Version: 2008

Comments on: Canada to get tough on digital piracy

Canada Industry Minister proposes bill that would revamp country's outdated copyright law to deal with digital piracy.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (9 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by SupremeAntBee June 12, 2008 11:58 AM PDT
Canada, Canada, Canada... that's all I can say and shake my head.
Reply to this comment
by GeofGlass June 12, 2008 12:12 PM PDT
"Under the new law, consumers could copy a book, newspaper or photograph that was legally acquired"

Not if the content was protected by a digital lock (DRM). Circumvention technology would be banned. Cell phone unlocking, watching foreign DVDs, copying music from a protected CD you own to your cell phone, watching a DVD on Linux - all subject to a penalty of up to $20,000. This government has disregarded the letters from thousands of Canadian consumers, artists, and citizens, and instead written a law in cahoots with Hollywood and the RIAA.
Reply to this comment
by Tronman161 June 12, 2008 12:14 PM PDT
So....all those episodes of Trek and I painstakingly recorded onto VHS and edited out the commercials are now illegal?
Reply to this comment
by Tronman161 June 12, 2008 4:57 PM PDT
Actually, I guess they always were.
by jacdor90 June 12, 2008 12:16 PM PDT
Once again, Canada is trying hard to prove that it's another cute puppy of U.S..
Reply to this comment
by adam_a_canuck June 12, 2008 1:04 PM PDT
Wow, that is unbelievable. I guess the reason the Empire of US gets a reputation as being arrogant is because it's true.
by Gayle Edwards June 12, 2008 9:22 PM PDT
I am so sick of this double-talk...



>> "Legislation introduced in Canadian Parliament on Thursday would fine consumers about $500 in Canadian dollars for owning bootleg copies of digital music".


...So, Canadian citizens will be fined $500.00 for possessing a $0.99, so-called, "bootleg" song..?



>> "...up to $20,000 for posting copyrighted music to the Internet".


...And, Canadians can look forward to being fined $20,000.00 for "making available" (apparently without actually, necessarily, even being shown to distribute even a single copy)..?



>> "...or giving away an iPod with music on it".


...Excuse me, but that pretty much explicitly says that consumers DO NOT own the individual-copy of any "intellectual property" that they have legitimately paid-for (despite the laws which are supposed to protect that very right).



>> "...circumvent digital locks designed to prevent illegal distribution"


...Also, Canadians can be arrested for exercising their legal-rights (as consumers) simply by bypassing DRM (even if that DRM directly violates their legally-established rights)..?


And, finally



>>"...The bill, introduced by Industry Minister Jim Prentice, would allow consumers to record TV and radio programs for playing back later, but it would prohibit them from keeping the copies indefinitely"


...which is so impossibly-vague that it pretty much makes using a VCR, so legally-dangerous, that only a fool would claim that this "law" doesnt virtually OUTLAW the practice (for ALL, REAL, intents, and purposes).



This proposal does not bring the Canadian "...Copyright Act into the digital age". It drags consumer rights back to the dark-ages, of "nobility" (who permanently own everything), and "serfs" (who can never own anything). In short... this entire charade is a LIE.


Good Canada... now roll-over, and play dead, like a good little doggy!


Reply to this comment
by microg June 13, 2008 5:33 AM PDT
I love this part...(being sarcastic)

>>The bill, introduced by Industry Minister Jim Prentice, would allow consumers to record TV and radio programs for playing back later, but it would prohibit them from keeping the copies indefinitely, according to Reuters.

So just how do you define indefinitely? In order to find someone in violation you would have to allow indefinitely + x time to pass and since you would be waiting forever for that to happen, the law can not be enforced literally. So it must mean to be when the "VCR" policeman arbitrarily decides that someone's precious recording is too old and must be destroyed.

Microg
Reply to this comment
by Linuxaurus August 8, 2008 4:11 AM PDT
Ouch! $500 for each song, that could mean some folks with huge mp3 collections shelling out 6 figures to pay fines! Best to only deal with legal downloads rather than dabble with torrents and illegal file sharing networks that could leave you bankrupt if you get caught by Jim Prentice and his associates.
Reply to this comment
(9 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

advertisement
advertisement