Slashdot Mirror
Canada To Introduce Copyright Law Next Week
P Starrson writes "A leading Canadian television network is reporting
that the Canadian government will introduce copyright legislation next
week that will bring DMCA-like provisions north of the border.
Amazingly, the Canadian recording industry, which previously praised
the reforms, now says they aren't good enough. Canadian law prof Michael Geist cuts through the
spin in the pair of blog postings titled Fact and Fiction
and CRIA's New Take
on Copyright Reform."
Fair use is alive and well in Canada.
d _protect-e.html#6
I pay for the RIGHT to copy what ever the fuck I want on to whatever media I've been taxed on.
That IS my RIGHT and I could give a shit how many hairs they split. Sharing MY music with my GLOBAL friends is NO different then sahring with my friends down the street. The fact that they claim a physical product must change hands to be considered legitimate sharing is just splitting legal hairs. IMFO
And according to these same laws, every school in Canada should be charged under the same act they want to charge file sharers with whenever they play "records" at their school dances! Oh yeah... get your check books out kids! No more sock hops! Fuckin' idiots!
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_g
Examples of infringement
Infringement:
- reprinting an article without the copyright owner's permission;
- playing records at a dance without the copyright owners' permission;
- giving a public performance of a play without permission;
- photocopying articles for a class of students without permission; and
- taping your favourite band at a music concert without permission.
Not infringement:
- quoting a few lines of the article in a research paper (fair dealing);
- playing records at home;
- giving a public performance of a play by Shakespeare (no copyright exists/public domain);
- obtaining permission from the author and paying a fee to him or her (if requested) in order to use an article; and
- borrowing a musical tape from a friend to copy onto a blank tape for private use (a royalty payment to the owner of the song rights has been paid when the blank tape was purchased).
So FUCK THEM and my Karma! It shows how far behind these folks are... they still refer to music on tapes!
Don't be so sure it will pass.
Canada has a minority government right now; at least two parties need to go for it, or it's dead.
(Yes, we have more than two parties --- it's a democracy! :P )
That's the most offensive portion.
If they're going to make it illegal to share files, they have to repeal those blank media taxes.
In apathetic Canada we do not protest.
It's best to just drink beer and let your criminal Prime Minister steal money from you while passing laws that are hopless to enforce yet generate tons of paper as a justification to raise your taxes.
Seriously, you can't call what we have here a government.
There is so much corruption and boondoggles, that the average Canadian just does not care about politics anymore, cause they know that any protest falls on deaf ears and the government will continue to do whatever it wants.
Put a voice to the words.
u se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E&source=sm/this link to look up your MP by postal code, and then phone them.
Use http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/ho
Be polite, be courteous, but be firm. State, be it via voice mail or directly, that you are in opposition to the upcoming copyright legislation, and hope that your MP will vote in opposition to it.
(Whatever you do, don't state that "Although I didn't vote for your party...").
Indicate to them whether or not this is an issue your future vote will hinge on; that will get their attention, guaranteed.
"To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
How come radio is free to share music? How is downloading MP3's from internet any different? If the radio station pays royalities (I think they do) then I can pay royalities myself and start a P2P site. The revenue I generate from ads would go to the music companies and the users can download music for free! Would that be legal?
Cheers,
RoadkillBunny
There's a simple reason why the CRIA wants even tougher language now - Graham Henderson.
When the CRIA first started pushing for copyright reform and DMCA-like provisions, Brian Robertson was at the helm. However, Brian left about a year ago, and Graham left his VP job at Universal to take over.
I've known Graham casually since his Universal days, and since he became head of the CRIA I've heard him speak a few times...and let me tell you, he's crazy. Graham's main points are usually:
- the CD is still the future of music
- digital music is not important at all
- Technology will be able to put the genie back into the bottle
- Legislation will put the genie back into the bottle
And my favourite Graham Henderson argument:
- People pay $3 for a ringtone because it's a closed technology and you can't pirate music on it. Therefore, we need to lock down all digital music, and charge at least $3 a song, since that's what the ringtone business tells us it's worth.
Now, anyone who knows anything about the (digital) music industry knows that every single one of those points is a complete load of crap. EVERY SINGLE ONE. He's delusional. But this is what he sticks to, because he really doesn't understand the business and where the industry is going.
Get rid of Graham and put someone with some understanding in there, and things will get more reasonable.
(identity withheld to protect the innoc...uhh, me.)
If you wanted to, could you? I've always wondered that.. since so many Mexicans come up here, could things go the other direction at all? ;)
My letter to the Hon. Jim Peterson, ny MP:
Subject: Copying levy versus the proposed copyright bill
I'm writing again about proposed changes in copyright law,
strongly urged by our American neighbors and the record
publishing industry.
I was pleased to hear your opinion on the US-like
misuse of protection measures, and wonder if we're
going to follow our previous policy of using copying levies
instead of prohibitions on copying CDs we legally
own.
The record industry seems to confuse this with
indiscriminate file sharing, and is urging amendments
that would make innocent copiers as liable as persons
who illegally publish other's works on the internet.
I urge you to support our successful policy of
copying levies on CDs, DVDs and extend the
levies to removable disks ("pen drives") and other
iPod-like devices), instead of reducing the
consumer's right to copy their own property under
the copyright act.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
And then you guys started hawking hair metal bands, boy bands, crappy Christian rock (have you actually listend to that garbage), teeny-bopper singers who probably made more money with their K-mart clothing lines than on singles, and the final abuse of a second generation of boy bands and female "stars" so f**king bad that their thin voices had to be run through masses of digital processing (not to mention layers of backing vocals and build up the crap voice).
Jonie Mitchel was right when she said that record executives were always crooks, but at least they used to be crooks who liked music. CDs were priced beyond all reason, and the record companies reaped vast rewards from the vast supply of one-off crap artists who they didn't have to spend much time grooming and could drop as quick as could be for the next set of talentless beautiful people who had big t*ts or muscular physiques. As the late, great George Harrison said of the Spice Girls (and it applies to the likes of Brittney Spears), they were just as good with the sound turned off.
So you know what, the whole lot of you, from the small record stores to the big mega-giant record companies are reaping the rewards. Gazillions were made, artists were ripped off (look at Levon Helm, one of the greatest vocalists in rock history, suing Robbie Robertson and the Band's record company because the all conspired to screw everyone else in the Band, or Bo Diddley who recorded some of the best music ever put to vinyl). What the whole record industry deserves is to have its decades of abuse of consumers and artists put out in the open, and when it pays for its sins, then it can start talking about how it's been abused.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And what would you write?
Dear Mr. Big-Politics-Guy
I really like getting stuff for free. Can we please keep doing that?
How about:
"Dear Mr. Big-Politics-Guy
I really like getting to speak and act freely. Can we please keep doing that?"
I don't care about "free music". I wish all the file sharers would get caught, so we can focus on the real issue: free speech.
Copyright monopolies take away my right to create a related product, just because I didn't invent the first model. They stiffle innovation as much as they reward it, by preventing creators from building on previous knowledge and work. It's hard to make progress when you're forced to reinvent the wheel all the time.
Let's say I want to scan in a map of my neighhourhood, and cross reference it with the ads in the phone book, so that I can tell at a glance what's nearby. That's illegal, because it requires scanning in a copyrighted map, and copyrighted ads. Doing in manually is legal, because humans aren't considered copying devices, but computers are. So, copyright law is in the way here, as it is in many cases.
Did you ever buy a poster, but found it too big for the frame? Pause before you cut it to make it fit; that might infringe the moral rights of the author! The copyright act states that putting a picture in a new frame is explictly legal;but any more drastic changes to your own poster may be illegal! The Eaton's centre was sued for moving pieces of a mobile that were about to fall on it's customer's heads, because the artist didn't like how the safe version looked. Copyright means you don't have all the rights to the property you've bought outright.
Ever see a statue in bronze, and think it would look better in gold? Don't try to comission a better version; that would be illegal under copyright law! You need to get the copyright holder to permit you do make your own statues; after all, they made one, first.
Don't try to write down the plot to your dreams after watching late night TV; you see, someone owns the rights to talk about those characters. You don't get free speech rights to other people's ideas; you don't get re-cast anyone's previous works in new and interesting ways, because that kind of incremental innovation is illegal.
But don't worry: copyrights expire. In fact, my copyright to this message will probably expire in just under a century, if I live my grandfather's age. Then again, Canada is less than 150 years old as a country; so that's not saying much.
Some people want copyrights never to expire. I guess they want the guy who owns the circle to be able to forbid everyone else from building anything with wheels; and the guy who owns the square from preventing anyone from building anything like a building or a house.
Then again, some of these ideas fall under "Industrial Design" in Canada: but the distinction is nebulous at best.
If I make 20 ornate goblets, they're protected for 100 years under the Copyright Act. If I make another 40, the same 20 goblets suddenly fall under the Industrial Design act, and are only protected for 10 years. If it's the same "innovation", then why add 90 years of monopoly protection in the one case, but not in the other?
So, yes, some of us want copyrights to be restricted because of important reasons like freedom of speech and creative expression. I don't give a damn about free music; I don't download it, because it's illegal.
I do want to be able to create derivative works, and improve upon our designs at a rate much faster than one change every century. I don't think that's such an unfair thing to ask for.
--
AC