Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada News Politics Your Rights Online

The Canadian DMCA Battle Concludes: How Thousands of Canadians Changed Copyright 122

Posted by samzenpus
from the take-off dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Nearly 15 years of debate over digital copyright reform will come to an end today as Bill C-11, the fourth legislative attempt at Canadian copyright reform, passes in the House of Commons. Many participants in the copyright debate view the bill with great disappointment, pointing to the government's decision to adopt restrictive digital lock rules as a signal that their views were ignored. Despite the loss on digital locks, the "Canadian copyright" led to some dramatic changes to Canadian copyright with some important wins for Canadians who spoke out on copyright. The government expanded fair dealing and added provisions on time shifting, format shifting, backup copies, and user generated content in response to public pressure. It also included a cap on statutory damages, expanded education exceptions, and rejected SOPA-style amendments."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Canadian DMCA Battle Concludes: How Thousands of Canadians Changed Copyright

Comments Filter:
  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday June 18, 2012 @10:22AM (#40358945)

    What good do all those "time shifting, format shifting, backup copies" exemptions do when the digital lock provisions make them all completely illegal anyway? Sure, you can backup and format shift your DVD's, just as long as you don't break the CSS encryption to do so. In other words, it's illegal to format shift or backup your DVD's/Blu-rays/etc.

    I mean, let's face it. No one gives a shit about format-shifting or backing up their own home videos. The whole point of format shifting is to move COMMERCIAL material from my physical DVD/Blu-ray to my computer.

    Canadians must have a very different definition of "important wins" than us Americans. This is nothing less than a complete and outright victory for Hollywood and the media powers.

    • Yeah, but they ONLY lost that much. That's a victory in and of itself right? Right?
    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday June 18, 2012 @10:41AM (#40359109) Journal
      It depends on the enforcement and wording. For example, the DMCA only protects 'effective' countermeasures. One argument that has been made is that any countermeasure that has been compromised is no longer effective, which would mean that the act of breaking DRM would demonstrate that it was not effective and therefore not protected by the DMCA. If the Canadian version has similar wording and courts uphold this interpretation, then it's a win...
      • by Scott64 (1181495) on Monday June 18, 2012 @11:10AM (#40359391)

        When this argument was brought up during the last attempt to pass this legislation, it was said that "effective" doesn't necessarily mean that it "works well" in this context, just that protection is "in effect" (no matter how ineffective the protection actually is). IANAL, but I believe that distinction was made by one and if I had any clue where I read that, I'd link to it.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18, 2012 @11:49AM (#40359775)

          Here is the direct link to the bill [parl.gc.ca]. It is in lawyer / legislative speak, but (as you alluded to) says nothing about effective.

          • by anethema (99553)
            It does:

            “technological protection measure” means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation,

            (a) controls access to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; or

            (b) restricts the doing — with respect to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording — of any act ref
      • by mark-t (151149)
        It doesn't.
      • by thoromyr (673646)

        you are wrong. the DMCA in no way requires the measure be effective. You are only allowed to circumvent measures if doing so does not create other crimes and you defeat it by yourself without assistance or instruction. In other words, using the library available for linux to decrypt a dvd is an illegal circumvention. The only case I've seen where this addressed by a judge it was found to be a sufficient exception.

        Perhaps to you the "circumvention exception" demonstrates "lack of effective" but in that case

    • You don't need to break the digital lock to copy DVDs. After copying, you will have a DRM'd copy.

      -- hendrik

      • The legislation doesn't say break, it says circumvent. If you are able to copy the disk (which is what the DRM attempts to prevent) by copying the DRM as well, then you effectively circumvented it.
        • Wow. This gets obscure. It all depends on just what circumvent is taken to mean. The DRM on DVDs was designed to prevent one from using a DVD from one region in another. Copying the entire DVD does not circumvent that. The copy still cannot be used in another region. To use the DVD in another region you actually have to break the encryption.

          It's not clear how a court would interpret the word.

          Copying it may, of course, still be a copyright violation whether a lock has been circumvented or not.

          • No, it's very clear what circumvent means in a legal context, which is exactly the regular definition of the word. As precendent shows clearly, bypassing = circumventing.
          • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the region coding has anything to do with the encryption, I believe that's on a reserved part of the disk and only the data itself is encrypted.
            • The decryption key is on the DVD, but it's encrypted many times using the various encryption keys entrusted to various manufacturere. This way, if a manufacturer breaks the rules, it's just deleted from future DVDs and its equipment becomes useless for new DVDs.

              I don't know where thet region key is actually stored.

  • Inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anrego (830717) * on Monday June 18, 2012 @10:24AM (#40358969)

    But still sucks.

    This is largely the problem with law. You can just keep on trying, until the public runs out of energy fighting it or it succeeds by fluke. If this hadn’t passed we’d be reading stores about the 5’th attempt, then the 6’th. In a weird way I’m glad it’s finally over.

    And the digital locks thing sucks big time. I mean practically speaking, I’d still feel safe ripping a DVD at home it’s the guys writing the software that enables me to do this that are going to be hit. Just in principle it annoys me that it is no longer legal in many cases for me to make backups (or realistically make copies and keep the original media as backup) of media I purchased.

    It’s infuriating, because I buy media to rip it onto my computer where I ultimately watch/listen to it. I do this despite it being considerably _less_ convenient then downloading it for _free_ because despite my hatred of big media, I still don’t think it entitles me to just grab their stuff for free. I (figuratively) have money, sitting in my pocket, that I would happily spend on high quality DRM free downloads if anyone would offer them to me. They don’t. So I do it the hard way.. and now they are making that somewhat illegal, in some pretend effort to prevent me from going the absolute easiest and quickest route (just downloading the damn thing) .. which is exactly what it will drive me to! I still don't feel I am somehow entitled to media on my terms.. but I've just stopped caring.

    • by sfhock (1308629)
      another option: buy it and then download the free version. I will occasionally do this if I'm too lazy to rummage through my physical media and rip the original source. It assuages your guilt, and it's more convenient!
    • Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Loughla (2531696) on Monday June 18, 2012 @10:45AM (#40359149)

      It’s infuriating, because I buy media to rip it onto my computer where I ultimately watch/listen to it. I do this despite it being considerably _less_ convenient then downloading it for _free_ because despite my hatred of big media, I still don’t think it entitles me to just grab their stuff for free. I (figuratively) have money, sitting in my pocket, that I would happily spend on high quality DRM free downloads if anyone would offer them to me. They don’t. So I do it the hard way.. and now they are making that somewhat illegal, in some pretend effort to prevent me from going the absolute easiest and quickest route (just downloading the damn thing) .. which is exactly what it will drive me to! I still don't feel I am somehow entitled to media on my terms.. but I've just stopped caring.

      And this sentiment exactly is how these companies/countries can justify anti-piracy measures. It becomes, "Look, look, they're pirating this, we have to lock down our material more to make it stop."

      I'm not sure if it's a vicious cycle, or just a circlejerk. But it's definitely one of the two.

      I'm in the same boat as you - I buy it, and then either rip it or download it, just to appease my conscience. I purchased a DRM free game about a week ago - the download folder contained an .exe file. I was actually hesitant to move the file. Do you know how long it's been since I've seen a file that was easily portable, and contained every piece of the game? That's F***ed up.

      • Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18, 2012 @11:26AM (#40359559)

        The vicious cycle is not between big media and the pirates.

        The cycle is between the big media and their customers suffering from battered wife syndrome, such as people like you and the GP/OP.

        People like you and the GP keep paying them money, so they can keep on existing, doing what they want to do, and what they want is DRM

        If you don't like DRM, simply don't buy it. Do not give them the privilege of your money. Whether you pirate it or not afterward is irrelevant. The bottom line is... the bottom line. Hit them where it hurts.

        They're not going to magically turn around if you keep paying them money.

        • by dgatwood (11270)

          No, it's more like a power-hungry politician's wife putting up with her husband's affairs. There are very real and tangible benefits to paying them money—you get to watch their stuff—and the level of abuse is relatively small compared to the benefit. The people who legitimately need to make copies of the content ignore the law, knowing full well that there is unlikely to be any attempt to prosecute them for doing so, and that it would be an ideal opportunity for the defense lawyer to mention

          • by thoromyr (673646)

            the problem with this is the same as with music: inherent monopoly. I can't create a movie to compete with the avengers that has Thor, Captain America, etc. Those characters are all "protected". If I don't like how does business I can't just buy from -- that's not how it works.

            If you watch independent films you'll find that there are some real stinkers. There are also some diamonds in the rough ("Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" yeah!). But it basically doesn't matter how good one of those movies is, becaus

            • by dgatwood (11270)

              If the terms to use AES, blowfish, etc., were onerous would you just create your own cryptosystem to get around it? Unless you happen to be a world class cryptologist it isn't likely to end well for you.

              Having done both movie production and a bit of light crypto work, I can definitively state that making movies is a hell of a lot easier than designing a robust encryption scheme. Making good movies takes creativity, a lot of work, a fair number of people, and enormous amounts of time and patience, but it is

          • by cas2000 (148703)

            i thought that car analogies were dumb.

            but misogynstic battered-wife analogies are even worse.

          • by Altrag (195300)

            When the existing media houses notice that you're starting to cut into their bottom line significantly

            Except that you have an unbelievably small chance of this happening, and its got nothing to do with DRM or any other technical measure. Its got to do with the fact that you almost certainly don't have the money to produce and distribute an industry-quality movie.

            You can start a studio, you can avoid DRM. You might even make a profit. But you've got a good few decades of business building before you've got any chance of impacting the big studios in any meaningful manner.

            And if they think that's even a pos

        • Re:Inevitable (Score:4, Insightful)

          by shoehornjob (1632387) on Monday June 18, 2012 @02:57PM (#40362283)

          The vicious cycle is not between big media and the pirates. The cycle is between the big media and their customers suffering from battered wife syndrome, such as people like you and the GP/OP. People like you and the GP keep paying them money, so they can keep on existing, doing what they want to do, and what they want is DRM If you don't like DRM, simply don't buy it. Do not give them the privilege of your money. Whether you pirate it or not afterward is irrelevant. The bottom line is... the bottom line. Hit them where it hurts.

          That pretty much says it all right there. What this really comes down to is a lifestyle change. I'm willing to give up on certain kinds of media if I can't get it on my terms. Plain and simple.

      • I do not live in Canada but I want them to pass this, we will see what propaganda Big Media has to use when it is proven they are still losing money!!! I even question if the money they are losing is from buying off government, lawyers, and filing lawsuits. Instead of adopting the new and growing technology the insist on trying to destroy it.. I would not be surprised if the US government is behind this to begin with, using it as an experiment to see if this is an idea worth the time and effort.
    • Re:Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday June 18, 2012 @10:53AM (#40359223)

      What makes you think it's over?

      • Yes! Don't be downhearted. This is a fight the copyright extremists can't win.

        They can pass laws that declare the value of pi is 3.0 and the world is flat, but that doesn't make it so. They can outlaw gravity all they like, but gravity won't obey. They can outlaw sex and procreation. After all, that is copying! Be a bit difficult to enforce that on bacteria. But beings capable of comprehending such a law should also understand its consequences. Anyone who doesn't, and mindlessly obeys a law like t

        • by J Story (30227)

          These laws are all unconscionable. Don't feel guilty for breaking those kinds of laws! In fact, I regard it our duty to rebel against this. And good training to get us to be better citizens by questioning bad laws.

          Civil Disobedience is a time-honoured response to bad law. The other part of Civil Disobedience, of course, is accepting the penalty of contravening the law. Fortunately, it appears that the penalties for individual non-commercial infringers are not enough for the **IA vermin to pursue. Even in the US we are seeing pushback.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I work for a company who's primary software product is DVD/Bluray backup software and this is certainly worrying as its made what we do illegal here [in Canada]. I read the news on the way to work this morning and it certainly ruined my day. I suppose its time to start applying elsewhere for a development gig. I can always trust the conservatives to bend over for American corporations and endager Canadian jobs it seems.

    • by evorster (2664141)
      Well, maybe not.
      I recently read that Europe knocked down some sneaky lobbying, and made some laws to the opposite effect than what the lobby group wanted... I think it had something to do with the IP ratchet of trying to force SOPA on the European populace, or something.

      So, if you push back hard enough, there might some enterprising politican that decides that staying in power longer will be more profitable than taking a quick bribe, you might get laws banning some of the more horrible abuses you are s
    • Cold Turkey (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Monday June 18, 2012 @01:43PM (#40361279)
      Or you could, you know, stop watching/listening to all this stuff (even for 'free') and tell the content creators explicitly why you won't be bothering with their works until *they* are willing to cut out the Content Lords and deal with their fans directly in an honest and fair (affordable and DRM-free) manner. And if they won't (due to greed) why would you want to pay them or even pay attention to them anyway? Even copying their stuff helps keep a corrupt, democratically corrosive system going.

      And if we cannot truly go without the luxury of entertainment (to keep us distracted from contemplating how empty and meaningless our lives are or some peer pressure 'did you see...' BS), then we have to take the first step and admit we're nothing but an addict.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      With all due respect, you are simply a fool to give these people money, which they will use to try to take over the internet.

      All other issues are secondary to this.
    • by Altrag (195300)

      Well no, there's a solution -- pass a law with compromises that both sides of the issue can agree on. Its only when you get an all-or-nothing approach that the people with the greater vested interests are able to win by simply wearing down their opponent.

      In the case of this law, we (the public) got huge wins out of the deal. In particular, they removed or at least nerfed the worst of the presumed-guilty portions (notice-and-takedown, SOPA-style website DOS'ing, etc.) That's a pretty huge win in anybody's

    • I wouldn't be giving them money, then. In fact, I think it would be better if you would just download the material (if you feel you must have it), because between supporting them and not supporting them, I believe not supporting them is always the better option. It has nothing to do with entitlement, but the fact that it's simply there. You needn't hold a gun to their head.

  • by BForrester (946915) on Monday June 18, 2012 @10:41AM (#40359115)

    At least give attribution to the summary, lifted in its entirety from Michael Geist's blog:

    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/ [michaelgeist.ca]

    The original post also gives a great breakdown of the specific policies that will change under this new legislation.

  • About backups: for home use, I will continue to do backups of my original. If theres a copy protection, I will use a hack or a crack so I can use the copy. I use the copy I did just in case my original breaks. lets face it, physical media cost a bunch when they break...and yes they break

    copy: if I copy some music from my original cd's or dvd's and theres a problem with DRM or copying issues, then I'll download a cracked version

    Let's face it, for low end consumers like me and lots of others, it doesn't chang

    • by Altrag (195300)

      This is what I don't get about the constant DRM push. It doesn't prevent the people who want to copy things from copying things. The people running the MPAA and RIAA aren't stupid. They know this. So why do they continue pouring money into corrupting the legal system in a way that doesn't really benefit them in the end?

      I mean sure they can claim $185zillion in damages from little Suzy and her grandmother.. but that's fictional money anyway -- the best they can get out of Suzy is every penny she ever ear

  • a vpn cost $60 or less a year and through that you can get every piece of media you could ever want with no chance of getting sued

    and even without a vpn the chance of you personally getting sued is so low that if you worry about it you might as well not leave the house because a random lightning strike has about the same chance of doing you in

    a netflix streaming only sub costs nearly 100 a year for only a limited selection of movies that you can only watch on their approved devices

    the old system of invest i

  • Nice to have clarity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by canajin56 (660655) on Monday June 18, 2012 @11:08AM (#40359375)
    Last week my wife wanted an eBook, but it wasn't available through Amazon. She bought it through Kobo, then removed the Kobo DRM and converted it to a .mobi and put it on her Kindle. It's nice to know that this is now legal format shifting and also illegal lock breaking. What a relief it is to have that kind of clarity. It's nice to know that the Harper government considers this acceptable because "It's unlikely that copyright holders would consider it worthwhile to sue individual violators". This makes me feel so safe. At least it's still just a civil violation, not a 10 year felony ;) It's still absolutely insane that Harper would defend the bill as "we won't enforce it so why worry?"
    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      I called my MP directly in advance of this bill and told him that I will not vote for a party that passes a law that makes me a criminal when I view a piece of media that I've paid for.

    • by mark-t (151149)
      No.... copyright infringement is definitely *NOT* just a civil violation. At least not in Canada. And yes... it can include a jail term, if the judge determines the circumstances are appropriate (afaik, only ever applied in cases of commercial infringement).
      • by canajin56 (660655)
        Format shifting isn't copyright infringement anymore. Did you even read the summary? Apparently not. The illegal part comes from "digital lock breaking", a new offense created by this new law. There are no statutory damages for it, though, so although my wife is a criminal now, Kobo would be hard pressed to win a cent from her and so likely would not bother.
        • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Monday June 18, 2012 @08:41PM (#40365385) Journal

          Actually, format shifting any digitally locked work without consent of the copyright holder will be illegal under C-11. It doesn't matter whether or not the fair dealing provision should apply, because the fair dealing provisions explicitly exclude any case where the work was subject to a "technological protection measure".

          This is why the so-called expanded fair dealing provisions in the bill are laughable... they are entirely revocable at the discretion of the content provider who can choose to use a digital lock.

          The conservatives have stated that they don't expect to hold individuals accountable for "privately" breaking any digital locks, but that's only because trying to enforce it at that level would be virtually impossible without an enormous change in the privacy laws in Canada.

          On the other hand, this bill effectively makes the Canadian blank media levy a completely illegal tax... since it exists to compensate artists for private use copying, but under C-11, with its digital lock provisions prohibiting decryption of any work without permission, any otherwise existing provision that might allow somebody to private copy a digital work is rendered all but completely moot. For what it's worth, it's the Conservative's intent to scrap this levy.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18, 2012 @11:18AM (#40359475)

    But here in the states with the limits on copyright duration, I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled DMCA and digital locks unconstitutional as it extends copyright to infinity. There are no provisions for placing all encryption keys into an escrow account to be released to the public on xyz date.
    There are no provisions in the encryption methodology to turn off encryption after xyz date.

    Current encryption methods used on all DVD and Blu-Ray devices are illegal due to how they extend copyright (based on DMCA or DMCA type laws).

    • I'm sorry, are you contributing multiple millions of dollars to reelection campaigns? No? Then you don't exist.

    • by dgatwood (11270)

      But here in the states with the limits on copyright duration, I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled DMCA and digital locks unconstitutional as it extends copyright to infinity. There are no provisions for placing all encryption keys into an escrow account to be released to the public on xyz date.

      No need. It becomes legal to break the encryption the moment copyright expires. By definition, the DMCA only covers systems that effectively protect a copyrighted work. (Title 17, section 1201: "No pers

      • by anethema (99553)
        This wont help us Canadians though, there is no such wording in this bill:

        41.1 (1) No person shall

        (a) circumvent a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition "technological protection measure" in section 41;

        This is the definition to which they are referring.

        "technological protection measure" means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation,

        (a) controls access to a work, to a perform er&rsquo;s performance fixed
    • by J Story (30227)

      But here in the states with the limits on copyright duration, I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled DMCA and digital locks unconstitutional as it extends copyright to infinity.

      I believe it was Lawrence Lessig who argued against the last extension of copyright a few years ago. SCOTUS found that as long as copyright was not forever then Congress was within its constitutional rights to continue extending copyright.

  • A win or a loss, depending upon your perspective. Appropriate for the 200th anniversary of the declaration of the War of 1812.

  • by RecoveredMarketroid (569802) on Monday June 18, 2012 @11:32AM (#40359611)
    A thought off the top of my head... Can the digital lock provisions be used to protect personal communications? People are very worried about eavesdropping/profiling of their online activity-- wouldn't applying a 'digital lock' of even a trivial sort make place the eavesdroppers outside the law?

    Obviously, strong encryption can protect your communications. But this is potentially something different-- you aren't guaranteeing the security of your communication, but rather, shifting the legal burden of violation onto some of the parties who sought to create the law in the first place...

    For example, what if your bittorrent tracker information is protected by a digital lock?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Haha, you actually think that the government will follow it's own laws? Don't you know that they make the laws, they don't follow them. =P

      Funny verification : explains

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      A thought off the top of my head... Can the digital lock provisions be used to protect personal communications?

      Oddly enough yes. I'll see if I can find the SSC summery judgement on the issue it was 5 or 6 years ago.

    • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Monday June 18, 2012 @04:40PM (#40363395) Journal
      Actually, the bill does contain explicit exemptions to its digital locks provisions for the specific purposes of both law enforcement and computer/network security. If you can make a valid case that your decrypting somebody else's lock falls in one of those categories, you're fine.
      • by Simoniac (55817)

        Actually, the bill does contain explicit exemptions to its digital locks provisions for the specific purposes of both law enforcement and computer/network security. If you can make a valid case that your decrypting somebody else's lock falls in one of those categories, you're fine.

        Hmm, software like AnyDVD does allow you to run a malware scan on your media, and pre-recorded media have been sold with security-compromising software in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal [wikipedia.org]

  • Media companies (Score:5, Informative)

    by ciderbrew (1860166) on Monday June 18, 2012 @12:24PM (#40360209)
    I'm not too sure if people for "Media" read this; but here it goes.

    Dear Crap Mongers
    I've stopped downloading, no longer bother with cinema and haven't had a TV for well over a year. It's going well and I hope you go out of business. There is really so much more to be doing than watching the bland stuff you produce. (Live open mic comedy is fantastic in London).
    Life without a constant barrage of marketing is really nice too.
    Your's
    Some bloke...

    If I can't watch it on iplayer(BBC) - It's not worth the bother - I've really missed nothing of worth have I.
    • by Altrag (195300)

      Don't forget to stop playing non-indie video games or listening to any music that you didn't personally purchase from a local artist. The music and game industries are just as guilty as the movie industry for ramming extreme copyright down our throats. Oh. And don't read anything either. The publishing industry isn't our friend either. I assume you're running an open-source OS as well?

      I hope you're extremely good at entertaining yourself, and that you work for a business that uses all open-source softw

      • Protesting all of that at once is possible, but I'm not sure it's really necessary. You could do it one by one if need be.

  • Since they won't remove the "digital lock" provision from the bill, then we're all just going to ignore the laws like we always do anyway.

    Like I really give a fuck what they say I can and can't do. Good luck trying to enforce criminal law... there's such a thing as needing solid evidence in criminal court. Go ahead and try to sue me... I deliberately own nothing and I won't even recognize the authority of the kangaroo court. (Make whatever judgement you want in my absence)

    • by Altrag (195300)

      Good luck with that one. This sort of attitude a) does nothing to improve the world, and b) is only useful as long as you aren't targeted.

      If you're told to show up for a criminal trial and you just don't bother, the cops WILL come hunting and will forcibly drag you to the judge (and probably to jail) if they have to. So unless you're OK with being on the run for the rest of your life, you might want to rethink your choices.

      You're a part of society whether you like or not.

      Of course the chance that anyone w

      • In addition to being a condescending twat, you also can't comprehend what you read. I said criminal court requires real evidence (difficult to enforce criminal provisions... it wouldn't even get off the ground) and for being sued in civil (kangaroo) court, I just won't show up. I don't have to... judgment would be rendered in my absence. I really wouldn't even have to run, only withdraw. I would just have no money and there's nothing they could do about it as long as I did no banking transactions. This is C

  • You're allowed to format shift, but you won't be allowed to decrypt to format shift.

    Freakin' morons!!!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Freakin' morons!!!

      They're not morons. They're con-men. They're providing wonderful representation to their real constituents, who definitely aren't your average Canadian citizen.

  • I think the issue here is: - What the entertainment corporations want - Who's Govt work for - What is the Govt role in this decision - What consumers want / need - Who decides how things can be changed I think as a consumer, my version of the answers are: - What the entertainment corporations want Infinite money (to be laundered and keep the status quo) - Who's Govt work for well..one more level and we will find them in ebay.... - What is the Govt role in this decision To convince consumers that the ri
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Who's Govt work for

      Um, I think the Who's government is in Britain, not Canada.

  • Fighting Piracy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So they are going to fight piracy by making a law that will make legitimate sources (music, video, etc...) MORE restrictive?

    Solution: Don't buy media with locks on them.

    Is it just me or is the result going to be different than what the people that wrote that thought it was going to be?

    I mean if I legally buy something, and to make it useful to me I have to defeat a lock, which makes me a criminal anyway, why do I bother spending ANY money on legitimate services, which I might as well just skip the middle ma

  • Not sure how I or anyone missed this, but was reading through the bill and noticed a paragraph basically making sure unlocking was legal. Also made sure to include unlocking services for others was legal as well:

    41.18 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply to a person who circumvents a technolog- ical protection measure on a radio apparatus for the sole purpose of gaining access to a telecommunications service by means of the radio apparatus.

    (2) Paragraphs 41.1(1)(b) and (c) do not apply to a perso
  • What will it take for governments to STOP listening to the big media companies on issues like 3-strikes, anti-circumvention, website take-downs (the kind that happen without due process or any independent validation that yes, the site is doing something illegal) and other stuff?
    Or is there no government willing to challenge the power of the media juggernauts?

  • Currently, I record unlocked TV signals in HD over antenna. I record these to a computer. The computer then processes the shows to mark the commercials. When I play back the content, the player is instructed to use the markers to skip this portion of the content. Note that no portion of the original show is deleted or edited... I mean it has commercials, I just choose not to see them. Is this legal or illegal?

    I remind you that I do not have cable or satellite and I am not paying for these programs or agreei

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers

Working...