http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/welcomeic.nsf/0365f77a8a847e1e8...5cf5b%21OpenDocument
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/03/canadian-dmca-will-t.html

They are going to table legislation either today or tomorrow that will make Canadian copyright law equal to the US. This will open the floodgates and tie up the courts with a never ending parade of lawsuits suing you for downloading TV shows, MP3s, and unlocking cellphones. As usual, the bill does nothing to award the artists who created the media any compensation whatsoever, and does nothing for independent labels. This only gives major labels and studios more money for nothing. Fight back if you care at all about freedom.

Also, don't you think it's kinda funny they're trying to sneak this blatant world policing from American lobbyists during a war, which we are both still in?

"The federal government has introduced legislation to make it easier to prosecute people who download copyrighted material from the internet.

Industry Minister Jim Prentice tabled amendments to the Copyright Law in the House of Commons Thursday. Individuals caught downloading copyrighted files would be fined $500 under the proposed amendments. The current copyright law — intended to catch commercial cheaters — carries a maximum fine of $20,000 for infringements.

The bill has been in limbo since the Conservatives first put it on the Commons order paper in December. Prentice was caught between business interests who wanted strict protection for intellectual property, such as musical recordings and films, and internet users accustomed to downloading content for free.

Downloading on the rise
According to the latest survey from Statistics Canada, one in five Canadians aged 16 and older said they had downloaded or watched TV or movies over the internet, an increase from 12 per cent in 2005. The percentage of Canadians who downloading music — either paid or for free — also increased from 37 per cent to 45 per cent in the two-year span. Part of that increase can be attributed to a change in methodology, as Statscan for the first time included 16 and 17 year olds in the study, a demographic more likely to download media than older groups.

Critics feared the bill will mirror the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which similarly brought in restrictive measures and opened the door for copyright owners to enact huge lawsuits against violators.

Prentice has said on several occasions that Canada's Copyright Act must be amended in order to bring the country into compliance with the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty it signed in 1996. The Copyright Act was last overhauled in 1997.

The minister was forced to retreat on introducing the bill in December after being hit with major public opposition. More than 20,000 people joined a protest group started on social networking site Facebook by University of Ottawa internet and e-commerce professor Michael Geist, an outspoken critic of the bill.

The opposition to the legislation has only grown since then, with the Facebook group counting more than 40,000 members now.

Canadian artists, librarians and students, as well as a business coalition made up of some of Canada's biggest companies — including Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp., as well as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. — have expressed their opposition to any legislation that imposes harsh copyright restrictions.

Opposition widespread
The chorus of opposition was joined last week by a coalition of consumers groups — including Option consommateurs, Consumers Council of Canada, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) and Online Rights Canada (OnlineRights.ca) — who wrote a letter to the two ministers. The consumer groups expressed dismay that they had not been consulted on the legislation.

Prentice responded to questioning in the House of Commons last week by saying he would not introduce the bill until he and Verner were satisfied that it struck the right balance between consumers and copyright holders.

Geist has repeatedly attacked the government on his blog for its lack of consultation with the Canadian public on the issue. However, Prentice has met with U.S. trade representatives and entertainment industry lobbyists to discuss the legislation.

"Prentice should be honest about the core anti-circumvention rules that are likely to mirror the DMCA and run counter to the concerns of business, education and consumer groups," Geist wrote on his blog. "Those rules are quite clearly 'Born in the USA.'""

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/12/tech-copyright.html

Interestingly enough, this article has now changed:

The headline is now: Copyright law could result in 'police state,' critic warns

The federal government has introduced a controversial bill it says balances the rights of copyright holders and consumers — but it opens millions of Canadians to huge lawsuits, prompting one critic to warn it will create a "police state."

"We are confident we have developed the proper framework at this point in time," Minister of Industry Jim Prentice told a press conference in Ottawa on Thursday. "This bill reflects a win-win approach."

The bill contains an anti-circumvention clause that will make it illegal to break digital locks on copyrighted material. That means TiVos and other personal video recorders (PVRs) will be made useless if television broadcasters choose to put technical locks on their shows so they can't be recorded.

People caught downloading music or video files illegally could also be sued for a maximum of $500, but uploading a file to a peer-to-peer network or YouTube could result in lawsuits of $20,000 per file.

Prentice deflected questions about potential lawsuits by saying the bill is necessary to modernize Canada's laws.

"You can get into hypothetical situations," he said, "but the purpose of the bill has been to expand the balance of protection between consumers and copyright holders."

Critics blasted the government for the legislation, with Liberal industry critic Scott Brison suggesting Prentice was proposing the creation of a "police state." He criticized the government for its lack of consultation with Canadian stakeholders and for not considering the implications of the bill if it passes.

"There's no excuse for why the government has not consulted broadly the diverse stakeholders," he said. "The government has not thought this through. It has not thought about how it will enforce these provisions."

"There's a fine line between protecting creators and a police state."

Downloading on the rise
According to the latest survey from Statistics Canada, one in five Canadians aged 16 and older said he or she had downloaded or watched TV or movies over the internet, an increase from 12 per cent in 2005.

The percentage of Canadians who downloaded music — either paid or for free — also increased from 37 per cent to 45 per cent in the two-year span. Part of that increase can be attributed to a change in methodology, as Statistics Canada for the first time included 16- and 17-year-olds in the study, a demographic more likely to download media than older groups.

Critics feared the bill will mirror the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which similarly brought in restrictive measures and opened the door for copyright owners to enact huge lawsuits against violators.

Prentice has said on several occasions that Canada's Copyright Act must be amended to bring the country into compliance with the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty it signed in 1996. The act was last overhauled in 1997.

The minister was forced to retreat on introducing the bill in December after being hit with major public opposition. More than 20,000 people joined a protest group started on social networking site Facebook by University of Ottawa internet and e-commerce Prof. Michael Geist, an outspoken critic of the bill.

The opposition to the legislation has only grown since then, with the Facebook group counting more than 40,000 members now.

Canadian artists, librarians and students, as well as a business coalition made up of some of Canada's biggest companies — including Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp., as well as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. — have expressed their opposition to any legislation that imposes harsh copyright restrictions.

Opposition widespread
The chorus of opposition was joined last week by a coalition of consumer groups — including Option consommateurs, Consumers Council of Canada, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), and Online Rights Canada (OnlineRights.ca) — that wrote a letter to the two ministers. The consumer groups expressed dismay they had not been consulted on the legislation.

Prentice responded to questioning in the House of Commons last week by saying he would not introduce the bill until he and Heritage Minister Josée Verner were satisfied that it struck the right balance between consumers and copyright holders.

Geist has repeatedly attacked the government on his blog for its lack of consultation with the Canadian public on the issue. However, Prentice has met with U.S. trade representatives and entertainment industry lobbyists to discuss the legislation.

"Prentice should be honest about the core anti-circumvention rules that are likely to mirror the DMCA and run counter to the concerns of business, education and consumer groups," Geist wrote on his blog. "Those rules are quite clearly 'Born in the USA.'"

Similar, but changed.

Bill C-61
See the bill in its entirety.

Yes, you are going to want to stomp on this one pretty quick, Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by youandwhosearmy:
Yes, you are going to want to stomp on this one pretty quick, Canada.

I disagree. I think the onus is on the "consumer" to pay for their product. What a novel idea!

I'm not sure what to think of this article. Of course Rogers is going to be opposed to this bill: downloading=business for them. And of course the 40,000 people in the Facebook group are going to oppose it: people like their free music. And of course Scott Brison is going to oppose it: that's his job.

I'd be interested in hearing what the owners of local record stores, or people who work for record companies, or musicians or music industry lawyers think of this bill.

It does bother me that groups like the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, and Online Rights Canada were not consulted. And how is this all going to be enforced? But overall I found the CBC article to be very one-sided and seems to be written in an attempt to enflame the readers' fears (the words "police state" are right there in the title.) The boingboing article wasn't much better, opting for "college fund" rhetoric.

Off to search for better information...

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:

quote:

Originally posted by youandwhosearmy:
Yes, you are going to want to stomp on this one pretty quick, Canada.

I disagree. I think the onus is on the "consumer" to pay for their product. What a novel idea!

Every download is not a lost sale, no matter how many times the RIAA says it. As is, the supreme court of Canada has likened MP3s to the use of photocopiers in libraries. That's the law as it stands. We all pay our ten cents when we buy blank CDs (well, 21 cents per disc actually, none of which actually goes to the artists but to the CRIA or major labels in Canada).

quote:

Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:
Every download is not a lost sale, no matter how many times the RIAA says it.

That may be true, but downloading is hurting sales (big time), and that's the point. So many people say they "try before [they] buy", but it is only to remove the guilt of stealing.

Let's say you download 20 albums. You might buy one or two. You might delete 8-10, leaving the other 9 or so albums in the like it enough to keep it but not buy it. In the meantime, you're only out of pocket $15 to $30 and have listened to 15-20 hours of music.

I think it's better for the fan to buy as well, making it more of a commitment to give your tunes a chance rather than a "one and done" listen. If I did that, I'd have missed some of my favourite stuff.

Ahhh, here we go again. Sorry.

all of your points are completely valid il mago, but i think the fact of the matter is that most canadians don't agree with you. i know that in the past five years, my downloading has increased exponentially, but so have my cd purchases. i bought more albums last year than most of the people i know combined (except my girlfriend, who's a not so distant second). does that make it ethically okay for me to download? well, no, but ethics be damned.
i know you've heard it time and time again, but i'm in college, i'm in debt, and i love music, and they can slap all of the penalties they want on downloading and it isn't going to stop people like me from ravaging paul simon's discography. i can't afford my music habit, so like any junkie, i'm forced to simply take sometimes. and the thought that the government i elected wants to bring harsh justice down on my torrenting ass deeply infuriates and scares the hell outta me.

right now the stats say that only 45% of canadians have downloaded music in the past two years (bullshit! if my near-incompetent old man can download garth brooks singles, the number has to way higher), but it's only going to increase. if you want to talk ethics, the government is obligated to represent the will of the people that elected it. at what point does the normalcy of an act dictate its legality?

quote:

I think it's better for the fan to buy as well, making it more of a commitment to give your tunes a chance rather than a "one and done" listen. If I did that, I'd have missed some of my favourite stuff.

Ahhh, here we go again. Sorry.

Please don't say sorry. almost everybody knows that (i hope so), but few people are able to control themselves. It's like consuming fast food but here it's music.

Golden Flea, it's a circular argument (which has been killed to death in 5,000 threads in this forum) but try and apply your logic to other things that you consume. I have almost $40k in student loans on my plate, I know debt too well.

I am having trouble affording gas. Does that make it okay for me to fill up and drive away without paying? If I got arrested for the "dine and dash" (because food's expensive, and I'm poor) do I feel like the government is anal or out of line?

I need gas, so I pay for it. I need food, so I pay for that too. I also love music so much that it feels like I genuinely do need it. So, I pay for it. If it was easier to steal food or gas, it wouldn't be any more right to do so. Unfortunately, it is easy to steal music. It is not right to steal it, no matter how many excuses you or anyone can give.

quote:

Originally posted by eggtweedyegg:
It's like consuming fast food but here it's music.

So you're saying you steal your fast food?

I get what you're saying (guilty pleasure), but I thought I'd shoot a hole in it.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:

I need gas, so I pay for it. I need food, so I pay for that too. I also love music so much that it feels like I genuinely do need it. So, I pay for it. If it was easier to steal food or gas, it wouldn't be any more right to do so. Unfortunately, it is easy to steal music. It is not right to steal it, no matter how many excuses you or anyone can give.

But when you buy gas or food you know exactly what you are getting. Not so much with music. Sometimes I buy music, sometimes I steal it. In fact I'm hijacking this wireless internet connection to get music. If its there for the taking don't get upset for people taking it, get upset at the suppliers.

quote:

Originally posted by mymindsblank:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:

I need gas, so I pay for it. I need food, so I pay for that too. I also love music so much that it feels like I genuinely do need it. So, I pay for it. If it was easier to steal food or gas, it wouldn't be any more right to do so. Unfortunately, it is easy to steal music. It is not right to steal it, no matter how many excuses you or anyone can give.

But when you buy gas or food you know exactly what you are getting. Not so much with music. Sometimes I buy music, sometimes I steal it. In fact I'm hijacking this wireless internet connection to get music. If its there for the taking don't get upset for people taking it, get upset at the suppliers.

You can always check the 30 second spots on Amazon or something (plus you can legally stream many albums). You can also legally grab a song or two from many albums at places like download.com or Stereogum. Do what you want, but just don't make excuses for it. If you want music and don't want to pay for it, just say so. Trying to justify it with any other excuse or reasoning just comes off as insincere to me.

There's lots of stuff in this world that is there for the taking. I lost my wallet a few months ago and someone found it and took it. Later that afternoon, the finder drove to my house to deliver it, with not a thing missing. They could have just as easily kept my cash and credit cards. It was there for the taking.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Mago:
Let's say you download 20 albums. You might buy one or two. You might delete 8-10, leaving the other 9 or so albums in the like it enough to keep it but not buy it. In the meantime, you're only out of pocket $15 to $30 and have listened to 15-20 hours of music.

So what exactly is the difference between that and going to a record store, listening to those albums at a listening station, and not buying them? Or, better yet, taking them out from the library for a week (they have a pretty decent selection at the Vancouver Public Library)? If they aren't going to buy those albums, they aren't going to buy them. Is it really a better system to force people to try to buy albums they don't really like just because they haven't heard them in their entirity? I think that would make people buy less music.
Not to mention, they may never have heard of those 20 albums until they downloaded them. And now, because they downloaded them on a whim, they bought one or two that they never would have heard of otherwise. I think allowing them a few low quality rips of albums they only kinda like is worth them buying a couple albums they never would have discovered if things were different.

quote:

Originally posted by Built to Sleep:

You can always check the 30 second spots on Amazon or something (plus you can legally stream many albums). You can also legally grab a song or two from many albums at places like download.com or Stereogum. Do what you want, but just don't make excuses for it. If you want music and don't want to pay for it, just say so. Trying to justify it with any other excuse or reasoning just comes off as insincere to me.

There's lots of stuff in this world that is there for the taking. I lost my wallet a few months ago and someone found it and took it. Later that afternoon, the finder drove to my house to deliver it, with not a thing missing. They could have just as easily kept my cash and credit cards. It was there for the taking.

I can't check thirty second spots while I'm at the record store and the listening stations only have music I find lame, buying music shouldn't have to be homework to decide if it is a sound investment. I'm not making excuses, I'm just saying it is not comparable to food or gas or any other necessity (Some people may think that gas isn't necessary --Ha!) Music is entertainment, thats all.
And I'm glad that you got your wallet back, but I bet you did not expect to get it back all in one piece, I hope you gave that guy a reward or somethin.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mymindsblank,

quote:

Originally posted by mymindsblank:

quote:

Originally posted by Built to Sleep:

You can always check the 30 second spots on Amazon or something (plus you can legally stream many albums). You can also legally grab a song or two from many albums at places like download.com or Stereogum. Do what you want, but just don't make excuses for it. If you want music and don't want to pay for it, just say so. Trying to justify it with any other excuse or reasoning just comes off as insincere to me.

There's lots of stuff in this world that is there for the taking. I lost my wallet a few months ago and someone found it and took it. Later that afternoon, the finder drove to my house to deliver it, with not a thing missing. They could have just as easily kept my cash and credit cards. It was there for the taking.

I can't check thirty second spots while I'm at the record store, buying music shouldn't have to be homework to decide if it is a sound investment. I'm not making excuses, I'm just saying it is not comparable to food or gas or any other necessity (Some people may think that gas isn't necessary --Ha!) Music is entertainment, thats all.
And I'm glad that you got your wallet back, but I bet you did not expect to get it back all in one piece, I hope you gave that guy a reward or somethin.

Of course I gave him a reward. My point is, while some would have thought "Hey, this is my lucky day - I just found a wallet with 200 bucks in it" others, like the guy in my example think, "That would suck if I lost my wallet. I'll bet somebody is really worried about all of that stuff."

There's always two sides to things, and if you don't think that illegal downloading is hurting anybody, you aren't seeing the bigger picture.

I've said before FMH, that I don't have a huge problem with "try before you buy". As you noted, there's a lot of legitimate ways to do this. The problem is that a lot of people omit the "buy" portion and "try and try and try", which does translate to a lost sale. I know a ton of people who've basically stopped purchasing albums because p2p and torrents make acquiring music for free possible. And these aren't poor, destitute people. They could afford to drop a few bucks on a legal download, they just choose not to.

Show me some of these people I have hurt by downloading and I'll show you a stack of albums I wouldn't have bought anyway.

quote:

So what exactly is the difference between that and going to a record store, listening to those albums at a listening station, and not buying them? Or, better yet, taking them out from the library for a week (they have a pretty decent selection at the Vancouver Public Library)? If they aren't going to buy those albums, they aren't going to buy them. Is it really a better system to force people to try to buy albums they don't really like just because they haven't heard them in their entirity? I think that would make people buy less music.
Not to mention, they may never have heard of those 20 albums until they downloaded them. And now, because they downloaded them on a whim, they bought one or two that they never would have heard of otherwise. I think allowing them a few low quality rips of albums they only kinda like is worth them buying a couple albums they never would have discovered if things were different.

So you have your justifications for the downloading of music. What about the downloading of movies, TV shows, and books? Should there be different rules for them because they are different mediums. Is it okay to download one medium and not another?