WinMX World :: Forum
Discussion => WinMx World News => Topic started by: GhostShip on May 09, 2005, 04:09:09 am
-
I read this important peice of news recently and I thought it was a good idea for canadians to contact their members of parliment and let them know they dont want the law changed to how it is in america where zero evidence is required to obtain information from ISP,s about alleged downloaders identities.
http://p2pnet.net/story/4746
Let justice prevail, and democracy rule, even better sign this petition and let those who claim to represent you, know your views.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/
Americans reading this would be best advised to lobby their congressional representative to make sure that evidence is required to obtain identification details from an ISP, dont sit back and take injustice, protest for the common rights of justice and fairness your ancestors fought hard for.
-
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=796
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/TechInvestor/2005/05/19/1047220-cp.html
The Canadian Federal Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling, ruling the CRIA cannot force ISPs to divulge their customer's personal information. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) a consumer rights organization similar in nature to the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), heralded this event as a "landmark privacy decision."
But.. heres the bad news the judge presiding over the case has in fact lowered the burden of proof required to obtain the information to virtually nil,
Instead of requiring "prima facie" evidence, Justice Saxon lowered the bar to "bona fide" evidence. This significantly reduces the burden on the CRIA. "Bona fide" reduces the level of evidence to a matter of good faith. In the future when the CRIA intends to bring action against an idividual for copyright infringment, they only have to present the eveidence they have, "and that there is no other improper purpose for seeking the identity of these persons." The RIAA's current lawsuit campaign works virtually identical to the "good faith" philosophy.
I,m sure you,ll agree with me that we have no "Good Faith" in these serial writ/lawsuit parasites.
-
More news folks the situation has become slightly more clear regarding the evidence barrier the Cartel need to jump..
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/technology/story.html?id=e8b16a01-7ca6-4791-8216-0162ce4e080d
The test requires a plaintiff such as CRIA to first demonstrate that it has a "bona fide" claim based on evidence that it has obtained (not merely that it intends to file a lawsuit) and that it has no other improper purposes for seeking the identities of subscribers. CRIA must show that the information cannot be obtained from another source and tender evidence that is admissible, timely, and links the Internet protocol addresses of the subscribers to the alleged infringement.
Although this sounds slightly upbeat it is still infact a weakening of your rights due to the term "bona fide " being used, as this is a very weak kind of legal proof.
Let us watch for the Cartels usual media circus announcement, and hidden climb downs ( remember the students that the MPAA decided that they had no evidence against when push came to shove, I do..lol)
-
An interesting article here on the current state of legislationa s regards up/downloading and the levy system.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/resc/html_bkup/june62005.html
In the aftermath of last year’s trial decision, the recording industry expressed grave concern about the state of Canadian copyright law and lobbied aggressively for immediate changes. In light of the appellate decision, it is now safe to declare the copyright emergency over. In fact, the fears of a devastating effect never materialized. According to CRIA’s own figures, in the thirteen months of reported sales since the March 2004 decision, both sales and shipments have increased
.
If I had a dollar for everytime the fat greedy Cartel folks claimed they might lose a million I would be as rich as they are, folks get bored of BS :roll:
-
and if i had a penny for every million they've lost... i'd be bankrupt
-
Another article about the proposed law changes that the Canadian federal goverment is interested in implementing
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1118271756635_30/?hub=Canada
The federal government will introduce new legislation aimed at toughening up copyright laws in the digital world, CTV News has learned. Still, industry stakeholders who say file sharing is stealing say the laws are not stringent enough.
Pay close attention folks, you are about to get bumrushed :shock:
What the law seems not to make clear is that it will make it impossible to use certain software to make a backup of your dvd/cd etc so you have just given the industry a licence to print money.
Point two here is that your already paying a levy for file sharing activities, if this law goes ahead that should be abolished as why should you pay for something twice ?
Does the Cartels greed never end ??
-
More legal manouvering in canadian political circles.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/artslife/story.html?id=3b5f50c3-0923-445b-9ec5-b0bf85a56bc1
Peer-to-peer users were put on notice Monday after the Liberal government introduced a bill calling for stricter copyright legislation to crack down on music sharing.
Bill C-60 would amend the Copyright Act, bringing it up to speed with today's technologies, namely Internet activities like file-sharing and burning unlimited copies of CDs and movies.
The biggest change comes through a "make available" clause which would make it illegal to upload songs into online shared directories, as is the case when using Kazaa or BitTorrent, unless you are the rights holder of the material.
Well I hope to hear more regarding a "fair use" clause for this as otherwise the goverment there are taking your existing rights away as well as giving the Cartel monopoly rights over all music, all they need to do to shut down an independant record company for years would be to claim some copyright infringement and the ISP would be forced to act , bypassing the old law that said you needed a courts authority to decide if it was in fact true.
I hope justice is given a fair hearing and remember folks justice and the law are not always the same thing.
-
Canada has signed up to the latest add on protocol of the European cybercrime convention, one of the first non european countries to do so.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1120843122221_16/?hub=SciTech
Canada became the first non-European country Friday to sign up to combat "cyberhate," the online dissemination of xenophobic propaganda.
Canada signed an additional protocol to the international cybercrime convention, drafted in 2001 by the Council of Europe.
Signed by several dozen countries, including Canada, the United States, South Africa and Japan, the convention names four types of cybercrime: confidentiality offences, notably breaking into computers; fraud and forgery; content violations, such as child pornography and racism; and copyright offences.
The treaty aims to speed up international co-operation in investigations and extraditions.
Lets hope this legislation is not hijacked to include items outside its scope and that it also applies to companies that disrupt p2p sytems, as denial of service attacks are one of the offences included in the protocol.
For an interesting further read on this treary as it already stands.
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm
-
It seems your rights are fast disappearing into thin air.
http://news.com.com/In+Canada+Cache+a+page,+go+to+jail/2100-1028_3-5793659.html
A bill before Canada's Parliament could make it illegal for search engines to cache Web pages, critics say, opening the door to unwarranted lawsuits and potentially hindering public access to information.
The legislation in question, Bill C-60, is designed to amend Canada's Copyright Act by implementing parts of the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization treaty, the treaty that led to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S.
Oh my what a suprise for folks to discover they have lost their democracy in this way, by handing over all their rights to copyright nazis. :roll:
Pleas take action while its still legal to protest and write to your representatives, using copyright notices to close down sites for making fair comment is censorship, is that what you all want ?
-
This is certainly not good news here :o , please bear in mind it comes from the tyrants mouths so may be a little one sided.
http://www.cria.ca/news/280705_n.php
The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) welcomed today's Supreme Court of Canada decision on private copying as a positive step in clarifying unauthorized file sharing as an illegal activity.
"For years, those supporting unauthorized file sharing have misleadingly used the existence of the Private Copying Levy to justify illegitimate file sharing," says CRIA President Graham Henderson. "Today, the Supreme Court says 'no such luck.'"
By denying leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal's December 2004 decision, the Supreme Court has affirmed that digital audio recorders such as Apple iPods are not subject to the private copying levy because the hard drives embedded in them are "devices" rather than audio recording media. This means that unauthorized file sharing to hard drives of any kind - including those on home computers -- is illegal.
The decision follows closely on the introduction of federal legislation that updates Canada's copyright law, providing certainty for legitimate digital downloading services and bringing Canadian law in line with today's digital realities.
"The Supreme Court and federal legislators are aligning themselves with the silent majority of Canadians who view file sharing as an illegal activity," Henderson remarks. "Together, they are bringing certainty to the legal system. With certainty comes trust, and with trust comes investment, laying the groundwork for a robust legal market place. Now, it is just a matter of time."
Though the decision means that artists will not receive compensation for music obtained through unauthorized file sharing, Henderson points out that the levy has never properly compensated them for this black market activity anyway. The Private copying levy currently provides rights holders with approximately 2.8 cents per "lost sale" for copies made to blank CDs, and nothing for copies made to personal computers or, following today's decision, to digital audio recorders. At Puretracks or iTunes, rights holders receive 99 cents. Thus a single legal download sale compensates rights holders 50 times as much as the levy would.
You gotta love this guy, he pretends that he has the backing of the "silent majority" I think not.
It seems they are not going to be able to get any extra tax from you folks for purchasing new hard drives :lol:
The next peice of stupidity is the last statement he made, you all know that many of the disks used in your PC,s are for backup purposes, not for 100% audio recording as this fool tries to suggest, so he needs to do the sums again, let me see 2.8 cents for every backup Cd you own , hmm thats a lot of cents Canadians have been giving to the Cartels in return for nothing :x
-
:lol: :roll: yep it idoes..We are taxed enough already you don't need the cartel raising are taxes to fill their greedy pockets and not to the artist the claim to represent.
-
An interesting reply from the Canadian Recording industry Association to some points made regarding a flaw in the current law that makes even ripping to an !pod illegal.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=923
Michael Geist has correctly drawn attention to the unintended consquence of last week's Supreme Court of Canada ruling. It places people who legally acquire music and then copy it to their hard drives or portable devices in a legal grey zone. However, on behalf of the Canadian Recording Industry Association and its major label members, I can state that no action will be taken by CRIA against the "good guys." People who legally acquire music are the artists' best friends, and we do not intend to punish them.
This statement is certainly welcome news but raises issues. We should be clear that the SCC decision addresses portable devices, not computer hard drives. The issue of copying to computer hard drives remains an open issue.
While it is great that CRIA and its members have made this commitment, consumers are still not in the clear. Other rights holders in the same songs have not made a similar pledge and there accordingly remains the potential for liability.
I have edited the post slightly folks because it was full of good points, but we are not allowed to bring you the whole post.
My take on it ? Dont trust these folks not to exercise any extra rights they have in the future, demand your "fair use" rights back now before its too late.
-
Another article here from Slycks. this one is a further expansion of the C-60 bill that was mentioned a while ago
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=934
President of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) Graham Henderson who commissioned the polls said, "Not only does music file-swapping harm artists, but it also points to an erosion of respect for intellectual property that threatens Canada's economy and values at the core of our society," Graham Henderson added while referring to plagiarism in schools and Universities, "The 'if it's there, it's free' thinking extends far beyond entertainment products and software to ideas themselves."
A 2005 survey of 600 UK music fans, reported in the Guardian Online, (July 27, 2005) found that those who illegally share tracks over the internet also spend four and a half times as much on digital music as those who do not. Recent research out of Japan by a Keio University Economics Professor concluded that "Winny", the most popular P2P application in Japan, has had no effect on CD sales in Japan. In fact, the study found that P2P allows consumers to discover new music and so promotes music sales. For more on these studies, see CIPPIC’s FAQs on file-sharing, at the CIPPIC website.
Mr. Fewer is also troubled by CRIA’s unexamined claim that ever increasing intellectual property rights support Canadian competitiveness and innovation. “We encourage innovation by giving Canadians the opportunity to do build on existing knowledge, not by frustrating researchers and entrepreneurs with ever-tighter copyright laws. CRIA wants to eliminate essential user rights that enable research into digital security and software inter-operability. If Canadian policy makers are serious about seizing the Internet’s potential to secure future economic growth, we should focus on creating opportunities for Canadian artists and innovators, not choking them off.”
Theres a downloadable PDF report here for those who wish to read more regarding the copyright situation in Canada
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=970&Itemid=89&nsub=
Lets be in touch with reality here folks, if a theif manages to steal from the same people again and again the chances are they is going to keep on doing it till some outside force steps in to force them to stop, its a nasty habit the recording industry have gotten into :roll:
-
Hmm anothe feeble attempt at propaganda by the industry that seems not to have done its sums again.
http://www.canada.com/entertainment/story.html?id=7dc2907c-ec73-4082-937b-febe6a7ee8dc
The Canadian recording industry experienced its worst financial performance in six years in 2003 in the wake of bleak sales, declining new releases and a huge drop in profits, says a new study from Statistics Canada.
"This overall decline in sales raises questions about factors such as illegal file downloads and swapping song files," says the study. And the Canadian Recording Industry Association replies that it's what they've been saying all along.
Canadian record labels reported a little more than $708 million in sales revenue in 2003, down 17.7 per cent from 2000 and 20.5 per cent below 1998's peak.
Canadian artists' sales plunged 20 per cent between 2000 and 2003 to just below $110.4 million, although their market share remained stable at about 16 per cent. That's attributable to a decline in sales by foreign artists.
Total industry employment also fell, from 3,305 people in 2000 to a little more than 3,000 in '03.
Graham Henderson, CRIA president, said all of this is proof that illegal music downloading by young people is causing artists and the recording companies enormous harm.
Aside from the usual questions about who actually paid for this survey we should ask ourselves if the industry has kept pace with technology as that is more likely to have an effect on the amount of employees that any other factor and I note that ringtone sales and dvd sales and all the other paraphenalia of the music industry is not being included in this study , most strange that they wish not to include a few of their major sources of revenue :roll:
-
A political commentary regarding the oppresive C-60 bill.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=980
On November 2nd, the copyright bill was mentioned at the end of the session as having "devastating consequences for both educators and students" The Minister of Canadian Heritage denied that it would even touch the Canadian education system.
The website that talks about the bill paints a very interesting picture of the facts of Bill C-60. According to the information provided, "The bill makes it illegal for anyone other than the copyright holder to place a music file in a shared folder on a computer to which other users of a file-sharing program have access. Thus it will be illegal to upload music files onto on-line shared directories, as is the case when using Kazaa or BitTorrent, unless the person uploading the material is the rights holder of that material. Downloading music files for personal, non-commercial use remains legal under Bill C-60."
This is, indeed, a very interesting fact considering Graham Henderson, president of the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has been notably saying on many occasions that downloading copyrighted materials is illegal even without Bill C-60. So who is right? Graham Henderson or the people who wrote the report for the official website of the Canadian Parliament? Surely the government of Canada would know about something of this magnitude and wouldn't the job of a president of a large company be far more interested in his or her business, or in this case, the members of the record industry in Canada ?
At the bottom of the article in a small 5 line paragraph, there is a little footnote in the conclusion that mentions the CIPPIC (Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic) who has, largely been known for voicing opposition against these Copyright movements. In the article, the CIPPIC said, “One of the fatal flaws of copyright reform in Canada over the last 20 years is that there’s been a failing to ensure that there is anyone representing ordinary Canadians.”
If you haven’t noted this already, this article mentions how it was reported that downloading copyrighted works would still be legal even if Bill C-60 passed as it is. However, Bill C-60 allows a notice and notice regime. This clearly opens the doorway to frivolous lawsuits and scare tactics already seen in the United States.
I still suggest whatever happens to this bill its wise to keep up a dialogue with your elected representatives or lose your voice in this debate by default.
-
Great News folks the giant has been stopped in its tracks by those who decided it was too much bad news come election time.
:D
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1011
Since the government voted non-confidence, Paul Martin needs to call an election which disrupts the order of business. Having said that, Bill C-60, the infamous copyright reform bill has yet to make it to the second reading. There is also talk of Bill C-74, which is the Canadian surveillance bill, which seems to have gained less attention in the media. What will happen to these bills?
C-60 and C-74 are now history. Both bills have been scrapped. That said, the issues both bills addressed have not gone away. Regardless of the identity of the government elected January 23, we will see more copyright and lawful access legislation. Hopefully, the next government will address the warts of both laws while retaining their sounder elements.
Bill C-74, the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act, would force communications providers to build surveillance back-doors into the hardware that routes our phone calls, Internet traffic, and more. At the same time as increasing surveillance capacity, it would allow law enforcement agencies to obtain certain identifying information about internet and phone subscribers (name, address, telephone number, email address, IP address) without a warrant.
Canadians should be concerned because this would increase state surveillance capacity while removing a legal safeguard designed to protect us from unjustified surveillance. See our news release under "CIPPIC News" at the CIPPIC website.
The benefits include greater capacity of law enforcement to identify and pursue criminals, while the cons include greater opportunity for law enforcement abuse of their powers (e.g., investigating innocent people).
As I said in the post above, keep an eye open for overpowerful legislation or lose the traditional rights that underpin our way of life.
-
Is there a way to have that in french ?
-
Hi Kadabra I suspect if you use the babelfish translator to "translate the page" it may be passable but definitely not perfect :?
http://world.altavista.com/
I hope that helps a little, we do not have the services of a full time translator but one day we hope to be able to help in every language we can.
-
You can read the bill's in these links in french.
C-60 bill (http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-60/C-60_1/C-60_cover-F.html)
C-75 bill (http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-74/C-74_1/C-74_cover-F.html)
-
Thanks Guest 8)
-
Yes, sorry to not reply earlier; found them with Google. :wink:
-
This article covers the Shaw and Rogers rip off companies who mess with p2p "Traffic shaping"
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051208.gtjkcolumndec8/BNStory/Technology/
Rogers Cable, like other cable companies, has in fact been implementing something it calls "traffic shaping," a technology that gives priority to certain on-line activities (such as e-mail, browsing, voice communication) and putting the brakes on other less time-sensitive stuff, such as swapping music files.
In fact, the complaints I received have come from people who noticed the difference when they use peer-to-peer technology specifically to swap music files — and lest we forget, that activity is still legal in Canada, unless and until whichever government we elect next month passes a law banning the activity.
A comment from a reader on the same subject.
When I first approached Shaw they vehemently denied the use of the Ellacoya device.After I confronted them with proof in the form of a wave file with the Shaw president talking about the new Ellacoya devices they were using, they quickly changed the tune to: "We do not discuss the tools Shaw uses internally".after that time, I decided to no longer use any Shaw services
Its nice to see these companies being exposed for the rip offs they truly are, folks paying for a service should receive it.
-
A new organisation folks that will face the industry and demand fair rights for consumers not the industry.
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_12.php#004244
Online Rights Canada Launches with EFF, CIPPIC Support
Toronto - Online Rights Canada (ORC) launched in Canada Friday, giving Canadians a new voice in critical technology and information policy issues. The grassroots organization is jointly supported by the Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
"Canadians are realizing in ever-greater numbers that the online world offers tremendous opportunities for learning, communicating, and innovating, but that those opportunities are at risk as a result of corporate practices, government policies and legal regimes that hinder online privacy and free speech," said Philippa Lawson, Executive Director and General Counsel of CIPPIC. "Online Rights Canada provides a home on the Internet for grassroots activism on digital issues that are important to ordinary Canadians."
"With the Canadian government preparing for a January election, all of last year's legislation is back on the drawing board. Canadians now have another chance to present a public interest perspective on issues like copyright reform and increased government surveillance," said Ren Bucholz, EFF's Policy Coordinator, Americas. "We are happy to be launching ORC at such a critical time."
One of ORC's first actions is a petition drive against unwarranted surveillance law. A bill proposed in Parliament last month would have allowed law enforcement agencies to obtain personal information without a warrant and forced communications providers to build surveillance backdoors into the hardware that routes phone calls and Internet traffic. The petition asks Canadian lawmakers to protect citizens' privacy rights when the new government convenes in 2006. Other important issues for ORC will include copyright law, access to information, and freedom from censorship.
"Today, ORC focuses on digital copyright and lawful access. But there is no reason to restrict the site to those two issues," said CIPPIC Staff Counsel David Fewer. "Our hope is that ORC will evolve into the first place to go for Canadians looking for opportunities to protect their online rights. Anyone can be an activist - Online Rights Canada will give you the tools you need."
Sounds like a good idea to me to at least present a united front to further the aims of those not towing the Cartels party line of greed and legal thuggery.
-
I really don't see a problem with what Shaw's doing here. (I'm completely ignoring the guy who lied about using it, but that's jsut stupid, and whoever did it should het his ass fired.) I've seen routers that cost upwards of a thousand dollars just because they have that ability. I would certainly rather have more bandwidth allocated to my Skype calls and streaming media than to my file downloads. Downloads can wait; streaming literally can't.
-
The thing is Lysander they are not informing the customer of this when they take their money and that is plain thieving as they know they are not going to provide a service they are contracted to.
I suspect the public will quite rightly vote with its feet and leave those who want to gain spam mail more efficiently on Shaws obviously overstretched network.
-
This article raises serious concerns over the canadian parliments "impartial" credibility :x
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1057&Itemid=89&nsub=
Kapica emphasizes the U.S. focus of the hosts of the event and the absence of many from the Canadian cultural community. While I think that point is a good one, I think it misses the larger issue. The problem with the fundraiser is not that the President of CRIA is a host and that his partner is providing the entertainment. The problem is that the Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage, the former chair of the Canadian Heritage Standing Committee, the chair of the Ontario Liberal caucus, and the key player in the Bulte Report should not be having any fundraisers with any copyright stakeholders four days before a national election. The perception is that this is pure influence peddling, a perspective that is only fuelled by Bulte's appearance at the head table at CRIA's National Press Club event in the fall, of Bulte and Graham Henderson together in Washington, DC in September, etc.
As one private emailer noted, if the CEO's of the major banks held a fundraiser for Finance Minister Ralph Goodale days before the election it would be a national scandal. So too if the CEO's of the major telecommunications companies held a fundraiser for Industry Minister David Emerson or the CEO's of the oil companies held one for Environment Minister Stephane Dion. Quite simply, no elected government official should be seen to be favouring one group of stakeholders by accepting large campaign contributions or hosted fundraisers.
Dirty work and possible pay offs from an industry that knows no better :roll:
Folks remember the names of the officials here and write to your elected representative asking what is going on.
-
Does this should affect for who we should vote ?
-
When you decide to vote for someone you are electing them and as such hiring them collectively as a community, they are working for you so thats all you need to be sure of , that they will work for you come voting time.
Always make your own choice of who to vote for, look at what they are offering before deciding to vote is the best policy.
-
It would seem Sony are in for more bad news after the recent flawed DRM scandal was slowly subsiding.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1051
Three lawsuits were launched in Canada. One in Quebec ((English translation by Google) in November 2005. Recently, there were complaints from Ontario and British Columbia. All the moves are aimed at Sony BMG's rootkit technology as well as the MediaMax "spyware". The technology is found in music albums, as authorized by Sony BMG.
The lawsuits raise a number of issues concerning the DRM in the CD's. Complaints include: violation of the Canadian Privacy Act (since MediaMax gathers users' information, uses their internet connection and sends information about the user to a third party - Sony BMG), breach of contract (as the rootkit technology was not mentioned in the End User License Agreement), violation of the Competition Act, and a host of other claims against the technology in the albums.
Hang em out to Dry :twisted:
-
A commentary here on the statements regarding "revenue loss" by the recording industry
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/6002/revenue_declines.html
Various Canadian legacy intermediary industry associations, for example branch-plant versions of foreign industry associations such as the CRIA, CAAST, and CMPDA, often tell us how much of a decline in revenue they're observing.
They then ask governments to "fix" this problem.
I don't doubt the major labels and similar associations have seen a decline in revenue. I also don't doubt that there's been a decline in revenue with the distribution channels they control, such as the retail of mechanical media.
Russell McOrmond
But I strongly believe their plights shouldn't matter to anyone but themselves.
The health of intermediaries such as the CRIA members has nothing at all to do with the health of the music industry. The relevant parts of the music industry are songwriters/authors, performers and their audiences/fans. The people are exploring a full spectrum of methods of production, distribution and funding, including some which skip these intermediaries.
Anything they do to increase their revenue by skipping the middle-man is obviously going to show up as a decrease in revenue for that unnecessary middle-man
I think this makes the point rather simply that just because an existing section of the music industry sees a small dip in profits it should not be the job of ordinary citizens via the goverment to prop that section up financially using public cash.
-
It seems the concerns of the ordinary citizen is being sidestepped by "back door" donation taking from vested interests.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1060
One of the biggest issues during the election for digital rights activists was the Sam Bulte Incident where various Copyright Stakeholders planned to host a fundraiser for her. She later denounced the idea of calling it a 'fundraiser' (and for those who read the invitation, it actually does say 'fundraiser' on it) and claimed that it was merely a celebration. Whatever one calls it, it came with a hefty price of 250 Canadian dollars (which today would be about 214.65 USD, 177.68 Euros or 122.19 Pounds) per plate. On top of this, Michael Geist also notes, "Her 2004 riding association return posted on the Elections Canada site shows contributions of $67,737 (the fifth largest total among Ontario Liberals). That amount breaks down as $38,789 from individuals (57 percent), 19,848 from corporations (29 percent), and $9,100 from trade unions (13 percent), which include several copyright collectives."
This raised serious concerns for many Canadians. In response, Online Rights Canada decided to throw a bash of their own to counter the fundraiser and deliberately hosted it one hour before the Sam Bulte event near the same location.
Of course, trying to sneak quietly in the background, Bev Oda, a Conservative MP was reported to have "accepted donations from the same groups." Perhaps it was wise of her not to be so vocal in an effort to detract attention.
Later, Sam Bulte was captured on video (a video that has since spread) calling the EFF, Michael Geist and Canadians everywhere 'pro-user zealots'. A sentiment by the Copyright Stakeholders as they try and discredit boingboing by stating that "Its all crazy and false." They even go further by calling people like David Fewer "The piracy lobby."
The notion Sam Bulte claimed to have was that she supports artists. It was a notion quickly slammed by Canadian musician Matthew Good.
Dirty Politicians discredit the whole country, and taking donations while asking the people to pay your wages via parliament is dirty as far as I'm concerned.
-
I see that the folks decided they didnt want an industry stool pigeon, well done folks.
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/23/hollywoods_mp_loses_.html
The Canadian MP whom copyfighters loved to hate has lost her job and the election. Sam Bulte was the Liberal Party Member of Parliament for Parkdale/High Park, my old riding, and she was embroiled in a scandal when it was revealed that she had financed her election campaigns at the entertainment industry's expense, and subsequently brought down proposal for extremist, US-style copyright laws.
In last night's Canadian elections, Bulte lost to New Democratic Party opponent Peggy Nash by 2213 votes.
Toward the end of her campaign, Bulte became increasingly desperate, but she really scraped the bottom of the barrel when she threatened to sue her critics and then published an editorial in the Toronto Star that lifted passages from Canadian Recording Industry Association speeches and literature nearly verbatim.
I hope this illustrates to other aspiring politicians that when you forget who is paying your wages and decided that any method to get where you want is ok, dont be suprised when the voters decide your not worthy of the job.
-
More good news here for those wanting compensation for Sonys illegal actions, major suit number 4 :)
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1082
The lawsuit claims that Sony-BMG had breached the manufacturer’s warranty, the terms under the EULA (End User License Agreement), and the consumer protection legislation. If the defendants are found guilty, they could be paying 65 million dollars in damages and aggravated damages, exemplary damages and punitive damages totaling 25 million dollars.
The lawsuit also states, "While Sony eventually recalled the CDs on November 30, 2005, in Canada, that contained XCP system, the web-based uninstaller by then developed was investigated by noted researchers Ed Felton and J. Alex Halderman, who discovered that the ActiveX component used for removing the software exposed users to far more significant security risks, including arbitrary code execution from any site on the internet."
The lawsuit notes that since March of 2005, Sony distributed 52 music titles with XCP, shipping 5 million CDs and selling 2 million of them. In Canada in particular, "Sony BMG distributed at least 34 titles with XCP...Approximately 120 thousand CDs were sold..."
Attacking peoples computers is a crime, and crime commited openly should be a warning to many that its time to take notice of the many underhand deals that pave the way for unjust legislation.
Sony must have at least half believed its own propaganda to have even tried to hide behind its EULA (end user licence agreement ), luckily the law didnt.
-
and if i had a penny for every million they've lost... i'd be bankrupt
Ahem. What the cartels SAY they lost .
-
Interestingly simple take on filesharing law. :)
http://www.ancasternews.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=brabant/Layout/Article&c=Article&cid=1139526656630&call_pageid=1069766796189&col=1073476868071
If all that Mark Cripps wanted to do was download music for personal and private use, then the right to do so exists and is paid for by a levy on blank audio recording media such as blank CDs.
These copies must be private copies, meaning they are never sold, loaned or shared. He could not share these files, meaning he could not use BitTorrent or other P2P tools which automatically share as files are received as the copy he would be making would no longer be a "private copy."
There is also misinformation on the other side. There is a common mistake in believing that if unauthorized downloading is legal, then unauthorized file sharing sharing is also legal. All the misinformation that the past government and the major labels have been spreading claiming that there was a need to change the law to make unauthorized file sharing illegal didn't help.
When the major labels sued to try to get the names of 29 people who had allegedly been sharing music, the reason that they lost was because of a lack of evidence. It is obvious that if you are going to claim unauthorized sharing that you are going to need to at least download a song and listen to it - something the labels failed to do.
I,m sure the links on that page would be more circumspect on the matter but it is a fact that due to this "levy" system you are free to download for your own private consumption, uploading of course is another matter.
-
More interesting debate has taken place that will affect Canadians recently.
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/6313facd6836dbf60e15be4aeeb17c69/index.html
The Copyright Board of Canada last week released its proposed tariff for 2007 for the private copying levy. The numbers remain unchanged: 21 cents per CD-R. As prices have dropped, however, the levy now frequently comprises a significant percentage of the retail price. Consider the purchase of 100 blank Maxell CDs. Future Shop retails the 100 CDs for $69.99. The breakdown of this sale is $48.99 for the CDs and $21.00 for the levy (even worse is a current Future Shop deal of 200 blank CD-Rs from HP, which retails for $59.99. The levy alone on this sale is $42.00 (200 CDs x 21 cents/CD) which leaves the consumers paying $17.99 for the CDs and $42.00 for the levy).
This results in a huge distortion in retail pricing when compared to the U.S. market which does not have a levy system.
As usual the content industries and the CD manufacturers are only to be expected to try to grab as cash much as possible, they are after all on their knees according to their own propaganda, something that is never bourne out by their own figures :lol:
Lets move on to the next story of interest ..
http://billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/news/business/leg_reg/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002074650
The CRTC’s last review of Canadian commercial radio was in 1998, when the quota of domestic music for English-language stations was increased from 30% to 35%. The CRTC stated then that a future review of the quota would take place after five years, when a further increase might be implemented.
Speculation of an increase to 40% CanCon—which insiders expect the Canadian Independent Record Production Assn. to seek—angers many broadcasters. But one source notes that some 40 of the 60 new stations that have signed on since 1998 have been licensed by the CRTC with a CanCon quota of 40%.
“CIRPA cannot ask for less than 40% when so many broadcasters at [license] hearings have said that 40% is no problem,” the source says. “At the same time, broadcasters are behind the eight ball with 40% being usually promised.”
Slaight agrees. “Anyone trying to get a license in a market knows someone else will put 40% in. Usually, it’s a new player in the market who figures if they don’t put 40% in, they aren’t going to get in the game.”
CIRPA executive director Cori Ferguson downplays talk of a 40% quota, but admits, “We are supportive of more Canadian content rather than less.”
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada general counsel Paul Spurgeon says the authors’ rights society will file a submission March 15 seeking even higher CanCon quotas.
“The Broadcasting Act states that radio broadcasters have to make predominant use of Canadian creative resources in programming. Our view is the Canadian content requirement should be 51%.”
French-language radio stations have a quota of 65% French-language music—international or domestic—alongside the 35% CanCon requirement. As a result, Montreal-based Union des Artistes and ADISQ director general Solange Drouin says an increased domestic quota is not a priority for the trade body.
“Our concern is [lack of format] diversity on-air,” Drouin says. “We hear all the same tunes on radio. We want the CRTC to look at that problem.”
Hmm, as usual no effort is made to actually ask the public what they want , but then history is full of governing bodies claiming to "know whats good for us" , take care folks :D
-
Music Sales Fall 4% in '05, International Body calls for Copyright Reform
The downward spiral of music sales in Canada
resumed in 2005 as illegal file swapping exacted a high toll on the country's artists and music industry.
New figures released today came with a warning from the head of the recording industry's international trade body that Canada is being left behind
in the fast-growing digital music business that last year topped US$1 billion worldwide.
Net music sales in Canada declined by $23 million, or 4 percent, to $608.7 million in 2005, the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA)
reported today. The decline resumes an almost decade-long spiral paralleling the rise of music file swapping on the Internet, and follows a brief respite
in 2004, when sales briefly stabilized.
"It's astonishing that a sophisticated nation like Canada has dragged its feet for so long while the rest of the world has adapted its copyright laws to
the digital age," says John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). "The digital music world is moving on - Canada must move with it, or its whole music culture will suffer."
Illegal file swapping continues unabated in Canada - with an estimated 1.6 billion music files swapped online annually, according to Pollara - in the
face of outdated copyright laws that fail to properly safeguard intellectual property in the digital age.
In contrast with Canada's situation, worldwide music sales via the Internet and mobile phones tripled year-over-year to US$1.1 billion in 2005
and are expected to continue climbing rapidly, according to a recently released report from IFPI. Digital revenues have leapt from zero to 6 percent
of record company revenues globally in the last two years - far greater than in Canada, where digital revenue comprises less than 1 percent of total sales.
IFPI's Digital Music Report 2006 shows that Canada is losing out by not updating its copyright laws to protect intellectual property in the digital
environment, as have its major trading partners. The report reveals that in the United Kingdom and Germany, which have implemented digital copyright
reform, legal buyers using sites like iTunes and MSN now exceed illegal file-swappers.
By contrast, illegitimate downloads outnumber legal sales by hundreds of times in Canada, which is cited by the OECD as having the largest online piracy rate per capita in the world. The IFPI report further finds that half the people who have cut down on file-swapping in Europe, where most countries
have enacted digital copyright laws, have done so out of concern for the legal consequences.
"As legal downloading surges ahead in other parts of the world, Canada is marooned on the sidelines," says CRIA President Graham Henderson. "The goal of
a vibrant digital marketplace in Canada will remain beyond reach until our legal environment encourages people to buy music instead of passively accepting theft on the Web."
Canada's failing digital music marketplace is illustrated by online sales of Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl." The hit release recently became the first single to achieve online sales of 1 million songs in the United States. In Canada, by comparison, Hollaback Girl has barely surpassed 20,000 legal downloads. Based on population size and factoring in Canada's relatively high broadband penetration rate, Canadian sales should have been in the 150,000-download range.
"Aided and abetted by a vocal fringe group that embraces a Wild West Internet culture, the minority of Canadian consumers who steal large amounts
of music are unlikely to stop until our country's copyright laws are modernized," Henderson remarks. "Until that happens, young Canadian artists
struggling to build their careers face the bleak prospect of further declines in the legal market."
According to a Pollara survey conducted during Canada's recent federal election, the vast majority of Canadians want copyright reform. The study
found that 91 percent of Canadians want the work of musicians, artists, composers, authors and others to be protected by copyright to ensure they get
paid for copies of their work, while 74 percent believe the country's laws should be made to conform to international standards and treaties on
copyright.
Canada's failure to modernize its copyright laws has come at considerable cost to the economy. A recent study conducted for the Canadian Alliance
Against Software Theft (CAAST), an industry alliance of software publishers, found that software piracy rates in Canada are significantly higher
(36 percent) than those of major trading partners such as the United States (21 percent) and the United Kingdom (27 percent) that have enacted digital
copyright reforms. As a result, Canada has lost more than 14,000 jobs and suffers $7 billion in annual economic losses in the software industry alone.
For Canada's music industry, the rise of file-swapping coincided with a 41 percent - or $541 million -- decrease in retail sales of pre-recorded CDs and cassettes between 1999 and 2005 and a 20 percent loss in employment.
Source : broadcastermagazine.com (http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?sCallFrom=%2Fissues%2FISArticle%2Easp&id=53227&issue=03022006&btac=no&btac=no&bell=true&tested=true)
Drop in music sales signals that lawsuits are likely
Kevin Restivo, The Financial Post
Published: Thursday, March 02, 2006
Canadian music sales fell 4% last year, a drop that likely means the Canadian recording industry will initiate a fresh round of lawsuits against illegal file sharers this year.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association said music sales dropped to $608.7-million, down from $631.7-million in 2004 as more people obtained music from rogue Internet sources such as Limewire and Kazaa. Sales fell again last year after stabilizing in 2004.
CRIA president Graham Henderson said the lawsuits are necessary to stop falling sales in Canada.
"We have the right to do it," he said. "We know how to do it."
Illegal music sharing in Canada has led to $541-million in lost music sales since 1999 when Napster popularized Internet file trading.
"I am not rubbing hands with excitement so that I can sue people but we will do it out of necessity but you have to attach consequences to actions," he said. "It will happen if we don’t see any progress. We cannot allow Canada to be a haven for this activity. People are becoming increasingly blasé about [file trading]."
Mr. Henderson didn’t say when the group will start suing Canadians. "You are not going to wake up tomorrow to a wave of lawsuits."
CRIA, he said, may wait for the federal government to make amendments to the country’s Copyright Act. In June, the Liberals introduced the bill to stop copyright infringement that has become pervasive with the rise of peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa.
CRIA still needs the names of illegal file sharers to initiate the lawsuits. The Federal Court of Appeal last year upheld a ruling that said the country’s Internet service providers didn’t have to give up the names of 29 people CRIA said were trading large amounts of music illegally over the Internet. The Toronto-based organization needs the names because people’s identities are often hidden by pseudonyms, such as geekboy@kazaa.
The court, however, laid out a road map for the industry for the music industry to legally obtain the names of active downloaders.
Phil Leigh, an analyst with Inside Digital Media in Tampa, Fla., said music companies could potentially solve their problems by selling music that works with all digital music players. For example, Apple Computer Inc.’s iTunes store only sells music that works with its popular iPod device.
"The biggest problem is no one is going to buy music, that cannot be played on the iPod. If everyone offered files in multiple format, everyone’s sales would go up," he said. "They have not lost a generation of people or anything. People don’t love music less than they did in the past."
John Kennedy, head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, said lawsuits have helped stem the problem in other countries such as the United States. The Recording Industry Association of America has sued 16,350 individuals since December, 2003.
Financial Post
krestivo@nationalpost.com
© The Financial Post
Source: canada.com (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=458115ea-dfc0-4338-9d6a-b4ef45a9ea82&k=85282)
-
This is something for us to look forward to folks :D
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060303.gtdatabase0303/BNStory/Technology/home
Two Canadian copyright groups have announced they will co-operate to create an on-line database of published works that have entered the public domain.
In what they describe as a "ground-breaking project," Access Copyright and Creative Commons Canada say they will create the "most comprehensive" searchable catalogue of published works that are no longer protected by copyright law.
The aim of the registry is to determine whether a published work is in the public domain. The registry will also link to digital versions of the work, and provide information about where a paper copy of the work can be purchased.
The project will develop in two stages, organizers said. First they will create a comprehensive registry of works; then eventually, the registry will expand to include the published works of creators from other countries.
The public-domain registry will be a non-profit project and freely accessible to the public on-line.
This sounds a very big and exciting project, one I suspect will take some years to realise but a worthwhile endeavour that its creators can be proud of I,m sure.
-
US threatens Canada
p2p news / p2pnet: Hollywood and the Bush administration have drawn even closer together.
US "lawmakers" have named six countries including China and Russia and, wait for it, Canada, as targets in their new Keep the Big Six Studios' Bottom Lines Healthy campaign.
With Mexico, India and Malaysia, the countries will be monitored, "for continuing copyright piracy problems," says CNET News.
Canada is on the Hollywood shit list because of "lax border measures" that let in pirated products from East Asia, Pakistan and Russia, the lawmakers said, according to the story.
With Hollywood mouthpiece China Dan Glickman of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) jetting back and forth to Beijing, and with various above and under-the-table accords in place, China is slowly falling in line, although Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney are keeping up the pressure with US trade rep Rob Portman up front.
Russia, however, is still proving difficult, and China Dan appeared there, waving a big stick, just as the US was closing bilateral negotiations with Russia on its possible inclusion in the World Trade Organization.
Will Canada's new prime minister, Stephen Harper, now have Glickman on his case? And will the country soon announce a joint US/Canada 'trade' association aimed at bringing Canada into the fold as another tightly and strictly controlled Hollywood sales division?
The release of the watch list update, "comes as the US government plans a round of trade talks with China starting Tuesday," says CNET, adding:
"Russia is working hard to fix copyright privacy problems, and the Russian parliament has worked on combating piracy in hearings this year, said a spokesman for the Russian embassy."
There was no reported comment from Ottawa.
source: p2pnet (http://p2pnet.net/story/8462)
-
Brief interview with Canadian Heritage Minister Beverley J. Oda
Simon Doyle at the Hill Times managed to catch Minister Oda right after the throne speech. To her credit, she was gracious enough to give him a brief interview.
Simon Doyle: "Copyright is something that you'll probably be looking at sometime down the road and today they mentioned in the Throne Speech that major treaties will go through Parliament. The copyright treaties, is that something that you might vote on in Parliament?"
Bev Oda: "The three pieces of legislation that were in the Throne Speech were put in the Throne Speech because they will be bills of existing legislation that will be reviewed. Copyright legislation has to be amended to make our copyright laws and ratify the international treaties."
Simon Doyle: Does that mean you would vote on the treaties as well as the..."
Bev Oda: "No, you would have to introduce amendments to the existing copyright legislation. The copyright legislation that was introduced by the previous government, once it was tabled, it did die on the order paper, but once it was tabled created a lot of dissension. There were different views on many elements of that bill. Consequently we are working and we will be introducing a new copyright bill that will expedite meeting our international obligations but also making sure that we have a copyright regime and a copyright framework that's appropriate."
Source: excesscopyright.blogspot.com (http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2006/04/minister-oda-transcript.html)
Quoted from the The Hill Times. (http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/april/10/politics/&c=1)
Conservative government to introduce copyright bill: Bev Oda
The Conservative government intends to amend the Copyright Act and ratify two internet treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization, Heritage Minister Bev Oda told the Hill Times last week after the Speech from the Throne.
"Copyright legislation has to be amended to make [compliant] our copyright laws and ratify the international treaties," Ms. Oda (Durham, Ont.) said. "We will be introducing a new copyright bill that will expedite meeting our international obligations but also making sure that we have a copyright regime and a copyright framework that's appropriate."
The WIPO Internet treaties have been a source of some controversy because they give owners of copyrighted works more control over the use and distribution of music, movies, and other content in the digital age. The treaties, adopted in Geneva in 1996, would clarify file-sharing as copyright infringement in Canada, for example, making it easier for the recording industry to sue file-sharers. They would also make it an infringement to crack the technological copy and access controls on digital content.
While the major recording companies, book publishers and other copyright owners support ratifying the treaties, their critics point out that Canada is not under any international obligation to implement their requirements, and should rethink their ratification.
The Liberal government had introduced a bill at the end of the 38th Parliament that, if passed, would have made Canada compliant with the treaties, but it died on the order paper.
Ms. Oda did not say when the legislation would be introduced, but since copyright is not one of the government's much talked-about five priorities, it is not expected to be introduced in the spring session. The Throne Speech also said that major international treaties would be voted on in Parliament, leading some to wonder whether the ratification of the WIPO Internet treaties would come to a vote.
"Let's hope that this Government has not made up its mind already on the WIPO treaties," Ottawa copyright lawyer Howard Knopf, a critic of the treaties, wrote on his blog last week. "Many would consider that to be a less than funny trick."--by Simon Doyle
-
CRIA Falling Apart
April 15, 2006
Drew Wilson
The CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) is going through hard times. It seems as though after several bold steps failed, the industry is paying the price for it. It may explain why their last press release was published on March 15.
The Sam Bulte incident last year may have kicked off the beginning of the Record industry troubles. As a result, an MP lost her seat and possibly her career. The incident was sparked shortly after the debate over two controversial reform bills ended.
The CRIA then conducted a study with Pollara. The CRIA then claimed that file-sharing is the reason for lost sales. The claims were then tarnished when the full report was publicly released. Michael Geist criticised the CRIA's claims. To his surprise, Pollara responded, defending the CRIA's interpretation. Michael Geist then responded to the criticism. Pollara's move may have backfired as it fuelled speculation about connections between the polling firm and the CRIA.
CRIA's Graham Henderson said that he would end the private copying levy. It's a move that would have many effects. The largest effect is the private copying collectives who receive the funds. One effect is the legal consequence of CD burning should the levy be removed. At the same time, Graham Henderson said "we don't want a private copying levy that, in effect, sanctions online theft." Many critics point out that this is confirmation that the private copying levy also applies to file-sharing.
The damage done by the two incidents ran far deeper then a PR setback. Shortly after, 6 of Canada’s leading record labels quit the CRIA. According to the article, "(CRIA is) looking out for their best interest, and their best interest is multinationals that are not Canadian," said Ric Arboit, president of Vancouver-based Nettwerk Records. Nettwerk is known for top Canadian artists (such as Sum 41, Swollen Members and Avril Lavign), Save the Music Fan and funding the defence of an RIAA lawsuit. Nettwerk Records, Aquarius Records, the Children's Group, Linus Entertainment, Anthem Records and True North Records (all class "B" labels) all quit with a letter that states, "It has become increasingly clear over the past few months that CRIA's position on several important music industry issues are not aligned with our best interests as independent recording companies".
The actions drew concern from the Copyright Board. According to Howard Knopf, a lawyer who defended against the CRIA, "The Board then did something quite interesting. Apparently out of concern for the Indies, it ordered CRIA to send notices to the Canadian Indies in the following language: “CRIA recently opted to change the scope of its representation of its members’ interests in the forthcoming proceedings before the Copyright Board dealing with CSI’ s proposed tariff for the reproduction of musical works by online music services. Subsequently, the Board ordered CRIA to advise you of the following:
1) In these proceedings CRIA has chosen to act only on behalf of (name of each member that CRIA represents).
2) As a result, CRIA will not be allowed to advance any argument or lead any evidence that relates to your situation in particular, or to the situation of any other member of CRIA that CRIA does not represent in these proceedings generally.”" The CRIA strongly opposed this.
Not only is the CRIA suffering a tremendous PR blow, but are also suffering commercial blows as well. One may wonder just how Canadian the CRIA is after so much Canadian music labels left. Michael Geist comments how the C is being removed from the CRIA. He even cites these incidents while talking about Canada's 'cultural deficit'.
With so much ailing the CRIA, it likely is the reason why the CRIA has been so quiet lately on the PR front. It's likely that the CRIA can't do much except go quiet and heal from this multiple disaster. Perhaps the last thing the CRIA wants to hear is 'MC Lars - Download This Song' at this point in time.
slyck (http://slyck.com/news.php?story=1154)
Check out http://savethemusicfan.com/ and watch a interview with Terry McBride CEO of Nettwerk Music Group that he did on CBC The Hour.
-
A group of popular Canadian musicians have established (PDF) the Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC) in an effort to sway public policy in a direction that they believe is beneficial to consumers. Concerned by highly restrictive DRM technology and the escalation of lawsuits that target consumers, the CMCC wants to promote intellectual property law reforms that will prevent the recording industry from trampling on consumer rights:
Multinational record labels are vocal in their desire for changes to copyright laws that would facilitate lawsuits against our fans and increase their control over the enjoyment of music. To our alarm, the labels advance these demands not merely on their own behalf, but in our names as necessary for the well-being of individual Canadian musicians in the digital age. Today the people who actually create Canadian music are speaking out for themselves.
Comprised of leading popular musicians and groups including Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, and Sarah McLachlan, members of the CMCC have collectively won dozens of Grammy awards and have sold millions of albums. In a policy paper (PDF) available from the CMCC web site, the artists establish principles for copyright reform and condemn the exploitative tactics of the recording industry association. Describing lawsuits brought against fans as "destructive and hypocritical," the musicians take a stand against litigation and excessive statutory damages, affirming their opposition to the recording industry association's legal assault on alleged pirates:
Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against our will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in our names. We oppose any copyright reforms that would make it easier for record companies to do this. The government should repeal provisions of the Copyright Act that allow labels to unfairly punish fans who share music for non-commercial purposes with statutory damages of $500 to $20,000 per song. ... If there is a threat to Canadian artists, it is not p2p downloading or sharing music but lawsuits brought by the recording industry against our fans.
The CMCC also speaks out against DRM, which is characterized in the policy paper as "risky and counterproductive." The CMCC insists that DRM technologies erode Fair Use rights and increase the recording labels' control at the expense of consumer freedom. Citing the Sony rootkit fiasco, the CMCC points out that "[t]he use of digital locks is decreasing consumer confidence in entertainment products and leading to resentment of the music industry as a whole." Advocating the implementation of a "more flexible concept of Fair Use," members of the CMCC oppose DRM as well as laws against DRM circumvention:
Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels’ control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music or laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures. The government should not blindly implement decade-old treaties designed to give control to major labels and take choices away from artists and consumers. Laws should protect artists and consumers, not restrictive technologies. Consumers should be able to transfer the music they buy to other formats under a right of Fair Use, without having to pay twice.
Although fans, consumer electronics companies, consumer advocacy groups, and journalists have all vocally criticized the conduct of the recording industry, this is the first time a large group of prominent musicians has articulated dissatisfaction with the attitude and policies of the major labels. Here at Ars, we frequently point out that the real target of the recording industry's anti-consumer legislation is Fair Use rights rather than piracy, and now it looks like the artists agree, but will that be enough to convince legislators?
Power to the... corporations?
Many believe that the support of major corporations will make or break consumer-friendly copyright reforms in the west. The Consumer Electronics Association has joined the fray with an advertisement that criticizes the recording industry, but not everybody in the consumer electronics business wants to promote the restoration or protection of Fair Use rights. Apple, for example, leverages DRM and the DMCA to perpetuate its anti-competitive lock-in practices on the digital music market, effectively blocking out competitors by selling music with the infamous (un)FairPlay DRM which is only compatible with Apple's portable music player. Many other consumer electronics companies use similar tactics, and can be expected to vocally oppose reforms designed to restore Fair Use rights.
arstechnica.com (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060427-6686.html)
-
Most online Canadians are "deadwood" according to the CRIA head
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1174
After the CRIA's study backfiring and the major fallout of the major Canadian labels leaving the CRIA on top of the formation of the CMCC which attempts to stop DRM and Canadian lawsuits, the CRIA recently decided to fight back in the media.
CRIA's (Canadian Recording Industry Association) president Graham Henderson gave a speech.
He made several comments on Canada on the international front, but a bulk of it was around the WIPO treaty.
Graham brought his speech back to the WIPO treaty by claiming, "WIPO rules are by their nature measured and balanced - notwithstanding the nonsense emerging from the Deadwood saloons... Canadians will continue to steal other people's property until we tell them it is wrong" .
On the other hand, a recent additional provision was touted as a "Podcast killing" provision. While Graham repeatedly stated that nobody is stopping content creators from giving away their content for free online, he never made mention of this
During Henderson's speech, he likened Canada to "Deadwood", an HBO TV series. .
So "deadwood" and "anarchists" and "theives", sounds like this guys losing it to me, feel free to write to him if you dont like the names he is calling you and the rest of Canada.
-
Online Rights Canada Launches Grassroots Copyright Campaign
Online Rights Canada, a joint initiative of EFF and CIPPIC, has launched an important new grassroots campaign on copyright reform. With Canadian musicians speaking out in favour of balance, ORC is ensuring that individual Canadians can easily have their voice heard as well. The campaign makes it easy to write to your local MP (electronically and in print) to remind them of the dangers associated with DMCA-style copyright legislation
Source:michaelgeist.ca (http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1238/Itemid,85/nsub,/)
From onlinerights.ca (http://www.onlinerights.ca/) Support Balanced Copyright Reform
During the last Parliament, Bill C-60 provided some sensible approaches to copyright reform in Canada, but it also left room for improvement. Rumours from Ottawa indicate that copyright reform is being discussed heavily at the moment, and that new legislation could be out within weeks. It's vital that you tell your MP that any new legislation should be an improvement on Bill C-60, not the retreat being urged by big copyright holders. Use our new mail-your-MP tool to send a letter today!
Send a letter to your MP here. (http://www.onlinerights.ca/get_active/copyright_reform_action/)
-
It seems some of the political entities are starting to take notice of the artists concerns as opposed to the music mafias bleated distortions of what the artist is looking for from politicians.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1180
The CMCC (Canadian Music Creators Coalition) is making headway in the Canadian government recently. After Steven Page of the Barenaked Ladies made some Copyright Reform Recommendations and the CMCC sent an open letter to the ministers, it appears that the Coalition efforts is actually paying off in government.
The CMCC was reportedly meeting with Canadian ministers to discuss copyright reform. Shortly after the meeting, the NDP (New Democratic Party) issued a statement. The statement said, "NDP Heritage Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) says the emergence of the star-studded Canadian Music Creators Coalition (CMCC) is a welcome addition to the long simmering war over copyright legislation. The Coalition is in Ottawa to meet with Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Heritage Minister Bev Oda.
The CMCC intervention comes as the government discusses legislation that could have wide-ranging impacts for music fans, educators and software innovators.
I hope the discussions are fruitful and a third way forward is suggested that does not compromise the artists rights of those of the consumer, a fair balance is good for all .
-
I found this news story dated May 8th in Dose a small free news paper in my city I tried to find the news article on there site & tried to find the 39 page report commissioned by Heritage Canada but I couldn't find either of them , so I had to type the article instead of copying & pasting it.
Industry Profits Up Despite Downloading
The Canadian music industry isn't just surviving the mp3 revolution - it's thriving.Since 1999, mainstream record labels have enjoyed an almost 60 per cent jump in profits, due mostly to industry business changes, according to a new government report.Technology remains the "wild card" for the entertainment industry's economic future.
The canadian music industry is growing faster then the country's economy, despite the setbacks it has faced from widespread illegal music downloading, according to a report commissioned by Heritage Canada.
The 39-page report document reveals that between 1999 and 2004 music sales decreased by about 35 per cent - but the industry's gross domestic product contribution jumped from $243 million to $387 million.
"Evidence suggests..that the (industry) has demonstrated steady growth through the 1999 to 2004 period - precisely the same period of years that have seen a significant reduction in products sales, " concludes the report, alluding to the popularity of illegal file-trading networks.
The country's four major record labels made money despite a drop in sales thanks to industry consolidation, staff layoffs and improvements in production and distribution technologies.
The study's producers included the recent increase in royalty payments to music publishers.
Profitability has not softened the industry's stance against illegal downloaders.The Canadian Recording Industry Association(CRIA) was in Federal Court in March, seeking to force Internet service providers to release information on downloaders.The request was turned down.
But not everyone in Canada's music biz agrees with CRIA's tactics.Last week, a new union of Canadian musicians - including the Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne and Broken Social Scene - formed the Canadian Music Creators Coalition.They oppose the CRIA's tactics od sueing illegal downloaders and putting copy-protection tecgnologies on music.
"for a very long time, we have allowed industry groups to speak on our behalf,"said Steven Page of the Barenaked Ladies." we want that time to stop." - CNS
-
It looks like there wont be a major rush to change the existing law, also this gives the politicians time to ask for a "donation" from the Cartel perhaps ?
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1183
Try as many sides might, it looks like Copyright reform isn't going to really happen right away. David Fewer of CIPPIC (Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic) told Slyck.com, "The government is actively consulting on copyright issues. They wouldn't be doing that unless they were looking at legislation. We don't believe the government has yet taken a position on copyright or given drafting instructions, and no one has said we are going to see a bill in the fall, but all indications are that the government is looking to get itself in the position to do something along that timeframe."
With copyright reform seeming to be a good distance away yet, it seems likely that the CRIA will have some time to get back on their feet after the six major Canadian labels left them. Recent movements in the media from the CRIA suggests that they aren't wasting any time. One critic titled a recent entry, "Protect artists - From Graham Henderson"
So far we have seen a few ideas shot down and many more enter the discussion, perhaps this time could be used to reach a compromise that is of benefit to all parties involved , including the consumer.
-
It looks like the showdown is arriving in Canada folks
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1191
In the letter Canada's Privacy Community states, "DRM [Digital Rights Management] is used by some copyright holders ostensibly to control access to and use of copyright works. In fact, DRM technology can be used to override fundamental privacy protections. DRM typically uses surveillance to monitor and collect detailed information about people's access to and use of creative works."
"Rather than consulting on privacy and considering copyright law reforms that would protect Canadians from the use of DRM (as an increasing number of commentators have suggested we should do), our former government proposed copyright reforms that would provide protection for DRM. Proposed 'anti-circumvention' provisions would make it illegal for people to circumvent copyright holders' DRM. Such legal provisions could cripple Canadians' ability to protect their privacy and to enjoy copyright works in private, free from copyright holders' DRM 'spyware'."
"We seek assurance that:
1) any proposed copyright reforms will prioritize protection by including a full privacy consultation and a full impact assessment with the introduction of any copyright reform bill;
2) any proposed anti-circumvention provisions will create no negative privacy impact; and
3) any proposed copyright reforms will include pro-active privacy protections that, for example, enshrine the rights of Canadians to access and enjoy copyright works anonymously and in private."
There follows a powerful list of folks who all agree that DRM that breaches folks privacy should not be allowed, and that the law should recognise this serious aspect before making circumvention a crime.
I agree, laws that do nothing to protect citizens from illicit information gathering and serious security damage are poor tools and so are those who pass them.
-
The student youth of Canada are making their voices heard regarding copyright issues.
http://action.web.ca/home/cfs/en_alerts.shtml?x=88910&AA_EX_Session=7e6b979cd279b08397596bfd9b79867b
Dear Ministers,
Re: Copyright Legislation
I am writing on behalf of over one-half million members of the Canadian Federation of Students.
In the next year, Parliament will likely examine a Bill to amend the Copyright Act. Students in Canada are greatly concerned about reasonable access to information and knowledge as digital technology increasingly plays an instrumental role in learning and research. Canada’s students have concerns with respect to calls from other stakeholders for legislation that would restrict access to materials on the internet and impose unwarranted and unmanageable fees on libraries, educational institutions and students. We are writing to urge the Canadian government to reject proposals for restrictive copyright laws, and to instead embrace policies that will support Canada’s vibrant and open knowledge community.
There is more to read at the link above but its great to see the younger elements of our society making their opinions heard on this serious and far reaching issue that will have an effect in the future on many of their scholastic activities.
-
It seems some folks like to hide the facts and mislead the public, this is the report mentioned by P2P in his post above.
http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/columnists/story.html?id=5114c251-08a8-490a-aace-f37c9c00b18c
In recent years, the Canadian copyright industries have outperformed the U.S. with respect to growth rates and contribution to national employment. These facts are worth noting when critics of Canadian copyright law claim that Canada needs to emulate U.S. policy in order to achieve economic success.
The report's authors were clearly surprised when the economic data contradicted their stated thesis. Warning that "these findings should be treated with caution," the study reports that the Canadian sound recording industry grew steadily from 1999 to 2004, with the GDP contribution jumping from $243 million to $387 million.
Given that a 10-per-cent reduction in employment is unlikely to inject an extra $150 million into the Canadian economy, the report's authors might instead have considered the fact that Canadian music labels have enjoyed unprecedented success in recent years. With the major foreign multinationals reporting 20-per-cent employment reductions, the data suggest that Canadian record companies, who are responsible for 90 per cent of new Canadian releases, are providing a counterbalance to the multinationals' struggles.
With the economic success of copyright industries, the strong Canadian performance in comparison to the U.S., and the exciting economic growth of the sound recording sector, this Canadian Heritage-commissioned study may leave Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda and Industry Canada Minister Maxime Bernier wondering why there is any reason to mess with a Canadian success story.
Interesting report, I hope we get to see the final release as it has been paid for by the Candian public.
-
The recent copright debate has artists also looking to protect fair use rights on their own brand of creatiity.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1213
While Graham Henderson, president of the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has mentioned many times that Canada needs to put in legislation that mirrors that of US copyright law, other groups such as the CMCC (Canadian Music Creators Coalition) and (now) the Coalition of Canadian Art Professionals seem to disagree directly or indirectly. All these groups seem to be passionate about Canadian art and its relationship with up and coming copyright legislation, yet they encompass very different opinions on how to protect art and the artists - a clear sign that this debate has no clear answers.
So now that this Coalition has sent an open letter, what are the points being made?
FAIR ACCESS TO COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL LIES AT THE HEART OF COPYRIGHT.
Creators need access to the works of others to create. Legislative changes premised on the “need” to give copyright owners more control over their works must be rejected.
ARTISTS AND OTHER CREATORS REQUIRE CERTAINTY OF ACCESS.
The time has come for the Canadian government to consider replacing fair dealing with a broader defense, such as fair use, that will offer artists the certainty they require to create.
ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION LAWS SHOULD NOT OUTLAW CREATIVE ACCESS.
Laws that privilege technical measures that protect access to digital works must be rejected. The law should not outlaw otherwise legal dealings with copyrighted works merely because a digital lock has been used. Artists work with a contemporary palette, using new technology. They work from within popular culture, using material from movies and popular music. Contemporary culture should not be immune to critical commentary."
Certainly, these demands by this group which represent intellectual property creators share similar concerns as expressed by the CMCC just two months earlier, another group which represents artists. The difference is that the Coalition of Canadian Art Professionals is more focused on fair dealing, or what the US version of this is, "fair use". In fact, fair use is actually specifically mentioned as an example to protect creator’s interests. At the same time, both the CMCC and the Coalition of Canadian Art Professionals reject the need to legally prevent anti-circumvention and most of them are supporting the philosophy of fair dealings and fair use
Lets see this group be ignored also, there not much cash in listening to an artists wants or needs.
-
More dirty work folks by the media Cartels intent on stealing again from the consumer.
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/june/12/geist/&c=1
The Harper government's Federal Accountability Act has served as the centrepiece for bringing greater accountability and transparency to the workings of the federal government. While that legislation may have an impact, new documents pertaining to the March 2 event, obtained under an Access to Information Act request, provide a compelling illustration of the power still wielded by lobby groups.
It envisioned a meeting with the Canadian Heritage Deputy Minister Judith LaRoque, two hours of presentations from speakers sympathetic to CRIA's position, lunch with deputy ministers from Heritage, Industry, and International Trade, and a private meeting with the soon-to-be named Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The presentations lamented the absence of criminal sanctions from Bill C-60 and dismissed privacy concerns that have been associated with U.S.-style copyright laws as unfounded (last month, four Canadian privacy commissioners as well as dozens of privacy groups and academics, including the author, issued public letters expressing misgivings about the privacy impact of potential copyright reform).
In recent weeks, several groups, including the Canadian Federation of Students, the newly-formed Canadian Music Creators Coalition, Appropriation Art: A Coalition of Arts Professionals, and the aforementioned privacy community, have stepped forward to publicly call for a balanced approach to copyright reform that puts the interests of Canadians and Canadian artists first. Lobbyist-backed closed door meetings and private lunches at taxpayers' expense do little to instill confidence that those calls are indeed being heard.
It seems open debate is not the way to size politicians up for "donations" perhaps ?
I think if politicians follows a path dictated by vested interest to the exclusion of those who elected that person to office they should step down and stop stealing from the electorate they are paid to represent.
-
More valid concern from those charged to document and educate society.
http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1300/Itemid,85/nsub,/
The Canadian Library Association is meeting this week in Ottawa and the association is marking the occasion by releasing a public letter to Ministers Bernier and Oda on copyright reform. Representing 57,000 library staff and thousands of libraries, the CLA recommends "caution and reflection". Should the government move on copyright, the CLA focuses on two issues - anti-circumvention legislation and fair dealing. On anti-circumvention legislation, the letter supports linking TPMs to copyright infringing purposes and warns against the privacy implications of TPMs. On fair dealing, the letter states that "Canadians will not tolerate a copyright regime that requires licenses for uses that are covered by the fair dealing provisions of the Act."
The eternal fight seem to continue to stop those who own copyrights placing their selfish greed above all other concerns, surely educating our children is not something that should have to be defended against ?
-
Perhaps something interesting here for Canadian users :)
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/2505
COPYLEFT EVENT TAKES SHAPE !
The CRA’s Fall event has a name and very soon will have it’s own website. It will take place at Ryerson University’s new Student Campus Centre on September 28, 29 & 30th and it is being sponsored by the School of Journalism. It will open on the Thursday evening and run over Friday and Saturday. We have billed the event as opportunity for artists and creators to share information and experiences about working on/with the Internet. As announced in Briefings #35, it will feature an electronic salon showcasing some of these projects.
Artists and activists from across Canada and from abroad will be on hand to discuss their work and their experiments with new forms of contracts (such as the Creative Commons licence) and innovative business models. There will also be discussions touching on the key themes of IPS and general licencing, of open source and the Internet.
For discussionto be effective is has to backed by action folks but its a great part of human behaviourthat we should cherish and defend.
-
It seems everyone is demanding to have their views taken seriously in the ongoing copyright debate.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1230
The CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has demanded and lobbied the government to adopt a copyright reform that closely mirrors the United States. The CRIA also insinuated in a speech in early May that Canadian content creators are being represented by the CRIA. Never mind the 6 Major labels leaving the CRIA incident back in mid-April, and the Pollara dispute, major interests groups have stepped forward and demanded a copyright reform that actually does not reflect what the CRIA wants.
Over the months, one by one, interest groups have taken interest in the copyright debate and submitted open letters to the government demanding what the CRIA would more then likely disagree with.
So one thing is clear, many organizations do not want DRM inhibiting creativity, criticism and privacy. Certainly an interesting move on these organizations part.
There is a detailed list of those who have signalled an interest in this debate and they are not the run of the mill organisations that a goverment would want to be seen to ride roughshod over, more details can be found in the article.
I think we will see some softening of any proposed regulation affecting DRM circumvention and an a halt to the expected handing over even more rights to a commercial Cartel.
-
Bad news time again folks, online freedom under attack yet again.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060627.gtsecurity0627/BNStory/Technology/home
One of Canada's largest Internet service providers is warning its customers that Big Brother is lurking on-line, with the federal government expected to revive an Internet surveillance bill.
If the legislation is reintroduced, it could allow police unfettered access to personal information without a warrant, experts warn.
Bell Sympatico has informed its customers that it intends to "monitor or investigate content or your use of your service provider's networks and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other governmental request."
Bell Sympatico's new customer service agreement, which took effect June 15, is a clear signal the telecommunications industry expects the Conservative government to revive the surveillance law, said Michael Geist, an Internet law professor at the University of Ottawa
Geist said Bell's new customer service agreement shows that Canadian telecommunications companies are already preparing to comply with new on-line surveillance legislation.
Bell Sympatico did not return calls requesting an interview.
Geist fears police will be able to demand customer information from Internet providers without having to make a case before a judge, opening the door wide to an abuse of civil rights.
I agree with Michael, allowing just anyone unfettered access to records of online activity with out legal excuse is open to major abuse and is is like telling a two year old child not to steal candy from a low rack, you know that its going to happen at least once before you can remedy the matter.
-
A more worrying state of affairs continues here I see.
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1239
While many concerns have been raised over what was in Bill C-60, concerns are starting to surface over what was specifically in Bill C-74. These concerns come from the CBA (Canadian Bar Association).
According to an open letter, there was a concern over "a trend by Internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor or investigate their customers' communications, similar to proposals in Bill C-74 from the 38th session of Parliament, the Modernization of Investigative Techniques Act (the Bill)."
One recent article states, "One of Canada's largest Internet service providers is warning its customers that Big Brother is lurking online, with the federal government expected to revive an Internet surveillance bill.
If the legislation is reintroduced, it could allow police unfettered access to personal information without a warrant, experts warn."
The open letter continued, "The CBA is concerned that ISPs are amending their service agreements with customers to announce that they will "monitor or investigate" how customers user their services, and will "disclose any information necessary to satisfy any laws, regulations or other government request from applicable jurisdiction." This seems to be introducing a corporate or industry content monitoring scheme, without the necessity of prior authorization or oversight."
I think we can all see the concern being expressed here of anyone with a grudge and enough cash being able to gain access to records of your online activity, rather than the current procedure of a court order being required.
Moving away from the tradition of respecting the privacy of your customers could place the ISP in the role as the "morals police", I suggest they back away from peering to deeply into customers activities, before their customers back away from them.
-
For your interest on topic here's a recent notice from my ISP here in Canada which also has the best user privacy policy in Canada:
Greetings,
On <June 20 2006> Bell Sympatico received a complaint from the BayTSP,
Inc.. They claim that activities associated with your account infringed
copyright protected material, where this material is owned or
exclusively licensed to one or more BayTSP's Members. As you know,
copyright infringement is an illegal activity.
BayTSP has provided Sympatico with the following details concerning the
alleged copyright infringement:
------------------------------
Evidentiary Information:
Notice ID: 54037
Asset: Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Protocol: WinMX
IP Address: **.***.***.***
DNS: toronto-HSE-ppp4263312.sympatico.ca
File Name: Star Wars III - Revenge of The Sith.avi
File Size: 732424192
Timestamp: 18 Jun 2006 02:21:05 GMT
Last Seen Date: 18 Jun 2006 02:21:05 GMT
URL:
WinMX:?ip=**.***.***.***&port=6257&sip=***.***.***.**&sport=6257&pip
=***.***.***.**&user=Skipper
Username (if available): Skipper@**.***.***.***
------------------------------
At no time has Sympatico disclosed your personal information to BayTSP.
However, at the time in question this specific IP address was assigned
to your Sympatico account (********). Should you have any questions
about this complaint, we suggest you communicate with MPA at the contact
information provided below:
Sarah Bergman
Compliance Manager
BayTSP, Inc.
PO Box 1314
Los Gatos, CA 95031
v: 408-341-2300
f: 408-341-2399
Under your agreement with Bell Sympatico and according to our acceptable
user policy ( http://aup.sympatico.ca ) you are prohibited from using
our service to engage in activities that infringe copyright. This
letter is to notify you that should Sympatico receive any further
complaints regarding alleged copyright infringement associated with your
account, your Sympatico service may be suspended or terminated without
prior notice as per our acceptable use policy.
For further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at
abuse@sympatico.ca. We thank you for your cooperation in this matter
and trust that you will comply with our policies and all applicable laws
in using our service.
Regards,
***** ******
Karen Block
Service Abuse Investigator
Bell Sympatico Member Services
abuse@sympatico.ca
If your unaware who the BayTSP are they're the self-proclaimed Internet Police that do most of the dirty work for the RIAA/MPAA/FBI they get paid 100's of millions annually to hunt us down they're the ones responsible for the hits on MX/KaZaa/LimeWire/eXeem & others
my IP has been ** out for personal reasons
well thats how it is here anyway I'm interested in your comments. :wink: 8)
-
i had to have a laugh at that attempt at a URL, lol
-
I dont think I have ever seen one of these directed at a Winmx user, many are of course sent out per week to bit torrent users (200, 000 infact ), I note you also use that method.
While I have sympathy for you receiving this letter it does seem to be the usual scare letter we hear about.
I have so far only seem winmx mentioned in a Hong Kong case, involving 22 users, I took that news with a pinch of salt after remembering they claimed something similar in 2003 that turned out to be untrue, it is mostly the larger P2P networks that are targetted and in a haphazard fashion.
More interestingly, looking at what you have posted its clear that there is no proof that you in fact had the alleged file, the port mentioned is the UDP port and would therefore have been only the result of a simple search, no proof that the file is genuine seems to have been provided aside from a name in a shared folder, this hardly constitutes any kind of legal proof.
I once again make clear here that we at winmxworld urge all users to follow there local laws whatever they are and while it is our understanding that in many countries it is fully legal to download for your own pleasure, uploading is of course a different matter and you are urged to look closely into your rights and use the winmx program responsibly in accordance with the terms of its license, the responsibility is yours alone.
-
I thought you would find it humourous it was an ul I was caught on apparently. My ISP had no response to that when I accused them of allowing me to be hacked on their network BayTSP doesn't target specific p2p apps it does packet sniffing on the net to locate files their paid to track down this is not a new file either & this is the e-mail I received I don't take it seriously whatsoever I have received them for fasttrack gnutella & a few others they haven't shut me down yet & I know I'm not the only one receiving these Bell Canada is an extremely tolerant ISP(I think its as long as the bills paid, lol) :lol:
-
Packet sniffing the contents of winmx on the net is not possible due to an encryption key being exchanged by clients, they would need to be using either custom software to join the network or a winmx client.
Of course on many other networks there is not even this simple protection.
-
This announcement was recently made by the the Canadian government.
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2006/nr-c_060714_e.asp
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, today announced that 11 organizations will be awarded a total of $388,319 through her Office’s Contributions Program for research into emerging privacy issues, including surveillance technologies, privacy policies aimed at children and the use of DNA in the criminal justice system.
“The rapid advancements of technology and greater demands for personal information make it imperative for Canadians to be provided with sound analysis of privacy challenges and issues,” says Ms. Stoddart. “The research carried out through our Contributions Program is helping to create a stronger privacy knowledge base and to foster public dialogue.”
This is the third year that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) has run its Contributions Program since its launch in mid-2004. The Program was designed to support non-profit research that furthers the development of a national research capacity in Canada in the broad spectrum of issues impacting privacy. Research under this year’s Program will touch on a variety of other interesting topics, including the certification of privacy professionals, digital rights management technology, health privacy and the de-identification of personal information. This is the largest amount of funding that has been awarded to researchers in the Program’s history and twice as many institutions are being funded in comparison with last year.
It seems to me that privacy is under attack and very much stimulating public concern if the Government is willing to hand out funds for the delivery of a report detailing the impact of all aspects of privacy in a citizens life, online or off.
I of course am more than concerned about the gradual and general erosion of rights from the citizen that in the same breath are being snapped up by fair means or foul by paid commercial interests, business should not have a say in how the government safeguards the rights of its citizens, democracy is not for sale at any price.
-
Downloading in Canada: the fallacy
p2pnet (http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9601)
p2pnet.net News View:- While I've written about it in the past, the fact the media and others are still publishing the fiction promoted by the major labels suggests it's worth reminding people of the legality of unauthorized p2p sharing of music in Canada.
Many believe unauthorized p2p of music it is perfectly legal in Canada.
In fact, the industry is promoting this fiction in the hopes of using it in their lobbying efforts to get the Canadian government to implement the 1996 WIPO anti-Internet treaties.
The more people believe this falsehood, the stronger CRIA's case will be in front of parliament.
The fiction is based on a misrepresentation of the federal cases from 2004 and 2005, namely BMG Canada Inc v John Doe (F.C.), [2004] 3 F.C. 241, 2004 FC 488 (CanLII) and the Federal Court of Appeals decision BMG Canada Inc v John Doe (F.C.A.).
The short-form of these cases isn't that unauthorized sharing is legal, but that the recording industry didn't provide adequate evidence that there was infringing activity.
Canadian law differs from US laws in this case in two important ways: our private copying regime and our advanced privacy laws. The first says the unauthorized keeping of private copies of recorded music isn't an infringement, regardless of the source, as long as it isn't further shared or distributed. Our privacy laws requires that a court order be issued before the names of customers attached to Internet addresses be disclosed. Our privacy law ended up requiring that the major labels provide evidence before they were able to get names, exposing their lack of evidence before they could terrorize potential defendants into paying protection money to settle out of court.
-
Some useful news here for the future.
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=uri:2006-08-20T032309Z_01_N19414772_RTRIDST_0_CANADA-CANADA-COL.XML&pageNumber=0&summit=
Hearings that could dramatically alter the way labels and publishers share online music revenue in Canada begin September 6.
The proceedings, before the Copyright Board of Canada in Ottawa, will mark the first time the federal-appointed tribunal considers rates for the online sale of music.
CSI seeks tariffs in three categories of online music use: permanent downloads, limited downloads as provided by subscription services and on-demand music streams
For permanent downloads, CSI proposes a rate of 15 percent of the retail price with a maximum of 10 cents Canadian (9 cents) per track. For subscription services offering limited downloads, CSI proposes 8 percent of gross revenue.
CSI further proposes that services authorizing copying of musical works onto portable devices pay a minimum fee of $1.40 Canadian ($1.24) per subscriber per month, while services that do not allow portability pay a minimum of 60 cents Canadian (53 cents) per subscriber.
On-demand streaming services will be asked to pay 5.8 percent of gross revenue with a minimum monthly fee of 45 cents Canadian (40 cents) per subscriber.
Of course this is something the Canadian recording industry association (CRIA) oppose, although no reason(s) for their stance have been given as yet.
-
It seems the CRIA is no longer supporting Canadian music interests but those of the big international Cartels.
http://www.slyck.com/story1327.html
Following CRIA’s decision that it would no longer represent certain of its members (“the B Class members”) before the Board in this proceeding, the Board ordered CRIA to send a notice to its members saying that it had been instructed by the Board to advise them that it would not be representing the B Class members in the proceeding before the Board and that this was CRIA’s decision, not the Board’s."
Who are these "B class" members? Perhaps the most well known examples were the 6 major Canadian labels that left. In essence, the "A class" would be the big four multinational record labels. The 6 labels that left in April were Nettwerk Records, Aquarius Records, the Children's Group, Linus Entertainment, Anthem Records and True North Records. For a better understanding of how big these labels were, Nettwerk housed major acts like Billy Talent, Sum 41, Avril Lavign, Broken Social Scene, and Barenaked Ladies. These labels left on the basis that CRIA is not representing their interests, but merely representing the interests of the multi-national labels.
Its nice to see that the Canadian labels decided to withdraw their support when they saw the lay of the land, its likely this single move will ensure they have the support of many Canadians who are fed up with being threatened and lied to by the overseas Cartels.
-
Hmm more worrying revelations over who is paid what and by whom while working for the people as a govenment minister.
http://www.slyck.com/story1341.html
As reported by Michael Geist, it all started with a comment made by the NDP Heritage Critic. Charlie Angus said, "Mr. Speaker, next week, the heritage minister is holding a major fundraiser and, for the price of a ticket, one gets access not just to the heritage minister but to the industry minister. The woman who is flogging the tickets for the minister just happens to be Charlotte Bell who is head of regulatory affairs for CanWest. She just happens to be the go-to gal for industry trying to influence the upcoming regulatory review affecting both heritage and industry.
The broadcast review happens in two weeks. The cash grab happens next week. Why is the minister using her office to trade political access for political contributions?" Bev Oda responded, "Mr. Speaker, I have observed every rule existing right now. I concur with the President of the Treasury Board that we need to get the accountability act enacted, which we could, in fact, do this afternoon, but I would still be adhering to the laws next week."
During the exchange, it sounded like she was going to go ahead and have a fundraiser with lobbyists interested in new broadcast policies. This was despite the idea of introducing legislation that would stop this from occurring. Would history repeat itself as it did with Sam Bulte? No. Hours after the revelation that a fundraiser was being organised by a someone lobbying Bev Oda's department, the event was cancelled. According to the article "The minister was not aware Charlotte Bell was registered to lobby Canadian Heritage," [Ms. Oda's spokesman, Chisolm Pothier] said, "To avoid any negative perception, she decided to cancel the event."
I think this shows folks that if you allow politicians to make friends with vested corporate interests at the expense of the public then its reasonable to assume the public wont like it.
Politicians: remember who pays your wages.
-
More activity by the politicians.
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/november/13/timeout/&c=1
Heritage Minister Bev Oda has recently confirmed that her government's "intent and plan so far" is to introduce a copyright bill this fall. If this happens, and the bill satisfies certain special interest expectations, it would be a dramatic departure from the Conservatives' promising March 19, 2005 policy declaration and very controversial indeed. I fear that the government has been misinformed and even misled by some lobbyists, and may not realize what lies ahead. The bill could contain two main thrusts that would be deeply divisive and likely be seen as unnecessarily pro-American and contrary to Canada's interest.
The most obviously contentious problem would be excessive anti-user digital rights management and technical protection measures (DRM + TPM).
These could serve to strangle much new technology and threaten basic access, the public domain, fair dealing and other users' rights.
This fellow seems rather cheery eh folks ?
Not having a crystal ball myself I think its best to wait for some sort of statement of intent before speaking against policies and plans that are based on pure guesswork.
Of course to ensure things are not pushed through in an undemocratic way be sure to stay vocal about retaining your existing rights.
-
This is good news folks as long as "creep" does not start to take place.
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2006/11/24/2473836-sun.html
Project Cleanfeed Canada, based on a similar campaign in the United Kingdom, stops child pornography websites from loading, making it seem as if they don't exist.
Only the big ISPs have signed on so far -- Bell, Bell Aliant, MTS Allstream, Rogers, Shaw, SaskTel, Telus, and Videotron -- and are only blocking between 500 and 800 websites, but it's an excellent start for a project that will surely grow, said RCMP Supt. Earla-Kim McColl.
"Those that are looking for these types of sites will not be able to access them once they've been reported," she said, adding that the service will also prevent web surfers from unintentionally loading child pornography.
The system could go online for some ISPs within weeks and may take as long as three months for others, said Lianna McDonald, executive director of Winnipeg-based Cybertip.ca, the national child sexual exploitation tipline that spearheaded the program.
As long as the filtering is kept to sites hosting this sort of disgusting material then I believe that this is an acceptable cirmunstance for filtering to take place.
-
Whatever happend to the days of truth, honesty and a good reputation in politics and business ?
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/2829
Mr. McTeague's article contains the same controversial statistics we are constantly needing to refute from the BSA/CAAST. The BSA counts the number of computers shipped, over-estimates the demand for people running their member software, subtracts the number of boxes they actually shipped, and declares the difference as "software theft". In reality that difference also includes everyone who is legally using Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) which does not have a per-unit cost (marginal cost) and thus are not counted the same way as BSA member software. What the BSA is really fighting against isn't "software theft", but their major FLOSS competitors which represent the fastest growing part of the software industry.
Mr. McTeagues confuses controversial copyright issues with the largely separate issue of counterfeiting. Nobody has a problem with the government enacting laws to deal with commercial counterfeiting where someone is making money by illegally pretending someone elses work is their own. What we are critical of is enacting legislation based on things such as the 1996 WIPO treaties which are aimed not at reducing harmful commercial copyright infringement, but at reducing competition for the incumbent industry association members. If Canada is to become more competitive we need to support innovation and competition, not tie ourselves to an ever increasing trade deficit with the United States by outlawing Canadian competition to incumbent US companies
As always it seems the fashionable trend from those receiving "benefits" from the BSA/MPAA/RIAA to trot out erronious statistics to the people who pay their salary, yes the Canadian public, perhaps this fellow should learn to count before taking up such an influental position ?
While we have corrupt politicians who feel no shame in deluding the public, a serious debate of the question of public good V's business revenue protection can never take place.
-
Its seems that already we are seeing another politico on the "take" an important one at that :x
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/national/article.jsp?article=2007_1_16_1168981292
Under the heading "Canada's about to have a copyright disaster," Cory Doctorow - boingboing.net's Toronto-based co-founder - warned that the new legislation would "plunge Canada into the dark ages" and "[outdo] the USA for sheer boneheaded lunacy." Including contact information for Heritage Minister Bev Oda and her opposition critics, Doctorow called on the site's readers - more than two million unique visitors a month, according to one estimate - to send in their "cool-headed objections" to any bill that failed to balance user rights with corporate interests.
After discovering that Bulte - then the parliamentary secretary for heritage - had been the guest of honour at a pre-election fundraising event hosted by lobbyists for the Canadian Recording Industry Association, online activists dubbed her "Hollywood's Member of Parliament" and drew attention to the thousands of dollars in campaign donations she had received from leading players in the copyright lobby.
Now, Doctorow is threatening to make Oda's life equally difficult - already noting that she's similarly been backed by rights owners. "We kicked Oda's predecessor out of office because she sold out the public on copyright," he wrote. "Oda's not far behind. MPs should represent the public. They shouldn't take money from giant corporations and then hand those companies laws that grant them windfall profits at public expense."
Its seems that most politicians that have a very pro recording industry outlook are receiving "donations", against the public interest and terms of their office, perhaps its time a few lawsuits where issued to discover exactly how many public officials are receiving contributions, then of course we could all democratically vote out those who abuse their office in favour of the recording industry who seem no stranger to the world of pay-offs, sorry I meant "donations".
-
As much as 50 per cent of the world's pirated movies come from Canada, prompting the film industry to threaten to delay the release of new titles in this country.
According to an investigation by Twentieth Century Fox, most of the illegal recording, or "camcording," is taking place in Montreal movie houses, taking advantage of bilingual releases and lax copyright laws.
In Quebec, it is much more advantageous because you get both English and French. You cover a bigger part of the world," said Ellis Jacob, chief executive of the Cineplex Entertainment theatre chain. "They are using Canada because they can have the movie out on the street in the Philippines and China before it even releases there."
Read more @ canada.com (http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=b3dea202-82da-4ad9-b6f8-277923bc1f6b)
I don't know why they're bitching about are so called lax copyright laws , we do have laws against camcording .If you are caught you can face criminal charges and jailed or fined up to $25,000.I guess that's not good enough for them.Movies theatres a cross Canada have gone as far as hiring security guards with night vision goggles and using other surveillance equipment to try to catch pirates. :shock:
A U.S. congressional committee has added Canada to the "country watch list" which includes China, Russia, India and Malaysia.
Hollywood threatens Canada (http://p2pnet.net/story/11140)
-
And the funny thing is...
Even if it does not come from canada, then it will eventually come from some other place.
As far as the countries in the "watchlist" they are likely to get more sales if they actually lower their prices a bit. It's way too expensive for most people, considering you get pirated version for a sixth of what you would have paid for a legal copy (atleast here :lol: ).
Cheers :P
-
von Finckenstein Named CRTC Chair
Mark Goldberg notes that Konrad von Finckenstein, a federal court judge and former head of the Competition Bureau, has been named chair of the CRTC. Notwithstanding the government's bio (http://www.pch.gc.ca/newsroom/index_e.cfm?fuseaction=displayDocument&DocIDCd=CBO061467), many online observers best remember von Finckenstein for his decision (http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/file-sharing-lawsuits/T-292-04.pdf) [PDF] to block CRIA's attempt to unmask 29 alleged file sharers armed only with faulty evidence.
michaelgeist.ca (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1638/196/)
-
The debate rages on between a Canadian artists representative group and the Cartels Canadian lacky organisation.
http://www.slyck.com/story1393.html
The new movement comes a little less than a week after an Access to Information Act request from Michael Geist revealed that CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association), one of the major proponents to anti-circumvention and restricting copyright laws in Canada, was found to have private meetings with the minister of Heritage on a monthly basis - a recent one to discredit the start-up of the CMCC.
The press release continues: “The CMCC sees the 2006 sales numbers – and the continuing success of the private copying scheme – as a sign that there’s no need to change Canada’s copyright laws to enable record companies to sue our fans,” explained Barenaked Ladies front man and CMCC co-founder Steven Page. “Our music download market is growing faster than those in the US and Europe. To us, that seems like evidence that the Canadian government should focus on empowering Canadian musicians and protecting Canadian consumers from potentially harmful technology.”
Changes to Canada’s copyright laws should reflect where our music business is going rather than looking back to where it has come from. Propping up old business models that favour multinational record companies’ interests ahead of those of Canadian artists just doesn’t make sense.”
The wholesale attempted theft of fair use rights is shown here to be in blatant full swing once again, the figures showing clearly that there is no financial loss occuring to justify any demands for stealing rights from the consumer in favour of a financial monopoly for non Canadian Cartel groups..
-
Yet more proof of the latest BS drive from the MPAA Cartel.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/178181
In recent weeks, Canadians have been subjected to a steady stream of reports asserting that Canada has become the world's leading source of movie piracy. Pointing to the prevalence of illegal camcording – a practice that involves videotaping a movie directly off the screen in a theatre and transferring the copy on to DVDs for commercial sale – the major Hollywood studios are threatening to delay the Canadian distribution of their top movies.
While the reports have succeeded in attracting considerable attention, a closer examination of the industry's own data reveals that the claims are based primarily on fiction rather than fact
Over the past two weeks, reports have pegged the Canadian percentage of global camcording at either 40 or 50 per cent. Yet the International Intellectual Property Alliance, a U.S. lobby group that includes the MPAA, advised the U.S. government in late September that Canadians were the source for 23 per cent of camcorded copies of DVDs.
As of August 2006, the MPAA documented 179 camcorded movies as the source for infringing DVDs since 2004.
During that time, its members released about 1,400 movies, suggesting that approximately one in every 10 movies is camcorded and sold as infringing DVDs. According to this data, Canadian sources are therefore responsible for camcorded DVD versions of about 3 per cent of all MPAA member movies.
It seems a fully fledged campaign to mislead is under way in Canada, perhaps it would be a good idea to make your representative aware of this article as its worrying the MPAA and their Canadian lackies cant calculate the difference between 40-50 % and 3%.
-
Good news folks :D
http://www.slyck.com/story1396.html
Over eight months after the initiative started, it appears that the initiative has already come to an end. Access Copyright announced on the official Captain Copyright website that "in the face of continuing opposition, the [Captain Copyright classroom] materials will not be used in the classroom." Access Copyright explained, "Under these circumstances there is no point in our continuing to work on this project."
Slyck takes a look at the 8 month initiative that ultimately fell apart and became officially shelved.
"Despite the significant progress we made on addressing the concerns raised about the original Captain Copyright initiative, as well as the positive feedback and requests for literally hundreds of lesson kits from teachers and librarians, we have come to the conclusion that the current climate around copyright issues will not allow a project like this one to be successful.
It is difficult for organizations to reach agreement on copyright issues at this time and we know that, in the face of continuing opposition, the materials will not be used in the classroom. Under these circumstances there is no point in our continuing to work on this project."
This then seems to be an admission that rather than have to inform Candian children about there "fair dealings/use" rights they would rather close the captain copyright site than present a balnced view.
The one good thing to come out of this of course is that public exposure for this kind of dirty tricks campaign led against our children has been the catalyst for the demise of those who sought to mislead at the behest of Cartel media organisations.
-
The Future of the Canadian Music Industry
Friday February 09, 2007
Canadian Heritage has just released a new report (http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/pubs/music_industry/tdm_e.cfm) [PDF version] (http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/pubs/music_industry/music_industry_e.pdf) on the future of the Canadian music industry that should be required reading for those engaged in music and copyright issues. Written by Shelley Stein-Sacks, the former head of the government's Music Entrepreneurship Program, the report is remarkable for several reasons.
1. The report is very realistic in its assessment of the challenges faced by the industry, pointing to the decline in sales following the CD replacement surge, the impact of Wal-Mart and retail channel changes, and the failure of the industry to provide consumers with music in the form and manner they were demanding.
2. It enthusiastically embraces the Internet and new technology, rejecting DRM-based solutions and acknowledging the potential of MySpace and Internet sharing to generate new revenues to replace those lost by declining CD sales.
3. It puts on the table the prospect of alternative compensation systems for P2P sharing.
4. It calls attention to the failure to digitize Canadian music, noting that government programs fund for the completion of CDs, not digitization that allows for downloads. Further, it laments that much of the Canadian back catalog of music has never been digitized.
5. There is not a single word about copyright reform. Copyright is discussed within the context of licensing issues and the copyright board, but there are no recommendations calling for major copyright reform.
6. It distinguishes between the music industry and the CD industry, with the former very healthy and the latter diminishing year-by-year. Left unsaid, though no less important, is to distinguish between the Canadian music industry, which is dominated by independent labels, and CRIA, which largely represents the industry outside the country.
michaelgeist.ca (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1670/125/)
-
Yet Another Camcorder Claim
Monday February 12, 2007
The Globe and Mail runs an interview (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070212.RJACOB12/TPStory/Business) with Ellis Jacob, the CEO of Cineplex Entertainment. He discusses camcording and in the process changes the claim yet again - after the industry claimed that 50 and 40 percent of camcorded films can be traced to Canada (while telling the U.S. government that it is 23 percent), Jacob now tells the Globe that it is 20 percent. He also raises another concern created by camcording, arguing that it "endangers our young employees, because they are dealing with hardened criminals for whom this is more lucrative than drugs."
michaelgeist.ca (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1673/196/)
CPCC Goes For Broke, Part One
Monday February 12, 2007
A remarkable week in music that started with the Steve Jobs call to drop DRM, followed by speculation that EMI will drop DRM, concluded with another critically important development - the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which administers the private copying levy, has asked the Copyright Board to increase the levy on blank CDs and add levies to electronic media cards (storage media) such as SD cards as well as digital audio players such as the Apple iPod. There is much to consider here, which I will divide between the specific issues raised by the tariff application and the bigger story that is at work.
Read the rest of the article @ michaelgeist.ca (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1671/125/).
-
American Cartel members are spamming Canadians notices trying to scare them into not downloading over p2p networks & claiming the p2p file sharing is illegal which we all know isn't true , it's what you share that could be illegal ie sharing copyright material that is owned by the cartels not using file sharing networks.Downloading is not illegal here either , it's uploading that'll get you into trouble here if they can catch you.
E-mail warnings deter Canadians from illegal file sharing (http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/02/14/software-warnings.html)
-
It looks like a good intentioned idea is likely to impact anyone using the internet in Canada as its scope is so wide many are likely to fall foul of it, more worrying is the implied censorship and political control system that comes with it, politicians will be deciding what to add to it next if its allowed to become law.
http://www.slyck.com/story1459.html
On the heels of the rumoured Copyright bill and the surveillance bill comes another bill that aims to 'clean up the internet', though some critics argue that the language in the bill is too broad and loose.
The bill, entitled the 'Clean Internet Act', was tabled by Conservative MP (Member of Parliament) Joy Smith on April 18th. According to Joy Smith's press release, "The Clean Internet Act goes further than the current legislation on Internet usage by requiring Internet service providers to co-operate in minimizing the use of the Internet for the purposes of violence and racial hatred toward women and child pornography. Internet providers will be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent to these types of material from being accessed and withhold service from persons who have been convicted by an offence under this Act within the previous seven years."
That sounds not so bad so far, until they decide that your favoured interest material should be on their list ..
So what about the bill itself? The bill suggests a number of things. One portion states, "No Internet service provider shall knowingly permit the use of its service [...] to advocate, promote or incite violence against women or hatred against any identifiable group or to facilitate participation in unlawful sexual activity involving any person under eighteen years of age."
So wrapped inside the bill here is the easter egg, "hatred against any identifiable group", this small but significant wording can be used to justify the take down of any website that does not agree with the governments current definition, and that definition could change many times as and when it suits them.
No one wants the mindless amongst the ranks of internet user to gain the upper hand but by penalising all users with broadly worded catch-all terminology is the freedom of expression being removed for political reasons, after all I regularly declare the RIAA/MPAA extortionists to be theives and akin to the Mafia, under this legislation its possible I may fall foul of the law and be forced to say they are nice folks, when its clear they are not.
There already exists current legislation to deal with those urging others to break the law in the normal criminal and sexual crimes sphere, and all this legislation is really proposing is to make it possible to force the ISP to close down anyone the government are not happy with or become liable themselves, web censorship then folks. Under current law the ISP not responsible for your activities and nor should it be.
I deeply am concerned that the abuse of children and violent acts against women is being used in this case as a dramatic method to shout down any opposition against something that is another name for web censorship, I hope I have made it clear that I do not support the physical abuse of anyone, I am merely concerned this legislation is not specific enough to safeguard our freedom to express ourselves, the word "hate" after all is something like the Grokster "incitement" , it has many meanings to many different people and thats really the problem.
-
Another interesting snippet from Michael Geist Folks
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1892/125/
The Copyright Board of Canada is currently conducting the Tariff 22 hearings with "the Coalition" (which includes CRIA and Apple) scheduled to appear next week. Public access to the parties' submissions typically excludes most financial information, however, the witness statement from CRIA President Graham Henderson contains an interesting piece of information. The statement features a breakdown of CRIA "anti-piracy" spending including:
over $3 million paid to IFPI over a five year period (2002-2006) for international anti-piracy activities
at least $4 million spent in Canada on anti-piracy activities during that same period
Is this a lot of money? Relative to the revenues of CRIA's members, it is fairly low - revenues from record sales alone during that period were well above $2 billion. When contrasted with the broader Canadian music industry, it is pretty high - the most recent Statistics Canada data on the industry reported that there are 300 record labels in Canada, of which only 39 generate more than $1 million per year in revenue.
Either way, perhaps the most surprising aspect is the amount spent internationally. Notwithstanding the persistent (if false) claims that Canada trails behind other countries on copyright matters, nearly half of CRIA's "anti-piracy" dollars are spent outside the country.
Why does this not suprise anyone.