This is just an appeal of the *same* case that last year decided p2p sharing was ok, the names are the same 29 names as before. They are still pursuing the same people.
This is mostly inaccurate. The federal court ruled that making music available on kazaa was legal, and therefore refused to grant the court order compelling the ISPs to hand over the data. That same ruling is now under appeal.
The CRIA can't issue subpoenas, it doesn't work that way in Canada. It has to be by court order. It is *illegal* for Videotron to give up the info without such a court order, even if they want to (which they say they do). If the appeal overturns the ruling, the order will be granted against all the ISPs, not just one. If it's upheld, the data won't be given out by any of them.
They're not going to give it out unless there's a court order. They're just saying they would be "delighted" to receive and comply with the order, as opposed to the other ISPs who are fighting it in court.
No-one uploads.
File sharers simply advertise their willingness to participate with anyone in manufacturing a new copy of a file on the requestor's machine.
This act has never been tested in court as a copyright infringement.
This is exactly what was tested in court, about a year ago. The judge ruled that it was legal. Shaw, Bell, etc., paid for lawyers (but not Videotron). The case was appealed, and was just heard by the appeals court. That's what this story is about.
1) It had no shells of any sort, nor any user interface of any sort.
2) It would not mount any file system at all.
3) It had a firewall consisting of a one-inch air gap between the power cord and the power supply, which effectively prevented all unwanted electrons from breaking into the system.
"NOTE: We've got a case-sensitivity problem on OS X, as we use both a subdirectory called Bastille as well as a shell script called bastille. This makes the tarball expansion step fail on HFS and HFS+ filesystems. We're addressing this in the next week."
Huh? Well, it seemed to unpack for me, I don't know.
Step three actually says:
3. Run the install script, like so:
cd Bastille && sh bin/Install-OSX.sh
Which didn't work (you've corrected it above, but not on the actual page). Fooled around for a while in confusion about that, since there *is* an install script in the bin directory, but it's called "bastille"; it has an "os" option but only seems to know about HP-UX and not OSX...
Finally found the other script, which failed with lots of error messages. You need to do "sudo" before the command.
And then, "confirm that you have perl-Tk installed". Apparently I don't. "Do not forget to get perl-Tk installed before running Bastille." - to me that's a bit like "attach the toaster to your nose in the usual way". Where do I get it? Fink? Nope, not there. perltk.org? Total confusion. Ok, it's over an hour now, I'm still searching around trying to find how to install perlTk on OS X, and you know what?
Fuck it.
It's not that I don't have the skills. I just don't want fool around anymore.
I don't mean to be critical, but you've been slashdotted, and there are going to be a *lot* of people having the same frustrating experience that I just did today, who probably won't remember to come back next week when it's working.
right, this one would be called a "tarrif" not a "levy" like on blank media.
but as i understand it the government would not collect it, it would be collected directly by SOCAN, in the same way that radio stations' tarrifs are paid now.
it's not a government tax, it's a "proposal" by the copyright collectives that represent private copyright holders, asking the government to pass a law that lets them collect money for nothing.
actually it's not a government tax, the government doesn't get any of the money. it's a copyright collective representing the copyright owners that gets the money, which is called a "levy" rather than a "tax". the money goes to the musicians. and their lawyers. well mostly to their lawyers i'd guess:-)
no, the gpl would require that you put no limitations on the re-distribution of the *fonts* you distribute in your document, not what you write in it. which is basically meaningless, because you can just say "go download the original font here".
the *text* that you write can't be considered a derivative work of the font you write or print it in. that would mean adobe and microsoft would have copyright on pretty much everything written in the world today.
so of course you can print trade secrets in a gpl font, just as easily as you can with a commercial copyrighted font.
if you modify and distribute a gpl *font*, that's a derivative work that you can't restrict redistribution of and must give source code for. but that's less of a limitation than a commercial font, that you are not allowed to modify or distribute at all. and it still doesn't give anyone the right to copy your text.
the idea that using a gpl font in your document somehow makes *what you write* a derivative work of the font and therefore subject to the gpl is absolute unadulterated uninformed utter nonsense of the worst kind.
if you embed an actual, useable, copyrighted font file into your "document" along with what you wrote, then yes there may be restrictions on distributing it. this has nothing to do with whether it is gpl or not, it applies to any copyrighted font file. in fact, this just shows an *advantage* of using gpl fonts, because you are much more free to distribute them than you would be with a commercial copyrighted font.
either way it has absolutely nothing to do with what you wrote in the document. no-one ever gains any right to distribute or copy your text because you used a certain font, gpl or otherwise.
i'm getting awfully tired of hearing people talk about the gpl as though it can force them to do or not do things that normal copyright wouldn't. gpl starts from the baseline of copyright, and gives away certain rights to the public. by definition, it is always less restrictive than "all rights reserved" copyright. anything you can do with normal copyrighted material, you can do with gpl material.
the idea that the gpl "appears to make the use of GPL fonts undesirable in almost any document", as compared to the use of "all rights reserved" fonts, is the most outright looney thing i've heard on slashdot since... well maybe yesterday...
i don't think printing/rasterizing is anything like compiling source into binaries. if that was true, you would be able to take a printed-out document and use it to print other documents in the same typeface. the copyright is on the code (eg. postscript) that generates the type. once you print it, you lose the code completely, binary or source, it's gone. what you have left is an expression of the code's working.
if i write a calculator software, i don't get to have copyright on all the calculations you do with it.
well it depends what you mean by 'document'. i mean, if you use a gpl'ed word processor to write something, what you write isn't gpl. that would be ridiculous. and it's the same for fonts. if you print out your document, no problem. or, if you specify that something should be printed in a certain font.
but if you embed the actual fonts, eg. postscript font files, inside your document file, you have to include copyright notice and follow the gpl in distributing it. i.e., distributing the font files. not what you wrote. they don't get linked together, they can always be separated out.
well in that case, here's a fun game for you to try:
1. manufacture a baby-seat with known substandard materials and no safety testing. 2. define terms of sale that say "if your baby is injured by this product, tough shit for you". 3. profit! 4. argue that "society doesn't get to do that" when they come to handcuff you, baby-killer. 5. rot in jail, crying about how collectivists won't respect the "objective moral principles" that you made up in your own head.
your argument is that i'm wrong (and evil) because producers have an absolute and unlimited right to set whatever terms they like on their products. is this a divine right? where does the bible define copyright? an historical right? pretty much throughout history, stories, songs, and ideas have been held to be in the public domain. a legal right? something this obviously an "objective moral principle" should probably be contained in say, the magna carta, or the constitution? actually, the U.S. constitution specifically disagrees with you. so, "to hell with what the constitution says"? you can't even argue that everyone agrees that this is right (they don't) because you've already said you don't give a damn about "society" and "collectivists".
you haven't given any logical, historical, or even common-sense reasons for why i should accept that your opinion about the absolute rights of producers is an "objective moral principle". it's just your own opinion. and if your opinion contradicts the law (as did the RIAA/CRIA's) - tell it to the judge. good luck with winning out on that.
i trust my own judgement about what is right and wrong. if you have a thoughtful and compelling argument, i might be swayed by it. but in this case my thoughts are more in line with what the democratically-elected representatives and the justice system of canada have expressed, rather than some reactionary dimwit on slashdot who accuses me of being evil and immoral because he says so.
people keep talking about "losses". if you try to sell cookies made of dogshit, does everyone who doesn't buy one count as a "loss"? you have to have something before you lose it. there is simply no convincing proof that declines in record industry profits - if any - are caused by copying rather than by any of many other economic factors. maybe it's because they haven't allowed enough copying to get people really interested in music...
p2p sharing of copyrighted material _is_ theft.
it might be copyright infringement. it's never theft.
If you're listening to an mp3 of a copywrited song and you didn't pay for it... well you're in the wrong.
home taping and sharing benefits the music industry. and anyways, in Canada, you have paid for it, through the levy.
lots of companies would love to place conditions on their products like, "if it doesn't work, you're out of luck - no warranty!", or, "if this product gives you cancer - too bad for you!".
society doesn't allow producers of goods to just define whatever conditions and terms they feel like. in canada, the law says i can copy a CD for my own use whether the producer says i can or not.
well i admit that your second point is a good one. it doesn't make sense that people who use blank CDs for computer backups etc., should have to pay a music-copying fee. and people who do copy music but just keep it on their hard drive, don't pay anything. there's a big flaw in the system in that sense. i'd even go so far as to say that taking the levy from people who don't copy music is a kind of theft.
but on the first point, i just can't see that home taping is or ever has been "stealing". if i make a CD and you steal it from me, i can't sell it to someone else. that's theft, and should be a crime. but if you copy it, and i can still sell it to someone else, and then you liked it so much you come back and buy a new one... well it's just not the same thing as theft. that kind of language has been promoted by the RIAA etc. to put fear into people. when i was visiting Croatia, there was an RIAA poster campaign saying "when you download music, you're downloading communism!". i mean, it's blatant propaganda, they are representatives of the Big Music Industry and say whatever they want to convince people to give them money.
on the surface copying might seem similar to stealing - i'm taking something i didn't pay for. but it's more complex than that. it's a complex economic system and it turns out that sharing-networks are actually beneficial to it. i think that home taping has always been compatible with musicians making money, and that it even increases their ability to do so. a lot of musicians feel that way.
unfortunately there's a long history of musicians - especially black musicians - getting screwed out of making a living from their music. and that's because of the music industry, not home taping.
there's certainly room for improvement in both systems, and debate about it is good. i'm just saying, think it through for yourself, and don't just blindly accept propaganda about "theft" and "piracy" (or "communism"!) from powerful industry lobby groups. or canadian heritage ministers for that matter...
there is a grand total of ZERO music copyright infringements occuring daily using P2P software in Canada. because it's legal (at least for now). Canadians should sign the petition to keep it legal.
in other places... well, if there's no effect on record sales, why should it be a crime then? write your representative and demand that the law be changed - if it works in Canada, why not where you live?
the fact is that home taping makes people more interested in music in general. the more time you spend thinking about it, the more likely you are to spend money on it - instead of watching tv or going to a movie or a restaurant. time and time again it's been shown to be good for business. in the six months following the Canadian Supreme Court decision that not only downloading but uploading music is perfectly legal, unit sales of CDs increased over 12%!!
all this talk about "crime" is just so ridiculous.
"They" is the heritage minister, who is misinformed and is herself the one that needs to be educated. Many people are very surprised by her comments - that's why it's a news story.
The Canadian system works. People get music, musicians get money. There's no "thievery" involved.
no, it is not possible to get a refund, even if you prove you aren't using it for music. you pay 21 cents per blank CD-R, even if you use it to back up your hard drive or whatever. this pisses a lot of people off.
it also leads to weird things like blank CDs that cost 24 cents each - i can't imagine how they can make a profit if 21 cents of that is the levy? and also, blank DVDs being cheaper than blank CDs, because there's no levy on DVDs.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA! No they are not!
They are only saying they hope CRIA wins their appeal to have a court order granted, and they will be "delighted" to comply with it.
This is just an appeal of the *same* case that last year decided p2p sharing was ok, the names are the same 29 names as before. They are still pursuing the same people.
Where do you get this idea?
The Copyright Board made no such ruling, in fact just the opposite.
However a federal judge made a ruling contradicting that, saying it was legal. That ruling is now under appeal.
This is mostly inaccurate. The federal court ruled that making music available on kazaa was legal, and therefore refused to grant the court order compelling the ISPs to hand over the data. That same ruling is now under appeal.
The CRIA can't issue subpoenas, it doesn't work that way in Canada. It has to be by court order. It is *illegal* for Videotron to give up the info without such a court order, even if they want to (which they say they do). If the appeal overturns the ruling, the order will be granted against all the ISPs, not just one. If it's upheld, the data won't be given out by any of them.
They're not going to give it out unless there's a court order. They're just saying they would be "delighted" to receive and comply with the order, as opposed to the other ISPs who are fighting it in court.
This is exactly what was tested in court, about a year ago. The judge ruled that it was legal. Shaw, Bell, etc., paid for lawyers (but not Videotron). The case was appealed, and was just heard by the appeals court. That's what this story is about.
will it run on Tiger?
I built a very secure version too.
1) It had no shells of any sort, nor any user interface of any sort.
2) It would not mount any file system at all.
3) It had a firewall consisting of a one-inch air gap between the power cord and the power supply, which effectively prevented all unwanted electrons from breaking into the system.
This was *really* the ultimate in Linux security.
I struggled with this for a while.
"NOTE: We've got a case-sensitivity problem on OS X, as we use both a subdirectory called Bastille as well as a shell script called bastille. This makes the tarball expansion step fail on HFS and HFS+ filesystems. We're addressing this in the next week."
Huh? Well, it seemed to unpack for me, I don't know.
Step three actually says:
3. Run the install script, like so:
cd Bastille && sh bin/Install-OSX.sh
Which didn't work (you've corrected it above, but not on the actual page). Fooled around for a while in confusion about that, since there *is* an install script in the bin directory, but it's called "bastille"; it has an "os" option but only seems to know about HP-UX and not OSX...
Finally found the other script, which failed with lots of error messages. You need to do "sudo" before the command.
And then, "confirm that you have perl-Tk installed". Apparently I don't. "Do not forget to get perl-Tk installed before running Bastille." - to me that's a bit like "attach the toaster to your nose in the usual way". Where do I get it? Fink? Nope, not there. perltk.org? Total confusion. Ok, it's over an hour now, I'm still searching around trying to find how to install perlTk on OS X, and you know what?
Fuck it.
It's not that I don't have the skills. I just don't want fool around anymore.
I don't mean to be critical, but you've been slashdotted, and there are going to be a *lot* of people having the same frustrating experience that I just did today, who probably won't remember to come back next week when it's working.
right, this one would be called a "tarrif" not a "levy" like on blank media.
but as i understand it the government would not collect it, it would be collected directly by SOCAN, in the same way that radio stations' tarrifs are paid now.
it's not a government tax, it's a "proposal" by the copyright collectives that represent private copyright holders, asking the government to pass a law that lets them collect money for nothing.
actually it's not a government tax, the government doesn't get any of the money. it's a copyright collective representing the copyright owners that gets the money, which is called a "levy" rather than a "tax". the money goes to the musicians. and their lawyers. well mostly to their lawyers i'd guess :-)
no, the gpl would require that you put no limitations on the re-distribution of the *fonts* you distribute in your document, not what you write in it. which is basically meaningless, because you can just say "go download the original font here".
the *text* that you write can't be considered a derivative work of the font you write or print it in. that would mean adobe and microsoft would have copyright on pretty much everything written in the world today.
so of course you can print trade secrets in a gpl font, just as easily as you can with a commercial copyrighted font.
if you modify and distribute a gpl *font*, that's a derivative work that you can't restrict redistribution of and must give source code for. but that's less of a limitation than a commercial font, that you are not allowed to modify or distribute at all. and it still doesn't give anyone the right to copy your text.
why is anyone even talking about this?
the idea that using a gpl font in your document somehow makes *what you write* a derivative work of the font and therefore subject to the gpl is absolute unadulterated uninformed utter nonsense of the worst kind.
if you embed an actual, useable, copyrighted font file into your "document" along with what you wrote, then yes there may be restrictions on distributing it. this has nothing to do with whether it is gpl or not, it applies to any copyrighted font file. in fact, this just shows an *advantage* of using gpl fonts, because you are much more free to distribute them than you would be with a commercial copyrighted font.
either way it has absolutely nothing to do with what you wrote in the document. no-one ever gains any right to distribute or copy your text because you used a certain font, gpl or otherwise.
i'm getting awfully tired of hearing people talk about the gpl as though it can force them to do or not do things that normal copyright wouldn't. gpl starts from the baseline of copyright, and gives away certain rights to the public. by definition, it is always less restrictive than "all rights reserved" copyright. anything you can do with normal copyrighted material, you can do with gpl material.
the idea that the gpl "appears to make the use of GPL fonts undesirable in almost any document", as compared to the use of "all rights reserved" fonts, is the most outright looney thing i've heard on slashdot since... well maybe yesterday...
nothing to see here... move along.
i don't think printing/rasterizing is anything like compiling source into binaries. if that was true, you would be able to take a printed-out document and use it to print other documents in the same typeface. the copyright is on the code (eg. postscript) that generates the type. once you print it, you lose the code completely, binary or source, it's gone. what you have left is an expression of the code's working.
if i write a calculator software, i don't get to have copyright on all the calculations you do with it.
"ipso fastso" - hee hee.
well it depends what you mean by 'document'. i mean, if you use a gpl'ed word processor to write something, what you write isn't gpl. that would be ridiculous. and it's the same for fonts. if you print out your document, no problem. or, if you specify that something should be printed in a certain font.
but if you embed the actual fonts, eg. postscript font files, inside your document file, you have to include copyright notice and follow the gpl in distributing it. i.e., distributing the font files. not what you wrote. they don't get linked together, they can always be separated out.
well in that case, here's a fun game for you to try:
1. manufacture a baby-seat with known substandard materials and no safety testing.
2. define terms of sale that say "if your baby is injured by this product, tough shit for you".
3. profit!
4. argue that "society doesn't get to do that" when they come to handcuff you, baby-killer.
5. rot in jail, crying about how collectivists won't respect the "objective moral principles" that you made up in your own head.
your argument is that i'm wrong (and evil) because producers have an absolute and unlimited right to set whatever terms they like on their products. is this a divine right? where does the bible define copyright? an historical right? pretty much throughout history, stories, songs, and ideas have been held to be in the public domain. a legal right? something this obviously an "objective moral principle" should probably be contained in say, the magna carta, or the constitution? actually, the U.S. constitution specifically disagrees with you. so, "to hell with what the constitution says"? you can't even argue that everyone agrees that this is right (they don't) because you've already said you don't give a damn about "society" and "collectivists".
you haven't given any logical, historical, or even common-sense reasons for why i should accept that your opinion about the absolute rights of producers is an "objective moral principle". it's just your own opinion. and if your opinion contradicts the law (as did the RIAA/CRIA's) - tell it to the judge. good luck with winning out on that.
i trust my own judgement about what is right and wrong. if you have a thoughtful and compelling argument, i might be swayed by it. but in this case my thoughts are more in line with what the democratically-elected representatives and the justice system of canada have expressed, rather than some reactionary dimwit on slashdot who accuses me of being evil and immoral because he says so.
actually, yes, sorry, there is one exemption allowed, for persons with perceptual disabilities.
i was thinking it meant for blind people so they could get audio books. but maybe it's for deaf people too. i don't know.
p2p sharing of copyrighted material _is_ theft.
it might be copyright infringement. it's never theft.
If you're listening to an mp3 of a copywrited song and you didn't pay for it... well you're in the wrong.
home taping and sharing benefits the music industry. and anyways, in Canada, you have paid for it, through the levy.
i wouldn't say that's a "simple fact" at all.
lots of companies would love to place conditions on their products like, "if it doesn't work, you're out of luck - no warranty!", or, "if this product gives you cancer - too bad for you!".
society doesn't allow producers of goods to just define whatever conditions and terms they feel like. in canada, the law says i can copy a CD for my own use whether the producer says i can or not.
you can have a law like that too, if you want.
well i admit that your second point is a good one. it doesn't make sense that people who use blank CDs for computer backups etc., should have to pay a music-copying fee. and people who do copy music but just keep it on their hard drive, don't pay anything. there's a big flaw in the system in that sense. i'd even go so far as to say that taking the levy from people who don't copy music is a kind of theft.
but on the first point, i just can't see that home taping is or ever has been "stealing". if i make a CD and you steal it from me, i can't sell it to someone else. that's theft, and should be a crime. but if you copy it, and i can still sell it to someone else, and then you liked it so much you come back and buy a new one... well it's just not the same thing as theft. that kind of language has been promoted by the RIAA etc. to put fear into people. when i was visiting Croatia, there was an RIAA poster campaign saying "when you download music, you're downloading communism!". i mean, it's blatant propaganda, they are representatives of the Big Music Industry and say whatever they want to convince people to give them money.
on the surface copying might seem similar to stealing - i'm taking something i didn't pay for. but it's more complex than that. it's a complex economic system and it turns out that sharing-networks are actually beneficial to it. i think that home taping has always been compatible with musicians making money, and that it even increases their ability to do so. a lot of musicians feel that way.
unfortunately there's a long history of musicians - especially black musicians - getting screwed out of making a living from their music. and that's because of the music industry, not home taping.
there's certainly room for improvement in both systems, and debate about it is good. i'm just saying, think it through for yourself, and don't just blindly accept propaganda about "theft" and "piracy" (or "communism"!) from powerful industry lobby groups. or canadian heritage ministers for that matter...
there is a grand total of ZERO music copyright infringements occuring daily using P2P software in Canada. because it's legal (at least for now). Canadians should sign the petition to keep it legal.
in other places... well, if there's no effect on record sales, why should it be a crime then? write your representative and demand that the law be changed - if it works in Canada, why not where you live?
the fact is that home taping makes people more interested in music in general. the more time you spend thinking about it, the more likely you are to spend money on it - instead of watching tv or going to a movie or a restaurant. time and time again it's been shown to be good for business. in the six months following the Canadian Supreme Court decision that not only downloading but uploading music is perfectly legal, unit sales of CDs increased over 12%!!
all this talk about "crime" is just so ridiculous.
The Canadian system works. People get music, musicians get money. There's no "thievery" involved.
actually there's no levy on VCR tapes, or blank DVDs either. it's not allowed to copy movies, only music.
no, it is not possible to get a refund, even if you prove you aren't using it for music. you pay 21 cents per blank CD-R, even if you use it to back up your hard drive or whatever. this pisses a lot of people off. it also leads to weird things like blank CDs that cost 24 cents each - i can't imagine how they can make a profit if 21 cents of that is the levy? and also, blank DVDs being cheaper than blank CDs, because there's no levy on DVDs.