p2pnet - rss feed: Educated Canadians oppose copyright act changes
p2pnet news Politics:- | Freedom:- Canadian industry minister Jim Prentice is promoting his bill C-61 Canadian DMCA as a “made-in-Canada approach that will benefit all Canadians”.
But Canadians aren’t exactly lining up in support with, “more educated respondents … much more likely to want their MPs to oppose the changes to the Copyright Act,” says a new study.
On top of that, fewer than half of respondents think the proposed amendments balance the rights of copyright holders and consumers.
Under proposed changes, people could be fined $500 for downloading copyrighted material, and up to $20,000 for hacking digital locks or uploading copyrighted material to file-sharing websites, notes the poll, from an Angus Reid.
But, “Canadians are clearly divided on the proposed changes, with 45 per cent of respondents supporting the amendments, and another 45 per cent rejecting them,” it says, with one-in-ten undecided.
Regionally, British Columbia (52%) and Alberta (48%) show the most resistance, while Quebec (53%) and the Atlantic Provinces (50%) are, “the most encouraging of tougher copyright infringement laws,” says the report.
“In turn, Manitoba and Saskatchewan (21%) house the most respondents who are unsure on the issue,” it says, going on >>>
The survey reveals that a majority of Canadians over the age of 55 and those with a high school diploma or less are clearly in favour of the amendments to the Copyright Act. Sixty-one per cent of older Canadians support the new changes, while only 23 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 and 47 per cent of those aged 35 to 54 feel the same way.
Canadians are also split over whether or not downloading music equals stealing it, an idea originally mooted by Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) which claims downloading is exactly the same as walking into a store and shoplifting a CD.
Fifty percent of the people included in the poll agree with the RIAA, 45% disagree, and four per cent aren’t sure.
“A breakdown among various groups reveals that women (54%), older Canadians (65%), respondents living in households earning more than $100,000 a year (57%) and university graduates (53%) are more prone to believe that downloading music from the Internet without paying amounts to stealing,” says Angue Reid.
‘Lobbying by the North American music industry’
Respondents were given a list of seven statements, “related to the new amendments and asked whether they agree or disagree with each one,” says the company.
The result?
The vast majority (76%), “believe the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act are being introduced as a result of lobbying by the North American music industry”.
The poll also says asked about how they’d want their Member of Parliament to vote on the proposed amendments, more respondents said they wanted their MP to vote against the changes (39%) than for it (32%).
“The discrepancy between males and females is also of interest,” Angus Reid says, adding, “While 49 per cent of men want their MPs to vote against the new copyright amendments, only 29 per cent of females concur.
“Respondents aged 18 to 34 once again show the highest level of opposition to tougher restrictions, with a clear majority (58%) saying they want their MP to vote against the new changes —- compared to 37 per cent in the 35-54 age group and only 27 per cent of older adults.”
.
.Stumble It!
made-in-Canada - Jim Prentice: still touting Canadian DMCA, June 19, 2008
Angus Reid - : Canadians Evenly Split on Proposed Amendments to Copyright Act, June 19, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:27 am
“up to $20,000 for hacking digital locks or uploading copyrighted material to file-sharing websites”
$20,000 to hack a digital lock to copy a peice of music/movie/software which you’re legally allowed to copy anyway is retarded.
$20,000 to upload copyright material to file-sharing websites is a bit stupid too… good thing .torrent files don’t contain copyrighted material!
June 20th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I suggest the following caption for the lovely picture of Sunny Jim above.
Canadian industry minister Jim Prentice describes the tool that will be used by the US media cartels to screw Canadians: “It’s THIS long, and it feels really, really good.”
On second thought, Jim Prentice is the tool that will be used by the US media cartels to screw Canadians. Sorry about the mix up.
SRG
June 20th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“Under proposed changes, people could be fined $500 for downloading copyrighted material”
Meaning that in a few minutes the SAVE As key could run a bill of several thousand dollar or a few million dollars a year.
Of course the law would be utterly unenforceable, as is the current copyright act.
Boy, that’s progress????
June 21st, 2008 at 12:17 am
So if this goes through I guess we’ll all be getting nice cheques back from the Government for all of the blank media and music player levies that we’ve been paying so far right? Right? Years ago the Courts told the Canadian Music industry that they could have levies, or they could have downloading outlawed but the could not and would not have both PERIOD. Now this shows up. That’s Conservatives for you, could find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight, but they hop to and get to work when the Americans snap their fingers.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:20 am
If this passes, it is my sincere hope that all those in favor get nailed to the wall by this law. Repeatedly. Purchased that DVD or CD and want to use the content with your iPod or PC? Bam, $20,000 fine for trying since it’s all digitally protected these days. Downloaded a song you heard on the radio or are debating whether to buy the CD by previewing other songs from the album, bam $500 fine per offense. Same if you download a single television show simply because you failed to set your PVR/VCR timer correctly, or the show came on at a different time than specified by your cable guide, or was preempted in your region by a state of the union address or similar. Stupid stupid stupid.
I would much rather pay a levy for my internet connection and feel safe knowing that I won’t end up bankrupt because of it. It’s working good for blank media and digital audio/video players, so why not data transfer as well? That way these corporations get back the hypothetical losses they claim are lost due to file sharing (and probably get far back more than their losing actually if this levy was to happen world wide). I can also guarantee that even with such a levy, people would still buy the media they want. For example, if I download a movie and like it, I’ll buy it. Even with material showing up on torrent sites in 720p/1080p x264, the quality still doesn’t come anywhere close to matching a Blu-Ray disc. I won’t even touch 480p XviD stuff unless I absolutely have no choice, preferring to buy the DVD or Blu-Ray disc where available. I know from reading the forums out there that the vast majority of downloaders feel exactly the same way. Everybody wins this way. Unfortunately these corporations don’t want to have to admit that they were wrong about downloading. It’s up to our government to see the light and end the animosity on both sides by forcing everyone to go this route.
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 am
Because of the nature of downloading software your going to be uploading if your downloading so you will never be hit with just $500 fines. They will be able to hit everyone downloading with $20,000 fines. They put the $500 in there to fool people pure and simple. The movie stoodios know you can’t download without uploading. So to copy and share which is perfectly legal today will cause you to be fined 20,000 dollars or jail terms. More over you lose the right to unlock anything digital. Which includes things which may be of harm to you. Such as locked pictures someone made of you naked. Or locked documents which are meant to harm your reputation. Unlocking a persons phone. Unlocking a car so you can modify it. Unlocking your own computer. Unlocking a watch. Unlocking your own games. All of this will be illegal.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
There’s a partial segment (about 3 minutes) of Barney Miller at the end of a videotape from our wedding. Does it make me a criminal for not taping something over it? What would be eligible to record over it? I no longer have a tape camera. Suggestions please.