Comments on: Canada’s anti-p2p plan

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:52:47 +0000

We don’t need the cartel’s “entertainment” or propaganda (or news as they call it). We don’t need the cartel’s infrastructure either. All we need are the wireless network products, and we can build our own ad-hoc networks and continue trading as WE SEE FIT. I already know that the kids of one apartment comples who are already doing this. If one person rents a movie, all can have a copy within an hour. The speed of a properly build ad-hoc network is much better than that of the cartel owned networks, and it is much more private as well.

As far as copyright is concerned, read this:

Last year, I went to the local nursery and bought 5 grape vines. This spring, I have taken clippings from the best 2 and have rooted them. I intend to give these new plants to 2 of my friends.

Do you consider this stealing? Most people do not. Yet when it comes to music, computer programs and other like items, people are conditioned to say that copying and redistributing them is stealing. If someone goes to the local music store and buys a cd, he or she is doing the same thing as if he or she is buying a vine from a local breeder.

When a person takes a grapevine or a piece of music and reproduces it, it is the same act - reproduction. Just as it costs money for rooting compound and potting medium, it costs money for a writable cd. Now, if I give a reproduced vine away, it is perfectly legal. However, if i do the same with the music that I bought, it is considered piracy.

What makes music different? Is it the varying sounds? If that is the case, then what about the specific traits of the grapevine? Just as each track is different, so is each grapevine. Yet governemnt and cartel policy forbid the reproduction of specific sounds and not the reproduction of specific traits (at least not yet). I don’t listen to cartel music, but if I did, I would freely rip and copy a cd or DVD for any person who wishes to have a copy and do so with a clear conscience. The same goes with movies.

I believe in the 10 Commandments, and I do not steal. I do not consider reproduction and redistribution stealing no matter what the cartels say. However, if I said that it was I that wrote the song I bought, I would consider that a crime (of lying, and or fraud) just the same as it is if I stated that I originally bought the grapevine from Gallo vineyards when I actually bought it from the local plant nursery.

If I copied and sold a piece of work and mistated the origin of the work (by claming I wrote it or claim it came from Gallo winery), then I would be committing theft by deception (fraud). The buyer would not be getting something that he or she was expecting. Music or movies are just like the grapevine. I can choose to get a clipping from a friend or neighbor or I can buy it from a plant breeder. Once the music or movie is mine, I can copy it and give it away or sell it just like I can with my grapevine cutting. What is the differences besides government, court, or cartel policy? THERE IS NONE!!! Whether it is the uniqueness of a song, or the uniqueness of a plant, they both are reproduceable and transfereable as far as right or wrong is concerned.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:28:14 +0000

Copyright infringement should be illegal. But guess what? - it already is. What’s out of line are the minimum statutory penalties, where Canadian law is virtually a word-for-word copy of the flawed U.S. law. The applicability of the minimum statutory penalty should be redefined to “per case”, not “per work”, plus an additional penalty based on the estimated illegal profits. That way the big “for profit” counterfeiters would still pay a hefty penalty, but individuals sharing files would face a maximum fine of a few hundred dollars. I think most people would agree that this is much more in line with the seriousness of the offense, and brings reason back into the process. Let’s see how serious the CRIA is about going after individuals for a few hundred dollars at the cost of several thousand dollars in legal expenses (even if they get to assign a percentage of costs). That’s the way the legal system was intended to work to prevent abuse by wealthy corporations wielding teams of lawyers.

The privacy issue also needs work. ISPs should be prevented from gathering or providing any information on subscribers’ use of internet services, including the use of dynamic IP addresses, without a court order alleging a serious offense. I think ISPs should be required to make such a statement to their users.

And politicians should keep the law out of technologicial issues. We have no need for laws addressing issues like p2p software or protection of DRM. The process of creating, implementing, and enforcing new laws is way too slow to keep up with the pace of technological change, leading to unforeseen and harmful consequences. If tools new or old are used to commit an offense, we already have laws covering that.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:59:32 +0000

Not if he’s overpriced he’s not.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:06:30 +0000

Well … I figured that the embarassment of not being able to spell Canadian properly (nor capitalize the first letter) was enough

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:53:47 +0000

Not as draconian?

“Under the reformed law, companies like Bell, Rogers and Shaw would be compelled to “play a role in curbing the misuse of their facilities for copyright infringement.”

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/03/24/Arts/file050324.html

How so? The proposal includes having the ISP’s monitor illicit traffic to the benefit of CRIA. Nice to know that CRIA has convinced the commitee that ISP’s must act as internet police to their customers. That’s pretty damn draconian and one could argue a violation of my privacy. How do they propose to monitor this traffic? Are we to assume that ALL traffic from p2p networks is a violation of ~someones~ copyright? Where does it stop? FTP, newsgroups, html? How do you prove that the data transferred from one user to another violated copyright? You can’t.

Just as you can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person paying for the service is the one violating copyright laws. Unless CRIA hires a company that actually downloads every single file that they claim infringes copyright (under copyright law - they must provide proof of copyright infringement by submitting “copyright certificates” to the court - something they failed to do in their test case last year that they lost) they are back at square one. Proof isn’t in: geekboy@kazaa at 12:49AM with 352 files with a IP of 24.x.x.x - proof is in the content of his shared folders. This isn’t amerikaka, what they say isn’t good enough, our courts like evidence and proof before we lynch them.

I’m not sure this will be an easy task for CRIA.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:52:50 +0000

You’re right, the police won’t waste any resources. Our American friends are finding out the hard way that Corporations are much more lethal than authorities and have ample resources to boot.

Canadian government feels prostituting itself and its citizens to the likes of RIAA/MPAA will solve trade issues, some tradeoff.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:41:36 +0000

An Easter quote apposite to net thieves everywhere: The laborer is worthy his hire.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 21:19:40 +0000

keep in mind they tried the same thing with owning a direct tv dish, and we all know how many people were sued or arrested for owning one. The police will not waste resources pursuing people over this issue. It will exist soley on paper.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:00:47 +0000

it would be a shame if a piano were to accidently fall from the sky on to certain people’s cars, with certain people in said cars before certain events could culminate into dmca-world policies.
anybody have any spare baby grand pianos laying about?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:55:56 +0000

I would like to say that notice & notice is far better for free speech than notice and takedown.

under notice and takedown hundreds of websites a year in the US are unjustly slashed & burned because of the “notice and takedown” provisions of the DMCA.

Now protecting what is a legal action at the moment is important.. but please be sure to detail that it is not nearly so draconian as it could have been.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:49:22 +0000

Finally, a polititician speaking out on an issue that matters to me! I guess only the NDP would include musicians instead of being an all-lawyers club. They’ve got my vote.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:02:25 +0000

You forgot to say, Nah nah nah nah nah : )

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 04:47:20 +0000

Yes copy music from satalite radio. There are many ways to copy music (digital) that unless the internet is shut down they could not stop. If I want to share stuff with my friends it will happen. We still have cassett records and such that they tried to stop us owning. Someone will find away to keep it going and or protect our ID. peace out… Leykis 101 rules

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:54:36 +0000

slyck who?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:42:36 +0000

The Globe story is outdated information. The Heritage committee has changed quite a bit, and includes Timmins–James bay MP and musician Charlie Angus who is quite opposed to the CRIAA view of the world.

Timmins–James Bay
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/page/or/219

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:08:23 +0000

I guess now, one will just have to copy music from the radio and movies from blockbuster.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:04:02 +0000

Slyck beat you weith this and it is not canadain +)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:00:23 +0000

The scary part is in the Globe & Mail story:
“In pre-committee meetings the copyright amendments were approved by all political parties.”

Where is the voice of dissent among our paid-off politicians?