Hey look, democratic bullshit!

[Sel]

Without going into all the painful details here, refer to Geist's initial thoughts on it (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3025/125/) and all the side links in his posts. To all Canadians consumers, there's much to dislike about this bill, so answer to Geist's call and write to your government. (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2431/125/) If there's a time to get political, the time is now when the new bill is being introduced. I'll write more on this as I read more on it. In the mean time, some simple things you can do if you use Facebook: join the Fair Copyright for Canada group, (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6315846683) as well as our own isoHunt group (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7537189191&ref=ts) on Facebook. There may come a time when will perhaps organize rallies of some sort, so lets stay in touch.

Another big one to watch referenced in Geist's post is the ACTA, (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/06/211236&from=rss) a sneaky trade agreement to turn border patrols into copyright enforcers. Imagine P2P software/downloads banned (authorized distribution or not), and your laptop confiscated because it carries contraband digital bits. All very draconian, and fortunately with the Internet and Wikileaks, no secret is safe. (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_%282 007%29)

UPDATE: From the Canadian Music Creators Coalition ( CMCC (http://www.musiccreators.ca/) ): Copyright Reform Bill Doesn’t Help Canadian Artists, (http://www.musiccreators.ca/wp/?p=264) and David Fewer Of CIPPIC On Canadian DMCA Introduction: (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JT4UhzlXKOo)


JT4UhzlXKOo

Source:
http://isohunt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131459

Ignoring the fact that its on isohunt, its still a load of bullshit.

500$ per song downloaded.

etc

Do not want.

[thehoodedsmack]

Well, as a Canadian living in today's society, FUCK THAT SHIT!

[Sel]

I think Harper needs to stop sucking off the big American Cooporations :awesome:

[Hotrod]

I think Harper needs to stop sucking off the big American Cooporations :awesome:
Agreed, completely. If you like Harper, and are offended by this post for that, or any other reason, I'm sorry.

[thehoodedsmack]

Isn't that nice. Right after apologizing for oppressing our Aboriginals, the government pisses off even more people.

[klange]

DMCA doesn't look too bad, now does it?

[Sel]

Isn't that nice. Right after apologizing for oppressing our Aboriginals, the government pisses off even more people.

Apparently the government values the opinions of the big American Coorporations, rather than the ones of their own citizens.


DMCA doesn't look too bad, now does it?

If you like wasting tax payer money on pointless lawsuits, then yes!

[Bodzilla]

The American DMCA has many faults, but one of the more serious faults found within is the so-called "anti-circumvention law". This law essentially makes it illegal for Americans to bypass electronic locks, or "DRM", on content they own. Such a law gives unlimited power to content owners, and strips any and all rights from consumers, even rights explicitly laid out in law. This is not a "fair and balanced" approach to copyright.

Before we pass a similar law here in Canada, we must first ask ourselves what the purpose of such a law would be? The industry groups tell us that these locks are meant to protect against piracy, and that anti-circumvention legislation is therefore required to protect their intellectual property. If the goal is to prevent consumers from copying software, movies, and music, then we need pass no further legislation, for these acts are already illegal in this country (with the obvious exception of the private copying act of 1998). The act of copying such intellectual property is already illegal, and there is little sense in making it "more illegal".

DRM has extremely dire side effects. DRM stands for "Digital Rights Management", and that's exactly what it does; it controls what rights a consumer does and does not have over the media the consumer has purchased. But these are rights determined by the content provider, not by law, and the revocation of these rights becomes the province of private industry, which has already demonstrated a total disregard for consumer rights.

For starters, there exists no DRM scheme which does not also generate vendor lock-in as a side effect; music purchased on Apple's iTunes Music Store can only be played on computers running Apple's iTunes software or on Apple's iPod line of portable music players. Some DRM schemes, such as Microsoft's now defunct "PlaysForSure", are lice sensed to multiple manufacturers. However, even though you can buy multiple players from different hardware manufacturers that support PlaysForSure, when purchasing one of these players you are essentially locking yourself into Microsoft's music store.

Microsoft's PlaysForSure is an excellent example, by the way, of the problems inherent in a DRM scheme, because Microsoft has recently closed its authentication servers down [4]. This means that millions of people who bought music from Microsoft can no longer move that content to new audio players. If these consumers loose their existing audio players, or their players or computers break or are sold, then all of the music these people have purchased - music which they own - will be irretrievably lost. The only option these people have is to buy the media they already own a second time.

By enshrining digital locks and DRM in law, you ultimately give license to the content industries to write their own laws where copyright is concerned, because any rights given to consumers, even rights given explicitly under law, can be revoked by the application of a digital lock. Rights such as the "first sale doctrine", the ability to enjoy content on the player of your choice, the ability to format shift media from one format to another; all of these are taken away by almost every existing DRM scheme.

Many DRM schemes, especially in the realm of computer software, do not explicitly enumerate which rights they revoke in a clear and transparent manner to the consumer. Many times consumers are not even aware of the restrictions imposed upon them until they attempt to breach those restrictions. Rarely are consumers trying to breach these restrictions with criminal intent.

It is also important to point out that most such electronic locks are ultimately pointless; as soon as a single user bypasses the lock and posts the content to the internet, the content can easily be copied by all. Such locks will also always be easy to bypass because, from a technical standpoint, the underlying principal of such a lock is inherently flawed. All DRM schemes are based on encryption. Encryption, at it's most fundamental, involves one party sending a message to a second party without the message being intercepted by a third party. With DRM, the message is a movie or music or software, the first party is the content producer, but the problem is that the second and third party are both the consumer [3]. If media is protected by a digital lock, then the key to that lock must be provided to the consumer in order to watch the media. However, if the consumer has the key to the lock, then he or she may use that key to copy the media as well. DRM is as impossible as perpetual motion machines, or faster than light travel. Anti-circumvention laws, in effect, are laws which tell consumers they are only allowed to use the keys given to them for specific purposes outlined by the supplier of the key. This also leads to bizarre situations, such as the legality of publishing certain numbers [5].

Finally, I will touch briefly on the chilling effects such a law has on security research. As already noted, all DRM schemes are ultimately based on encryption. Some notorious breaches of DRM technologies in the past, such as breaking DVD-CSS - the protection scheme used on movies distributed on DVDs, did not involve the use of the key hidden in the player, but instead relied on breaking the underlying encryption algorithm. The DMCA makes the breaking of such encryption algorithms a crime. Security research is a critical part of keeping this nation and its people safe, and it is often the case in this field that critical advances are made by finding flaws in the existing state of the art. The American DMCA certainly does not make this impossible, but it also certainly makes this more difficult [1][2].

The anti-circumvention provisioned of the DMCA are almost universally panned as being some of the worst legislation ever written. Please do not hobble Canadian industry, innovators, and consumers with similar legislation.

Jason Walton what a post!

[Zeph]

Yah, that pretty much sums it up. I wonder why no one had made the argument that the record company gave them the ability to do so in defense of piracy claims.

[nooBBooze]

ACTA has to be the most fascist thing since the Patriot Act.
Contrary to selentics post, I've read that border patrols and airport personell are entitled to destroy any devices that contain possible pirated or ripped content "on sight" and without a lawyer being present. This also applies to inaccsessible or hidden directories when they are suspected to contain said content.
My Bullshit-sensors are off the meter guys.
I'll see if i can dig up the link.

[Sel]

You are entirely correct about border patrols, you can blame the terrorists for that, now they have just about infinite power.

[thehoodedsmack]

Well, I made a list of all the songs on my computer, then proceded to delete them. I'll admit I didn't own any of them legally, so now I guess I'll have to spend hundreds of dollars getting them back. Joy.

[nooBBooze]

Meh you probably could've kept them since the actual transfer logs are stored on your ISP and thats enough proof to put you in jail like the criminal comunist and terrorism funding scumbag you are.
<3

[thehoodedsmack]

Do you s'pose they'd do that? The bill wasn't in effect at the time I downloaded them, so I'm not sure how these thigs work.

[Sel]

They cant charge you for them if there was nothing illegal about it when you did it.

[Amit]

They cant charge you for them if there was nothing illegal about it when you did it.

Let's fucking hope not.

We need to fucking get Harper out of there and get the Liberals back into a majority power. I didn't necessarily say let Dion in there but this stupid bullshit has to stop!

[Sel]

Politics is all, do you want the douche on the left, or the moron on the right.

[nooBBooze]

Do you s'pose they'd do that? The bill wasn't in effect at the time I downloaded them, so I'm not sure how these thigs work.
Even if you were right [heck, if they can fuck up your stuff without a lawyer being present why should'd they be able to prosecute downloads from 10 years ago?] you still wouldn't have had to delete all your stuff since as long as you do not plan on taking your ipod or laptop with you on a trip by plane or crossing some border the chances of actually getting your ipod searched are close to nil as I'm sure the regular police guys have better things to do than lurking for earphones. I mean the government/police isn't supposed to be the big shots' bitch. At least thats what i hope. Meh, i better pick up some more tinfoil just in case.

[Bodzilla]

this short of shit should really be put to a referendum.

[thehoodedsmack]

I agree with Bodzilla. I also feel that listening to Irish rebel songs on the YouTubes makes me want to form my own country to counter this nonsense...