digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at theglobeandmail.com

So what's in the New Copyright Bill?

theglobeandmail.com — Aside from not being able to download free music any more, it puts all sorts of limitations on intellectual property and how it can be used.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • alapoet, on 06/18/2008, -2/+125Bad, ill conceived legislation.

    And in many aspects, well nigh unenforceable. (Which isn't an entirely bad thing.)
    • blackinthmiddle, on 06/18/2008, -0/+61From the article:
      "And how will the bill reconcile itself with another proposed law, the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which would allow border guards to seize devices that they suspect of containing material that infringes copyright, and would force Internet service providers to reveal the identities of suspected infringers without a court order?"

      Give me a friggin' break! I can see it now. "Hey, that laptop you're carrying looks like it has copyright material on it! I'm confiscating it, sir?" The way I see it:

      o How will one of these guards search any of my devices without due cause?
      o How will anyone be able to determine my music is mine? Did I rip my own music? Did I buy it from Amazon? Or did I illegally download it from a Bit torrent? There's no way that you can suspect anything simply by seeing "superfreak.mp3" on my computer.
      o Are we now asking security guards to be computer experts?
      o How will this be done while limiting the additional delays while crossing the boarder?

      I pray that Canada doesn't implement this.
    • IceOfDiamonds, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/Main ...

      Contact your local MP here. Remember, if you're going to send them a letter, make sure its c/o The House of Commons. Also, spread this link like wildfire so that people can make a difference.

      Again, the link is:

      http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/
      • earthforce1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3If you can afford the time there is something even better you can do:
        Book face time with him/her by calling their office
        Be well prepared for the meeting and don't appear as a angry radical, but explain what is wrong with the bill and why you are opposed.
        Let them know this is your #1 issue next election - how you vote will depend on their party's position on C61. Cons are pro, Libs are pro but don't want to admit it, (Liberals tried to introduce something similar before their government fell) Greens & NDP are on the record as being against this.
    • toekneebullard, on 06/18/2008, -0/+13No, unenforceable laws ARE bad. What happens is they make the law, then don't enforce it, so they make a new "better" law that's also unenforceable. They stack these things on top of each other a hundred times over until it's completely impossible for anyone without a law degree to understand what the law is. So the only people who know what's going on are the lawyers taking advantages of the loopholes created by redundant, unenforceable laws.

      What good is a law if the common man can't understand them?
      • MadOgre, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Wait, is the the US or Canada? Cause all the sudden I couldn't tell the difference. Stupid useless laws that will ultimately get in peoples way and limit liberty by allowing corporations with floors of lawyers to sue everyone.
        • toekneebullard, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Well, the personal experience is from the US, but the logic applies universally.
    • sporg, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Passing laws to stop piracy what a laugh.
    • mCanada, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Rick Rolling will now be illegal in Canada. Do it before they jail you. (It is copyright, so you had better not download it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
    • ComstockGordon, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2I wonder how they will tell the difference between legitimately purchased songs on iPods and illegally downloaded ones if they seize iPods at the border... I'm guessing they are just going to assume they are illegal when the person could have downloaded them all legitimately off of iTunes or ripped them off of their own CD collection.
  • imacommi, on 06/18/2008, -9/+214The government needs to keep its hand of the internet. period.
    • technogenius, on 06/18/2008, -0/+96I bring to you....

      THE HAND OF THE INTERNET!!
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/18/2008, -0/+35You don't know where it's been.
        • freqk, on 06/18/2008, -0/+10You don't want to know.
        • toonworld, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1I don't know... could make an intersting digg article...
      • quomen, on 06/18/2008, -4/+2Net neutrality is a tough subject. Both government and private companies need to stop meddling. But then who's in charge? The mob?
        • djholybolt, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1nono

          www.yyyzzzrrrddd is in charge
      • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2I love the internet glove. It's so bad.

        That actually is kind of scary. Imagine if terrorists stole the hands of the internet from the government...
        • djholybolt, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1they'd single-handedly(get it??!?) own all fred savages of the world
    • Austerist, on 06/18/2008, -31/+2You're not serious right? When crime is being committed you just can't say, "keep your hands off of it".
      Douche
      • blackinthmiddle, on 06/18/2008, -0/+20Yes, but you don't implement Draconian measures, either. With what Canada is proposing, they essentially have the right to search you without cause, because unless the guard is Kreskin, there's no way to know a person has illegal music on, for example, their laptop. It reeks of US influence (specifically, organizations like the RIAA) on Canada. It would essentially be like giving cops the right to search your house every day for drugs. No need for probable cause. No need for warrants. They're simply allowed to search whenever they feel like.
        • Austerist, on 06/18/2008, -13/+0What the ***** are you talking about?

          Here's the bill in a nutshell. When you start downloading a torrent, for example, you connect with all the peers. So all they have to do is see who connects to it. If you connect to it, they goto the isp, get the account holder name and address, and do an investigation.

          Seems pretty simple.

          Your search analogy is retarded. It's like you going out in public, committing a crime and bitching about how your rights have been violated when someone gives your name to the police.

          Probable cause, get your name, investigation and fined. It seems simple. It's not like they're just randomly dipping into your ISP's information. lol.

          Draconian? lol No. It's called punishment for committing. Don't do something illegal and you'll be fine.
        • blackinthmiddle, on 06/18/2008, -0/+13FTA:
          "And how will the bill reconcile itself with another proposed law, the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which would allow border guards to seize devices that they suspect of containing material that infringes copyright, and would force Internet service providers to reveal the identities of suspected infringers without a court order?"

          You *did* read the article, right? Kinda embarrassing calling people douche when it's fairly apparent you didn't completely comprehend what you read.
    • skinnyskittles, on 06/18/2008, -4/+20the government needs to keep its hands off everything
    • subterfuge, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5the internet is too slippery for the government to keep its hands on it anyway
      • Pixelpaws, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1I don't think that's the Internet. Seems like the government's hands are awfully slimy though..
    • zkirill, on 06/18/2008, -5/+4Stupid thing to suggest. Government needs to regulate the Internet to an extent, but do so with the intent of helping the end users instead of corporations or the government itself.
    • chrispchiken, on 06/18/2008, -6/+8Spelling Nazi here.

      off*

      That is all.
    • IceOfDiamonds, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/Main ...

      Contact your local MP here. Remember, if you're going to send them a letter, make sure its c/o The House of Commons. Also, spread this link like wildfire so that people can make a difference.

      Again, the link is:

      http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/
    • MeHow, on 06/18/2008, -5/+3Funny, you scream for anarchy on the internet... but when someone screams anarchy in the real world, you call for a goverment as soon as possible...
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3What if he's that someone screaming anarchy in the real world, punk?

        That's right. You can't say if he is or isn't. Don't pretend to know things you don't know.
      • imacommi, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4You don't know me, don't make assumptions. I would prefer the government stays out of most things, and I am certainly not one to scream for the government to get involved in anything, I would prefer a hands off policy for government in most arenas because they usually just ***** things up. Let the general will decide what to do with the internet, that is enough order for me.
    • cjflashman, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1I am one of the many people who have a "Relevant information to your occupation, or nothing" network at my school.

      I know for a damn good fact that I am not the first to say that if somebody really does need to take control over the internet, why not Tim Lee?
  • Biggityb78, on 06/18/2008, -4/+44I would like to see the government try to stop me from using getting my free music!
    • nycmac247, on 06/18/2008, -1/+13with a little help from Cisco (like China gets) that would not be too hard
    • NoCt1, on 06/18/2008, -6/+3and biggit was recently handcuffed and now folding laundry at his local jail. the gov can make you disappear and no one will miss you...
    • Troy64, on 06/18/2008, -1/+10Would they have to pry the computer out of you cold dead hand?
      • nickert0n, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2nice1
      • subterfuge, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1did you mean "cold dead internet-hand-which-is-owned-by-the-government"?
    • trixterIreland, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4I am glad I live in a country where civil harassment suits like the RIAA/MPAA do does not give grounds to even identify me (the ISPs can refuse, many have open stated policies that they will).
      • earthforce1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3If your country is a signatory to very secretive ACTA treaty that will soon change. A draft copy is in the hand of wikileaks. Once ACTA is in place, smaller countries will be pressured into signing on, under threat of trade sanctions. ACTA puts a worldwide DMCA in place via the back door.
    • SquigglyP, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3You're not really getting it... This bill isn't something that will allow your government to 'get you', but rather it's a bill that allows the recording industry to 'get you' with legal action and by turning over the reigns to them. Recording industry picks up your IP in a torrent? Call to the ISP to get your information -> lawsuit -> thousand dollar settlement. Recording industry = 1, you = broke.
  • Surferess, on 06/18/2008, -1/+52This would be like putting pop-up snakes back into the can.
    • heliox, on 06/18/2008, -3/+25Or in the plane.
    • phunlee, on 06/18/2008, -4/+11I don't like your simile. B/c Putting those springy snakes back in the can is pretty easy. You could go w/'Cat back in the bag" That's a bit harder. Or to be original 'That's like putting a tree back in it's acorn'... I don't know... something extremely hard..

      Unless of course you meant that it would be a challenge, but not an impossible thing to do. In that case, I think I disagree. Okay, that's all. Thanks.
      • Pixelante, on 06/18/2008, -0/+13Putting the nuclear mushroom cloud back into its nice shiny plutonium sphere?
      • AmaDaden, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3It's not impossible but it's near impossible. All you need is a few people who understand how networking works and start to rebuild the net with out govt intervention. Think of the BBSes in the old days. Many smaller networks that are slowly connected together. To stop that you need to greatly strip the people of there rights by making such communication devices illegal. It's very likely that people will not stand for that.
        • earthforce1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2True, but given recent trends, they will soon outlaw any form of electronic communication they cannot tap into via some back door. All under the guise of "catching Bin Laden" of course.

          steanography and hiding the fact there is any information being shared at all may be the only way to communicate secretly.


      • ileftfark, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3...like putting a sense of humor back in (the ill-named) phunlee?
  • davidhallstrom, on 06/18/2008, -3/+14Good post. Good luck.
    • subterfuge, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4well, i suppose wishing good luck is all you can do if you don't live in canada. =/
  • B3000, on 06/18/2008, -35/+11Wait, so this is a Canadian bill? Whew! At first I thought it was something important.
    • senatorpjt, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, Americans don't think it's important because they already have the same laws in place.
  • freezerburn666, on 06/18/2008, -11/+157***** american bill. nobody ***** wants it in canada but our politicians are fags and bend over and take it from the americans. democracy my ass.
    • NoCt1, on 06/18/2008, -11/+25true. canada is our bitch. sucks to say that.. but its true.
      • nickert0n, on 06/18/2008, -10/+10We will change that, upon the collapse of your country.
        • mhuggins, on 06/18/2008, -0/+7See ya soon!
        • uberdilly, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1I always thought Vancouver seemed like a nice place to live.
      • artfiend77, on 06/18/2008, -0/+18T'would seem that we're both the bitches of Hollywood (c) and the Music Industry (c)
      • toonworld, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Dammit, I hate you so much for being right!
        But I have to add that it's the freaking government that's the US' bitch, not the general population of Canada. They lost their balls back in the 60s with the CF-105 Arrow project

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CF-105_Arrow
        • dfeifer, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0Wonder which corporation would profit off of the tech, and avro losing. I really liked the statement..
          The NRC refused, noting that without sufficient spare parts and maintenance, as well as qualified pilots, the NRC could make no use of them.

          ... On any new airframe that is contrived, there are never sufficient parts, maintenance facilities or enough pilots. That just seems like a meaningless excuse to me.
    • funkyloki, on 06/18/2008, -20/+3Bill C61, the name of the legislation, is a proposed CANADIAN bill. It has nothing to do with the US Congress. It is up in Canadian Parliament.
    • ElTomacco, on 06/18/2008, -6/+1Whatever, I'm sure the Canadian record/TV/movie industry was pushing for this as much as anyone in the US.
      • barius, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2How could they when they were never even consulted?
    • sweetholymosiah, on 06/18/2008, -1/+11Vote out your conservative MP whatever it takes. Whoever is competitive! the NDP in downtown Toronto, Liberals in the suburbs, and GREEN party everywhere else. The "christian, conservative" MP's in Ontario have to lie even to themselves when they sign on to Harper's neoconservative ideology.
      • earthforce1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3The sad part is that a true small c conservative like myself is totally against this - it is totally against the principles of individual freedoms and small government with minimum interference in the marketplace. We have been betrayed.
    • enri, on 06/18/2008, -1/+13Don't you Canadians have your own crazy neocon administration now? I know the American industries are pushing for the law but you ARE a sovereign nation. Blame Harper.
    • scott88008, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5Blame America! Blame America!
    • DrummerAndrew, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3RTFA. He clearly says that the Canadian bill would BENEFIT from being more like the American one. The Canucks have taken it further than the US did. Also, as he says, SPEAK UP about it. Let your voice be heard. Or don't. Democracy your ass.
    • AnotherJake, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Well, forgive me for saying this, (I am honestly sorry because Canadians are great friends) but: Thank God politicians are finally trying to screw it up in Canada too! I mean, we here in the US have some (all?) of the most brain-dead stupid politicians on earth, and it is a refreshing breathe of fresh air to finally see we are not alone.

      Coming from a US citizen: Seriously, like the man said in the article: PLEASE make your voice heard on this issue even though it is likely to be killed off before becoming law. Don't make the same mistake us lazy Americans did and let them think it isn't a big deal. You NEED to tell your politicians that the US media lobby is not the least bit welcome in your country. You'll be doing yourself a big favor, and you might even be helping us out a bit too by helping to contain them a little.
  • Realnemesis, on 06/18/2008, -0/+25They probably download stuff too.
    • ludditte, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1if they know how to download, which I doubt, it probably is porn
  • soundman7718, on 06/18/2008, -0/+61hey government...you can have my money, but don't take my internet.
    • ATLien74, on 06/18/2008, -2/+5***** that... you can have a reasonable amount of tax dollars... and THATS IT!!!!
  • raublekick, on 06/18/2008, -13/+4First off, that "article" answers no questions that it asks. It's little more than a commercial for itself. But it's also misleading. Won't be able to download free music anymore? Uh... why? If I put music on my website for free, how is this bill going to affect that?
    • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -3/+2I thought that bit about the music downloading was a bit exaggerated and/OR hyperbolic.

      Why the ***** are you getting modded down?
    • gomez1, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4did you even bother reading pages 2 and 3? Some good answers.
      • raublekick, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1At the time this was put on digg, there was nothing more than page 1 with no Q&A. Note that this was on digg 21 hours ago, and the Q&A didn't start until an hour ago. So yes, when this article was published, I read the whole article.
    • xerexes1, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3According to the article, the bill prohibits file sharing. Having "free" music on your website which others can download is the very definition of file sharing.
    • rdmillar, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3If you'd read the whole article, you'd know that releasing original material under a Creative Commons license would be legal. If you upload copyrighted material by others, you're in the *****.
      • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -2/+2Factually incorrect.

        CreativeCommons relies on copyright law.

        Current copyright law copyrights all new works automatically.

        By uploading your own work unless in PD, you are still uploading copyrighted works, but doing so legally.
  • GordonClass, on 06/18/2008, -3/+133Good to know we here in America can still ruin things for everyone.
  • ErikHarrison, on 06/18/2008, -2/+14This won't change a ***** thing. It will only give them something to point at when they bust someONE.
    • sweetholymosiah, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2All we have to do, as the Canadian public, is continue utilizing peer-to-peer technology on a massive scale never before achieved. This bill will not pass through the Senate anyways, but the internet commons is unstoppable.
    • barius, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3I think you mis-interpreted the bill. There are no provisions providing any new powers to the police or state. The powers are entirely judicial, which means that all that needs to happen is that some copyright holder takes you to court and he gets to walk away with your life savings.
  • DarkStar3333, on 06/18/2008, -1/+52With the ammount of attention allready gathering around this Bill it doesn't have a chance. Unlike our neighbours to the south we take a much harder line to protect civilian personal rights.

    "As-Is" this bill will be shot down just as quickly as the original bill proposed awhile back. This bill offers absolutly no benefit to the Canadian citiczen.

    Our IP laws are a bit outdated but this is not an issue that can be solved with draconian laws retrofitted onto technology. The reason piracy is so "high" is because there are no suitable business practices that suit our needs.
    • superkendall, on 06/18/2008, -3/+7"With the amount of attention already gathering around this Bill it doesn't have a chance. Unlike our neighbors to the south we take a much harder line to protect civilian personal rights."

      You should totally do stand up comedy. That was hilarious!

      A country with a "human rights concil" beholden to no law, a bastion of personal rights - ha ha ha!!!
      • nickert0n, on 06/18/2008, -4/+6You may not understand it in the states, but here in Canada we are free.

        Now go shoot your guns in the name of Geroge Doubleya Buush
        • superkendall, on 06/18/2008, -3/+4You are free? In the U.S. I can publish anything I want without fear of a "human rights council" that exists outside the law, unlike Canada. And Canada is about to pass a copyright bill even worse than the DMCA.

          I'm quite free thanks, and unlike you - not blind to what my own country is doing, or naive about what legislation can or cannot pass.

          Too bad, you had a nice country there for a bit.
        • stattek, on 06/18/2008, -1/+5The US has greater freedom of speech? Not according to Reporters Without Borders

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Reporters_Witho ...

          But keep thinking that way, it's important to your current government that the American people continue to think they are free.

          Oh, and The Econimist seems to hold the opinion that Canada is also more democratic

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Democracyindex2 ...

          It's a good thing you're "not blind to what my own country is doing, or naive about what legislation can or cannot pass."
        • nickert0n, on 06/18/2008, -5/+7You are quite free and not blind?

          OK so 80% of your population wants George Bush impeached yet...

          The Partiot Act...

          The False Pretense of the War on Terror which is a scam to make money via Oil and Weapons...

          9/11 Which was done by the Us (Tower 7 wasn't hit yet had internal fires and was demolished, no remains of plains were found in the pentagon or shanksville due to jet fuel burning up the TITANIUM engines however leaving DNA for identities to be disclosed, FBI official list of Hi jackers however 7 of them are alive today in the United States.)

          The IRS which is not a government agent which illegally taxes you under the 16th amendment which was never ratified or made legal, so you pay income tax unconstitutionally which is illegal on their part.

          But yeah you have iPhones and CNN so you're free, I guess.

          I can protest up here without being arrested for no reason.

          Can you?
        • AresDiggs, on 06/18/2008, -5/+3@ nickert0n -- so you are one of the 'truthers' eh? That building 7 conspiracy is a bunch of BS.. show me evidence that it was demolished (besides loose change)

          No planes found at the pentagon or shanksville eh? here let me get you started http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar ...
          http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

          Lets get this going.. i love arguing with you guys...
        • earthforce1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Sorry, but neither of us are free. The only thing worse than being a slave is not even knowing you are one.
        • AresDiggs, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2I love being buried for posting facts with sources to back them up...
        • nickert0n, on 06/18/2008, -4/+2@ Ares Diggs,

          Im not a truther its common sense dude.

          Im not going to argue it because the people who beleive what they are told will no matter what facts are present. Everything I said was a fact and cannot be overlooked. Now in regards to 9/11

          Watch section 2 of this movie:

          http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

          Or if you have time watch the whole movie.

          I dont care what you believe but I have not been able to watch that movie with a single person and then have them look me in the face therefore after and beleive a word about 9/11 that has been publicly expressed.

          I dare you and send me a response 1 reason why that movie is BS and that it is invalid 1.

          You will not, in an attempt to prove me wrong, becarefull you just might educate yourself to the inards behind the curtain.

        • AresDiggs, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1@ nickert0n-- for real the zeitgeist movie? i have watched it and every other movie/video/article/source i can find... because i like to make sure what i saw wasn't a biased propaganda piece...

          I don't have time to argue every point with you because it have had this argument with many people and in the end it was not worth the effort.

          http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/deb ...

          That will explain everything for you.

          BTW part I of the zeitgeist movie means nothing to me because i'm atheist and if people want to believe in Jesus or any other god for that matter then by all means they can

          You wanna know what the Zeitgeist Movie is? it's pure propaganda.. you want to know what propaganda is? well i copied and pasted it below just for you...

          "Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

          But yea get back to me (post on my shout wall or something) when you got something better then loose change or the zeitgeist movie... those are not sources of truth .. now on the other hand the site i sent you -- he puts a link to his sources at the bottom...

    • Austerist, on 06/18/2008, -14/+0What?
      Protect people's rights to steal? Are you ***** high?

      As for the reason it is high, is because there's no one getting punished. I guarantee after you take major fines and have your internet shut off, you'll stop.
      • jayfehr, on 06/18/2008, -0/+11I just spent a year copying my LEGALLY purchased dvd's onto my computer to use with my iPod and Media Player. According to this bill I will be liable for a $10 million dollar fine. I'm not stealing, and the government is not protecting my rights.

        math proof: 500 dvd's * $20 000 per DRM crack = $10 million
        • Austerist, on 06/18/2008, -7/+0Actually, that is perfectly legal. Go read the bill.

          Also, it's $20,000 is you DISTRIBUTE it. If you download it or have a copy of copyright material it is only $500. If you give it to your friends or sell it, it's $20,000.

          I'm glad we cleared up your obvious misinformation. *****.
        • jayfehr, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5Actually, circumventing digital locks, no matter how inadequate is a $20,000 fine. Also dvd's are specifically excluding from the fair use clause. Under the wording of the current law my figures stand correct. I am not a lawyer, if can show me the clauses that prove me wrong I will be more than happy to read through them.
        • BoneheadFarker, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5@Austerist

          Right...because $500 per incident is much better then $20,000 for something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place...
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1You better not do it again... or else!
        • MWeather, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3"Also dvd's are specifically excluding from the fair use clause."

          No they aren't. You have fair use rights of all non-CSS protected DVDs.
        • Fhwqhgads, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Funny how the shills like Austerist disappear after they get owned.
        • jayfehr, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2@MWeather

          Yes, you are correct that non-CSS DVDs aren't liable. However all of my DVDs are copy protected. So that provision doesn't apply to me. This bill will still make me a criminal and leave me with a huge fine hanging over my head ($10 Million) for format shifting my collection.

          I love the convenience of digital entertainment, I no longer have an entire wall dedicated to dust collecting DVDs, they are all stored nicely in a closet and yet I still have immediate access to them. The movie industry is not harmed in any way by my actions other then the fact I won't be spending another $10,000 to repurchase everything through iTunes, which I wouldn't do any way since I already have the DVDs.

          I am a big fan of the fact that the movie industry is finally making attempts at providing digital entertainment, both by opening up the iTunes store and providing digital copies on some DVD's, however not every title has these options, and none of my existing copies do. I hope they continue in this direction, and I will continue to purchase, but I want the right to use my legally obtained copies for my personal use, in any manner I see fit. This bill prohibits me from doing so.
      • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Please Austerist, you obviously don't get the fuss.

        This is annoying.

        This bill has many flaws that need to be addressed. Most of us are not against REASONABLE copyright laws, and if you could ACTUALLY READ, you'd see that.
    • MWeather, on 06/18/2008, -0/+16"With the ammount of attention allready gathering around this Bill it doesn't have a chance."

      They said the same thing about the RAVE Act. And it did fail twice, but they just slipped it into the Amber Alert bill, and it passed almost unanimously.

      It's happened before, it'll happen again.
    • nydwarf, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Won't believe it until that happens.
  • KaivenTor, on 06/18/2008, -0/+13I wonder how the border patrol would address encrypted material...
    • munkyxtc, on 06/18/2008, -1/+19UFIA & a Taser for you probably.
    • cheerio, on 06/18/2008, -0/+6They cannot force you to divulge your password, but they also don't have to let you in the country. Catch 22 is always a fun game.
      • riyehn, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Plausible deniability FTW
      • rohan1234, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1They do have to let you in if you're a Canadian citizen, and even if not I don't see how they can stop you... If you bring in agricultural items banned by customs, they don't refuse you entry, they just confiscate the items.
        • Pixelpaws, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Might be different in Canada, but I was nearly refused entry into the US when returning from England for failing to declare a ham and cheese sandwich. And yes, I am an American.
    • toekneebullard, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5Probably with instant seizure. After all, the only reason you would encrypt something is if you were working for the "terrists"
  • suttercain, on 06/18/2008, -21/+7I hate it when they try to make STEALING illegal. Am I not entitled to download mp3s for free? Am I not entitled to download movies for free? Am I not entitled to download software for free? Just because these companies invest millions and take huge risks doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to just come and rip them off, right?
    • Lazydriver, on 06/18/2008, -1/+15The difference being is that, the distribution of said products (ie sharing) costs no money AND people tend to buy products they like?

      Think of it as free publicity. Good ***** sells no matter how capable it is to pirate.
      • ATLien74, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3Exactly. Say you are a band.... Pirate #1 has never heard your music, but downloads your album for free. Pirate #1 likes it, but doesn't buy it. Pirate #1 tells several people that week how awesome your album is, but only two of those people actually go out and buy it. Your supposed loss from Pirate #1 downloading your album for free has been made back by him verbally advertising for you. But wait... your band rolls in to Pirate #1's town and he actually pays for 2 tickets for him and a friend to come see you at 10 bucks a pop. He also buys a T-shirt, that's another 15 bucks.

        Basically it's like this: Your new album, $10. Concert tickets, $10 and T-Shirt, $15. Cost/Loss of illegal download, $0. Gaining a new fan...PRICELESS.
      • suttercain, on 06/18/2008, -4/+3Wow... so this is the justification. Let's say this was a 100% true, which it isn't (my brother owns all the John Mayer, Beatles and Radiohead albums, yet has never purchased any merh or gone to their shows), it is not for us to decide. It is up to the owner of that album, software or movie, how they'd like it to be distributed.

        What you're doing is saying "We're going to take it. If it's 'good' we'll buy it." How is that in anyway logical or rational. Can you do that with a tangible good like food, clothes or an automobile? NO! Just because something is east to copy, doesn't make it any less of a theft. Bottom line. Argue, try and justify all you want... it's stealing!
        • Fhwqhgads, on 06/18/2008, -2/+2No. What's stealing is making us pay multiple times for the same content.

          That's why they are making it illegal to circumvent the copy protection ***** - which is impossible not to do in order to transfer it to iPod for example. They want you to pay again for that. It's greed no matter which way you slice it.

          Once again, a misinformed shill gets put in his place.
    • ePuck, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3Supplies are limited! Inventory going fast!
    • phydeaux70, on 06/18/2008, -5/+3Unfortunately I agree. It was nice to do stuff like download free stuff but it is illegal. If I had some intellectual property that I could charge people for that was considered my lively-hood, I wouldn't want people getting it for free...that is money out of my pocket!!

      People who are really complaining about it are symptomatic of society as a whole.....people want something for nothing, and if they don't get it they will play the victim and cry about it.
      • blackinthmiddle, on 06/18/2008, -1/+5I don't think that's the issue. Not for me, anyway. The problem is that it's Draconian.

        Remember a few years back there was that rape case, I think it was in D.C? Some black dude rapes a girl. The solution that the police tried implementing was to go around town collecting the dna of each and every black male. Many refused, citing violation of civil rights. One could easily say, "Wait, rape is illegal. Do you want your daughter raped?"

        What you're essentially saying is that because some people steal music (and will continue to do so. This bill does precious little to stop that), everyone should waive their right to privacy and allow guards to search them if they "suspect" copyright infringement.
        • phydeaux70, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2If I download a song from LimeWire and I get caught it is a $500 fine. If I purposely work around copying license files the fine is $20000. So...either way I think that is a deterrent by some measure.

          But I do agree with your assessment about the rape issues.....100%. The only difference is that I think a majority of people download free music, and a few pay for it. Whereas most people are not rapists. If more people paid for music we might not be having this entire discussion.
        • Fhwqhgads, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2You know, phydeaux70, I've recently arrived at the opinion that if you are a musician, you should have to work full time in order to make a living - just like the rest of us. Nobody else can work for a few months then sit on our asses and be paid for years afterward.

          So cry me a river. All of us have to work our asses off regularly to only see a tiny fraction of money that some of these "artists" make.
      • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3"t was nice to do stuff like download free stuff but it is illegal. "

        Absolutes should be illegal.

        I just downloaded some free program to get myself back into programming. Was it illegal? Not in the slightest.

        " I wouldn't want people getting it for free...that is money out of my pocket!!"

        You can't take money away from somebody who doesn't have it, just because they believe they had it in the first place - which is idiotic thinking.
    • dimension128, on 06/18/2008, -1/+24How would you like it if your perfectly functioning car suddenly stopped working simply because the company that made it went out of business? Or perhaps they just made Car 2.0 and say, we don't support Car 1.0 anymore so you have to buy the new one if you would like to keep getting fuel. Naw, you'll just fix it yourself, or get the fuel yourself through some other means. OOps! you cant do that, its illegal.

      You go buy a book, it is printed on paper that decays quickly under normal conditions. You have to wear special glasses to read it, because without them the text will look random. Do you find a way to use the lenses of those glasses on some copy machine to make a 'back up' of your book? Nope. The publisher says, "We understand you have a right to the data printed in this book, and that it is prone to failure. However, if you try to circumvent our 'copy protection' that is a crime. BUT, We can offer you protection from data loss.......
      FOR A PRICE.

      The current US law enables software companies to commit a legalized form of EXTORTION.
      • nickert0n, on 06/18/2008, -0/+6Very well put.
      • suttercain, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1I have no problem with backing up music or other mediums. But let's try to let some truth in here. It's one thing to back up my music, it's another thing to 'back up' my music, enclose it in a torrent and seed it. I have yet to ever see anyone (co-workers or family) who copied music to their hard drive so they could back it up. In fact they usually then burn CDs for friends and family or they lend out the hard drive some another person can 'drag and drop' all those files.

        Again, I have no problem with legitimate back up. But most people are not copying music to back it up.

        "You're living in a dreamworld." - Rilo Kiley
        • kirado4, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3so you know most people do you..? Impressive
        • dimension128, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Its not about backup-vs-pirating. Its about the literal ability for a company to use extortion on you. If this actually stopped piracy, then I'd still hate it, but I really wouldn't argue about it. The thing is this doesn't do ***** to piracy and you know it.
          Its about REMOVING your right to back things up. How can you back up that music when its got digital restrictions management wrapped around it, and its ILLEGAL to unwrap it?

          I (or anyone) have the ability to do it. Its trivial in most cases. But its freaken illegal!
    • chrisduser, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2Media and Software companies should stop investing into technologies that are easy to recreate and distribute instead of pushing for laws to make technologies artificially strong against recreation and distribution. Either way, in the case of the music industry, costumers will start dealing directly with the producer; the artist.
    • ElTomacco, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Well I remember a time when SHARING wasn't considered STEALING. Ah sweet memories.
      • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1It still isn't, unless those who have no idea about an idea called intellectual honesty actually matter.
      • suttercain, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Let's say you spent two years working on some reveloutinary automobile. you put your time, sweat and money into this. Now you release it and charge $10,000 for the car. Now there is some type of computer that can automatically scan that automobile and replicate it identically. One person buys the car and now they make 50 copies, those 50 copies are now made into 500 copies and so on... would that be fair to you? Stealing is stealing... why is this such a hard concept to grasp. Just because the movies, music and software are not tangible doesn't make the crime any less serious.
        • ElTomacco, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2It would be perfectly legal for that person to make those copies as long as he didn't sell them and make a profit on them. I think the same should apply to media.
        • suttercain, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1So if there is no chance for the person to make a profit, why would they work on the project in the first place? Regardless if it's media or an automobile... and you're actually wrong. Certain patents make it illegal.
        • barius, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5The problem is that given the technology to replicate a car, the car itself is no longer a 'limited' resource. You cannot apply Capitalism to unlimited resources which is why the media industry tries so hard to make DRM work. DRM artificially limits the supply of an inherently unlimited resource. DRM is therefore anti-capitalist and should be removed from the market entirely.

          So, how does one make money if the car can be replicated ad-infinitum? Well, if we look a little deeper than the surface of your question we see that while the 'car' has become an unlimited resource there is still a limiting factor. Someone needs to spend the time to design a better car. Time therefore becomes the limited resource since there is a limited number of engineers with limited amounts of time to spend on the project. Thus, a Capitalist business method would not charge money for a replicant of the car, but for the time required to make the design that everyone is copying. The Open Source world has perfected this business model already. Rather than charging money for a copy of the software (or a copy of the car) they instead charge money for the *service* of improving or creating designs. In the music industry this can be achieved similarly by paying money directly to the artists to create and perform new music, cutting out the now-unneeded distribution middle-man. This is what has the RIAA and their vile ilk all upset. It's not that they're being cut out, it's that they are no longer necessary or desired in a capitalistic business model.
        • Fhwqhgads, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Amen, barius.
        • kirado4, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1yes it is perfectly fair.. it called life.. some evolve and survive those who don't are doomed to failure
    • Versh, on 06/18/2008, -2/+4The people burying suttercain's sarcasm are immoral pirates of stolen intellectual property.
      Yet, dimension128 makes a good point, some companies have and will continue to exploit the copyright laws in order to extort more money for a product seemingly paid for the whole service.
      The solution:
      --Expensive software will only be used via a key-dongle, a a physical device that holds the license.
      --Inexpensive software (i.e., word programs that have open source counterparts) will eventually be web-based cloud-ware. Newer features will at most have a minimal fee.
      --Media (music, tv shows, movies, etc) cannot not cease to be freely distributed among the P2P networks-- the only counter action for creators to make a profit are:
      Insist original content's superior quality and make the most of performances (shows, tours, box office, etc).
      Results will vary, but I doubt all the prosecution in all the world will stop the ever growing community of torrent sharing. And just think when the web upgrades to the grid with exponential faster upload/download speeds...

      • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2"immoral pirates of stolen intellectual property."

        Hyperbole.

        Please` don't try to defend hyperbolic flamebait, and attack those who oppose/act upon it just because some are pirates.

        "-Expensive software will only be used via a key-dongle, a a physical device that holds the license."

        Which in time will be, and already can be, worked around/spoofed, removing the requirement of actually having a physical dongle. From there, the mod/crack/hack will spread so everyday people have access/can use it.

        Personally, if I purchased software that required this, I would crack it immediately so I didn't have to use the dongle, 'cause it's just gonna get lost in my piles of stuff. [cue George Carlin comment in ... 2... 1...]

        "but I doubt all the prosecution in all the world will stop the ever growing community of torrent sharing."

        I personally think not, especially with the growing share of legal content as well.. this prevents, IMO, anybody from legitimately generalizing against an entire technology.

        Other than that, I pretty much agree with the post.

        • Versh, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Eh, I meant to say: advanced key dongles will be developed to meet the burgeoning anti-piracy policies of major software companies.
          Sure, the device can be used as its own cipher to crack it's own guarded code (since it exists in some form on the dongle), but I think more companies would be investing in more advanced means of security-- eventually they'll make a key that can't be hacked.
          Or at least, be a few steps ahead of the cracked dll distributors.
          Anyway, I concede there are more opportunities for user-owned legal P2P networks, but they'll be a minority for some time to come.
    • uberchaoslord, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1We aren't talking about stealing. This law specifically allows format or time shifting for personal use, but then limits that use if we have to break a digital lock. If I want to watch one of my legally purchased DVDs on my creative player, or make a copy to take along on a road trip so my kids can watch on my portable DVD player (if you dont have kids you don't know the destructive capacity they have for things) thats illegal under the new bill.

      Shut your stupid pigeonholing stereotyping piehole.
    • senatorpjt, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1I thought Canadians had to pay a levy on media to pay for the music they're going to pirate. You can't charge people if they're not allowed to do it.
  • AllyOfReason, on 06/18/2008, -0/+31Why are politicians wasting their time with hardly enforceable legislation during a time when they need to be fixing god knows how many other relevant problems?
    • 3Den, on 06/18/2008, -2/+7When was the last time you wrote or met with your MP to discuss the problems that you would like them to be addressing? Do you only write them to tell them what NOT to do?

      • Fhwqhgads, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4When was the last time the government gave a flying ***** what the people want? The troops are still in Iraq.

        "You're living in a dream world." to quote a previous poster.
        • 3Den, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1There are other governments in the world besides the one that runs the U.S.A... such as the one we are discussing here.
      • AllyOfReason, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1*cough*

        ad hominem...

        *cough*
    • Zippo, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4Probably just that. It's unenforceable, but it shuts up the lobbyists and groups.
      That said, this is bad, bad, bad!
    • toekneebullard, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Because the common guy doesn't care about this (cause they're not informed) so it won't effect the politicians electability. If they worked on legislation that might actually make needed changes, they may offend someone, and not get re-elected.
  • Acuraracer32tl, on 06/18/2008, -3/+3Nooo! Shat!
  • Pirataholic, on 06/18/2008, -6/+22***** copyright.... I pirate proudly!
  • Austerist, on 06/18/2008, -18/+2Stealing movies, music, software and other intellectual property is wrong. The government should come in, and fine every last one of you pricks that feel entitled to steal.
    • soppinglemon, on 06/18/2008, -3/+0your a duesch
      • Austerist, on 06/18/2008, -13/+1Cry me a river bitch. Get a job.
        • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Come back when you actually know how to debate, you tween... well, you argue like one anyway.
    • PopcornDave, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3Oh hell, it's just lead by example. The government ( pick your country ) had been stealing from the populace for years. We've just taken their lead and followed it.
      • Austerist, on 06/18/2008, -4/+1Oh, so you're the victim now. Stealing people's hardwork, and you're the victim because you might actually be punished.

        Weird logic.
        • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2Those who uses weird logic (he never said he pirates) shouldn't lecture on weird logic.
        • Fhwqhgads, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2HARD work. HAH. You don't know the meaning of that.

          Here's a hint: it's not playing instruments and running recording machines for a few months and being paid for years afterwards.
        • Fhwqhgads, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3Actually the artists are the victims. They give about 90% of the money they make to the cartels. How would you like 90% of your paycheque stolen? Maybe you should after all it most likely belongs to the artists your company ripped off in the first place, am I right?

          And the people are the victims of the ***** laws like this forcing us to pay multiple times for the same thing and being restricted in how we use what we purchased. A few years ago that would have been an absurd idea, but greed knows no bounds.
        • Fhwqhgads, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2"it's not playing instruments and running recording machines for a few months and being paid for years afterwards."

          nor is it sitting on your ass and leeching off the people with talent

          (i use that word "talent" loosely here but you get my point - i hope)
        • PopcornDave, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2Never said I was a victim. All I was doing was drawing the analogy of leading by example. The government is famous for taking what isn't theirs and making money off of it e.g. eminent domain, so why should they get upset when the populace does it? That's all I'm asking.

          And apparently you need to be able to detect sarcasm a little better.
        • Fhwqhgads, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1The king's laws do not apply to the king.
    • SealandRes1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Enforing copyright should be done, but you can't start searching peoples computers without a warrant, much like how you can't search a house without a warrant.
      • Austerist, on 06/18/2008, -4/+1They're not searching people's computers. They don't have to.
        • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Yes they are, at the borders at least.
      • SealandRes1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Please RTFA, they're searching and seizing without warrants or court orders

        "And how will the bill reconcile itself with another proposed law, the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which would allow border guards to seize devices that they suspect of containing material that infringes copyright, and would force Internet service providers to reveal the identities of suspected infringers without a court order?"
    • nickert0n, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4Its not ***** stealing, its copying.

      If I tape a song off the radio its kool.

      Hows this different.

      The fact is metallica can ***** choke on it.

      This "pirating" forces all developers of any type of media to be better, because the only people that will push out anything soon is the people that do it out of passion not profit.

      So do I DL my music. ***** Yeah I do because I refuse to buy a CD that has one hit single and a bunch of Mc Donalds patty filler for the rest of the tracks.

      I have not bought a CD for ten years, All hail The Pirate Bay and its predecessors.

      Nor will I stop, Encrypt your Traffic.
      • scott88008, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Well rationalized! Why should an artist be allowed to make money? They should do it merely for the satisfaction of a job well done. For that matter, why pay anyone for their work? From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. I think I'll write a manifesto!
        • BoneheadFarker, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Why should an artist's label be guaranteed to be able to charge anyone they like with stealing if they don't make enough money? Artists don't make anything off of CD sales. Most of their money comes from concerts, for which they been told for years that the CDs were like advertising for their concerts. Since the artist has been trained for years to believe CD are advertisements, why would they care if you download? The more people that listen to the CD, the more people will come to the concerts where they're getting paid.

          In which case, why stamp CDs and put them in stores? Why not just setup a website allowing people to download the music for free, cutting out the need for the elaborate marketing schemes that go no where, and the lavish offices of label CEOs who add nothing to the music, and all the rest of the fluff that leaches off of the real talent? The internet will set artists free...
    • chrisduser, on 06/18/2008, -1/+5Copying and distribution of movies, music, software and other imaginary property is pseudo-plagiarism, not theft. This is because theft requires a person to take ownership and possession of another person's property without permission. Property is unique and can be stolen and can not be copied. Imaginary property is not unique and can not be stolen and can be copied.
      • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1I mostly agree with your post, but I must ask, where does pseudo-plagiarism come into play? I've never head that term used within the context of piracy before.
        • chrisduser, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Pseudo-plagiarism best fits my idea of someone who takes ownership of a copy of someone's original work, but does not claim to be the creator.
        • Travelsonic, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2IMO, this doesn't make sense since the entire idea of plagiarism is fraud - falsely claiming to be the creator, IRC.
    • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2People should actually be fined ONLY if:

      1) they actually comitted a crime,

      and 2) the crime is corect.

      They don't get fined for "stealing" but for copyright infringement.

      Might I suggest you go back to the library, or school? Your arguments, reading comprehension, and lack of logical arguments indicate this need.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/18/2008, -0/+6You are entitled to your opinion. Just a few notes:

      1. This bill is bad for more reasons than simply download fines

      2. The bill criminalizes bypassing encryption. You don't realize the problems this causes.

      3. The bill opens the door for American companies to start suing lots of Canadian youths.
      (The country invests heavily in their students. Throwing them out on the street is a death knell.)

      4. The bill criminalizes unlocking cell phones to work with additional carriers.

      5. The bill limits Tivo and DVR's to recording a show once.

      That's why it's a bad idea for Canadians to pass this law.
    • kirado4, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1RIAA mole.. what's it like having no morals and applying the law seletively.. hope you sleep well at night.. enjoy the nightmares
  • donjuan571, on 06/18/2008, -19/+3This is for ***** canada who cares?!?!
    • Jennefah, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Uh... Canadians?

      We should care too. Who's to say the governments of other countries won't decide to follow Canada's example?
  • LiXy, on 06/18/2008, -0/+33Send a letter to those responsible for Bill C-61 in Ottawa in less than a minute by completing this letter wizard provided by the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights - http://www.ccer.ca/send-a-letter-to-harper-prentic ...
  • trumpcard, on 06/18/2008, -15/+3Before downloading music on the internet think about the artists, have some sympathy don't be ***** douchebags.
    • icndvl, on 06/18/2008, -1/+12You mean think about the RIAA who makes the gross majority of their money on the backs of the artists and their fans. Who is the douche bag?
    • bjornski, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3When the artist starts making more than 5% of the cost of that disc, I'll start thinking about who is really ripping off the artist.
    • stattek, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3You're right trumpcard, think of the artists. Instead of buying the CD, and thus funneling your money into the RIAA who don't do ***** for anyone, buy the bands concert tickets and pick up a shirt while you're there.
    • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2Appeal to emotion: still a fallacy.

      Looking up and arguing based upon fact: making debate easier since the beginning of time.
    • uberchaoslord, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1So buying stuff from itunes is bad? this isn't about piracy, its about fair-use.
  • bundwallah, on 06/18/2008, -0/+22I swear, if both governments put this amount of effort and lobbying into stuff like, stopping hunger, justice reform, fixing roads, etc, etc then I'd applaud them. The coverage that IP rights gets you'd think this was the battle of the hearts of minds for our times. It is not!! It is the government enforcing laws on the behalf of corporations that erodes the rights of the consumer/constituents. You watch, these laws are not so much about protecting IP, they are about infringing on your personal rights to privacy and to information in general.
    • MrWhite7, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1this is justice reform. Why would the government stop hunger? Are you hungry?
  • atb12688, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4When does it stop? When do the people in power begin to act responsibly? When are politicians going to do the right thing instead of what may yield more lobbyist money or get them re-elected? I'm not 100% sure that Obama is any different. I'll be voting for him over McCain, but there are no perfect solutions to our problems.
  • joshuagor44, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4This is so insane. The internet is meant to be managed by its users, not the government. They have no right to do this without the people's input.
  • ePuck, on 06/18/2008, -3/+7 Give me a break! Each download makes them more popular. Just start charging the whole world a flat fee $10 per month if you have ears, and $20 per month if you have eyes and while you're at it and $50 per month if you have private parts and a significant other.
    • PopcornDave, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Would that $50/month override her "I have a headache" routine?
      • glockops, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1I've heard that a multi-carat diamond will "cure her headache" for at least a month.
  • CCmachined, on 06/18/2008, -8/+3piracy is rampant. what do you think theyre gonna do, sit on their asses and watch as they lose their livelihoods? i have and always have refused to be a part of that.
    now, all you ***** are gonna cause a giant banning of devices with digital content, eh?
    i warned the lot of you before, so im gonna sit back in the UK and watch. Hahahahahaha
    • raada, on 06/18/2008, -3/+3What livelihoods is that? Lawsuits for profit?
    • 4degrees, on 06/18/2008, -3/+1ya, lars will have to wait an extra two months to buy that gold plated shark tank... you are full of ***** man, but by all means, keep missing out.
  • startzpe, on 06/18/2008, -1/+6This bill is just a condom, they are going to wrap it around something eventually.
  • ryleyleckie, on 06/18/2008, -1/+18this bill is so 1999
  • mrroarke, on 06/18/2008, -0/+34WTF does a TomTom GPS have to do with copyright bills?
    • PopcornDave, on 06/18/2008, -1/+17Simple. Since the roads are maintained by the government, you're not going to be able to download maps to a GPS anymore because you're infringing on their copyright by doing so. You're going to have to go back to a government approved map although you won't be able to read it in the car or call for technical support on said map while you're driving.
      • ch4os1337, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2There is a very simple fix for this, get a girlfriend/boyfriend and just make her/him read it to you and tell you how far until you need to turn. I see no problems in that...
    • gurudrew, on 06/18/2008, -1/+3Many GPS devices now have the ability to store digital files as they have built in MP3 players. Any digital device will be subject to search and seizure when crossing the border.
    • mCanada, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1This is the device the copyright police will use to find your house, break down your door each time you download "nevergonnagiveyouup.avi"
  • pond70, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4Movies are still being made , albums are still being recorded, video games are still being released , TV still has a fall line up......hmmmm ya I can see how the huge global problem with piracy - that "standard" talking point that flows from the USA is killing the industry.

    Good job you concerned people on the 'hill' way to keep in step with the backwards USA law makers -

    ...well off to China town I got some 8 for $20 buck DVD movies to pick up
  • pigfister, on 06/18/2008, -3/+7who is behind this? the same ppl behind the ACTA no doubt: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/06/secret-superc ...


    The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.

    The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!

    The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
  • 4degrees, on 06/18/2008, -9/+1how is American legislation world news? :-P
    • gurudrew, on 06/18/2008, -2/+6Canada not USA and any law that affects international travel is international news.
    • hempydave, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1The USA is not the world dude
  • 1033, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Wow how much more money could the government and entertainment industry waste on a lost battle... From their attitudes I dont feel like ever buying a piece of software or music, not that I would have purchased any of it anyways. Its funny that you can release intellectual property globally and then bitch when someone is able to circumvent the protection and have it for free. Stop making software, stop making music, if you can't make any money the way things are then go into history with the horse & carriage.
  • Borgcube636, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3Not able to download FREE music anymore? What they hell are they thinking??
    • jamesmcginnis, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2I agree......all the un-signed artists on (example) download.com. Now is it illegal to download the music from there too?
    • Travelsonic, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1I know, considering not all free music is synanomous with illegal. There are plenty of legally free music sites.
    • PinkChicken, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1The problem is the draconian punishments for getting caught.
  • astra05, on 06/18/2008, -5/+12Blame Cananda, Blame Cana.....Oh wait, the US is definitely responsible for this pile of crap.
  • sweetholymosiah, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4As a pirate and a musician I cannot stand the quality of mp3 shared on the torrent networks. torrents are especially great for high quality classical music, but the pop ***** that these lawyers are really paid to complain about too often sound blippy and thin when downloaded and not purchased. The unreliability of peer-to-peer is enough to separate it from authentic purchased sound recordings. p2p is the new radio, and the industry should catch on. Any artist who has thought deeply about the technology will acknowledge the vast potential it has to spread his or her art, without the middle-men getting involved. If you care so much about the musician whom you love so, provide that person with money directly. I know that musician will gladly share his or her projects on torrents in the future.
  • akgray, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4Here are a few informative sites:

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080612-cana ...

    http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/12/canadians-wri ...

    Basically you can't do anything with the media you buy unless it's a book, newspaper or something else nobody cares about. It's infuriating and while the vast majority would like it to be changed, it's not enough to simply try and "wish" it to fruition.

    At the very least you can do something like this site has setup:

    http://www.ccer.ca/send-a-letter-to-harper-prentic ...

    They will email some of the important people involved, as well as printing it out and sending a hard copy on your behalf. You should take some time to personalize it but mass emails, while still sending a message, can sometimes be ignored easier. The physical copy is a nice touch. If you want to really make an impact you should contact your local member of parliament and discuss this matter, whether in person or by email, it's their job to represent you. You can find your local MP here:

    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/House ...

    People who are lazy now have no right to complain later when they're told putting a DVD they bought on their iPod is illegal.
  • nutzngum, on 06/18/2008, -0/+7Fine, try to stop people from downloading stuff illegally, but stay out of my legitimately-purchased collection and let me do whatever i want with it...

    It pisses the crap out of me that I can get fined because I decided that I want to transfer my purchased copy of Child's Play onto my iPod to help me get to sleep...

    stoopid politicians.
    • DrummerAndrew, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Ha pisses the crap... oldie but goodie.
  • zTredecim, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0The article will be alot more informative after 1 pm. Its currently a "chat".
  • asnider, on 06/18/2008, -0/+4If I digitize my old VHS tapes, I have to keep the VHS copy in order for my digital copy to be "legal?" What the ***** is the logic behind that? The reason I'm digitizing my VHS tapes is so I don't have to waste so much space storing the ***** things.
    • crazykid596, on 06/19/2008, -0/+0so they can sue you and get money
  • aenima987, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2http://www.truecrypt.org/

    Fixed the problem.
  • Rocco03, on 06/18/2008, -3/+1Buried for being an ad bitch.
  • FAHQ2, on 06/18/2008, -0/+12Someone should get a hold of a picture showing a Politician, (preferably one who supports these new laws) or a member of their family with an iPhone.
    As we all know, (up until July 11) anyone in Canada currently using an iphone is using an unlocked phone, therefore they are thus breaking this new proposed law, by using and owning a hacked product.
    So if this law passes, we can then ask that these politicians which had unlocked iPhones also be fined the $20,000 fee.
    That should teach them a lesson.
  • asnider, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4I love how the guy keeps telling people, "Tell the government how you feel about this law." I already did that, it did dick all.
    • everywhereasign, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Really?

      'cause it hasn't been passed yet. How about you wait to see what happens before you condemn the people who are using their power as voters to make their opinions known.
      • asnider, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I'm not opposed to telling the government about your opinions, I'm just bitter because my elected representative isn't the guy I voted for and is actually in favour of this bill.
  • rapcrap187, on 06/18/2008, -5/+3Evil side effects of Capitalism.
    Greed for money and power.
    • galeninjapan, on 06/18/2008, -1/+5True capitalism means no or very little involvement from the government...
      • Jookly, on 06/18/2008, -4/+1"true capitalism"?!? who the ***** do you think you are?
        • Jennefah, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2I'd hazard a guess he's someone who actually knows the definition of "capitalism".
        • Jookly, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1LMFAO What a ridiculous claim.
      • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -3/+1So, who would assume the role of government? The proletariat? Or would it end up being a big corporation which doesn't have the interests of voters, but instead the interest of profits? Tyranny seems to come wherever a lot of resources settle, but at least a representative democracy that regulates things keeps tyranny in check.
  • wushin, on 06/18/2008, -0/+5Between this and the drug war I just want to know How do politicians see with their heads jammed so far up their asses?
  • Rainemaker, on 06/18/2008, -1/+6Canadian Lobbyists - "Make a draconian law against digital rights Buddy!"

    Canadian Politicians - "Sure, if you say so Friend."

    Canadian People (to the politicians) - "Their not our freinds Guys!"
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 06/18/2008, -1/+7Anything that government gets involved in, turns to *****.

    Government causes monopolies. They are supposed to protect from monopolies.
    • TVarmy, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3So, wait? If there were no government, would there be no monopolies? Care to extrapolate?
      • FreeTalkLIve, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1There can be NO monopolies in a TRUE free market with no governmental fingers in the pie either directly nor indirectly.

        That statement is fact.
  • robthom, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2I think its awesome.
    Any true music lover should be willing to break the law for love of the art form. Its shows enough devotion to actually lead into having good taste instead of just buying whatever they feel like selling you.
    Plus the people downloading and listening to kanye west and maroon 5 albums should be actively being fleeced for their money.
    Giant sunglasses dont buy themselves you know.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 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.