|
Copyright bill makes it easier to target illegal file sharing & unlocking cellphone (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rabbitjoker |
| It is about time people started paying for products they use. If this bill helps limit theft of protected work than I am all for it. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
god forbid... big business and the US!!
Although im sure if barrack said it was good the NDP would be all over it!
Gotta love the loonie left!
The internet is the worst thing that ever happened to music |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
god forbid... big business and the US!!
Although im sure if barrack said it was good the NDP would be all over it!
Gotta love the loonie left!
The internet is the worst thing that ever happened to music |
I disagree about the net being the worst thing that's ever happened to music. If it weren't for the net I would have NEVER started partying/listening to anything close to electronic music. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endlesswave
I disagree about the net being the worst thing that's ever happened to music. If it weren't for the net I would have NEVER started partying/listening to anything close to electronic music. |
so what?
are you paying for it?
I got into partying and electronic music thanks to radio and mixtapes/cds.
I paid for the music on vinyl, cassette and cd.
Im not disputing that there are a lot of fans out there. But they arent paying for their music so it really doesnt matter |
|
|
| VDub |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
dj sets are about the only thing i download. And generally u cant buy those. |
Yah me as well although I have DL plenty of tunes in the past...
I just found out that before these changes, using your PVR was technically against the law as well...
phewwww... Glad they changed that... lol |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
the new laws allow for you to backup purchased items such as dvds and cds.
and you are right...I've never pirated anything that I could purchase. |
Ah no. It says that if you break the encryption, that is illegal. How do you back up a CD, DVD, Bluray without breaking encryption?
They are destroying fair use, and that is retarded. This means I cannot back up my 400+ CD, 200 DVDs..etc. Considering the life span of pressed media is so short, what am I supposed to do, buy it all over again? Hells in no.
This isn't furniture that when it breaks you have no choice but to get a new couch. If you buy IP, you should be able to copy it, and keep it to your heart's content, on which ever medium you choose sufficient.
As somebody who buy's their goods, you should be pissed that this law does not allow you to protect your purchase. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
\
This isn't furniture that when it breaks you have no choice but to get a new couch. If you buy IP, you should be able to copy it, and keep it to your heart's content, on which ever medium you choose sufficient.
|
so what did u do in the past when your record melted? Your tape broke? Your cd got scratched? And why should that be any different now? |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
so what did u do in the past when your record melted? Your tape broke? Your cd got scratched? And why should that be any different now? |
It's called technological progress. I back up my CD's, precisely because a few of my early ones got scratched and I couldn't play them any more. Records and tapes were analog sources. This is why digital was created as a storage (and transmission) method, so you could copy without fear of degradation.
If you want to live in the 1920 with your phonograph, by all means do so. Actually if you want to use that argument, why change the law at all? Why not keep it the same? If you don't want to use new technology, don't update the copyright law. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
It's called technological progress. I back up my CD's, precisely because a few of my early ones got scratched and I couldn't play them any more. Records and tapes were analog sources. This is why digital was created as a storage (and transmission) method, so you could copy without fear of degradation.
If you want to live in the 1920 with your phonograph, by all means do so. Actually if you want to use that argument, why change the law at all? Why not keep it the same? If you don't want to use new technology, don't update the copyright law. |
if progression still results in loss and u need to rebuy it then thems the breaks. Its no different. Im not living in the past because i refuse to accept that its ok to steal or make multiple copies of something. If i want to get around digital locks i either buy from sites that dont lock their music or i buy the CD (btw its legal to back up a CD with this new law)
I mean really, what do u want for 99 cents anyways??
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
if progression still results in loss and u need to rebuy it then thems the breaks. Its no different. Im not living in the past because i refuse to accept that its ok to steal or make multiple copies of something. If i want to get around digital locks i either buy from sites that dont lock their music or i buy the CD (btw its legal to back up a CD with this new law)
I mean really, what do u want for 99 cents anyways??
:rolleyes: |
No it is not 'the breaks', current law clearly states that you can copy your purchase. Where does it say it is ok to copy a CD (in the new bill)? Last time I checked, you have to use a ripper to copy a CD, you cannot copy the files straight off of it, which means, it has been encoded (read encrypted) in such a way, that specifically makes it harder to get your data off the disc.
You have only been able to purchase music of 2 years, without it being locked down by DRM, what about all that media you bought before that? Obviously they realised it was wrong to lock down the music, and distributors changed their methods, that should be a your first clue!
How can I get a copy of my movies which I have already purchased (not stolen) for $0.99? Don't jump around in your arguments. It's weak.
When you buy a movie, music, book now, you are not buying the physical transport medium, you are buying a COPY of that IP. Again, it is not the same as buying a couch. You are not stealing it. Plus, when you download a song, iTunes is not sending you their copy (or inventory of a couch), they are sending you a COPY. Get it? You have paid for the right to consume a copy of that IP. You shouldn't have to pay for it again if you want to listen to that copy on your computer, or mp3 player, or phone, or, or, or...
This is supposed to be an update to the current law, adding provisions which did not yet exist, for scenarios which did not exist at the time of creation of the previous law. This is not supposed to change existing law, and outlaw something a lot of Canadian use as a honest way of protecting their investment. And when they do update said law, they are supposed to query the citizens it effects, not non-voting entities such as corporations.
You are always going on about people's rights, and how the government is taking away too many of them. Well here is a prime example of the government serving the wants of a few which has a detrimental effect on the rights of the many.
And the one part of the law which should actually make you upset, has not. You can in fact continue to download, as long as you are not doing so to distribute. Are you actually still in favour of such an unbalanced new bill? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
No it is not 'the breaks', current law clearly states that you can copy your purchase. Where does it say it is ok to copy a CD (in the new bill)? |
Taken from the article:
| quote: | | Among other changes, the law legitimizes activities that most Canadians already do, such as transferring music from a legally purchased CD to an MP3 player, or recording a television show, which goes against current copyright rules, universally seen as outdated. |
| quote: | | Last time I checked, you have to use a ripper to copy a CD, you cannot copy the files straight off of it, which means, it has been encoded (read encrypted) in such a way, that specifically makes it harder to get your data off the disc. |
you and i both know that you are wrong. Ripping a CD from one format to another is not picking a lock and you know it.
| quote: | | You have only been able to purchase music of 2 years, without it being locked down by DRM, what about all that media you bought before that? Obviously they realised it was wrong to lock down the music, and distributors changed their methods, that should be a your first clue! |
so if the market is taking care of this due to consumer demand then whats the issue? Give the right of the manufacturer to decide what can be done with their product and the consumer the right to buy it or not. If consumer demand warrants, they will not put locks on the product.
| quote: | | How can I get a copy of my movies which I have already purchased (not stolen) for $0.99? Don't jump around in your arguments. It's weak. |
obviously im talking about music here. But even movies, dont tell me you pay the full price online that you would for the actual copy because you dont.
| quote: | | When you buy a movie, music, book now, you are not buying the physical transport medium, you are buying a COPY of that IP. |
agreed hence why its cheaper!
| quote: | | Again, it is not the same as buying a couch. You are not stealing it. Plus, when you download a song, iTunes is not sending you their copy (or inventory of a couch), they are sending you a COPY. Get it? You have paid for the right to consume a copy of that IP. You shouldn't have to pay for it again if you want to listen to that copy on your computer, or mp3 player, or phone, or, or, or... |
why not? again, what if u wanted a cd then a record? Different applications require different copies. Considering the price break you already get for downloading a copy, id say thats very reasonable. If you want full rights you are free to buy the actual cd or an unlocked copy online and copy it onto as mediums as you want which is actually currently illegal. So this actually instills more rights to the consumer.
| quote: | | This is supposed to be an update to the current law, adding provisions which did not yet exist, for scenarios which did not exist at the time of creation of the previous law. This is not supposed to change existing law, and outlaw something a lot of Canadian use as a honest way of protecting their investment. And when they do update said law, they are supposed to query the citizens it effects, not non-voting entities such as corporations. |
again, you are free to buy the physical or unlocked copy under this law and use as you wish. Of course, that will cost more. Or you can buy a locked copy multiple times and pay for that as well. The bootm line here is that it seems like you just dont want to pay fair value.
| quote: | | You are always going on about people's rights, and how the government is taking away too many of them. Well here is a prime example of the government serving the wants of a few which has a detrimental effect on the rights of the many. |
so by giving more rights to the consumer (the ability to make personal copies) and also giving more rights to the creators (protecting their right to sell locked or unlocked copies) this law some how takes peoples rights away? Come again?
| quote: | | And the one part of the law which should actually make you upset, has not. You can in fact continue to download, as long as you are not doing so to distribute. Are you actually still in favour of such an unbalanced new bill? |
Actually if this is true id ask for that to be changed as well. No one should be allowed to make illegal downloads of media. |
|
|
| daves |
here's a question:
Are CDs/DVDs/etc. going to be CLEARLY marked as to which are locked or not?
Because what I am reading is that YES you can make a personal copy of your music... but NO you cannot break encryption!
(I'm not the only one either apparently... this question was asked to Tony Clement on twitter and he said he would "get back to us" on that)
This is the kicker - because if it is clearly labelled then Yes we have full choice whether to purchase or not... but the industry KNOWS most people will not buy that is labelled that it contains digital locks... so will we be left to buy first and learn later whether or not we can make our own backups?
Jayx1 if you yourself do not know which specific media will and will not be DRM'd then how can you possibly know that ripping will not be breaking a lock? |
|
|
|
|
