[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[Scape]

If you aren't already considered a "radical extremist" by the Canadian government or even if you are please take 2 minutes right now and send a letter to Ottawa opposing the digital lock provisions included in Bill C-32.

http://www.ccer.ca/send-a-letter-to-ott ... dian-dmca/

[Bodah]

Whats the problem people have with digital locks exactly ? Is it because people wont be able to steal music, movies, etc anymore ?

[Scape]

$1:

On June 2, 2010 the Government of Canada undertook an important step towards updating Canada’s copyright regime by introducing Bill C-32: the Copyright Modernization Act. Although Bill C-32 appears to be more flexible than the previous attempts at copyright reform, this bill is flawed to its core by the inclusion of strict, anti-circumvention provisions. As a consumer, I am both concerned and disheartened by how easily consumer rights are trumped by the overriding protection for digital locks included in this legislation.

The most contentious components of Bill C-32 are the provisions relating to the circumvention of digital locks. These provisions would make it illegal to circumvent or bypass any type of digital rights management (DRM) or technological protection measure (TPM) even if the underlying purpose for the circumvention is lawful or otherwise non-infringing . Furthermore, Bill C-32 goes beyond compliancy with the WIPO Internet treaties by including an extremely overbroad prohibition on the development and manufacturing of circumvention devices and technologies, commercial trade of circumvention devices and technologies, including the possession or utilization of any device or technology that can circumvent a TPM or DRM.

This blanket protection for digital locks is the newly proposed legal component that overrides the rights of Canadian consumers and creators, including any newly granted rights provided by Bill C-32. The anti-circumvention provisions unduly provide corporate copyright owners and distributors in the music, movie and video game industry a powerful set of tools that can be utilized to exercise absolute control over the way Canadians interact with media and technology and may even undermine Canadians’ constitutional rights. Although the legislation does contain some limited exceptions which permit circumvention in specific instances, they fail to address the wide range of legitimate reasons a consumer or creator might circumvent a digital lock.

As a Canadian I oppose the protection of digital locks as set out by Bill C-32. Rather than handing control of Canadians’ rights over to corporations, the Government should consider regulating how digital locks are implemented to ensure they are not simply used to deny user rights. Furthermore, I strongly oppose the inclusion of any provision that places a ban on devices and tools used to circumvent provided that the underlying intent is non-infringing or otherwise reasonable e.g. for reasons of fair dealing and privacy protection.

Rather than expanding and simplifying Canadians’ limited right to the reasonable use of copyrighted works, Bill C-32 opts for a closed and narrow approach. A more open-ended definition of fair dealing rather than a rigid list of exceptions, the majority of which will not be practically available to Canadians, would better foster innovation, creativity, and competition in Canada.

I support the notice-and-notice approach to the liability of Internet intermediaries taken by Bill C-32. This approach offers the best balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the fundamental rights of individual and academic expression. I also support the changes to statutory damages as outlined by Bill C-32. Although the proposed legislation does not eliminate statutory damages it does take an important step forward by including provisions for reducing the damages for a non-commercial infringement from $20,000 per infringement to $5000 in total damages.

Fortunately, there remains time and opportunity for this government, regardless of party affiliation, to amend this legislation to ensure that the rights, values and interests of all Canadians are reflected in a truly Canadian-to-the-core, balanced approach to copyright reform.

[Scape]

The cliff notes version: this is handing ALL the rights to the content creators and none to the content consumers. It's a two way street and when we have digital locks imposed it stifles innovation and development of industry.

[Scape]

So for example, as it stands now if Apple creates an Iphone and you jail break the device (not unlock it) so that you could get apps that are not in the app store like Cydia so you could get you podcasts to sync over wi-fi that would now be a crime because Apple has the sole right to how you use it.

[BartSimpson]

Bodah Bodah:

Whats the problem people have with digital locks exactly ? Is it because people wont be able to steal music, movies, etc anymore ?

Stealing is wrong. But if I own a DVD and want to watch it on my laptop why shouldn't I be able to upload the content to the laptop so I can watch it directly from the hard drive? Likewise, I buy music CDs and will burn selected pieces to a CD for my personal use as a mix. Why shouldn't I? And, again, if I paid for a CD then why can't I upload the music to another device for my personal use?

Again, I paid for it, I own it, it's mine. If someone doesn't like that then they can come do something about it.

[Bodah]

Unfortunately this looks like a case where a few(more like alot)of bad apples has ruined it for everyone else. I.E. Some of my friends don't pay for music, films,games etc. It's stealing IMO.

[ASLplease]

i have poor eyesight, I can purchase a pocket book, enlarge the pages on a photocopier for the personal pursposes of being able to read the book. If its a crime, then it is a victimless crime.

unfortunately digital copies arent always used or distributed in a victimless manner.

[Curtman]

Scape Scape:

If you aren't already considered a "radical extremist" by the Canadian government or even if you are

Oh probably.. During the prorogue issue they called us chattering elitists. It's interesting that they would call people radical extremists on this issue, and not the people who took over James Moore's office and rolled joints on his desk.

[bootlegga]

Bodah Bodah:

Unfortunately this looks like a case where a few(more like alot)of bad apples has ruined it for everyone else. I.E. Some of my friends don't pay for music, films,games etc. It's stealing IMO.

How many movies, books or CDs have you borrowed from friends? Or the public library? Or have taped off of your TV with a VCR/PVR/DVD recorder? Is any of that stealing? It isn't to me, so if I wind up getting a copy of a DVD from my brother or a friend living in Japan, why is it any different?

It's only theft if I try and profit from it IMO. If I download a movie/song/e-book and sell it, then I can see their (industry/government) point.

[bootlegga]

Scape Scape:

If you aren't already considered a "radical extremist" by the Canadian government or even if you are please take 2 minutes right now and send a letter to Ottawa opposing the digital lock provisions included in Bill C-32.

http://www.ccer.ca/send-a-letter-to-ott ... dian-dmca/

Done!

[Bodah]

bootlegga bootlegga:

It's only theft if I try and profit from it IMO. If I download a movie/song/e-book and sell it, then I can see their (industry/government) point.

That's like saying shoplifting isn't really a crime unless you try sell the stacks of CD's from HMV you've lifted

Believe or not most artists would like to get paid for thier work. That's how they feed themselves hence make more art for you to enjoy.

Don't be a cheap ass go buy your art and not steal it.

[Public_Domain]