Battletoads Posted June 7, 2010 Author Report Posted June 7, 2010 Wrong. People bought plastic 45 rpm discs in the 1960s, because they couldn't pirate. And as a result, there was an explosion of creativity. --- The same logic applies in the late 18th century, let's say 1780s, when Mozart composed. Music is far more diverse now than it ever was in the sixties. and the music industry if more profitable than it ever was in the sixties, all under the Canadian written copyright laws to. So forgive me if I don't think american written dmca like laws are needed in Canada. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Battletoads Posted June 7, 2010 Author Report Posted June 7, 2010 LOL! Very ironic considering "Americanization" by the media content they want to steal, devices and operating systems to render the content, and the very network on which to share the stolen goods (Internet). Nice ad hominem attack, anyone who wants some basic digital rights is a thief. Tell me do you have a real argument or are you just here to troll? Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 Nice ad hominem attack, anyone who wants some basic digital rights is a thief. Digital rights my ass....if you produced content instead of wanting to consume it for free, you would sing a very different tune. Tell me do you have a real argument or are you just here to troll? There is no argument....as is my custom, pointing out the absurd irony of "Americanization" in this case (and many others) is a civic duty. Why waste your time on me when you could be busy ripping more content before it's too late? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 Digital rights my ass....if you produced content instead of wanting to consume it for free, you would sing a very different tune. There is no argument....as is my custom, pointing out the absurd irony of "Americanization" in this case (and many others) is a civic duty. Why waste your time on me when you could be busy ripping more content before it's too late? Its not about wanting to consume it for free. Its about your right to back up intellectual property you have already purchased a license for and to copy it from one device to another. Using the material for free is already illegal. This act would criminalize fair use. A guy that copies property from one device to another is not infringing on copyrights as long as he is still using that material under the terms of his origional license. What vendors are trying to do is extend the scope of copyright protection beyond the intellectual property and onto the media itself. This violates the spirit of copyright law and the whole point of it, and its actually a gigantic scam because the entertainment industry intentionally uses the most useless and non-durable forms of media possible... cassettes, dvds, cds, etc. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
YEGmann Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 (edited) When you are buying a DVD with a movie, you are well aware that it has a digital lock. The company tells you in advance that you are buying a right to see with certain restrictions, not a right to reproduce the movie. Buying the DVD you agree with the company conditions. Otherwise it would not sell the disk to you. Once bought you are changing the condition of the purchase contract. The company has all rights to go after you. If you do not like the condition, then do not buy this product. If everybody will do that the companies would not have profits. If they are proprerous this means many people are satisfied with the condition. You are outlaw. You blame shark capitalism but you want to enjoy a capitalist product for free. I think the new law is better than the old one. Now we have a simple principle. Copy what you easily can and copy not what you cannot. I think this is the situation lile we had have with vynil disk. Now it is even better. If you somehow damage your favourite DVD, chances are very high you can get another one for 5 - 6 - 7 dollars. I do not think it is a big deal. Do not forget, like before, you still can copy any product without tampering the digital lock (with lost of quality, of course). Edited June 7, 2010 by YEGmann Quote
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 When you are buying a DVD with a movie, you are well aware that it has a digital lock. The company tells you in advance that you are buying a right to see with certain restrictions, not a right to reproduce the movie. Buying the DVD you agree with the company conditions. Otherwise it would not sell the disk to you. Once bought you are changing the condition of the purchase contract. The company has all rights to go after you. If you do not like the condition, then do not buy this product. If everybody will do that the companies would not have profits. If they are proprerous this means many people are satisfied with the condition. You are outlaw. You blame shark capitalism but you want to enjoy a capitalist product for free. I think the new law is better than the old one. Now we have a simple principle. Copy what you easily can and copy not what you cannot. I think this is the situation lile we had have with vynil disk. Now it is even better. If you somehow damage your favourite DVD, chances are very high you can get another one for 5 - 6 - 7 dollars. I do not think it is a big deal. Do not forget, like before, you still can copy any product without tampering the digital lock (with lost of quality, of course). The problem is that making it illegal to copy a piece of media has nothing to do with the intellectual property license you purchased what-so-ever. They are basically trying to extend copyrights to their manufacturing business. Its scope creep and theres just no reason for it. If the license I am purchasing with my dvd allows me to permanently use the material for personal use then copying that material from one device or form of media to another does not violate the terms of that license. If the license I purchased only provides for limited use then Im violating the terms by exceeding that limitation whether I copy the material from one piece of media to another or not. Lobbying for these kinds of laws is the last gasp of an obsolete media manufacturing industry to save themselves but it wont work. All it will do is criminalize people who arent violating copyrights... who arent distributing media to others, and who are not selling reproductions, and are using the media for personal use like the license they purchased provides for. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 (edited) Its not about wanting to consume it for free. Its about your right to back up intellectual property you have already purchased a license for and to copy it from one device to another. Knock yourself out....with analog recordings. The "back up" dodge has never swayed the argument just because somebody wants a digital copy. I have been buying media for nearly 50 years and "back up" has never been a concern, except when it comes to data. Using the material for free is already illegal. This act would criminalize fair use. A guy that copies property from one device to another is not infringing on copyrights as long as he is still using that material under the terms of his origional license. Maybe yes....maybe no. I suppose our digital hero has 1,000 "devices"...LOL! What vendors are trying to do is extend the scope of copyright protection beyond the intellectual property and onto the media itself. This violates the spirit of copyright law and the whole point of it, and its actually a gigantic scam because the entertainment industry intentionally uses the most useless and non-durable forms of media possible... cassettes, dvds, cds, etc. Nonsense....digital media formats do not magically create rights that have never existed. The price paid for media formats reflects their expected durability and reliability. If defective at time of purchase, the consumer isn't even entitled to a refund, just a replacement copy. Edited June 7, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 In history, patent laws encourage people invent more. Now more and more people becomes intelligent, new things are just a problem who do it first rather than who can, the intellectual property laws becomes more and more a simply tool for some fat cats to take more money, rather than for the people who directly create it. it becomes a block to apply new technologies. It prevent people from using new things. It causes great waste of resource of society and lost of wealth. One example is some arithmetic coding, it has some advantage than many other encoding methods, but it has not been used widely simply because it was patented. Now in digital video, Huffman coding is widely used in MPEG1/MPEG2/H264 and almost all standard. Similar cases exists everywhere. PC developed much faster than Apple because IBM open the detail of it and make developers easy to develop compatible hardware and software. Lots of "patented" product takes code from open source code when actually it exist simply because it against copy right, for example, GNU: You actually raise some valid points... the entire concept needs to be revisited and modernized. The origional purchase of patent protection was ensure that the creator of a work had "first movers advantage". Patents and copyrights were meant to provide relatively short term protection and have increased in scope and length over and over and over again to the point where we have the grotesque laws that we have today. Its a slippery slope that has huge implications. Did you know that if you take a picture of your own car and post it for sale on craigs list that you are violating fords trade dress and under todays idiotic laws could be sued? Youre a criminal. Did you know that if an artist paints a picture of a city street and attempts to sell that picture HE IS A CRIMINAL and that anyone who holds the rights to the design of any of the buildings in his picture or any of the cars trucks or other objects could sue him for violation of trade dress? Did you know that if you take a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge and post it on the internet youre a criminal based on todays laws? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 ....Did you know that if you take a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge and post it on the internet youre a criminal based on todays laws? Depends on where you are.....Canada has "allowable purposes"....USA has "fair use". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 Knock yourself out....with analog recordings. The "back up" dodge has never swayed the argument just because somebody wants a digital copy. I have been buying media for nearly 50 years and "back up" has never been a concern, except when it comes to data. Maybe yes....maybe no. I suppose our digital hero has 1,000 "devices"...LOL! Nonsesne....digital media formats do not magically create rights that have never existed. The price paid for media formats reflects their expected durability and reliability. If defective at time of purchase, the consumer isn't even entitled to a refund, just a replacement copy. Nonsesne....digital media formats do not magically create rights that have never existed. The price paid for media formats reflects their expected durability and reliability. If defective at time of purchase, the consumer isn't even entitled to a refund, just a replacement copy. No these rights were already there... but they were being infringed apon by the industry. Limited personal use licenses on intellectual property do not expire. They are normally valid for as long as you wish to keep using them. So if the media expires before the intellectual property license that you purchased with it... and you were not allowed to make a copy then you are being deprived of usage rights you already paid for, and if they refuse to offer replacement media then you your license is abritrarily invalidated. Intellectual property rights were meant to protect the creators of the content but now they are being extended to protect obsolete media manufacturers. How is an artist harmed if I copy a song from a CD to a computer provided I dont resell or distribute the materia? THEY ARENT HARMED IN ANY WAY. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
YEGmann Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 All it will do is criminalize people who arent violating copyrights... who arent distributing media to others, and who are not selling reproductions, and are using the media for personal use like the license they purchased provides for. You are dead wrong. Making a backup copy (copies), including a different media for personal use does not criminalize you according to the new law. You are just twisting the facts to push your agenda. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 No these rights were already there... but they were being infringed apon by the industry. Such rights do not exist in pepetuity, and are actually more limited in Canada. Limited personal use licenses on intellectual property do not expire. They are normally valid for as long as you wish to keep using them. So if the media expires before the intellectual property license that you purchased with it... and you were not allowed to make a copy then you are being deprived of usage rights you already paid for, and if they refuse to offer replacement media then you your license is abritrarily invalidated. Too many ifs in this scenario...show us the contract that extends such rights, not your erroneous assumptions. Intellectual property rights were meant to protect the creators of the content but now they are being extended to protect obsolete media manufacturers. How is an artist harmed if I copy a song from a CD to a computer provided I dont resell or distribute the materia? THEY ARENT HARMED IN ANY WAY. The property rights extend beyond the artist. This is the flaw in your argument. DRM media in and of itself changes the nature of your "back up" rights, and this was known at the time of purchase. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 You are dead wrong. Making a backup copy (copies), including a different media for personal use does not criminalize you according to the new law. You are just twisting the facts to push your agenda. Im not twisting any facts at all. I havent even read the law only the origional post in this thread which says... Breaking digital locks under the new bill would now be illegal. Essentially this would make it illegal to transfer music from most cds onto a computer. Transferring movie from any dvd to a computer would also be illegal. The maximum fine for breaking a lock is 5000 dollarsCreating more than one copy of a song for personal use would be illegal. This means if you have an MP3 you got from a cd on your computer, and you want to transfer it to another device (ex: another computer, an mp3 player ect), well you legally wouldn't be able to do it. The maximum fine is 5000 dollars. That makes it sound to me like you couldnt make a high quality copy without breaking the lock... and the law. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 Such rights do not exist in pepetuity, and are actually more limited in Canada. Too many ifs in this scenario...show us the contract that extends such rights, not your erroneous assumptions. The property rights extend beyond the artist. This is the flaw in your argument. DRM media in and of itself changes the nature of your "back up" rights, and this was known at the time of purchase. Too many ifs in this scenario...show us the contract that extends such rights, not your erroneous assumptions. I know such rights are there because theres nothing on any CD or DVD Iv ever bought saying that I can only use them for a certain ammount of time. The intellectual property license I have purchases does not expire. I cant use it for as long as I like as long as I comply with its terms (dont sell it, dont distribute it, etc). Do you have any backup at all for your assertion that theres some kind of expire date on the intellectual property usage license I buy when I purchase a song from a vendor? I think youre just making that up to be honest. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 The property rights extend beyond the artist. This is the flaw in your argument. DRM media in and of itself changes the nature of your "back up" rights, and this was known at the time of purchase. No they dont... the intellectual property rights only extend beyond the artist if they wish to sell them. The vendor contributes ABSOLUTELY NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AT ALL to a piece of media. They create the media using a format that someone else invented, and a process that someone else invented... and the put the material on it (material the artist invented), then they sell it. They have not created a single iota of intellectual property that any protection should be applied to. ALL ENTERTAINMENT VENDORS DO IS SELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSES FOR SOMEONE ELSES WORK. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 I know such rights are there because theres nothing on any CD or DVD Iv ever bought saying that I can only use them for a certain ammount of time. The intellectual property license I have purchases does not expire. I cant use it for as long as I like as long as I comply with its terms (dont sell it, dont distribute it, etc). No...you are buying a product that bestows no such rights beyond its intended purpose and known durability. CDs and DVDs for entertainment media do not have EULAs that you consent to. Do you have any backup at all for your assertion that theres some kind of expire date on the intellectual property usage license I buy when I purchase a song from a vendor? I think youre just making that up to be honest. Read the agreement with your vendor. Your vendor also has legal agreements with artists / publishers which can/do limit your "rights". Example iTunes limits: - Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers - Restricts converting to other formats: Songs only sold in AAC with Apple DRM - Limits portable player compatibility: iPod and other Apple devices only - No remixing: Cannot edit, excerpt, or otherwise sample songs Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 No...you are buying a product that bestows no such rights beyond its intended purpose and known durability. CDs and DVDs for entertainment media do not have EULAs that you consent to. Read the agreement with your vendor. Your vendor also has legal agreements with artists / publishers which can/do limit your "rights". Example iTunes limits: - Restricts back-up copies: Song can only be copied to 5 computers - Restricts converting to other formats: Songs only sold in AAC with Apple DRM - Limits portable player compatibility: iPod and other Apple devices only - No remixing: Cannot edit, excerpt, or otherwise sample songs I dont see any expiry of the license in there. And they dont try to stop you from making backups either. Which is why modern services like Itunes are thriving and the obsolete part of the industry that has relied on making money from manufacturing instead of selling intellectual property usage licenses is slowly dying. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 No they dont... the intellectual property rights only extend beyond the artist if they wish to sell them. The vendor contributes ABSOLUTELY NO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AT ALL to a piece of media. They create the media using a format that someone else invented, and a process that someone else invented... and the put the material on it (material the artist invented), then they sell it. They have not created a single iota of intellectual property that any protection should be applied to. Only if the artist writes, produces, and distributes the media themselves. ALL ENTERTAINMENT VENDORS DO IS SELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSES FOR SOMEONE ELSES WORK. Consistent with contracts and/or royalty agreements to do so. In any event, what makes you think that the artist would still hold your view? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
maple_leafs182 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 copyrights and patents are both stupid. It should all be free. Quote │ _______ [███STOP███]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ :::::::--------------Conservatives beleive ▄▅█FUNDING THIS█▅▄▃▂- - - - - --- -- -- -- -------- Liberals lie I██████████████████] ...◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙'(='.'=)' ⊙
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 I dont see any expiry of the license in there. And they dont try to stop you from making backups either. The license only applies to the original download, and does not extend your "rights" to back ups of any kind. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 copyrights and patents are both stupid. It should all be free. So what do you have to offer to this "free for all"...or do you only take? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
maple_leafs182 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 O wait, I know why we need these laws, how would the rich make their billions if everything was free. I don't want to live in a society where the rich don't overwhelming control society either. Quote │ _______ [███STOP███]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ :::::::--------------Conservatives beleive ▄▅█FUNDING THIS█▅▄▃▂- - - - - --- -- -- -- -------- Liberals lie I██████████████████] ...◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙'(='.'=)' ⊙
dre Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 Only if the artist writes, produces, and distributes the media themselves. Consistent with contracts and/or royalty agreements to do so. In any event, what makes you think that the artist would still hold your view? What makes me think that is the rapidly growing indy scene and the trend of artists migrating away from the traditional business model and the dinosaurs that use it. What indication can you provide that your average artist would expect listeners to have to pay for the same usage rights multiple times? If thats what they wanted then an expiry date would be written into the usage license. Its not. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 O wait, I know why we need these laws, how would the rich make their billions if everything was free. I don't want to live in a society where the rich don't overwhelming control society either. ...but you do want all their products and services for "free"....naturally. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 7, 2010 Report Posted June 7, 2010 What makes me think that is the rapidly growing indy scene and the trend of artists migrating away from the traditional business model and the dinosaurs that use it. Then why are you complaining? Go with the Indy scene and ignore the dinosaurs' business model. Problem solved. What indication can you provide that your average artist would expect listeners to have to pay for the same usage rights multiple times? If thats what they wanted then an expiry date would be written into the usage license. Its not. The fact that such artists enter into distribution and licensing agreements to start with. Enjoy your license for the original download according to the license requirements....which do not extend to copies for 10,000 years. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.