Sorry to reply to myself again, I still can't find the official government page I was looking for earlier (I suspect that's partially because one of their servers pch.gc.ca is down right now) however I did find this excellent FAQ including analysis of rulings by the Copyright Board of Canada on the subject: http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_friends
I note the date is a few years ago, however the law has not (yet) changed on the subject
To clarify, they specifically state that you do NOT need to keep the original CD in your posession for your copy to be valid. This is why we pay the levy, to legitimize such use.
You obviously don't understand Canadian Copyright law. Those 4 examples are all taken from the Canadian Heritage Ministry's official government website regarding the CD Levy. (I'd love to link to it, but I can't seem to find it any more)
In Canada copying for personal use is always legal providing you are copying for yourself, and from the original.
Because our laws at the moment give us the right to copy for personal use... don't worry, the government has promised to remove those rights as quickly as they can (I believe this is in their "100 day plan" from the election we had a couple weeks ago)
It is at the moment, but the Conservative government has promised to outlaw fair use as soon as possible. The copyright reform legislation died with the previous minority government, but now that they have a majority they have vowed to pass it as quickly as possible.
Somehow I doubt they'll repeal the levy once they repeal our fair use either...
The current official government position on the existing levy is YES. There are some oddball rules, but yes.
The law as it stands right now is that you are allowed to copy for personal use providing you have the original legal copy in your possession at the time you make the recording. They don't however deal with how you came to have the original in your position. Seems reasonable enough on the surface, however it gets odd in the implementation, I'll give some examples: - I buy a CD, I lend it to you, you copy the CD and give back the original. Perfectly legal. - I buy a CD, I copy it and give you the copy. although the end result is identical to the first case, this way is illegal. - I buy a CD, I copy it, I keep the copy and give you the original. Perfectly legal. - I buy a CD, I lend it to you, you copy the CD and give back the copy. although the end result is identical to the last example, this is illegal.
Additionally, the Canadian courts have ruled that downloading music IS legal per this situation (uploading however is not)
Now I still don't like the levy, because it is paid on all blank media, regardless of what you do with said media. which means when I make server backups, the recording industry gets a cut. What may however be an even bigger miscarriage of justice though is that small independent artists, with no affiliation to the large media conglomerates, have to pay this levy on all of their blank media as well, with no hope of recovering any of it. (Large record labels don't pay the levy as they press CDs instead of buying recordable CDs and burning them)
Of course while all this is going on, the record industry is ALSO working very hard to ban copying for personal use, however I have a feeling they have no intention of having the media levy repealed when they succeed (and I say when, not if, because it has been before parliament at least twice so far, only failing due to a fall of the minority government, since the recent election the Conservatives now have a majority, and this is one of the bills they have promised to pass quickly, so unfortunately I'm pretty sure we will lose all fair use rights very soon)... and I really have a problem paying a levy on the assumption that I will do something that is illegal.
And why on earth does ANYONE want their phone to handle it differently?
Differently means it is more likely to piss people off Differently means that existing hardware/software may not handle it properly Differently means we spend a LOT of money to implement changes to software and hardware to accommodate something that didn't need to be different in the first place.
OR we could simply send text messages, save a boatload of cash, and not piss people off in the process...
How long can the US count on this though? The education system in China isn't THAT horrible, they are bound to produce some brilliant minds, and China has proven time and time again that they can apply themselves to a problem when faced with it. If anything, limiting collaboration with China may be what causes China to start a major shift towards research and innovation. If they have the ability to come up with the ideas, and we already know they can implement them, what does that leave for the US?
The US has for the past few years been betting everything on "Intellectual Property" because in a lot of ways it's the only export the US has left, but if China decides it no longer needs US "IP" then what does the US have left? And if the only answer is "consumers" then the US is in a worse position than most people want to believe.
Then come up with a backend system that instead of point to point, can send an SMS to everyone on a tower at once (I'd be shocked if such a feature didn't already exist considering the origins of SMS messages being for communications control signals), no need to modify/replace every single cell phone out there on our dime.
Interesting, my perspective is as a Canadian, so our system may be different from yours... The system where I live is mostly automated in that the government triggers it and all the participating stations broadcast at the same time. The station doesn't pick when to run the test. That said, the weekly test is at exactly the same time every week (If i recall it's Wednesday at 1300hrs) so stations can schedule around it if they so choose (and many do).
That said, the emergency warning system here is optional, each TV and radio station decides if it wants to participate or not, I'm not sure on the TV side of things (don't watch much local TV) but on the radio it appears only about half the stations bother (all the stations geared to the older generation seem to, but few of the ones gearing to youngsters)
Back on the top of cellphones. The biggest thing that strikes me is how the government is never content using an existing, and perfectly valid, way of doing things, they always have to do it "different" and thus incur all sorts of extra costs that we eventually all pay for, while at the same time mangling the existing method to make it worse for subscribers. What I mean in this case is, why a "special" chip/protocol/dialog/anything else instead of simply a text message? Had they chosen simple text messages people could set up their phones to accept or deny at will, they could do it on any old (within reason) or new hardware, and no new changes would be needed to make it work. Instead they come up with a "different" way of doing the same bloody thing for no good reason other than to do it differently.
A safety switch will protect you from large currents - they are designed to shut off the supply as soon as there is a difference between active and neutral current, or if there is a leak to ground.
Which does absolutely nothing if you aren't grounded. if the current is passing through you from one prong of the plug to the other there is no way for the circuit to know the difference between you and a toaster. And simply limiting the amount of current won't help either because it only takes about 60mA to kill you if it flows through the right places. (and most of the things you legitimately want current to flow through require a lot more than that)
Although ground fault breakers are big safety improvements, they just can't protect you if you're contacting both wires, and not ground.
Since it started driving higher currents through the same resistance (in this case the human body)
It's very difficult to design your outlets to limit the current that will go through a human without limiting what will go through an electronic device, however lower voltages have less ability to overcome the same resistance to cause large amounts of current to flow through the heart (which is usually the important bit in the "killing" part)
110v can kill you, so can 5v, or 3000v. But if I had to choose, I'd much rather trust the natural resistance of my skin to adequately limit the current flow from a 5v, or even 110v system than a 3000v one, or even a 240v one.
On a somewhat related note, I know someone who moved from Britain to Canada many years ago, his primary reason to do so was because we use 110 instead of 240. He worked as an electronics repair person (mainly TVs) and was sick of taking 240v shocks. Personally I've always described it as "110 tickles, 240 doesn't!"
This is something that's always bugged me on my android, every time you install an app it lists which permissions it requires, and then gives you the choice of allowing them all, or not installing the app. Why can't I choose to allow/deny any one of those permissions for any app?
Why can't I say, yes I want the app, yes I want it to access my SD card, yes I want it to take pictures, no I don't want it reading SMS messages, no I don't want it accessing the internet.
Let the apps ask for whatever permissions they want, but let the user decide which ones they get!
re-read those policies... anyone who thinks we need to change current copyright laws, and does not talk about shortening the term is trying to screw over the consumer.
As for why it hasn't passed, has nothing to do with the opposition, they didn't vote against it, the bill died on the order table without any vote. had it been voted on you can guarantee it would have passed.
In a process called "wash up", all the proposed laws that were still going though parliament were rammed through in 2 days flat with next to no discussion, because they HAD to be rammed through.
Wow, I knew our Canadian system was based on the UK one, but I never realized we'd actually improved on it! In the Canadian system all proposed laws that haven't passed by election time are simply dropped. The idea being that if they were important they would have been brought earlier. And that is exactly how this bill died... And this is important to note, many posters on here seem to think that in a vote this bill was defeated, or that it wouldn't have passed due to the minority status of government. Make no mistake, ALL the parties support this bill. It ran out of time, not out of political will. Changing to a Liberal, or NDP government will NOT protect you from this legislation.
The ONLY parties not in favour of further fair use restrictions and longer copyright terms are the Pirate Party and the Libertarians, And considering their status, I can basically guarantee none of them will get any seats.
This bill WILL pass, the only question is in what form and how long it takes.
Yes, they are quite clear that they FAVOUR changes to Canadian copyright law... and those changes are NOT changes that increase fair use. Every major party wants to make Canadian copyright worse. They are all fighting the same side, nobody is voting against this law, it only died because parliament fell for unrelated reasons, it ran out of time, it didn't loose a vote.
not really, they opposed it because the government proposed it, not because they disagreed with the content, the only changes they brought up were cosmetic changes (the big media war was over who gets the increased money to be squeezed out of every consumer, not whether they should be squeezing us more at all). Every major party in Canada has copyright reform in their platform, and none of those reforms include increasing fair use provisions or decreasing copyright term...
The CRTC isn't stopping competition from getting in, the government is. The CRTC is only enforcing the rules. letting competition in is simple, change the law to allow it. Something the government has refused to do.
This failed not because of lack of support from the opposition on this particular bill. You can guarantee that if it ever came to a vote it would pass. It failed because they ran out of time because the government fell for completely unrelated reasons. Don't underestimate the dangers here, EVERY major political party supports this bill. it WILL pass, the only question is how long we can stave it off.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to reply to myself again, I still can't find the official government page I was looking for earlier (I suspect that's partially because one of their servers pch.gc.ca is down right now) however I did find this excellent FAQ including analysis of rulings by the Copyright Board of Canada on the subject:
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_friends
I note the date is a few years ago, however the law has not (yet) changed on the subject
To clarify, they specifically state that you do NOT need to keep the original CD in your posession for your copy to be valid. This is why we pay the levy, to legitimize such use.
You obviously don't understand Canadian Copyright law.
Those 4 examples are all taken from the Canadian Heritage Ministry's official government website regarding the CD Levy. (I'd love to link to it, but I can't seem to find it any more)
In Canada copying for personal use is always legal providing you are copying for yourself, and from the original.
Because our laws at the moment give us the right to copy for personal use... don't worry, the government has promised to remove those rights as quickly as they can (I believe this is in their "100 day plan" from the election we had a couple weeks ago)
It is at the moment, but the Conservative government has promised to outlaw fair use as soon as possible. The copyright reform legislation died with the previous minority government, but now that they have a majority they have vowed to pass it as quickly as possible.
Somehow I doubt they'll repeal the levy once they repeal our fair use either...
The current official government position on the existing levy is YES. There are some oddball rules, but yes.
The law as it stands right now is that you are allowed to copy for personal use providing you have the original legal copy in your possession at the time you make the recording. They don't however deal with how you came to have the original in your position. Seems reasonable enough on the surface, however it gets odd in the implementation, I'll give some examples:
- I buy a CD, I lend it to you, you copy the CD and give back the original. Perfectly legal.
- I buy a CD, I copy it and give you the copy. although the end result is identical to the first case, this way is illegal.
- I buy a CD, I copy it, I keep the copy and give you the original. Perfectly legal.
- I buy a CD, I lend it to you, you copy the CD and give back the copy. although the end result is identical to the last example, this is illegal.
Additionally, the Canadian courts have ruled that downloading music IS legal per this situation (uploading however is not)
Now I still don't like the levy, because it is paid on all blank media, regardless of what you do with said media. which means when I make server backups, the recording industry gets a cut. What may however be an even bigger miscarriage of justice though is that small independent artists, with no affiliation to the large media conglomerates, have to pay this levy on all of their blank media as well, with no hope of recovering any of it. (Large record labels don't pay the levy as they press CDs instead of buying recordable CDs and burning them)
Of course while all this is going on, the record industry is ALSO working very hard to ban copying for personal use, however I have a feeling they have no intention of having the media levy repealed when they succeed (and I say when, not if, because it has been before parliament at least twice so far, only failing due to a fall of the minority government, since the recent election the Conservatives now have a majority, and this is one of the bills they have promised to pass quickly, so unfortunately I'm pretty sure we will lose all fair use rights very soon)... and I really have a problem paying a levy on the assumption that I will do something that is illegal.
And why on earth does ANYONE want their phone to handle it differently?
Differently means it is more likely to piss people off
Differently means that existing hardware/software may not handle it properly
Differently means we spend a LOT of money to implement changes to software and hardware to accommodate something that didn't need to be different in the first place.
OR we could simply send text messages, save a boatload of cash, and not piss people off in the process...
How long can the US count on this though? The education system in China isn't THAT horrible, they are bound to produce some brilliant minds, and China has proven time and time again that they can apply themselves to a problem when faced with it. If anything, limiting collaboration with China may be what causes China to start a major shift towards research and innovation. If they have the ability to come up with the ideas, and we already know they can implement them, what does that leave for the US?
The US has for the past few years been betting everything on "Intellectual Property" because in a lot of ways it's the only export the US has left, but if China decides it no longer needs US "IP" then what does the US have left? And if the only answer is "consumers" then the US is in a worse position than most people want to believe.
Then come up with a backend system that instead of point to point, can send an SMS to everyone on a tower at once (I'd be shocked if such a feature didn't already exist considering the origins of SMS messages being for communications control signals), no need to modify/replace every single cell phone out there on our dime.
but why do we need a new application? why can't they save a few million dollars (or likely more) and just send text messages??
Interesting, my perspective is as a Canadian, so our system may be different from yours... The system where I live is mostly automated in that the government triggers it and all the participating stations broadcast at the same time. The station doesn't pick when to run the test. That said, the weekly test is at exactly the same time every week (If i recall it's Wednesday at 1300hrs) so stations can schedule around it if they so choose (and many do).
That said, the emergency warning system here is optional, each TV and radio station decides if it wants to participate or not, I'm not sure on the TV side of things (don't watch much local TV) but on the radio it appears only about half the stations bother (all the stations geared to the older generation seem to, but few of the ones gearing to youngsters)
Back on the top of cellphones. The biggest thing that strikes me is how the government is never content using an existing, and perfectly valid, way of doing things, they always have to do it "different" and thus incur all sorts of extra costs that we eventually all pay for, while at the same time mangling the existing method to make it worse for subscribers. What I mean in this case is, why a "special" chip/protocol/dialog/anything else instead of simply a text message? Had they chosen simple text messages people could set up their phones to accept or deny at will, they could do it on any old (within reason) or new hardware, and no new changes would be needed to make it work. Instead they come up with a "different" way of doing the same bloody thing for no good reason other than to do it differently.
A safety switch will protect you from large currents - they are designed to shut off the supply as soon as there is a difference between active and neutral current, or if there is a leak to ground.
Which does absolutely nothing if you aren't grounded. if the current is passing through you from one prong of the plug to the other there is no way for the circuit to know the difference between you and a toaster. And simply limiting the amount of current won't help either because it only takes about 60mA to kill you if it flows through the right places. (and most of the things you legitimately want current to flow through require a lot more than that)
Although ground fault breakers are big safety improvements, they just can't protect you if you're contacting both wires, and not ground.
Since it started driving higher currents through the same resistance (in this case the human body)
It's very difficult to design your outlets to limit the current that will go through a human without limiting what will go through an electronic device, however lower voltages have less ability to overcome the same resistance to cause large amounts of current to flow through the heart (which is usually the important bit in the "killing" part)
110v can kill you, so can 5v, or 3000v. But if I had to choose, I'd much rather trust the natural resistance of my skin to adequately limit the current flow from a 5v, or even 110v system than a 3000v one, or even a 240v one.
On a somewhat related note, I know someone who moved from Britain to Canada many years ago, his primary reason to do so was because we use 110 instead of 240. He worked as an electronics repair person (mainly TVs) and was sick of taking 240v shocks. Personally I've always described it as "110 tickles, 240 doesn't!"
This is something that's always bugged me on my android, every time you install an app it lists which permissions it requires, and then gives you the choice of allowing them all, or not installing the app. Why can't I choose to allow/deny any one of those permissions for any app?
Why can't I say, yes I want the app, yes I want it to access my SD card, yes I want it to take pictures, no I don't want it reading SMS messages, no I don't want it accessing the internet.
Let the apps ask for whatever permissions they want, but let the user decide which ones they get!
The selling happened a LONG time ago... now is time for the delivery...
The compromises the liberals were asking for was to send more money to the American record labels... hardly a compromise in our favour!
Face it, this is not a one party issue, the problem is with all the major parties.
re-read those policies... anyone who thinks we need to change current copyright laws, and does not talk about shortening the term is trying to screw over the consumer.
As for why it hasn't passed, has nothing to do with the opposition, they didn't vote against it, the bill died on the order table without any vote. had it been voted on you can guarantee it would have passed.
Don't laugh too hard on that one... that was one of the solutions that the Parti Quebecois was pushing for a few years back!
That the US buys... Many other countries buy airplanes manufactured elsewhere...
In a process called "wash up", all the proposed laws that were still going though parliament were rammed through in 2 days flat with next to no discussion, because they HAD to be rammed through.
Wow, I knew our Canadian system was based on the UK one, but I never realized we'd actually improved on it! In the Canadian system all proposed laws that haven't passed by election time are simply dropped. The idea being that if they were important they would have been brought earlier.
And that is exactly how this bill died... And this is important to note, many posters on here seem to think that in a vote this bill was defeated, or that it wouldn't have passed due to the minority status of government. Make no mistake, ALL the parties support this bill. It ran out of time, not out of political will. Changing to a Liberal, or NDP government will NOT protect you from this legislation.
The ONLY parties not in favour of further fair use restrictions and longer copyright terms are the Pirate Party and the Libertarians, And considering their status, I can basically guarantee none of them will get any seats.
This bill WILL pass, the only question is in what form and how long it takes.
Yes, they are quite clear that they FAVOUR changes to Canadian copyright law... and those changes are NOT changes that increase fair use.
Every major party wants to make Canadian copyright worse. They are all fighting the same side, nobody is voting against this law, it only died because parliament fell for unrelated reasons, it ran out of time, it didn't loose a vote.
not really, they opposed it because the government proposed it, not because they disagreed with the content, the only changes they brought up were cosmetic changes (the big media war was over who gets the increased money to be squeezed out of every consumer, not whether they should be squeezing us more at all). Every major party in Canada has copyright reform in their platform, and none of those reforms include increasing fair use provisions or decreasing copyright term...
The CRTC isn't stopping competition from getting in, the government is. The CRTC is only enforcing the rules. letting competition in is simple, change the law to allow it. Something the government has refused to do.
This failed not because of lack of support from the opposition on this particular bill. You can guarantee that if it ever came to a vote it would pass. It failed because they ran out of time because the government fell for completely unrelated reasons. Don't underestimate the dangers here, EVERY major political party supports this bill. it WILL pass, the only question is how long we can stave it off.