any regulated market is a hard sell after key players have become entrenched. (CWB, CRTC, etc.)
C-61 'should be' just a bone thrown at the major operators of ISP's and wireless companies to keep their exec's happy while he opens up access to the wireless marketplace.
Lowering telecoms costs to Canadians would be a coup.
C-61 is not enforceable (imo)and not a threat, as is the Gun Registry, to privacy.
It's a stupid law set up to work a stupid system.
Harper's NOT stupid.

G

Just to be clear Lance.
I'm on your side. This bill sucks. I hope it is for a greater good. (see G @9:05)
I hope you reconsider voting Con. It would be a shame to loose you.
G

And I'm in favour of C-61, Lance, at least in principle, because I don't think the sense of fair use in current bit-medium law adequately protects the rights of intellectual property owners. I'm in favour of traditional fair use, say an excerpt from a book or essay, a snippet from a video, or a thumbnail of an image as a link hot-spot.

Nevertheless, traditional fair use does not include whole-sale copying. Traditional fair use does not include making a complete copy of a book you've duly purchased, unless it is out of copyright, and there are no other relevant provisos on the purchase contract.

Fair use has an intellectual property law tradition in Canadian society, it doesn't just mean what you've become accustomed to for the last few years. And we've gotten behind on adjusting to the new bit-copier technology. Remember, the old atom-copiers like audio and video magnetic tape recorders always degraded, and so there was always residual value to the IP owner in producing a master first-copy. Not so with bits.

I don't think this is about firearm registration.
I don't think this is about freedom of speech.

If you have a specific problem with a specific clause, or three, Lance, why not write up a careful rebuttal, or better yet counter-proposal, all appropriately referenced to the proposed act, and post it here at SDA, or your own blog, and invite each of us to build a letter around that to send to the appropriate list of ministers and MPs who you might recommend.

Until I hear a proper well thought out legislative counter argument, bill C-61 will have no effect on my continuing to vote for the Conservative Party of Canada.

G,

It's only the people who don't want to break the law, that care about this being a law. It won't make a bit of difference to anyone else (like the gun registry).

Vitruvius - "but to my mind, you're buying what the contract says you're buying."

I had a look at one of my son's DVDs to see what contract my son bought. In the smallest letters possible it said subject to "Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment's standard terms of trade". Should be easy to google, right?

Look, Ural, if you have to break a lock, if you have to be a safe-cracker, you don't need to read the contract unless you're looking for an exemption. It's obvious to a reasonable man, it's in your face, you're not supposed to do that, otherwise they wouldn't have put it there in the first place. Now, if they said it was not locked, and it was, then you would have them for fraud under false advertising. But they didn't. So you don't.

Caveat emptor secus emptor culpa.

Vitruvius,

How, exactly, do I know if the DVD is "locked" or not if it's still in the cellophane?

Why do 7/11s have locks on the doors?

DVDs are locked by default, Ural, unless stated otherwise. Always have been ~ they have country codes. In the early days, when people freaked out, many vendors gave refunds. You're supposed to know that by now. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, otherwise idiots would be free to commit crimes. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Trying to play off the Conservatives against the Liberals would make a lot more sense if we were up against the Jean Cretien Liberals. Dion (and Ray who seems like the #2 man these days) is far to the left. The moderates of the Liberal party (like Manley & McKenna) have been driven off.

The Liberals were relatively benign in the 90's. Don't assume that will be true in the 2010's.

This whole discussion is moot. Until we have an iron clad property rights Bill or Act. As it is you only rent what you buy . Even artists strictly don't own there material. PET made sure Private property was erased knowing its the foundation of a capitalist economy. The ones we have are only given by the government due to change by whim. Same with the gun control law or any other that I see the Harperites have not changed either. Its completely legal for the authorities to confiscate any goods including homes with an easy bench warrant from any judge. You do not own any mineral rights only the Province collectively (read government of the day) does, & can sell them. It was not always this way in Canada until after they first world war.

So downloading material & being charged is really not about the artists copyright but control of individual Canadians social habits since private property is a none issue in this Nation. You own nothing really but what the several levels of government allow you with no protection at all legally.

So now we have no ownership rights, no free speech, or Religion that is now is suspect. With the result that a man can be forced to recant his own conscience. I would say Canada is in real trouble. Yet the Conservative act like its just another day where they make more canucks criminals & alienate the youth. By a badly crafted law with a whip as usual. This issue is more than this flawed Bill or the internet. This is just another grab by Ngo’s with there lobbies demanding to be the middlemen for more profit.

Just my opinion

You make a very compelling argument Lance. I am with you all the way on this one.

The deeper fundamental question comes into play here when you consider what is being protected. Is the DVD or CD an "intellectual property" or a manufactured product? I submit they are all manufactured products, not intellectual properties. The songs on a CD are the result of a creative process for which only the very early stages form the intellectual property. In essence, a CD is no different than any manufactured good. It has an initial design stage that constitutes the 'intellectualism" - the rest of it is the product of a variety of manufacturing processes. The entire concept of licensing of an entire product on the basis of one small part of its development and manufacturer is a draconian process. Certainly - copyright or patent key components of it, but the manufactured product should be subject to the same limitations as any other manufactured product. No more, no less.

With regard to software, licensing should end the minute support is withdrawn for the code, or upon release of the next version (replacing the original version in substantial form and function). Software has a larger single source intellectual component than a CD or DVD (maybe), but its still a manufactured product. Further, If software is to be distributed by license only, then remove the liability clauses - if you're not prepared to sell it and "release" your claim to it, you must be prepared to accept the consequential circumstances of your licensed product's use. This is the major problem with intellectual property - imagine how much better Microsoft's bastard code would have been been if Bill had actually been held accountable for the performance of his licensed products.

Cost of proposed legislation:
-makes it annoying for me to download and copy stuff.

Benefits of proposed legislation:
-targets and angers my political opponents a lot more than it might inconvenience me. I haven't seen the left this fired up since they were instructed by the media to be fired up for the gay marriage debate.
-stems flow of low-quality music, movies, videos, and TV, all of which are salted with Marxism, to the lumpenproletariat, who are brainwashed enough as it is.
-good to see the apathy that has served the left so well for decades come back to bite it in the ass. When some 22 year old sociology major\activist gets fined twenty grand for downloading the latest "Grey's Anatomy" episode or 50 Cent's latest musings on "bitches and hos", my sympathy will be limited, because they didn't speak up when much greater injustices ocurred.

Judging by the reaction, it is fair to describe Canadians as a people who care more about illegal downloading than free speech, national defense, healthcare, taxes, employment, immigration, the economy, foreign relations, the fate of western civilization, fiscal solvency, etc.

To me this whole thing is getting way out hand.
The whole concept of fair use is that when you purchase something you have the right to use it for whatever private purpose you wish including:
Making a backup copy.
Converting to other formats for your own use.

It does not give you the right to:
Give copies to your friends and family in a different household.
Redistribute it on the net.

The bill should be aimed at protecting fair use and stopping the illegal distribution. It does not.

All I can say is that it is a good thing that nobody holds a copyright on the English language because if the same laws were applied as they are to other creative works we would not be allowed to:
1/ Repeat what someone else has said without their specific permission.
2/ Talk in public without paying an extra fee.
3/ Read a book in the living room if we have only licenced it for the bathroom.

Your definition of fair use is wrong, Kevin. And no-one's proposing preventing