Comments on: Canada’s 29

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:34:48 +0000

PS: so CRIA can now piss whine and moan to governement about how artists rights are not being protected by current laws and lobby government for changes and that is what they did

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:32:35 +0000

If you have worked in politics in some way where the goal is to change how things are run you don’t rely upon one thing to cause the change. It’s a game with many variables and different outcomes and last years court case was one step in a larger plan. Just as getting a new president for CRIA who is proficient in copyright law and works for one of the labels was part of the game.

In CRIA’s case the goal isn’t the suing of people per se but preventing p2p file sharing altogether. If you look at how they’ve played the game so far their interest is in stopping any distribution that isn’t their own. The easiest way isn’t tracking p2p users on p2p networks and then suing them (that tactic has pretty much blown up in their face p2p usage has been on the rise for ages. They keep suing but more and more people turn to p2p) the easiest way is creating laws which outlaw the practice altogether and then get government to police the new policy through various acts and bureaucratic systems. (see Sony BetaMax, Grokster, DRM etc as ways they’ve tried (are trying) to prevent piracy)

Take CRIA (again) would suing 29 Canadians stop p2p? No, at most CRIA would have profited from the case but the Copyright Act would remain the same. Since CRIA’s goal is stop “illegal” distribution the most cost efficient way to do this is through changing the law, not by suing individual file sharers over and over again. In the USA the money that is reaped from suing individuals has been just enough to go onto the next case – effectively using p2p users to fund the sue-em-all campaign.

So “duh” to this being only part of the bigger picture and anyone (including myself) who had advocated or lobbied would (should) know this. This is how politics is played.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:51:57 +0000

Here in the US the RIAA and especially the MPAA have been using p2p as a red herring to take fair use away from the public and lock down everything in sight with restrictive DRM.

The new government “copy protection” mandates on cable and satellite (separate from the broadcast flag which only affects over the air) put DRM on the data stream all the way to the in ports of devices, meaning in conjunction with the DMCA the MPAA now has full regulatory control over all future recording devices. Did i say recording, what recording? they don’t want you to have it and thanks to these two mandates you won’t.

Thanks to those “evil barbarian modems” they demonize as being at their proverbial gates, the congress has given them so much more than a reversal of the 1984 decision.. theyre giving them control over virtually half our economy.

Thanks to mandated drm combined with DRM protection laws, the USA has fallen off the list of the 10 freest economies, the tech sector has tanked, the economy is in perpetual recession, and despite the immense potential no new fair use gadgets have come out since 2001 (at least none which don’t depend on illegal circumvention tools).

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:15:18 +0000

You have picked up on why Michael Geist and others working on our behalf are trying to lobby to get statutory damages removed. It means that there would no longer be a requirement that there be any harm in order for the courts to award considerable sums of money.

It is why I really worry when people say “but I am not harming anyone” because, under Canadian copyright law, that doesn’t matter.

Russell McOrmond – http://digital-copyright.ca http://www.flora.ca/ http://GOSLINGcommunity.org http://forumonpublicdomain.ca/ (blah, blah, blah…)

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:30:31 +0000

huh?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:34:34 +0000

Anyone who has worked in politics, lobbying, advocacy will prolly be saying … DUH! about now.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:44:51 +0000

>38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any >time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages >and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory >damages for all infringements involved in the proceedings, with respect >to any one work or other subject-matter, for which any one infringer is >liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable >jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $500 or more than >$20,000 as the court considers just.

How can the court consider a non zero figure just when no profit of any kind is being made?

Just because some rich kids claim their company has been harmed with no proof whatsoever of it does not constitute damage.

Further, doesn’t statutory damages require that the offense be contrary to public good?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 06:43:52 +0000

sorry big music, the justice system doesn’t quite work on the dollar value it does in the US…its getting there, but it aint ready for heavy handed monopolistic approach, plus it helps that we’re anti-american in the first place, CRIA you’re done!! Your corporatism has been exposed and von fickenstiens revealing dress-down of your pathetic attempt at evidence will bear out…..bit#hes