Copyright debate turns ugly

I guess when your the heritage minister, everyone is a radical extremist. Even Professor Michael Geist.

Canadian Heritage Minister declares war on copyright reformers

If you disagree with the government, or protest against it, you are a 'radical extremest'. That is how they manufacture consent nowadays. Because we've let them forget - the government runs the country in stead of the people. It's the people who have the power.

And the people don't like it when products they paid money for suddenly stop working because some company decides the digital locks are to be closed permanently.

More likely the people want their free music and movies.

More likely the people want their free music and movies.

Yes, we know you've been brainwashed to think all 'we' want to to 'stick it to the man'. Your rhetoric is getting to be a delicate antique. However, what we adults are discussing is actual reality. 10 years of the DMCA in the US has shown why digital locks are bad.

When Microsoft decides, your music player dies.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7 ... =623900290

When Amazon decides you've downloaded a digital book enough times, you have to buy it again. Imagine that with a real book!

http://www.geardiary.com/2009/06/21/kin ... ad-policy/

If Amazon decides you aren't supposed to read George Orwell's "1984" they will delete it from your device.

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/ ... an-others/

And then they can decide that the concept of 'Public Domain' is really, just a suggestion.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201006 ... 9908.shtml

If pirates want to, they will always find a safe haven somewhere.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reu ... at-reuters

DRM does not stop piracy, it only stops the honest consumer.

That's the part that interests me too. The opponents of copyright reform (including the one proposed by the Liberals) are against the 'anti-circumvention' part.

The copyright law as it stands though already excludes distribution by electronic means from being eligible for "Fair Use".

If you make a copy of a DVD and upload it with bittorrent, you've broken the current law.

With anti-circumvention legislation, if you take that same DVD which you paid money for at the store and watch it in the privacy of your own home on a non-approved DVD player. You've broken the law.

The EFF has a document outlining many times that anti-circumvention legislation has been abused in the U.S. and is rarely ever used for it's stated purpose of reducing copyright infringement.

Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA

In the Linux operating system for years we couldn't watch DVD's legally. Well, in Canada we could. But several people were arrested in the U.S.



Notice how the journalists were arrested for *linking* to the program. The program was published widely on the internet because of the attention this drew. They had the code of the program written on T-shirts, and all kinds of other things to show how silly the law was. It was technically illegal to own one of their shirts in the U.S.

More likely the people want their free music and movies.

It's that line of thinking that allows Rogers, Bell and Telus to get away with locking phones indefinitely long after their ridiculously over priced 3 year contracts are up. It just gives them a free hand to fleece the consumer and create monopolies. A free market is a healthy market, digital locks are only a crutch to lock out competition.

Of course the government runs the country and holds all the power. How many people on this site maintain that individual rights are merely a privilege granted by a government that should also be able to take them away?

When the predominant perception is that the government is the fount of rights and not the people then you have a people who are perfectly suited to be told what to do by their rulers.

What then surprises me is the contention of many of these same people that being ruled by a monarch is somehow inappropriate. See, if the premise is made that rights flow from government then what form of government you have is irrelevant so far as your preference goes because you have no inherent right to question the government that is the repository of all of your rights in the first place.

It get's better:

Here is an interview with Tony Clement who doesn't seem to understand how his own bill works.

C-32 does NOT allow for the breaking of digital locks for journalism by the ephemeral rights provision.

My contention is that if I purchase a device then I own it and everything on it and it's mine to do with as I see fit. It's why I use Dish Network for my TV and not any outfit that makes me rent equipment. I control what the device can send to anyone outside my home and the good people at Dish are fine with that. Likeiwse, I control the software on my computer and if I buy a DVD I own it, too. That means I can record it or make a nice mobile out of it if I feel like it. They sold it to me and their interests in what I do with it after that are none of their business.

It's mine.

Period.