Hollywood muscles Canada

[Leafless]

"US ambassador David Wilkins says Canada must strengthen its copyright laws, to prevent illicit pirating of American music and films"

Amazingly these Canadian pirated movies have been found in 45 countries.

Looks like Canada is competing for third world status.

http://p2pnet.net/story/11546

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/st...f8-277923bc1f6b

http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/189122

[guyser]

"US ambassador David Wilkins says Canada must strengthen its copyright laws, to prevent illicit pirating of American music and films"

Wilkins can pound sand anytime he wants.

Hey, I know, let them take us the same court that adjudicated the softwood lumber deal....and when the US wins three or four times, we can say...." So, you think we care?"

Good for the goose , good for the gander

[blueblood]

I have no sympathy for that particular industry. They hide behind copyright laws to make a fortune. Oh my God they're going to have to compete with somebody. This is like when Monsanto nailed Percy Schmeiser. Where the hell are my copyright laws? If I got the same protection as the movie industry there wouldn't be a farm income crisis. Those boys from hollywood can learn to compete the same way we do. Good on the RCMP for brushing this off.

[GostHacked]

All those idiots should be extradited to Canada for the criminal charge of being a freakin idiot.

Why does a Canadian have to submit to US laws when I am not even in the US. Like hell the US would do vice versa, allow Canada to impose it's rules on a US citizen IN the United States.

Hollywood can suck my canuckian ass. Most of the good flicks these days are made by independants. I am sure some of them are angry they may not get all the revenue from the movie, with piracy relevant here.

I am NOT an American (US). Does not the US need extradition of a Canadian to the US to stand trial? That's if Canada allows that to happen.

[Leafless]

I have no sympathy for that particular industry. They hide behind copyright laws to make a fortune. Oh my God they're going to have to compete with somebody. This is like when Monsanto nailed Percy Schmeiser. Where the hell are my copyright laws? If I got the same protection as the movie industry there wouldn't be a farm income crisis. Those boys from hollywood can learn to compete the same way we do. Good on the RCMP for brushing this off.

"Hide behind copyright laws to make a fortune."

Is this not what copyright laws are for?

I really don't know how you can call copying movies that are 'protected by copyright' and selling copies to countries of the world or for commercial use here in Canada, legitimate competition.

I call it theft and the federal government should implement laws to stop this outright theft.

[blueblood]

I have no sympathy for that particular industry. They hide behind copyright laws to make a fortune. Oh my God they're going to have to compete with somebody. This is like when Monsanto nailed Percy Schmeiser. Where the hell are my copyright laws? If I got the same protection as the movie industry there wouldn't be a farm income crisis. Those boys from hollywood can learn to compete the same way we do. Good on the RCMP for brushing this off.

"Hide behind copyright laws to make a fortune."

Is this not what copyright laws are for?

I really don't know how you can call copying movies that are 'protected by copyright' and selling copies to countries of the world or for commercial use here in Canada, legitimate competition.

I call it theft and the federal government should implement laws to stop this outright theft.

Copyright laws are 100% BS. It's making the consumer subsidize an inefficient industry. A guy is allowed to have a camcorder and tape what he wants. The tapes are his property. What are on those tapes doesn't matter, and if he wants to sell them that's his business. Unfortunately our hypocritical ass backwards law prevents this. IMV the guy paid his 10 bucks to go see it, so he didn't steal it. If he can distribute the films more efficiently than the movie companies, that's the movie company's problem. If I can deal with this whenever I sell my grain, the movie companies can deal with it.

[guyser]

Copyright laws are 100% BS. ...and if he wants to sell them that's his business. Unfortunately our hypocritical ass backwards law prevents this. IMV the guy paid his 10 bucks to go see it, so he didn't steal it. If he can distribute the films more efficiently than the movie companies, that's the movie company's problem. If I can deal with this whenever I sell my grain, the movie companies can deal with it.

I must disagree. As soon as you mention "he wants to sell them , thats his business "..you cross a line.

I agree that one can copy an owned copy, but only for personal use. He cannot sell nor financially gain from it .

[blueblood]

Copyright laws are 100% BS. ...and if he wants to sell them that's his business. Unfortunately our hypocritical ass backwards law prevents this. IMV the guy paid his 10 bucks to go see it, so he didn't steal it. If he can distribute the films more efficiently than the movie companies, that's the movie company's problem. If I can deal with this whenever I sell my grain, the movie companies can deal with it.

I must disagree. As soon as you mention "he wants to sell them , thats his business "..you cross a line.

I agree that one can copy an owned copy, but only for personal use. He cannot sell nor financially gain from it .

OOOOHHHH I see. So it's all right for Bunge to buy my Canola, crush it, turn around and sell it to Becel to make margerine, making a huge profit over me. Nope, if they can do that, Timmy can make copies of a movie and turn around and sell them and make a profit. It happens all the time here. That's quite the double standard isn't it?

[Leafless]

OOOOHHHH I see. So it's all right for Bunge to buy my Canola, crush it, turn around and sell it to Becel to make margerine, making a huge profit over me. Nope, if they can do that, Timmy can make copies of a movie and turn around and sell them and make a profit. It happens all the time here. That's quite the double standard isn't it?

You have three legitimate options:

1.- Charge more for your Canola.

2.- Buy shares in Becel.

3.- Produce and sell your own margarine.

You should stop blaming others who invest large amounts of money to make money and then turn around and reap their rewards for little effort.

[blueblood]

OOOOHHHH I see. So it's all right for Bunge to buy my Canola, crush it, turn around and sell it to Becel to make margerine, making a huge profit over me. Nope, if they can do that, Timmy can make copies of a movie and turn around and sell them and make a profit. It happens all the time here. That's quite the double standard isn't it?

You have three legitimate options:

1.- Charge more for your Canola.

2.- Buy shares in Becel.

3.- Produce and sell your own margarine.

You should stop blaming others who invest large amounts of money to make money and then turn around and reap their rewards for little effort.

My point exactly, the movie industry should stop blaming others who invest a small amount of money to make money and then turn around to reap their rewards for little effort.

They have options:

1. Drop the price for movie theatres

2. Release DVD's Sooner

3. Learn Free Market Economics

The defence of a double standard like this is mind boggling.

[guyser]

OOOOHHHH I see. So it's all right for Bunge to buy my Canola, crush it, turn around and sell it to Becel to make margerine, making a huge profit over me. Nope, if they can do that, Timmy can make copies of a movie and turn around and sell them and make a profit. It happens all the time here. That's quite the double standard isn't it?

If you are selling Copyrighted Canola, then you have a point.They would be infringing on your copyright and legal recourse would be yours.

But I know you dont and I also know that movies CD's etc are copyrighted and prominently displayed on the recording or disc.

I have to admit you did stop me in my tracks on your scenario. And while we are on it, I have always thought the farmer gets a raw deal , except for the fuel discounts and the insurance discounts. I have never understood why a farmer gets a nickel for something A&P sells for $1. Another thread I suppose.

But this brings up something I recall from awhile ago and you might be the one to shed some light. Did not Monsanto try and copyright a strain of corn? (might have been alfalfa or similar) and they could not get the patent to copyright it as it was a grown product and belonged in the public domain? Do you recall that?

[AndrewL]

As long as downloading music and movies undermines the economy, even if only slightly, i support it fully. If only we could figure out even more effective ways of stickin' it to the man, that would be great.

If i woke up tomorrow and the entire global economy collapsed i would be satisfied....

Andrew

[sideshow]

Blueblood, I agree with most of your points. Side note, farmers get the shaft-no doubt about it.

Concerning copyrights, etc. the industry should just deal with it. People have been recording with tape cassettes, and vhs tapes for years and years and years. Its just now that technology is allowing for more widespread communication that they are saying "whoa, our massive profits are not as massive-stop the press!".

I dont think people should be allowed to copy and then SELL movies, music, etc., but there should be nothing wrong with downloading, recording, etc. for personal use if there is no money exchanged.

Look at it this way. If I tape a copy of American Idol and give it to a friend to watch, am I stealing? Should they be forced to wait for it to come out on DVD and buy it? Thats absurd.

But if I start recording it, package it as a DVD and then start selling it on the internet or such, then I can see where there would be a problem.

Just my two cents.

[guyser]

I dont think people should be allowed to copy and then SELL movies, music, etc., but there should be nothing wrong with downloading, recording, etc. for personal use if there is no money exchanged.

Look at it this way. If I tape a copy of American Idol and give it to a friend to watch, am I stealing? Should they be forced to wait for it to come out on DVD and buy it? Thats absurd.

But if I start recording it, package it as a DVD and then start selling it on the internet or such, then I can see where there would be a problem.

Just my two cents.

And if I have CDN law correct , you just described it in a nutshell. THAT is what the US is fighting us for. They do not like the laws we have .

Now people should remember the $.25 s/c put on blank cassettes. That was to address this scenario , but in fact it went beyond that. It essentially penalized the consumer . It was estimated that half the tapes being bought were used for taping non-copyrighted material . Things like taping a class at school, taping your little daughters voice etc.

This money went into the CARAS fund and then to distributed to the artists. Umm ....why are they making money off my kid or class tape?

[blueblood]

Guyser: They do have a GM strain of Corn, It's roundup ready, the same as Canola. Which means you cannot save the seed from your stockpile which you just harvested. BS. But as a grower I don't get copyrights, what gives. It's a frustrating double standard. As i've stated farmers taxes compensate for fuel benefit. The plant breeders act is really a giant pain in my ass, thank you LPOC. If Monsanto didn't get a patent for corn, western canadian canola producers are going to be IRATE. Our copyright laws need to be changed or tossed out.

I dont think people should be allowed to copy and then SELL movies, music, etc., but there should be nothing wrong with downloading, recording, etc. for personal use if there is no money exchanged.

Then I don't think that Bunge, Nestle, Robin Hood, etc. should be allowed to do the same thing with my grain, I'd like royalties too. If that doesn't happen, then timmy can sell pirated movies.

[August1991]

Wilkins can pound sand anytime he wants.

Hey, I know, let them take us the same court that adjudicated the softwood lumber deal....and when the US wins three or four times, we can say...." So, you think we care?"

Good for the goose , good for the gander

That is both an immature and ignorant comment. I'm going to assume that your adolescent English-Canadian anti-Americanism has gotten the better of any judgment you may have.

What is the softwood lumber dispute? The Americans are refusing to buy our softwood lumber.

What is the cinema dispute? We are stealing American intellectual property.

If Americans were crossing the border and stealing our trees, then your comparison might make sense. But Americans are not doing that. Alternatively, if we imposed taxes on American movies to protect our home grown cinema then this would be similar to the softwood lumber dispute.

----

There is an easy solution to the cinema problem. Hollywood will simply stop releasing movies in Canada or it will release them well after they have been released in the US.

Canadians will have to drive south if they want to see a movie recently released.

[Riverwind]

OOOOHHHH I see. So it's all right for Bunge to buy my Canola, crush it, turn around and sell it to Becel to make margerine, making a huge profit over me. Nope, if they can do that, Timmy can make copies of a movie and turn around and sell them and make a profit. It happens all the time here. That's quite the double standard isn't it?

There is no double standard here. If you buy a physical DVD from a store you resell the physical DVD for whatever you want. What you can't do is make a copy of the DVD and sell it AND keep the original. If you were selling pictures of Canola that could easily copied then you have a right to prevent people from selling COPIES of those pictures. You could not stop them from reselling the physical picture.

I support the idea of copyrights, however, the music/movie industry has gotten way too arrogant and now think that they have a right to block fair use. If I buy a digital product I should be able to make personal backups and I should be able to transfer it to any device for personal use.

[blueblood]

OOOOHHHH I see. So it's all right for Bunge to buy my Canola, crush it, turn around and sell it to Becel to make margerine, making a huge profit over me. Nope, if they can do that, Timmy can make copies of a movie and turn around and sell them and make a profit. It happens all the time here. That's quite the double standard isn't it?

There is no double standard here. If you buy a physical DVD from a store you resell the physical DVD for whatever you want. What you can't do is make a copy of the DVD and sell it AND keep the original. If you were selling pictures of Canola that could easily copied then you have a right to prevent people from selling COPIES of those pictures. You could not stop them from reselling the physical picture.

I support the idea of copyrights, however, the music/movie industry has gotten way too arrogant and now think that they have a right to block fair use. If I buy a digital product I should be able to make personal backups and I should be able to transfer it to any device for personal use.

In logical terms, I buy a physical DVD, it's my property now, I can do what I want with it. I manipulated the original into something better (more of them). If I want to make copies and sell them so what. I bought it fair and square. Copyright laws are a distortion of the free market, you know this. Having an original or not is irrelevant.

Agribusiness and food companies buy my Canola/Wheat and manipulate it into something better and sell it. By the logic of copyright laws, I am entitled to some of the profits of it. Unfortunately agriculture is exempt, well except for Monsanto and it's draconian copyright laws and plant breeders act. Double standard stands. If Monsanto and the entertainment industry can collect royalties why can't I? Timmy should be able to sell copies of movies based on this BS Canadian copyright law.

Copyright laws are a method of supply management, I dont know how a supporter of a free market can be in favour of copyright laws.

[guyser]

That is both an immature and ignorant comment. I'm going to assume that your adolescent English-Canadian anti-Americanism has gotten the better of any judgment you may have.

What is the softwood lumber dispute? The Americans are refusing to buy our softwood lumber.

What is the cinema dispute? We are stealing American intellectual property.

If Americans were crossing the border and stealing our trees, then your comparison might make sense. But Americans are not doing that. Alternatively, if we imposed taxes on American movies to protect our home grown cinema then this would be similar to the softwood lumber dispute.

----

There is an easy solution to the cinema problem. Hollywood will simply stop releasing movies in Canada or it will release them well after they have been released in the US.

Canadians will have to drive south if they want to see a movie recently released.

Francis , your mangina has sand in it. Go clean it out and come on back and we will talk.

You totally missed the point. My post had nothing to do with comparing softwood with copyright law.

Because I put softwood in that post was only because I could not remember the court that adjudicated the disagreement. Got it? I know now that it was the Court of International Trade .

My point was that they (the US) unilaterally ignore rulings that go against them, hence goose/gander.

And you could not be more wrong in your assinine assumption that I am anti-american. You will be hard pressed to come up with anything from MLW resembling that from me. You may find anti-US-Govt posts where I feel they were wrong, but not anti-US.

August....think about it a bit.....come on whats my posting name....GUYSER....and it is an extension of.....come on you have plenty around with the same name......GUY ...en francais .

I am french canadian background from my mother side.Now what were you saying about my english canadian adolescence?

Ok ok...I love the Leafs more than the Habs. For that you are allowed to tsk tsk me.

[Riverwind]

I bought it fair and square. Copyright laws are a distortion of the free market, you know this. Having an original or not is irrelevant.

Not if you signed a contract promising not to do so. Lets say you rent part of your land to another farmer and you both agree to a contract which specifies an end date. What happens if the other farmer refuses to stop using your land after the time is up? You could take it into you own hands and threaten him physically but you are more likely to go to court sue him for breach of contract and you could even have him charged with trespassing.

Copyright laws are no different from breach of contract/trespass laws that allow the owners of the copyright owner to presue people who willfully violate the terms of the contract. Perhaps part of the problem is caused by the perception that you did not agree to a contract when you by a DVD. Would your opinion on the matter change if a store required you to sign a physical contract before they would let you purchase a DVD? If not why would you expect someone to honor a contract to rent or buy you land?

[guyser]

In logical terms, I buy a physical DVD, it's my property now, I can do what I want with it. I manipulated the original into something better (more of them). If I want to make copies and sell them so what. I bought it fair and square. Copyright laws are a distortion of the free market, you know this. Having an original or not is irrelevant.

Copyright laws are a method of supply management, I dont know how a supporter of a free market can be in favour of copyright laws.

I take it none of us will convince you of the fallacy of your arguement.

But hey lets try?

Your canola is a quantifiable product . ie you can only grow so much on the land you have. Therefor you have ,say, 1000 bushels of canola to sell . You get paid for that. Who ever buys your product cannot turn it into more , only the quantity he bought.

An artist puts out a record and there is no quantifiable product because they can always print more. But should you go and reproduce this record and sell it on the open market you have in fact taken money from the producer of that record.

If the buyer of your canola was able to use your canola to make exact copies and then sell them you would then be the one infringed.

And if I were to buy a CD and use it as part of art exhibit , lets say I made a painting with actual CD's in them, then I would not be infringing on copyright law unless I left in all identifiable marks in the painting.

[sideshow]

Some great points. But put it into another perspective.

What if i go to the market and purchase some tomatoes. And then plant the seeds, grow a bunch more tomatoes and sell them. Is there a law that allows the original seller of the tomatoes (or flowers, or whatever) preventing me from using the seeds, from a lawfully purchased product, and then "creating, duplicating, whatever" for either personal, or financial reasons?

I ask this because I honestly don't know. But if the answer is YES, there is a law that prevents this, then I think its absurd. If the answer is NO, then why should the same not apply to the "intellectual rights" associated with digital media?

And blueblood, I agree with you-you are getting the shaft in my opinion. I just don't know enough about farming to provide an educated opinion on what, if anything should be done.

[Riverwind]

Is there a law that allows the original seller of the tomatoes (or flowers, or whatever) preventing me from using the seeds, from a lawfully purchased product, and then "creating, duplicating, whatever" for either personal, or financial reasons?

It depends on the contract of sale. If seller of the tomatoes told you that you were specifically prohibited from doing so then you could refuse to buy the tomatoes or agree to the terms. If you later violated the terms of the contract then you can bee sued by the tomato seller.

[Charles Anthony]

I bought it fair and square. Copyright laws are a distortion of the free market, you know this. Having an original or not is irrelevant.

Not if you signed a contract promising not to do so.

Wrong. In an absolute sense, our copyright laws are still a distortion of the free market by virtue of the fact that the enforcement of the contract comes through taxation and the state.

Mr. BlueBlood can not opt out of the money he is forced to pay to enforce the copyright laws. If the HollywoodDVDcopyright holders paid to enforce their contracts themselves, you might have a free market argument.

State enforcement and special privilege have insidious ways of choosing winners and losers.

[August1991]

In logical terms, I buy a physical DVD, it's my property now, I can do what I want with it.

That's false. If you buy a car or a gun, you can't do anything you want with it. And if you buy land, you can't prevent someone from extracting oil beneath it or flying a plane above it. Your property rights are restricted.

In the case of a copyrighted DVD, you do not have the right to copy and sell it. This is eminently sensible for the same reason it is illegal to steal cars. Who would produce, buy or own a car if it were legal to steal them?