Buy this track on iTunes ADD Add Favourite

blog post Copyright or Copywrong: Two Sides Take Your Questions

posted by John Paolozzi on Jun 12, 2008

related genres
Radio 3

likes
0

Now that the much anticipated amendments to the Copyright Act have finally been tabled by Conservative Industry Minister, Jim Prentice, and both sides of the debate are gearing up for a fight, we thought this would be a great opportunity to invite two of the country's most distinguished opponents and proponents of the proposed legislation to answer any questions you might have.

Supporting the legislation is Duncan McKie, President and CEO of the Canadian Independent Record Production Association (CIRPA), which counts amongst its large membership labels such as Arts & Crafts, Mint, Paper Bag and Nettwerk Productions. CIRPA is the collective voice of the English language, Canadian-owned independent sector of the Canadian sound recording industry.

And opposing the new legislation is Dr. Michael Geist, Canadian Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. Geist has written numerous academic articles and government reports on Internet law, but is probably best well known for his blog, and efforts opposing what he fears will mirror the American DMCA.

PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BELOW and we'll pose a selection of those deemed representative of the group to our guests. Please note that comments or questions may be edited for length or clarity. I know this can be a hot debate, but please keep it friendly-like.

posted by John Paolozzi on Jun 12, 2008

Share Like

Comments

display Oldest First | Newest First

COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED FOR THIS POST!

#1 posted by
WildWorks
on Jun 12, 2008

I am torn what to support or what not to support. I still support legal downloads via iTunes. I still do download illegally for Chinese music and TV shows (mainly Doctor Who). Yikes, I hope the Ceeb doesn't hear from me since Series 4 hasn't aired yet. :)
I like it to be status-quo.

I am still annoyed from what happened several years ago, as I was waiting for the O-Train (in Ottawa), there was this guy who approaches me because I am using my iPod and starts to lecture me about copyright/download/whatever. The lame excuse I made was that I download Chinese music (Cantopop) illegally and I use iTunes for legal download. I still feel burned by this guy ever since. It just doesn't make a difference, it is my choice, not someone else's.

#2 posted by
MAK
on Jun 12, 2008

Who's in charge of enforcement?

#3 posted by
Lorne
on Jun 12, 2008

Would this legislation would open the door for malicious software attacks? Consider a toolbar which displays advertising, includes DRM to prevent tampering, and does not include a removal tool. Under the proposed legislation wouldn't developing and distributing tools to remove the addware be illegal?
Also consider SONYs rootkit DRM which was classified as a virus by Microsoft and others. If DRM damages my PC or reduces security will it still be illegal to remove it?

#4 posted by
Lorne
on Jun 12, 2008

If I bought DRMed WMAs from Sony and followed the instructions on the Sony Rewards page
http://www.sonyrewards.com/en/learn/member_benefits/music_downloads/

specifically

"Attention iPod users:

Our download service provides files in the WMA music format or the WMV video format, which is not supported by Apple Macintosh computers. To use your music with an iPod, simply follow the steps below:
1. Save each downloaded song to your PC
2. Burn a music CD (in CDA file format)
3. Import the music from the CD into iTunes
4. Update your iPod"

would I be violating the new law?

#5 posted by
ADMS.ca
on Jun 12, 2008

"In the 2006 Speech from the Throne, Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed to bringing international treaties before the House of Commons to give Parliament a role in reviewing international agreements."

Why is our Conservative government, who supposedly espouse the idea of transparency, excepting the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties from this process?

"The government will observe a waiting period of 21 sitting days from the date of the tabling before taking any action to bring the treaty into effect. When treaties require legislative amendment, the government is committed to delaying the legislation until this 21-sitting-day period has passed."

This refusal to table this treaty in its entirety, to which Canada is a signatory and wishes to ratify through its copyright law, calls into question the motives of this government. The question must be asked:

Who is pulling the strings?

It's no secret that many American lobby groups and partisan government bodies have a long history of being bedfellows with senior cabinet ministers. After the December Copyright Debacle, where is the public consultation that ostensibly should have followed? Shouldn't the public have some say in these matters? We are, after all, the people who buy music and depend on free culture to drive our society.

#6 posted by
acurrie
on Jun 12, 2008

There is talk that the unlocking of GSM cell phones will be illegal under this act -- in fact, the two GSM carriers in this country are taking steps to ban unlocked handsets from their networks.

With this new legislation, would my home computer also have to be locked to an Internet Service Provider?

I'm just following the same path of logic here...

#7 posted by
stephdau
on Jun 12, 2008

Since these agreements have been overhauled (and met) in 1997 and 2003? See countless reference to the said amendments on the Copyright Board of Canada web site at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/regulations/index-e.html

Also, what will happen the levies currently charged on blank media (hard discs, CD, DVDs, etc) should the bill pass? Technically, these levies have been put in place to remunerate artists the supposed illegal downloading activities of the Canadian population. If such activities are formally made illegal by C-61 (and note that media sharing is far for my prime concern with the said bill), surely, these levies will be lifted, right?

Stephane Daury, Montreal

#8 posted by
AlexOfAnders
on Jun 12, 2008

I heard something about when you cross the border, the border guard has the right to scan your laptop/iPod/mp3 player and it searches for illegal downloads. After this invasion of privacy, they also have the choice to delete it or destroy the device. Better not piss off the border guard.

Also, I've wanted some proof that illegal downloads have been hitting the music industry. Isn't it hurting the larger bands more cause the small artist is getting much better exposure? I buy just as many CDs as I always have, heck, I buy more cause I know more bands. A lot of the times I back fill already downloaded songs cause I like to support the people who make my music. Also why I'm a merch fiend.

This legislation will hurt far more then help I think. But I'm a fairly honest person who likes to buy cds.

#9 posted by
AlexOfAnders
on Jun 12, 2008

Oh right, I guess I didn't really make it very clear that my question was mainly if that thing about border guards and destroy devices with illegal downloads was true.

#10 posted by
tagish156
on Jun 12, 2008

If you're allowed one copy of media per device, would a CDR count as a device, or perhaps every CD player in your home?

#11 posted by
Justin Beach
on Jun 12, 2008

I know a fair bit about all of this and have listened to both sides. My personal view is that this legislation will accomplish 3 things.

1) It will create the framework for some frightening breaches of privacy (setting up the possibility for legal challenges and the throwing out of the law).

2) It will open up Canadian courts to being overloaded with law suits.

3) It has the potential to drive a wedge between artists and fans.

Most of the fans I know do care about artists being compensated, they know (especially in Canada) that their favorite artists are not wealthy and they buy most (if not all) of what they listen to. This law, if vigorously enforced, has the potential to seriously damage that relationship.

What it will not do, in any way shape or form, is alter consumer behavior for the better. In the US it has done the exact opposite.

#12 posted by
Halagon
on Jun 12, 2008

Anything that can be seen, heard, or read can be duplicated. Put fancy Digital Rights Management on a music track and someone will burn it to CD and rip it, removing the DRM, or they'll just record it with their sound card. If you can listen to it with your ears, or see it with your eyes, it can be duplicated with little effort.

Of course, we could enforce copyright. We could create a police state, where everybody is under constant surveillance to protect against criminals secretly downloading the White Album without permission.

Since the government is trying to get into our computers, perhaps we should be allowed into theirs. I'd love to see what music the Prime Minister has pirated.

There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation, nor is there a place for the state in the computers of the nation.

#13 posted by
BenjaminD
on Jun 13, 2008

Canada proudly declares itself as a multicultural country. Since the arts are a huge part of every culture, why then does the Government want to make it illegal to circumvent the region locks on the foreign DVDs brought in by immigrants or import shops? Didn't the region locks themselves already border on possible violation of World Trade Organization free trade agreements?

Since many foreign CDs and DVDs are not released under the labels that are part of the MPAA, CMPDA, CRIA, or RIAA, what right do these organizations or our Government have to sue/fine/jail me for breaking the digital locks or copying these media when any money they sue/fine/jail me for does not even go to the proper rights holders but rather right into the pockets of the MPAA, CMPDA, CRIA, and RIAA or the Government (whichever collects the money)?

#14 posted by
BenjaminD
on Jun 13, 2008

Can we be sued for all the music we have already (as in prior to this bill) legally ripped/downloaded on our computers or the compilation CDs we made breaking other digital locks/using the music we legally downloaded if we are caught with said music/CDs once/if the bill is passed?

If we are made to delete these files and destroy these burned CDs, will we see a compesation from the CRIA for the levy we've been paying to them all these years?

#15 posted by
SomethingMore
on Jun 13, 2008

1. At least one major record label uses copy protection on the majority of their CDs released in the last 5 years. If I buy one of those CDs, am I a criminal if I copy the contents to my ipod or laptop for use when traveling?

2. 99.9% of DVDs have CSS copy protection. If I buy a DVD, am I a criminal if I copy the contents to my computer, compress it, and store it on my ipod or laptop for use when traveling?

3. 100% of Blu-ray discs have AACS copy protection and at least one major studio is also using BD+ copy protection. If I buy a Blu-ray disc, am I a criminal if I copy the contents to my computer for usage only in my Home Theatre Media Server? What if I want to copy the contents to my laptop, which is capable of playing back high definition video, but does not contain a Blu-ray optical drive?

In all three questions, the underlying reasons for my actions are:
- I do not want to damage the CD, DVD, or Blu-ray disc by transporting it from point A to B to C and so on.
- I want to be able to access the content from wherever I see fit, as long as it is clear that I am not sharing this content with anyone but myself.
- I do not want the record label or movie studio to provide me with a low-quality version of the content at an extra price. I've paid for the highest-quality version available and I am capable of reducing the quality for my own usage if necessary.
- I do not want to get involved in downloadable music or movies that contain Digital Rights Management protection software. I understand that all companies feel the need to act like they'll exist forever, but if/when they go out of business or disconnect their DRM servers, the legal downloads that were purchased by myself or anyone else will no longer function as expected.

Bill C-61 needs to provide acceptable policies for consumers like myself who are concerned with the above issues.

#16 posted by
Borghunter
on Jun 13, 2008

This bill, if passed, seems like it would hinder the progress in the Open Source industry and community. What would happen to formats such as .ogg (for music)?
Some Linux and other operating systems already have applications to crack, hack and smash those DRM-infected files and encoded CDs/DVDs in order to watch/listen to them on multiple devices. Would the companies of these companies be fined (if based in Canada) or their website blocked if they have this software?

Would the government have the right to gather information on customers from ISPs and block certain websites?

Don't you think the music downloading, et cetera, would just go further underground?

-Thank you.

#17 posted by
chaoslord
on Jun 16, 2008

Most current DRM schemes rely on windows for their OS - when you put the CD in a linux box, it just ignores the DRM because it isn't designed to do whatever the DRM says (lock content down, lock it to a specific player, etc...)

Does this legislation make the distribution of Linux illegal? After all it is software that is bypassing the digital lock on this content.

display Oldest First | Newest First

COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED FOR THIS POST!

web radio stations
music on demand
my saved items

Live Radio

CBC Radio 2
(5 stations)

CBC Radio 3

Genre Streams

Centre Ice Songs(1 stations)

Classical(10 stations)

Jazz(5 stations)

Singer-Songwriter(3 stations)

World(1 stations)

Rock(4 stations)

Pop(6 stations)

Blues(2 stations)

R&B / Soul(1 stations)

Hip Hop(1 stations)

Country(3 stations)

Aboriginal(1 stations)

Electronic(2 stations)

Login required

Oops - you have to be logged in to add to My Saved Items.

User Name

Password

Forgotten your password?

Don't have a CBC Music account?

Join Now for free