Comments on: Canada’s copyright law overhaul: Fair or Foolish?

By: Thomas Lauterbach

Thomas Lauterbach — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:51:54 +0000

It's just another case of caving into "Big Business"
(Read U.S. Interest).The "Conservatives" are very good at that,Example:late 1950's skrew-up with the "Avro Arrow"' at the time the world's fastest jet fighter, scrapped by
"Deffenbaker" the then Prime Minister (Read Conservative).

By: brian Herbert

brian Herbert — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:50:26 +0000

believe me, this bill will definatly give the artists the money they deserved in the first place for their works of art, but sadly, i myself am guilty of downloading because i do not possess the money to buy my media. maybe if a compromise is met, such as lowering prices on movies and cds will make me never download for free again.

By: Jim Clark

Jim Clark — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:30:59 +0000

The record companies got themselves into this mess by releasing CDs with 14 or 15 songs on them of which one or two were worth listeneing to and they were charging prices that were equivalent to CDs full of listenable material. What is the bigger crime, downloading the good stuff or being ripped off by the record companies by paying full value for a CD with one good song and 14 filler tracks?

By: Unknown

Unknown — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:03:51 +0000

Definately not fair. We're getting to be just as bad as the Yankee's……… We already pay a flippin levy on our blank media that's supposed to go to the recording industry….. I hope they remove it if the new law passes, but I highly doubt it will be removed. As the new saying goes, "WHICH MOVIE COMPANY DID YOU VOTE FOR IN THE LAST ELECTION"……………………

By: sharp

sharp — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:08:26 +0000

As has already been said we pay a levy already supposedly to allow us to copy music for personal use if the new law is passed will the levy be lifted ans also is there some sort of amnesty for music people have downloaded before the law takes effect. As a long time downloader with a fairly large investment in my collection I have taken the time to burn my music in the order of the factory CD and have even replicated the artwork for the CD cases this is all for my personal use and has been an ongoing hobby for me for quite some time as it was my understanding that as long as it was for my own use it was OK If the laws change I intend to stop but I shouldn't have to get rid of what I've gone to alot of time and trouble putting together and was perfectly legal when I did it would you be able to charge someone for speeding if they did 90 kmh on a road yesterday that the speed limit was changed to 80 kmh today. All I've found on this legislation is very brief explanations of the main details of this law where would i find the information in it's complete form btw the link you have in the article doesn't seem to work

By: stuart

stuart — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:05:45 +0000

Well, I guess this means it will be illegal to buy A vcr, dvd burner, Ipod, mp3 player, or anything else to record media with. What's next? Will we have blockers on our hard drives to make it impossible to download anything with a copyright. Hello George Orwell, 1984 is here! I hope the companies that produce all these media recording devices step up and say something. I guess this will put them out of business when you can't even record a program on your vcr when you are at work to watch when you get home. What are the "duly elected representatives" thinking? I store my pictures on cd. There's no copyright infringement there, but I paid the government their cut for "recording artists". Let's call a spade a spade and realize that it is the recording industry getting the mone, not the artist. Lets be like the states and give in to private interest groups. Smarten up government, this will hurt more people than it helps. How many more people in the media industry will lose jobs because of this law.

By: fogie2008

fogie2008 — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:42:24 +0000

Canadians have been paying a levy (tax) on blank recording media for some time. It was intended to provide compensation for the original artists for personal use copying for the purpose of car discs, backups, etc. Bill C61 is a classic case of the Canadian government kissing the bottom of the US interests and ignoring the interests of Canadians.

This policy fully meets the criteria of my government program measuring tool.

1. It appears to be politically correct
2. It will have no appreciable positive impact on the perceived problem.
3. It will harass, inconvenience and cost the average taxpayer.
4. It will enable the hiring of more “Arts” graduates to do meaningless studies.

It is just another example of our government bending over backwards to please US interests. Proposed Bill 51 on herbal/ natural remedies is a further example of the current malaise.

By: NOT telling my name

NOT telling my name — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:39:29 +0000

guys i think it is slim chance that the government will find people downloading illigally cause there are more the 12 million iin canada
that what i think

By: Devil's Advocatulary

Devil's Advocatulary — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:39:13 +0000

Stang - I have read the fine print and I am reading that you have mis-read it. The up-to $20,000 fine is only applicable if you are allowing other's to download a file off of your computer. So if you have purchased something legitimately, and then place it in a file folder on your computer that other users across the internet can access (such as the one that you use for peer-to-peer), then the onus is on you for allowing it. Not only do you face all kinds of fines but you are now eligable to be sued by the artist or publisher of the work(s). And it starts to multiply depending on how many files are in that folder. That is where the $20,000 comes in because it actually starts at $500 and caps at $20,000. Your second point about transferring a legit file from a CD to an iPod is still legal, as long as there was no lock put on it. You are still allowed to make backups of all your discs, put them into different devices, change the format, as long as there was no lock device. And why did they start putting these lock devices on media? I bet you already know the answer. Personally, I don't like the idea of the locks so that I can't make a backup copy or transfer it to another device. But if they feel like this is what they have to do, then they run the risk of losing sales. So if you don't like it, then don't buy it. Until things are not so rampant across the internet with file sharing, then I am afraid this is what's going to happen with everything. It will go back to the stone age when only the rich could afford music.

With iTunes and such other online stores, you have two ways of obtaining their files. One is actually purchasing a single song for whatever the suggested price is, and then you are allowed to download it and put it on whatever device you want. It is yours to keep. The other way is to pay a subscription and listen to whatever song you want. This is like having a lease. You don't own the song, just get to listen to it. It comes with a digital lock that is only playable on their devices. So you have to own an iPod in order to take it with you or listen to it on the computer with their Media Player. They still pay the artists royalties every time someone listens to their particular song (about a penny). So if you try to take that song that you leased and transfer it to a CD, then you will need to break that lock in order to do so, thus breaking the law. Because now iTunes doesn't make any money and especially the artist. So once you don't subscribe anymore, you no longer have access to that music. Just like if you stop paying the lease on a car, the car is gone!

The last thing that any of these companies or artists wants to do is start sueing people. But when 97 percent of media is obtained without permission, then something has to be done. If you think that you can't get caught, then you better start putting $500 aside for every file you download. Once you go online with peer-to-peer, you expose your IP address, plus you can see every file that is in that folder. And by law, the Internet Service Provider has to provide your information should someone request it through the court. You also face the risk of being banned from access to the internet.

David Fewer of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic explains it best in an article with a breakdown of the new Bill. I suggest everyone do a search and read it to understand what is proposed as it is written in an easy-to-understand breakdown.

By: Capicorn

Capicorn — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:54:19 +0000

I really think it is just a cash grab for the government.People have sharing music for many years (ex.lending a tape to a friend and they make a copy on a blank tape at home or you taping a your favorite song from the radio).Besides their are thousands upon thousands of people downloading every hour so on their part it's just stupid to even purpose a bill that stupid. If they wanted to do something like this it should have been done years ago and not now when technology has been far more advanced then that of a ghetto blaster and tapes. I think downloading is a good way to get all those old songs you can't find in music stores and preview songs before you go out and actually buy the CD and same with movies why go and waste your $30-$40 on a DVD that you have never (only seen on previews on tv) seen only to buy the movie and find out you didn't like it and waste $30-$40 when that money could go be used for gas for you car or food (as food prices are rising). I think the government should pull their head out of their butts and look at real problems like the war in Afganastan,health care in the provinces and so many other problems other than file sharing (hence the word sharing).