digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

What are the Costs You Will Face With New Copyright Bill

ic.gc.ca — $20 000 fine for Posting music using the Internet or peer-to-peer technology and Posting a copyright-protected work, such as a picture or video, onto a website such as Facebook or YouTube. Also Selling, renting or giving away a device (e.g., iPod) that contains copies of music that were originally copied onto the device by you for private purpose.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stevanoski, on 06/29/2008, -1/+66So I won't get to see my favorite bands on youtube clips any more?
    • Senious, on 06/30/2008, -8/+16Oh ya didn't even consider this, well I suppose best case scenario, bands revolt and start giving everyone explicit rights to do whatever they want with their music/video/porn.
      • XxERMxX, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7May we have at leat 1 reason for downvoting "Senious" ?
    • studdenfadden, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Most labels see youtube as free advertising and upload the videos themselves.
    • S1c0, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1dailymotion is a good site.
  • orientis, on 06/30/2008, -20/+4I hope it goes through. As soon as they try to enforce it they will realise the stupidity of their actions.

    This is just a short-term battle guys, the war is far from over and the pirates and users will win in the end. Even if they take away our network infrastructure we can rig up some sort of continuous wireless network and build our own internet. It shouldn't have to come to that, but it's possible, so chill out, watch a couple of ***** hollywood movies hardly worth downloading, everything is going to be ok.
    • crossmr, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9if you tried to make a wireless network that everyone could jump on you would end up with ***** for speed.
      You'd be lucky if you could transfer tiny text files before your next birthday.
      Wireless is good in limited scenarios. Even in a dense apartment building you can see your wireless go to ***** if everyone is using the same channel.
      • XxERMxX, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1What he assumes is that the technology will continue to improve exponentially.
      • orientis, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Wireless technology currently sucks. It will get better. Cables will go.
      • mCanada, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Then how does the One Laptop Per Child work via Mesh networking? Wouldn't that be a viable solution?
      • crossmr, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1They're not made for transferring movies wirelessly.. they're made for transferring small amounts of information. The Wireless spectrum is limited and each machine grabs an equal piece of that. 54mbps theoretical to start (and you rarely if ever get that). Then start to divide it up between machines. To think actual speed, divide by 8 to start, theoretical max of 6.75 MBps, that translates in to how fast you'd see a file transfer. If you have 20 machines all within range of each other you're going to be getting ***** for speed. Throw in microwaves, and other forms of interference and you won't be getting much. In developing nations where no one has a microwave they will actually get better performance.
        You know how fast you usually get from your wireless router take that speed and divide it by 5, you want to transfer a 4 GB DVD image at that speed?
  • lucy22, on 06/30/2008, -3/+61If you are interested in opposing this proposed bill, you can check out these links. There is a petion to send M.P.'s letters to express disatisfaction and also a facebook group which are organizing protests too.
    http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/action/firstlo ...
    http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6315846683
    • mCanada, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7Bill passes = I'm voting anyone except for CONservative's,
      Bill doesn't pass = I'm voting for anyone but CONservative's.
      I'll even pay a ***** carbon tax over this *****, and that's saying a lot. "Theoretically" it'll go to income tax. This is nothing more than a cash grab from the US *.AA's.
    • brianpeiris, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5E-mail has been sent, letter has been posted and I joined the facebook group months ago.
      Thanks for submitting this.
    • UtilityPole, on 06/30/2008, -5/+0Yeah, I'm pretty sure a bunch of MPs are going to rail against the entertainment industry lobbyists (who throw millions of dollars at their election campaigns) all because a bunch of teenagers joined a Facebook group.

      Armchair activism at its finest! The legislation will, no matter what you do. Face it- things like Bit Torrent, Kazaa, etc. are usually used for trading copyrighted material, which is illegal. There's no argument against it. And if it's illegal already and some huge lobby group wants to make it "more" outlawed, it'll happen.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/30/2008, -17/+41This is the ultimate effort to suppress innovation and growth in searching for new energy production technology. This will kill any desire to look for answers in alternative energy.
    • locojones, on 06/30/2008, -0/+11lol Would you like to explain how statutory damages for copyright violations stunts research into alternative energy production technologies? I'm dying to hear this.
      • toeMas, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7Hell, I already shut down production on my DCoke/Mentos fueled scooter.
      • Pittance, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Ditto. What the hell is Fang talking about exactly? And why is he being dugg up?
    • layzice, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Perhaps he posted in the wrong thread, but I'd be interested to hearing some made up BS explanation. That would be innovation.
  • veganima, on 06/30/2008, -10/+22What we should do is begin to listen only to Creative Commons issued music. We would see what kind of license the artists should decide to publish their work after some time.
    • godmode, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4or we could only download and leave the uploading to the rest of the world.
  • Diggnabbit, on 06/30/2008, -12/+35The quote for the Digg article is pretty misleading. It's $500 $20,000 for those activities, and it's the same as under current copyright law.

    AND, for private-use infringements, the statutory damages are capped at $500, even for multiple infringements.

    "A court could only award $500 in statutory damages against an individual for all private use infringements identified in the lawsuit.

    For example, if you downloaded five movies without authorization:

    * Under current law, you could be liable for up to $100 000 in statutory damages
    * Under the proposed bill, you would be liable for $500"

    So, while I'm sure the new law is pretty draconian in various ways. This article is actually not pointing that out at all.
    • Kohaxx, on 06/30/2008, -1/+25"In all cases, the court would retain the power to award punitive damages to ensure that there is an appropriate deterrent against future infringement."

      So in other words while the $500 is what you are liable for, the court can still decide to punish you to whatever extent they feel like to make an example out of you.
      • XxERMxX, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4And not downmodding the previous post would let some of the more dim diggers find this one.
      • Diggnabbit, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3That's always the case and these things are usually rarely enforced by courts except for in egregious cases.

        Plus, as someone pointed out below, that provision is already in the current law.
    • scorpo55, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8This information is wrong wrong wrong. Please see
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM ...

      It is especially wrong if you downloaded the movies using bittorrent, as that is not considered for personal use since you're also uploading to others.
      • cheesehead, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Thanks for that excellent information. You can't believe anything Canada's American controlled Harper gov't puts out..
    • Ganpachi, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5That is private use, as well, say they decide to bust you for going above and beyond the timeshifting/formatshifting clauses, say, by buying CDs, ripping the CD and then selling it and not destroying the rip. Even if you did that for a bajillion CDs, the minimum would still be 500.

      Public infringement, however is on a per title basis. So every movie and ever song (not album) you are currently seeding is liable at a minimum of 500.

      Basically it turns the government into a media industry goon squad and makes criminals out of ordinary people. Yay.
      • scorpo55, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0I believe that you are misinformed on numerous counts. First, I'm not aware of any provision in the proposed bill that describes a $500 minimum fine. The government is trying to sell the bill by saying that the fine would be $500 MAXIMUM. But, as numerous experts have pointed out, there are very few situations where the $500 maximum would apply, and a great many where the $20,000 would apply. Second, the $500 maximum would NOT apply to downloading movies on bittorrent.
  • xoxuxox, on 06/30/2008, -0/+36Format Shifting: Limitations
    "With respect to audiovisual material such as films, the format-shifting provision would apply only to videocassettes and would not allow you to make copies of material stored on other media, such as DVDs."
    So taking a DVD and ripping it to VHS is illegal? That doesn't even make any sense!
    • theducks, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Yep, but ripping from video to DVD (could be, IANAL) fine. Now the law favours technologies. Sheesh. It shouldn't.
  • M724, on 06/30/2008, -1/+20This won't take off. It's just a pathetic attempt from greedy ignorants who expect you to dish out some more money.
    • hexydes, on 06/30/2008, -3/+8Psh, whatever. Let them get their money somewhere else. What about the Internet? There's lots of money from the Internet. Why can't they just have some of that Internet money?
  • WaxenPith, on 06/30/2008, -9/+38Nice try Terrance and Phillip, I'm behind 7 proxies.
    • hexydes, on 06/30/2008, -10/+7Unless your Uncle Sam lives in Canada, I think you need to re-read the article...
      • hexydes, on 06/30/2008, -1/+24Oh, nice, way to edit your post. Now mine doesn't make any sense.
    • dougbarrett, on 06/30/2008, -5/+6Didn't know Uncle Sam was Canadian.
    • blitz718, on 06/30/2008, -4/+4Dugg down for editing stupid comments
    • Zarokima, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Okay, I don't even know what to say about this. What was the original comment? His apparently edited one and the replies above confused the hell out of me.
      • Llanowar, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6From what I gather he said Uncle Sam instead of Terrance and Phillip at first.
    • my10cent, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0And you don't think they can reach you? so naive
  • hexydes, on 06/30/2008, -9/+21ZOMG THEY'RE ENDING PIRACY!
    • cheesehead, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Piracy is an American term. Canadians have always had the right to download and share.
      When you control terms of the discussion, you control the discussion ie. " Free Trade"
  • Skod, on 06/30/2008, -1/+18Buying music should be a way to show support and get a nice package in the process, not trying out a new band to see if you like them or not.
  • Senious, on 06/30/2008, -10/+8Thank God, (or Satan) that this is in Canada (soon the US).

    Yay misplaced sense of security!
    • Wootstapler, on 06/30/2008, -5/+4I digg anything with Satan in it.
    • drakia, on 06/30/2008, -0/+12You're aware this is referred to as the "Canadian DMCA" right? As in, that ***** up _American_ law thing that everyone hates...
  • blackhappy, on 06/30/2008, -2/+42How come the Canadian government is acting like a bigger tool then the U.S. government?
    • Abominable, on 06/30/2008, -3/+36Because the Canadian Government takes it up the ass from the US.
    • Qtip42, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8I don't think you can get much tool-ey-er than the U.S. government.
    • Spudster, on 06/30/2008, -1/+17We have a Conservative government in power out of touch with its true roots of conservatism. I really hope they get hurt on this, because many of their supporters do not agree with them on this.
      • Xondar, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8Remember when their predecessor party, the Reform Party, was all grassroots and stuff?

        I think about that and shed a tear.
      • bejayel, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8I said all this was going to happen and the conservatives were too pro-american. What the the rest of Canada say? YEAH, good ties with the United States. That way, everything that goes wrong there, happens just as bad here!

        I said it once and i will say it again. The O N L Y reason the conservatives havent royaly ***** Canada up is because it's a minority government. God help us if they win a majority next election.
    • charro, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Because the Canadian government still hasn't grown some balls when dealing with the US government. Whenever they feel threaten by commercial sanctions they bend over right away.
  • PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4FTA:

    "For infringements that are not for private purposes, the current range of statutory damages (between $500 and $20 000 for each work infringed) would remain available. For example:

    * Selling, renting or giving away a device (e.g., iPod) that contains copies of music that were originally copied onto the device by you for private purposes."

    I know of a few libraries in California that have CD's, both music and books on CD, that you can check out. If they have this option in Canada, what does this bill do to that?
    • drakia, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2I think there's some workaround for libraries in the bill, atleast that's what I heard somewhere.
    • Diggnabbit, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2In the U.S. there is a special provision exempting libraries. I assume there is still will be in Canada.
      • PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1I still don't see where the difference is between checking something out of a library and ripping it and borrowing your friend's copy and ripping it - at least with what's proposed with this law.
      • Diggnabbit, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1"I still don't see where the difference is between checking something out of a library and ripping it and borrowing your friend's copy and ripping it - at least with what's proposed with this law."

        There is no difference. They're both illegal.
  • Infowarmachine, on 06/30/2008, -3/+11so according to this
    the post of this other thread on the frontpage at the moment
    http://digg.com/movies/A_100_Movie_Montage?OTC-ig
    will be fined 2,000,000 dollars

    sounds reasonable....


  • Murrabbit, on 06/30/2008, -9/+1Only 20,000 dollars? Wow Canadians are gonna get off easy!
  • AppleGeorge, on 06/30/2008, -15/+6I'm not ***** Canadian, so the costs will be nothing.
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/30/2008, -6/+5Way to be the typical elitist douche mac user.
      "I don't give a *****... Doesn't effect me!"
      • AppleGeorge, on 06/30/2008, -9/+1Hey, nice way of bringing up the fact that I'm a Mac user in a thread that has nothing to do with Macs at all.

        I'm saying I'm not Canadian because the title implies that with the new copyright act I will face something, when in fact I won't because I'm not Canadian.

        But great job bringing up Macs, you ***** loser.
    • Spudster, on 06/30/2008, -0/+10Unless you're American, then you're already ***** up the ass.
  • E9437, on 06/30/2008, -7/+1hahaha
  • Halsfield, on 06/30/2008, -7/+0good nite, and good luck.
  • ActiveOpt, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6This is only about canada correct?
    • Murrabbit, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3Yes, but much harsher penalties already exist in the US.
    • Halsfield, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2for now, until they decide they can do the same thing in other countries. They're already pressuring sweden to ban piratebay illegally against sweden's laws. If piratebay gets closed down then another site will pop up in another country, and they will be the next to get attacked. Again and again until its everywhere. Unless we resist it and show them that the consumers are in control.
  • Qtip42, on 06/30/2008, -1/+16Wow, you can't sell your ipod with music left on it? Someone, you know, might want to at least know that music plays in the god damn thing before they buy it.
    • twiztidsinz, on 06/30/2008, -0/+24Logic holds no sway with the government.
    • XxERMxX, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4His example leaves no logic only assumption.
    • locojones, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3How hard is it to show them the music playing on it before they purchase it, then wiping it clean?
      • aliguana, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5quite hard if you sell it on Ebay
      • locojones, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Not really. Why can't you just post a video of it playing music with the date and time and a sign with your user id? It's not really that hard. Oh but wait, we're dealing with Apple users here, so critical thinking skills aren't the name of the game.
    • aliguana, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1so if Apple sell an iPod loaded with U2's back catalog, they are breaking copyright law? Fantastic... so thats $20,000 x 1000 limited edition iPods...
      • Alex.w, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Don't be stupid. You don't think Apple have permission to do that, and last I checked they were based in the USA where the penalties for copyright infringement seem to have no limitation.
      • aliguana, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1@Alex: ah, my mistake. I thought the U2 iPods came loaded with U2's back-catalog, but it just comes with a money-off voucher. Still, I'm sure I read that somewhere.. *scratches head*
    • postal21, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1just let them "borrow" it indefinetly.
  • radiofrequency, on 06/30/2008, -13/+5Canadians. ***** 'em.
  • cl0n3x, on 06/30/2008, -3/+5...And I thought Canada was cool. Tsk-tsk.
  • sockpuppets, on 06/30/2008, -3/+16Whatever. Throw all the potsmokers and copyright violators in jail, there won't be any Americans left to power what's left of the economy.
    • sockpuppets, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Fix your sarcasm meters.
    • aliguana, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5as comical as that statement sounds, there is truth in it. If you fined/jailed everyone who shares music, downloads music, sells their cds, sells their iPods, burns CDs for friends etc etc there won't be many people who you are NOT fining. Everyone does it, and those who don't are lying. Hell, I bet even the people who drafted this bill have "compilation" cds in their car that their mates gave them. It's ingrained in Western Culture, has been since the first recordable cassettes. "Home taping is killing music! and is illegal!" remember that? No, it didn't kill music. What killed music is over-inflated prices for inferior product just to make profit for record company.

      On the other hand, I can understand business trying to get a handle on all this, but draconian laws just make everyone criminals. You can't legislate to get rid of a cultural trend (they tried that in the middle ages with Catholics. And didn't Hitler try it with the Jews? What about prohibition... yeah, that stopped everyone drinking).
    • chongli, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4The idea is not to throw all of those people in jail. The idea is to have the power to do so. That way, you can throw your enemies in jail, since you have something on everyone.
  • Spudster, on 06/30/2008, -1/+22I'm going to owe nearly a billion dollars. I just calculated.

    Hmm.. that might take awhile to pay off...
    • prleet, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1A billion, I wish it was that low.

      I dont' think the Avogadro's number comes close to what *some might owe.
  • khyberkitsune, on 06/30/2008, -9/+0Hahaha Canada.

    US Doctrine of First Sale EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS THIS. So much for you being better than us, you're falling right into the same hole as what we're trying to dig ourselves out of.
  • Thejax, on 06/30/2008, -2/+11God, what ***** douchebags.
    • Halsfield, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0god gets a taste of the recording profits, he's no help here. Havent you seen those commercials on late at night with "my god is an awesome god" albums ?
  • BTallack, on 06/30/2008, -7/+6Did anybody even bother to read the article? This is a reform of the current laws to limit the amount of money copyright holders can seek in damage.

    IOW: These laws are ALREADY in effect but with harsher fines. These laws are simply not well enforced at this time. Whether or not this means that they'll actually start to enforce these laws has yet to be seen.
  • t94xr, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3Wow, and I thought the DMCA was retarded, this may just beat it!

    What a heap of *****, Glad I'm a kiwi - bill like this would elimate alot of the self-produced entertainment generated from New Zealand!!
    • Halsfield, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Don't just sit back watch this happen, its not like they're going to stop there. They're pushing so hard on sweden to make piratebay shut down even though swedish law protects them completely. These companies want everyone to submit to their rules, regardless of what international toes they step on or who they have to push around.

  • letherial, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2Its nice to know that www.truecrypt.org can encrypt the entire system....

  • Protoman, on 06/30/2008, -0/+14Wow, I hate this new bill. I don't think I could find a single decent Canadian who would agree with it. Nothing was wrong with our copyright laws before this, everything was working fine and dandy. I hate the perpetual greed of these stupid people down in the States who just love to stuff their pockets more and more with the money of decent hard working people and are lobbying our government to become even worse. Do you think someones parents want to spend a dollar on a song every single time their kid wants one? Give this kid a job and I bet (s)he is going to go out and buy a CD when in a few simple clicks they have have the only good song off the disc. Just because the copyright laws in another country are the way they are doesn't mean there's anything wrong with ours, the problem is lies within your own greedy system. When the Conservatives first got office I didn't trust them one bit based solely on Stephen Harper, he looks like someone you can't trust and isn't. He's importing all these American ways of doing things and it's going to get him kicked out of power in the next election, good thing for Canada, bad for him. I could care less about how awful his public image is getting but I'm more concerned about the amount of damage he is doing to us as a country.
    • Shamrockette, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Well, at least he isn't a retard like President Bush.
  • hootie233, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1PHEWWWWW canada
  • tomega, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Ahh, then maybe it is a time for young people to vote?
  • lopla, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Well digg serves copyright images and videos within their site structure, looks like they'll be forking over about 25.2 million dollars a day!
  • JordanE, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3What a ***** joke honestly.
  • thegodfaza, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1*SIGH* O Canada...
  • andriana, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0I guess this makes up for the cost of universal health care?
  • fr3ddie, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Nobody will stop me from downloading cds for free... NOBODY!
  • NorthernPCTech, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7For all you clowns that cry "Read the article, this is actually BETTER not WORSE" follow your own advice.

    Every single piece of the legislation contains the caveat about having to break any digital locks to make your copies. Once you do that the fines are huge again.

    In other words, even the lamest attempt to copy protect anything (like the standard copy protection that comes on DVD movies which is all but worthless) negates your right to make backup copies and increases your fine for doing so to 20k. Right now you can make backup copies.

    So in short, as soon as the distributor of the original work adds any sort of DRM, no matter how badly implemented, even if it is just a pop-up that says "Do not copy me", you no longer enjoy your $500 dollar cap, no longer enjoy your right to time shift, no longer enjoy your right to format shift, no longer enjoy your right to place your music on multiple devices.

    So while the Canadian government gets to pat themselves on the back for "protecting our rights", its actually handing the music and movie industry a very easy method to remove the rights we already have altogether by adding even a smidgen of copyright protection to their products.

    All those benefits and reduced fines and rights to format and time shift will be LOST under this legislation, NOT GAINED in real practice.
    • yrtria, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Not only that, but what Prentice and the rest of his government cronies don't mention is that each song has as many as THREE copyrights on it, and movies can have even more!

  • Lancelot9201, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5What is the world coming to when it seems I read daily how governments everywhere are writing new laws to protect big business, but we the citizens continue to go without. We are exposed daily to toxins, chemicals, global warming, bad air, bad water & no health care but all that gets the Government's attention is how can they assist Big Business in recouping lost revenue, which never sees its way back to the damaged artist anyway..!!!
  • mixmax1, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Anyway, the copyright laws are impossible to enforce... There are millions who download an a very limited number of police officers, The RCMP has aready said that they would only concentrate on mass copying of cds and DVDs. There is no way that police will ever come in your house and look on your computer to see if you have AnyDVD or µtorrent.

    Also, the copyright holder has to sue you to request his 500 or 20 000 $ and since they wont look through your things well...

    Anyway it's The RIAA/MPAA/... That dont want you to share, many artists and show producers dont realy care... some even release episodes on the internet and others make pirate shows....

    I will continue sharing HERRRRR... Pirating because pirates are outlaws... and no law will change that
    • JPong01, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Except the RIAA and MPAA in the United States have the right to inspect your hard drive if they suspect you are sharing anything.

      And wasn't there a guy recently who got some serious punishment for "tampering" with evidence when he destroyed his hard drive? I don't quite remember how that turned out though and am too lazy to look for the articles.
  • nightwing2000, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Hmmm... $20,000 for posting your wedding picture online.

    Sneakily saying "only $500" when that's for downloading, not uploading.

    Even in the US of Amerika they don't go after downloaders.

    Way to go, Prime Minister Harper!

    Did anyone notice how the minister who introduced this has bailed out of the Trade portfolio and left the mess for someone else to play with and get blamed for?
  • Fubarepublic, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0So I can't sell second hand digital tracks packed in an ipod at a market but I can sell the DVD, book, vinyl, cd? GTFO! STFU!
    • Diggnabbit, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because you're selling a "copy" on the iPod, whereas you're selling the original, physical thing if you sell the DVD, book, etc. You're allowed to sell the original because of the right of first sale.
  • WraTH017, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Ah, government. Always looking out for the little guy, aren't they?

    • prleet, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Correction, "Ah, government. Always looking after the little guy, aren't they?"

      in this case, *after can be both positive and negative, but what are the chances of govt doing anything positive for the little guy but you remain neutral.
  • TommyBoy919, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4This is what happens when the technologically ignorant are "educated" by the technologically corrupt. I wonder how much the RIAA and MPAA are paying these intellectually limited politicians for screwing their constituency so badly.
  • kd1s, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1That's ok, the RI legislature just passed a bill that says a tribute band must include at least one former member of the original band. It's ridiculous.
  • tokie19, on 06/30/2008, -2/+0wow people are retarded. the house session is over for summer break, and that means this bill is dead. why do you think the bill was introduced on the last week of parliament where it had zero chance of being passed quickly enough? the conservatives wanted this bill to die, and only tabled it to say "see, we tried to fix things".

    tl;dr everyone needs to quit being so melodramatic
  • AzzidReign, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Looks like it's back to the ol 5 finger discounts...and just a slap on the wrist if you get caught. Steal 1 song...you are out 20 g's! Which would you rather do?
  • hspannu, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0So have they passed this copyright bill or are they thinking about it.
  • cheesehead, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Has anyone else noticed there seems to be a direct correlation between all this copyright law and the loss of quality in music and movies. When you start dinging people $500 dollars a pop for downloading/uploading a song or movie as to actual cost of purchase, there is no incentive to produce quality but there is a major incentive to mass produce *****, give it cool titles and then sue people for downloading it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.