 Can Canada's version of SOPA be stopped? The chief issue with the legislation is a clause that would make it illegal to break digital locks on electronic content or devices.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
...
in 2009, government officials were told repeatedly by the thousands who attended that such a super-clause was a non-starter. More than 6,600 individuals followed up in writing, as did a bevy of organizations representing everyone from teachers, retailers, libraries, artists and privacy commissioners.
Dissenters suggest a compromise, that the lock clause be amended so that it applies only in cases of willful copyright infringement. In other words, if you?re running a business that somehow makes money from cracked digital locks, you?re offside. But if you?re an individual who breaks a DVD?s copy protection so that you can put a copy on your iPad, you?re clear.
The DMCA made the U.S. a bad place to do business for tech companies. What is their reason for bringing it here? It's hard to find anyone who thinks this is a good idea. Why have consultations if you ignore the outcome?
In the case of video game consoles, doesn't that void the warranty anyway?
In the case of video game consoles, doesn't that void the warranty anyway?
Indeed, same with laptops and anything Apple produces, including desktops.
Yea, honestly, once you pay for something, it's your and you should be allowed to modify it for personal use as you want. I dn't understand why this should be a no-no.
Honestly, without being able to sue for statutory damages, I doubt anyone will ever be affected by that law.
"No statutory damages
41.1(3) The owner of the copyright in a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) has been contravened may not elect under section 38.1 to recover statutory damages from an individual who contravened that paragraph only for his or her own private purposes."
Yea, honestly, once you pay for something, it's your and you should be allowed to modify it for personal use as you want. I dn't understand why this should be a no-no.
It's not a no-no, but I don't understand why you'd expect the manufacturer to honour the warranty on a product you've modified it.
http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/10/03/ ... ation-act/
Opponents of legal protection for TPMs — such as Michael Geist — have made inaccurate statements about the legal protection for TPMs. Michael Geist’s relentless misinformation campaign against them makes it difficult and confusing for many Canadians to form informed views about the Bill’s TPM provisions. Michael Geist repeated some of the inaccurate or misleading statements in a blog post and in the media after the Bill was introduced. For example:....................
There is also considerable misunderstanding about the TPM provisions within the general public. For example,
Yea, honestly, once you pay for something, it's your and you should be allowed to modify it for personal use as you want. I dn't understand why this should be a no-no.
It's not a no-no, but I don't understand why you'd expect the manufacturer to honour the warranty on a product you've modified it.
Which is why I always wait till after the warranty is over to start hackng into things.
That will soon make me a criminal. Imagine if the hood of your car were welded shut, and only the manufacturer was, by law, allowed to modify it?
I'm having a hard time sifting through and trying to determine fact from fiction regarding Bill C-11. I've read hysteria about taking away our right to free speech etc. etc. but have determined that it's not as radical as some would have us believe. This is interesting and puts some of to rest IMO and worth a read, so really how does it take away our freedom of speech
http://www.barrysookman.com/2011/10/03/ ... ation-act/
Opponents of legal protection for TPMs — such as Michael Geist — have made inaccurate statements about the legal protection for TPMs. Michael Geist’s relentless misinformation campaign against them makes it difficult and confusing for many Canadians to form informed views about the Bill’s TPM provisions. Michael Geist repeated some of the inaccurate or misleading statements in a blog post and in the media after the Bill was introduced. For example:....................
There is also considerable misunderstanding about the TPM provisions within the general public. For example,
How can he have made innacurate statements, when he simply repeats that the Minister had no idea how the provisions for Digital Locks will be enforced? Something the minister actually said?
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/c-11
Does this mean I can't root my phone?
You can, but you'll have to do 3 to 5 with a cellmate named 'Bubba'. It won't be your phone, after all. It's Apple's proprietary content delivery system you are holding, not a cell phone that you paid money for.
Does this mean I can't root my phone?
You can, but you'll have to do 3 to 5 with a cellmate named 'Bubba'. It won't be your phone, after all. It's Google's proprietary content delivery system you are holding, not a cell phone that you paid money for.
Fixed
What if the company is cool with it. For instance, the Galaxy nexus comes with an unlocked bootloader, and Google really doesn't give a shit if you root, they just void your warranty (which is acceptable).