[Blue_Nose]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Actually, as far as I know, the law does state how you're allowed to do such things. If You borrow a friend's CD, and make a duplicate, then give him back his original and keep your copy, that's legal. You aren't allowed, though, to name a copy for him and give it to him, even for free. It's subtle, but there. That's why uploading is illegal but downloading is legal.

So other than limiting the scale of "borrowing", making copies of music you didn't buy is perfectly legal. The only difference is that the physical movement of the CD itself hinders peoples' ability to share/borrow. It's not about right and wrong, stealing or sharing at all, it's simply a matter of scale.

[bootlegga]

Our law basically says that you can copy IP for personal use. This goes back to the VHS/Betamax lawsuit of the 1980s, when TV networks and otehr media companies tried to legislate them out of business. That lawsuit failed, and for just cause. Why should it be illiegal to tape a hockey game if you happen to work when it's on? Under Canadian law, it's not, just like it's not illegal to photocoy a book in the library. It's called fair use. It's when people try to profit from it that it becomes illegal.

I agree that some smaller artists/authors/musicians/etc may lose revenue to P2P file sharing. But there are cases of people who have used the internet to propel them from bottom feeders to internet success (Darude as a musician for one) and I could name several authors who put their stuff online for free and wind up having much larger sales as a result of it. I plan on putting my book online once its done to drive sales.

In the US, corporations have already gotten the government to extend copyright long after the artist dies. In most countries, it is 50 - 70 years after the death of the author/artist/musician that it moves into the public domain. In the USA, it is now 120 years. And corporations are arguing that if they own a copyright, it will NEVER go into public domain as corporations don't actually 'die'.

This whole issue is just another facet of corporations triying to become omniscient. It's just like when the phamraceutical companies got our government to extend drug patents. It's all about the bottom line. If they adapted to the business model that exists today, they would succeed. Instead they insist on using an archaic business model that is rapidly turning into a dinosaur. I fell no pity for them any more than I do for the Horse & Buggy Association of America of the Canadian Coal Stoker's Union.

In the free market, just like Darwin, it's adapt or perish. A lot of media companies are simply refusing to adapt...

[Zipperfish]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

No, see, you download a CD, burn it on a CD, and the levy goes to compensate the artists for your download. It very much is the issue.

Also, at present, because of the levy, downloading is NOT illegal. Uploading is, in an odd inconsistency, but nevertheless, it's not illegal to download, provided you put it on levied media.

Oh, OK--that's news to me. Seems like a rather socailist solution to me--charging everyone whether they use the CD for music or not.

If it becomes illegal to download copyrighted music, what would be the point of the levy then? Isn't that exactly what the levy was supposed to address?

[ShintoMale]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I have no problem supporting IP, but this law seems far too aggressive.

What we need are laws that are enforceable. Make actual copying a movie in the theatre a crime, like stealing a car. Right all a theatre can do is ask the person to leave. If the law was written properly, police would escort them out in handcuffs.

I also agree with Hurley that stealing a CD and downloading a CD are the same. It makes no sense to give someone $5000 in fines for downlaoding a CD, but only $500 for stealing it from HMV.

The big problem here is that the music industry is desperately trying to hold onto a business model that no longer works. iTunes has sold over 3 billion songs (at .99 each), meaning that the industry has received a lot of money form iTunes, not to mention other legal download services. Had the music industry been smart, they would have gone to Napster and told them to charge a monthly fee and then taken 50% (or more) of it. Both parties would have made a lot of money and this issue wouldn't exist. Instead they crushed Napspter and opened Pandora's box, relasing P2P in a huge way. I don't ever see illegal downloading going away now.

The movie industry, on the other hand, loses most of lost income from people in the industry selling DVD screeners to disreputable people, who then put it on BitTorrent. Others copy the movie in the theatre and sell it online or on the streets of New York for a few bucks. Their problem is far easier to solve.

bootleg DVDs are crap DVD players sometimes have problems reading the disks and many of them have poor quality.

[hurley_108]

From another story:

$1:

The Conservatives' bill, however, also contains an anti-circumvention clause that will make it illegal to break digital locks on copyrighted material, which critics say could trump all of the new allowances. CD and DVD makers could put copy protections onto their discs, or television networks could attach technological flags to programs that would prevent them from being recorded onto TiVos and other personal video recorders. Cellphones would also be locked down, so when consumers buy a device from one carrier, they will be unable to use it with another. Breaking any of these locks could result in lawsuits seeking up to $20,000 in damages.

Why should it be illegal to break Apple's DRM to I can listen to iTunes purchased music on my Dell PDA? HMV doesn't sell HMV brand CD players that will only play HMV CDs, why is Apple's ability to do essentially that being enshrined in law? This is why this is a completely fucking retarded piece of legislation.

[mtbr]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

I don't recall this one being touted as a confidence matter, so I doubt it will pass.

correct...the Libs won't run for the exits and actually stay and vote on it. It will get shot down just like the ipod tax that was proposed earlier this year.

[romanP]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

On iTunes: I don't own an iPod, but I've bought a few songs on iTunes. I can listen to them on my computer, but not my non-iPod MP3 player, thanks to DRM. So I burned an audio CD, and ripped them back to MP3. Inelegant, but it worked with no noticeable loss of quality. This would be defeating the DRM, right? Thus illegal, right? Why?

Consumers need broad, explicit protection of such reasonable actions.

And what about artists that aren't on services that sell songs for download? Am I going to relegated to listening to crappy top40 music that I don't care about if I want to be able to download music or transfer the music I already own on CD into a more portable format?

It will be a very sad day for music if everyone is forced into the square, two-dimensional mold of the Columbia House catalogue.

[romanP]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't like the blank DVD/CD tax--that's completely bogus in my opinion. However, I don't think that iss teh issue in this thread.

A lot of people don't download from iTunes--they just go to a P2P site and get it free. That is illegal but very widespread.

Levies are entirely relative to this issue. They encompass fair use of material that has already been paid for.

How is it the government's business how I use a product, which is meant for making reproductions of video and sound, that I've paid for, and paid for in such a way that it compensates anyone whose material might be copied onto that product without any direct consent from the author?

I also do not think it is irrational to think that once a work of any kind has been displayed in public, that it is no longer private property.

[hurley_108]

bootlegga bootlegga:

In the US, corporations have already gotten the government to extend copyright long after the artist dies. In most countries, it is 50 - 70 years after the death of the author/artist/musician that it moves into the public domain. In the USA, it is now 120 years. And corporations are arguing that if they own a copyright, it will NEVER go into public domain as corporations don't actually 'die'.

A friend of mine notes that these changes have historically happened not long before Steamboat Willy comes due to be released into public domain.