Hollywood muscles Canada

[Riverwind]

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.

Copyright laws are no different from laws regarding theft of physical goods. If someone steals your car then the state will prosecute and incarcerate the thief. I see no reason to treat intellectual property theft different from physical property theft.

[blueblood]

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.

I get X dollars for Canola, Artist gets X dollars for album/movie. Company buys and manipulates it and gets X+Y dollars. Timmy buys album/movie, manipulates it and gets X+Y dollars. Manipulation can be making copies and changing it. Either way it's all about the money. Both are getting screwed out of money, only difference is the Movie Companies can do something about it. Double Standard.

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?

A rental is not a purchase though. Buddy can rent my land and do what he wants with it. It's his 45 bucks an acre to do what he wants. He can sit on his ass and let it go to weeds and is out 45 bucks an acre. He can also grow a bumper crop and get 300+ bucks an acre. bottom line is I get paid 45 bucks either way, I am not entitled to anymore, that's how it goes. If I want 300+ bucks an acre I'll grow a crop myself. By the way if said farmer pulled a stunt like that with me, all I do is roll in with my sprayer and the problem ends right there.

Logically speaking, the movie owner sold me a DVD, that's mine. Even if I rent it from a store, that time with it is mine. The truth is the only reason why the entertainment industry is profitable is because of copyright laws, we as many people on this forum have stated should not subsidize an inefficient industry. I believe that if this industry is getting royalties and protection, why can't mine?

[August1991]

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 think the only way you can cut through these ethical issues is to think in terms of incentives.

If it were possible for an original seller to sue someone else who grew new improved tomatoes, then there would be no end to the lawsuits. On the other hand, if someone creates a new improved tomato then they should be able to sue and receive some kind of benefit. Why? We want people to invent new improved tomatoes and we want to create incentives for this.

There's another view of this which is closer to Riverwind's argument. If your tomato is no different from any other tomato, then you can hardly command a higher price now or later. If your tomato is different from others, then you can ask a higher price.

IOW, Papermate can't sue me for a share of the $500,000 advance I received for my latest Papermate-written Hollywood script. If I'd known Papermate wanted a cut, I would have gone with a Bic. Now, if there is something peculiar about a Papermate that makes me write better, then it might have a case.

[Riverwind]

A rental is not a purchase though. Buddy can rent my land and do what he wants with it.

I doubt it. There are lots of things he could do that would destroy the value of the land as crop land (i.e. he could turn it into a parking lot). All rental agreements come with conditions that would entitle you to sue the other if those terms are broken.

Logically speaking, the movie owner sold me a DVD, that's mine.

You are making an artificial distinction between a sale and a rental. A seller is free to impose whatever terms they want on the purchaser. If the purchaser buys the good then the purchaser agrees to those terms. If you buy a good marked with a copyright notice then you agree to the contract implied by the notice. If you don't want to be bound by the contract then you don't buy the good.

For example, you might want to purchase land from a neighbor who is an organic farmer. Assume this neighbor insisted that you sign a contract promising not to use pesticides on the land and you agreed. Do you beleive that you should be able to break that promise anytime you want because your neighbor 'sold' you the land?

[jdobbin]

I have no problem ensuring copyright is adhered to. I do have a problem extending it as long as the U.S. in recent years to protect Disney cartoons that are about to go into public domain.

I think that farmers do have a case for royalty rights on products they create. I'd like to see more on the subject and how it could be implemented.

The truth of the matter is that people in Canada are stealing product that is just released and putting it online with impunity. Thousands of jobs in Canada are at stake because of it.

Moreover, Canadians steal satellite on a level unparalleled in the industrial world.

My personal opinion is that Canada completely open its markets to Dish Network and DirectTV and let them enforce their ownership rights to their product. I think many Canadians would line up to buy the legal service.

[blueblood]

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?

Why shouldn't the entertainment's property rights be restricted then? They get to charge royalties for use of their property, and I don't get royalties from oil or get to charge someone for flying a plane over my land, that's quite a double standard there.

That stealing cars analogy won't work. The theif doesn't pay me for the car. My beef and the entertainment company's beef is someone paying, then turning around and making a profit without paying royalties. IMO BS canadian copyright laws. Also as far as cars go, people buy cars modify them and privately sell them quite possibly making some money at it, is the private seller entitled to pay the car company? I think it's time the entertainment industry learned how to play in the free market.

[jdobbin]

Why shouldn't the entertainment's property rights be restricted then? They get to charge royalties for use of their property, and I don't get royalties from oil or get to charge someone for flying a plane over my land, that's quite a double standard there.

That stealing cars analogy won't work. The theif doesn't pay me for the car. My beef and the entertainment company's beef is someone paying, then turning around and making a profit without paying royalties. IMO BS canadian copyright laws. Also as far as cars go, people buy cars modify them and privately sell them quite possibly making some money at it, is the private seller entitled to pay the car company? I think it's time the entertainment industry learned how to play in the free market.

Some Manitobans do get royalty rights on the minerals on their land.

The government owns the rights over all Canadian airspace.

[August1991]

I have no problem ensuring copyright is adhered to. I do have a problem extending it as long as the U.S. in recent years to protect Disney cartoons that are about to go into public domain.

I agree absolutely. It should be easy to get a copyright and it should have a relatively long duration. 60 years is enough and it shouldn't be extended. This creates ample incentive to create new ideas without needlessly infringing on the use of new ideas.

Patents on the other hand should be hard to obtain and should have shorter duration - at present, patents are around 15-20 years.

I can see that trademarks should have limitless duration, if they are being actively used and defended.

[August1991]

That stealing cars analogy won't work. The theif doesn't pay me for the car.

It's also illegal to steal rental cars even though you "pay" for them.

[blueblood]

A rental is not a purchase though. Buddy can rent my land and do what he wants with it.

I doubt it. There are lots of things he could do that would destroy the value of the land as crop land (i.e. he could turn it into a parking lot). All rental agreements come with conditions that would entitle you to sue the other if those terms are broken.

Logically speaking, the movie owner sold me a DVD, that's mine.

You are making an artificial distinction between a sale and a rental. A seller is free to impose whatever terms they want on the purchaser. If the purchaser buys the good then the purchaser agrees to those terms. If you buy a good marked with a copyright notice then you agree to the contract implied by the notice. If you don't want to be bound by the contract then you don't buy the good.

For example, you might want to purchase land from a neighbor who is an organic farmer. Assume this neighbor insisted that you sign a contract promising not to use pesticides on the land and you agreed. Do you beleive that you should be able to break that promise anytime you want because your neighbor 'sold' you the land?

Your sort of missing my point. I was discussing in monetary terms if buddy wants to rent it, I can only get X amount, if he makes money with it, I'm not entitled to a certain percentage. Renting land and making money at it is like renting a movie, making copies and making money at it. A small fee for use is paid, then money is made, also the movie better come back in good shape like the land or else penalties are levied. I have no business in buddy making a profit, why should the movie industry have any business in Timmy the taperecorders profits. The movie industry should have to compete.

If I'm renting the land from the neighbor he has a point and I'd respect it. But if I'm flat out buying it, it's none of his damn business, if he doesn't want pesticides on it then he'd be wise to sell it to another organic farmer. That scenario makes as much sense as me selling you a truck and saying your not allowed to put big tires on it. That's bunk it's your truck you can do what you want with it.

[guyser]

It should be easy to get a copyright and it should have a relatively long duration. 60 years is enough and it shouldn't be extended.

Copyrights do not even have to be registered to be valid. For instance, you have an idea of a book in your head, pretty much start to finish.

You cannot get a copyright for that.

But the manuscript for the book is copyrighted protected.

50 years for written copyright protection , 50 years following the end of the year that the originator died. In Europe it is 70 years.

Movies and sound recording are different.

[blueblood]

Why shouldn't the entertainment's property rights be restricted then? They get to charge royalties for use of their property, and I don't get royalties from oil or get to charge someone for flying a plane over my land, that's quite a double standard there.

That stealing cars analogy won't work. The theif doesn't pay me for the car. My beef and the entertainment company's beef is someone paying, then turning around and making a profit without paying royalties. IMO BS canadian copyright laws. Also as far as cars go, people buy cars modify them and privately sell them quite possibly making some money at it, is the private seller entitled to pay the car company? I think it's time the entertainment industry learned how to play in the free market.

Some Manitobans do get royalty rights on the minerals on their land.

The government owns the rights over all Canadian airspace.

Yah if your an 80+ year old geezer and the U of M. Mineral rights are not transferable though rendering them useless.

[Riverwind]

But if I'm flat out buying it, it's none of his damn business, if he doesn't want pesticides on it then he'd be wise to sell it to another organic farmer. That scenario makes as much sense as me selling you a truck and saying your not allowed to put big tires on it. That's bunk it's your truck you can do what you want with it.

A seller can demand whatever terms they want and you have to agree or refuse to buy. There is nothing wrong someone trying to sell you a truck and telling you that you cannot put big tires on it - you can simply refuse to pruchase it because of the ridiculous conditions.

However, if you do agree to purchase then you have no right to later break the contract because you 'own' the good. You cannot buy a DVD that does not come with a contract that prevents you from copying it. If you don't like that then you should not buy the DVD.

[blueblood]

That stealing cars analogy won't work. The theif doesn't pay me for the car.

It's also illegal to steal rental cars even though you "pay" for them.

As far as rentals go, making copies of a movie doesn't affect the rental shop owner, he still gets his copy back. If the guy rented a movie and kept it without paying the full price, then he is stealing. Copyright laws are hypocritical of the free market.

[sideshow]

There are a few distinctions that have to be made. A person that takes a camera and records a movie and then sells it is one thing. But a person who buys the movie and then makes copies and FREELY DISTRIBUTES THEM is another. If I purchase a DVD, why should I not be able to share that product with others-if I am not making a profit?

Because I have not stolen anything-i have paid for the product. Once I have the product, what business is it of the industry to restrict my personal use of it?

Example. If I go to Safeway and buy a dozen steaks, why should they be able to tell me that I have to eat them myself, rather than pass them out to friends? Or to go back to the tomatoe argument, if i want to plant the tomatoe seeds and then give out free tomatoes to my neighbours, what business of Safeways would it be? And would you consider that stealing?

I would think not.

[blueblood]

But if I'm flat out buying it, it's none of his damn business, if he doesn't want pesticides on it then he'd be wise to sell it to another organic farmer. That scenario makes as much sense as me selling you a truck and saying your not allowed to put big tires on it. That's bunk it's your truck you can do what you want with it.

A seller can demand whatever terms they want and you have to agree or refuse to buy. There is nothing wrong someone trying to sell you a truck and telling you that you cannot put big tires on it - you can simply refuse to pruchase it because of the ridiculous conditions.

However, if you do agree to purchase then you have no right to later break the contract because you 'own' the good. You cannot buy a DVD that does not come with a contract that prevents you from copying it. If you don't like that then you should not buy the DVD.

Personally I haven't signed any contract buying a DVD, but I will say this as adamant as I am that copyrighting is BS, I don't partake in that as a law abiding citizen. Other than that your pretty much right.

Can a seller legally put stipulations like that on selling things? I'm very interested in hearing this response. This could set a pretty crazy precedent.

[Riverwind]

If I purchase a DVD, why should I not be able to share that product with others-if I am not making a profit?

Because the contract you agreed to when you purchased the DVD prohibits you from doing so.

[blueblood]

There are a few distinctions that have to be made. A person that takes a camera and records a movie and then sells it is one thing. But a person who buys the movie and then makes copies and FREELY DISTRIBUTES THEM is another. If I purchase a DVD, why should I not be able to share that product with others-if I am not making a profit?

Because I have not stolen anything-i have paid for the product. Once I have the product, what business is it of the industry to restrict my personal use of it?

Example. If I go to Safeway and buy a dozen steaks, why should they be able to tell me that I have to eat them myself, rather than pass them out to friends? Or to go back to the tomatoe argument, if i want to plant the tomatoe seeds and then give out free tomatoes to my neighbours, what business of Safeways would it be? And would you consider that stealing?

I would think not.

Giving the DVDs away is just as bad as selling them, you are denying the company profit.

[Riverwind]

Can a seller legally put stipulations like that on selling things? I'm very interested in hearing this response. This could set a pretty crazy precedent.

When I purchased my house it came with a covenant the restricts what I can do with the land that the house sits on. This covenant is different from a zoning bylaw because it was imposed by the original seller. Here is more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_covenant

[blueblood]

Can a seller legally put stipulations like that on selling things? I'm very interested in hearing this response. This could set a pretty crazy precedent.

When I purchased my house it came with a covenant the restricts what I can do with the land that the house sits on. This covenant is different from a zoning bylaw because it was imposed by the original seller. Here is more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictive_covenant

So in theory if all the farmers got together and drew up some stipulations for selling grain/canola, the buyer would have to honor them or face breech of contract charges?

[Riverwind]

So in theory if all the farmers got together and drew up some stipulations for selling grain/canola, the buyer would have to honor them or face breech of contract charges?

Yep. But good luck getting the buyers to agree. They would probably react the same way you would to a restriction on the truck tires.

That said, not all contract terms are enforceable - for example, you cannot have a contract term that forces the buyer to break the law. There are likely other limitations which I am not aware of. But that does not change the principal that a seller can impose terms on a buyer.

[jdobbin]

Yah if your an 80+ year old geezer and the U of M. Mineral rights are not transferable though rendering them useless.

Ah. Didn't realize that it was transferable to a family member who inherits the farm.

[blueblood]

So in theory if all the farmers got together and drew up some stipulations for selling grain/canola, the buyer would have to honor them or face breech of contract charges?

Yep. But good luck getting the buyers to agree.

If an organization came up that was run tighter than Harper's cabinet, the buyers would be in one heck of a pickle.

[sideshow]

If I purchase a DVD, why should I not be able to share that product with others-if I am not making a profit?

Because the contract you agreed to when you purchased the DVD prohibits you from doing so.

But I have not agreed to ANY contract through my purchase. If I had a contract, it would have to be communicated to me-which it is not at the point of purchase. I walk into a store, give money to the teller, and receive a product. Its not like when I purchase insurance, a home, etc. where I SIGN a contract after sitting down, being presented with the terms and conditions of my purchase, and then making a decision to purchase or not.

Understanding that contracts dont have to be written to be fully legal, by putting a copyright disclaimer on a video that i have already purchased, opened and brought home, is not enforceable-at least not in canada and not now.

As for loss of profit. If I make a copy of something, or reproduce it, at my own expense, how is it a loss of profit for the original supplier? I really dont see the logic in the argument there. You can't lose something that you don't have.

A step further. What if I don't make a copy of the dvd, but i only bring my copy over to a family or friends house-is there a loss of profit? Am I, or are they stealing? I just don't see it.

A better way to deal with this would be to increase the cost of media storage, and provide a "kickback" to the industry. I could live with that. The copyright laws just leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[Riverwind]

Understanding that contracts dont have to be written to be fully legal, by putting a copyright disclaimer on a video that i have already purchased, opened and brought home, is not enforceable-at least not in canada and not now.

The package of the video should have the copyright disclaimer on it. Anything you buy with the copyright symbol on it comes wth the standard 'copyright' contract. This contract is enforceable even if you did not sign anything.

My CDs have the following contract on the outer case (clearly visible before any purchase):

Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public peformance and broadcasting prohibited

If you don't agree then don't buy.

A step further. What if I don't make a copy of the dvd, but i only bring my copy over to a family or friends house-is there a loss of profit? Am I, or are they stealing? I just don't see it.

If it does not violate the terms of the contract then you are fine.

A better way to deal with this would be to increase the cost of media storage, and provide a "kickback" to the industry. I could live with that. The copyright laws just leave a bad taste in my mouth.

God forbid. I purchase a lot of media which I never use to store copyrighted material. Why should I have to pay more because some people don't want to honor the contracts that go with DVD or CD purchases?