Leaks show U.S. swayed Canada on copyright bill

[olp1fan]

Why don't we look at what was actually said instead of the spin you want to put on it:

My reading is Addington is simply stating the facts as she sees them. She is not asking/begging the US to do that - just stating that it does not make a difference from the government's perspective.

The rest of a cable reads exactly as I would expect to see from a government preparing its own copyright bill tailored to meet the needs of Canadians.

http://cables.mrkva.eu/cable.php?id=203598

he didn't spin it, YOU did

[Topaz]

Do I have this right....under the new law you have to buy the msterial then you can share it with others? IF so, what stops a person buying the material and opening a website that downloads the music or movies to others?

[Smallc]

Do I have this right....under the new law you have to buy the msterial then you can share it with others?

I'm pretty sure that you don't have it right. You can sure it amongst your own devices.

[Oleg Bach]

Not unless you purchase the right to do so...read the fine print.

I cost a few bucks to get a copy right....lawyers lawyers lawyers - what the hell did god make them for?

[ToadBrother]

Again, consumers are not forced to move to a new format, which is added value.

Providing the old format can still be used. However, combine digital locks with proprietary standards, and you've basically created the kind of situation I'm talking about.

[bush_cheney2004]

Providing the old format can still be used. However, combine digital locks with proprietary standards, and you've basically created the kind of situation I'm talking about.

I don't understand...the consumer is typicaly responsible for providing the hardware for using digital or analog recording media. Upgrading to a music or video format that has a better signal to noise ratio, wider dynamic range, portability, longevity, random access, etc., represents added value that should be compensated.

[GostHacked]

Again, consumers are not forced to move to a new format, which is added value.

Actually we are forced into a new format. Less and less is available on CD now (music) and only available online. So yes we are being forced to use the new format. Only because they still don't have an idea of how to do business in the digital world.

I don't know....I pay my 99 cents and don't give it a second thought. My time is worth more than that trying to rip off music or DVD's.

My friend and I borrow each others music to rip to the computer, between us we have a pretty good library. Pop in the CD, rip to MP3, takes 10 minutes for the whole CD.

Personally, I have taken a different approach to getting my music out there. My music is available for free download online. Even if I don't make it available for download, there are other ways to 'steal' the music.

I don't make money off my music, so no one else should be able to as well. It's free, spread it around. However, it is still has a copywrite on it regardless.

[TimG]

Again, consumers are not forced to move to a new format, which is added value.

This is the key point. BlueRay adoption has been slow because consumers don't necessarily see the value - unlike the move from VCRs to DVDs.

This debate of format shifting is interesting. Are people arguing that anyone who purchases a paper book should be entitled to create an electronic "backup"?

[ToadBrother]

This is the key point. BlueRay adoption has been slow because consumers don't necessarily see the value - unlike the move from VCRs to DVDs.

This debate of format shifting is interesting. Are people arguing that anyone who purchases a paper book should be entitled to create an electronic "backup"?

I don't see why someone couldn't, if they wanted, and had the time. But knowing somebody who submitted some material to Project Gutenberg, well, it's cumbersome even with OCR.

At the end of the day, however, format shifting has perfectly legitimate uses. I know people who have set up media workstations where they've basically scanned their whole DVD collection on to hard drives so that they can basically play any video in the collection with the click of the button. Technically what they're doing would be criminalized, because "ripping" almost all commercial DVDs requires breaking the DRM. Not a big deal, as basically the encryption keys are published in hundreds of thousands of places on the Internet, but still, theoretically at least he could be charged, even though he hasn't actually pirated anything (well, he probably has, but you get the point).

Beyond that, the digital lock rules are going to cause educational institutions serious problems, and the government thus far seems completely unwilling to deal with the fact that these institutions, many of which are ultimately taxpayer funded, are going to have to cough up a lot more money.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Not a big deal, as basically the encryption keys are published in hundreds of thousands of places on the Internet, but still, theoretically at least he could be charged, even though he hasn't actually pirated anything (well, he probably has, but you get the point).

You're right...it's not a big deal. But there comes a time in our lives when pirating and bootlegging copyrighted material becomes more trouble than it's worth. I don't know what constituency continues to make an argument for "backups" in this day and age when media reliability is assured with minimum care. It's just a game that died with the original Napster.

Beyond that, the digital lock rules are going to cause educational institutions serious problems, and the government thus far seems completely unwilling to deal with the fact that these institutions, many of which are ultimately taxpayer funded, are going to have to cough up a lot more money.

So what? Do you think educational institutions should get even more of a volume price break than they already get? This is a red herring just to keep the copyright infringement game going.

Anybody can buy a TASCAM or Sony digital recorder and defeat DRM with an analog dub to digital format. It's not rocket science.

Edited October 5, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

This is old news but I don't remember seeing thread. Why isn't this a scandal? Is this treason?

Scandal? Treason? It is in our interest to protect intellectual property rights.

You seem to think that enforcing copyright as a bad thing. Yet large segments of our non-resource based economy depend on copyright in order to protect their businesses.

Precisely. I agree with you TimG.

It's like buying a house only to find out that the basement has a lock on it and you aren't allowed to use it... but if you break the lock you are fined for it.

Your example is incorrect.

It's like buying a house and discovering that your basement has a club with loud music and a secret entrance.

[ToadBrother]

You're right...it's not a big deal. But there comes a time in our lives when pirating and bootlegging copyrighted material becomes more than it's worth. I don't know what constituency continues to make an argument for "backups" in this day and age when media reliability is assured with minimum care. It's just a game that died with the original Napster.

My best example is when I got The Beatles Let It Be... Naked for Christmas about six or seven years ago. I popped it in my CD player, and it skipped like nuts. Thought the CD was screwy, so popped it in to my wife's computer, and it immediately wanted to install an audio player. So I dug a bit deeper, found out that they had played some games with the tracks (in essence, it was a mixed audio-data CDROM). Took it downstairs to my Linux box, which nicely ignored all the cruft, ripped the tracks to MP3, and then burned those MP3 files to a blank CD, making a proper, unencumbered CD. I didn't pirate anything, but under these new rules, it's very likely that I could be found to have broken the law by bypassing digital locks, even though the product that was sold to me was not, as advertised, an actual music CD at all.

So what? Do you think educational institutions should get even more of a volume price break than they already get? This is a red herring just to keep the copyright infringement game going.

I think, just as has happened in the US already, they should retain the current rights they hold.

Anybody can buy a TASCAM or Sony digital recorder and defeat DRM with an analog dub to digital format. It's not rocket science.

Then you haven't seen the newer hardware that will basically cripple the analog channels.

[August1991]

They want to sell us a 'license' to individually access content so we can't share.

They want to charge us for a new copy when the media is damaged or faulty.

If we already have the license, we shouldn't need to buy another copy. That is taking advantage of consumers unethically.

I disagree. If you buy a car and it's destroyed in an accident, do you go back to GM and ask for another car - free of charge?

At issue here really is the question of "ownership" or "property rights". When you buy something, what have you bought?

[ToadBrother]

I disagree. If you buy a car and it's destroyed in an accident, do you go back to GM and ask for another car - free of charge?

At issue here really is the question of "ownership" or "property rights". When you buy something, what have you bought?

The analogy is flawed. It would be more like "If I buy a car, and I want to put aftermarket tires on it, shouldn't I be allowed to?"

[ToadBrother]

I don't understand...the consumer is typicaly responsible for providing the hardware for using digital or analog recording media. Upgrading to a music or video format that has a better signal to noise ratio, wider dynamic range, portability, longevity, random access, etc., represents added value that should be compensated.

I don't know what exactly this has to do with anything. If you rip a DVD, it's not like you can increase its quality to that of, say, the Blu-ray edition. You're simply changing the format.

[bush_cheney2004]

My best example is when I got The Beatles Let It Be... Naked for Christmas about six or seven years ago. I popped it in my CD player, and it skipped like nuts. Thought the CD was screwy, so popped it in to my wife's computer, and it immediately wanted to install an audio player.

That is not the product's fault...the consumer should know what he/she is buying. An SACD won't work either in a regular player.

I think, just as has happened in the US already, they should retain the current rights they hold.

They have the right to "fair use" in the USA. I don't know what the hell happens in Canada.

Then you haven't seen the newer hardware that will basically cripple the analog channels.

Bring it...only the most basic unknowing novice could would be so deterred. Analog signals are by their very nature....accessible.

[August1991]

I have never been forced to buy a copy in a newer format. I can still play 78 RPM records when needed, and Edison cylinders are available on eBay!

But you can't ride your horse on Highway 2.

"Ownership" is a bundle of rights - that may change over time. If you own a horse, that doesn't mean you can ride it on Route 10 - although in 1880, you probably could.

----

IMV, the key feature of property rights is their incentive. We should define property rights (including intellectual property rights) so that the definition creates the "right" incentive.

[bush_cheney2004]

But you can't ride your horse on Highway 2.

Yes you can...in a horse trailer.

[ToadBrother]

Bring it...only the most basic unknowing novice could would be so deterred. Analog signals are by their very nature....accessible.

Then you're going to have to bypass the hardware making the analog signal. I posit that it isn't going to be nearly as easy as you think, and will likely require "modding" the devices, which guess what, will get you in deep doo-doo for breaking digital locks.

[wyly]

digital locks have to go, I don't share my tunes with anyone but I want to able to move them from one format to another, once I've paid for it it should be mine to do with as I wish...

[guyser]

I disagree. If you buy a car and it's destroyed in an accident, do you go back to GM and ask for another car - free of charge?

Within the first 24 to 30 months of the new car being bought?.....Yes !

(now back to our regularly scheduled prgramme)

Edited October 5, 2011 by guyser

[bush_cheney2004]

Then you're going to have to bypass the hardware making the analog signal. I posit that it isn't going to be nearly as easy as you think, and will likely require "modding" the devices, which guess what, will get you in deep doo-doo for breaking digital locks.

No....perhaps you are too young to remember Macrovision on VHS/Betamax tapes. It was an anti-pirating measure that was easily defeated by anybody with an understanding of video synching component signals. As long as I am using the final analog output of any DRM device I am violating nothing and breaking no locks. Pirating is easy, but now I make enough money to laugh at the poor bastards who still need to do it.

[August1991]

I don't know....I pay my 99 cents and don't give it a second thought. My time is worth more than that trying to rip off music or DVD's.

I agree. I think the current owners of "intellectual property" don't understand the Internet, and don't understand how to sell their "property". At the same time, too many believe their "intellectual property" is worth more than it is.

In simple terms, I buy old songs on iTunes or other legal sources if it's available and cheap. If not, I go elsewhere.

New songs, I pay the price.

Upgrading to a music or video format that has a better signal to noise ratio, wider dynamic range, portability, longevity, random access, etc., represents added value that should be compensated.

I agree, but not really.

In terms of sound/music, we are at close to perfection at 192kb. The human ear cannot tell the difference between live, and the mp3 file.

In terms of video, we are close to perfection at 1080i and 60Hz. The human eye cannot tell the difference between live, and the bluray disc.

BC2004, the digital copy now is close to the original. It is imperceptible to the eye/ear of most people. Depending on your age, you are seeing/hearing something as good as your ears/eyes will ever see. Mona Lisa in the Louvre? At home on the big screen, you are standing in front of it - as if you were there.

----

Intellectual property rights matter. Why?

Well, why did Leonardo da Vinci paint the Mona Lisa?

[ToadBrother]

No....perhaps you are too young to remember Macrovision on VHS/Betamax tapes. It was an anti-pirating measure that was easily defeated by anybody with an understanding of video synching component signals. As long as I am using the final analog output of any DRM device I am violating nothing and breaking no locks. Pirating is easy, but now I make enough money to laugh at the poor bastards who still need to do it.

Macrovision was basically a watermarking technique. You could overcome it by filtering the signal. The techniques being applied against analog signals now are more akin to encryption, so basically, apart from hardware modding, it means you have to use analog equipment with your device that recognizes the protocol. Believe me, the industry very much wants to kill even lower quality analog reproductions.

Oh, and with the effort put into HDMI and other digital interfaces, I doubt you'll see much in the way of analog interfaces on most consumer-grade equipment in a decade or so.

PS. Thinking of Macrovision, I would assume as it is a form of locking, using one of those mail-order filters would probably be breaking the law.

Edited October 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[August1991]

The analogy is flawed. It would be more like "If I buy a car, and I want to put aftermarket tires on it, shouldn't I be allowed to?"

After market tires? What if the car manufacturer has chosen a weird rim/axle size? IOW, you own the car and are free to change tires but you must follow the dictates of the original seller.

TB, your example is good. If you "own" a car, you don't "have the right" to put any size tires on the car.

My point here is that "ownership" is open to interpretation.