Go Back   TVPast Forums > Local TV Channels > Reality TV: Sports, Gameshows, Non-Fiction


Reply
Thread Tools
  #1  
  06-12-2008, 08:58 AM
 
Verified Member
 
Location: Canada.
Stats: 89 posts since Jun 2005
Status: Verified Member
Thanks: 0 times in 0 posts
Interesting article from the CBC's website: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...copyright.html

The federal government has introduced a controversial bill it says balances the rights of copyright holders and consumers — but it opens millions of Canadians to huge lawsuits, prompting critics to warn it will create a "police state."

"We are confident we have developed the proper framework at this point in time," Minister of Industry Jim Prentice told a news conference in Ottawa on Thursday. "This bill reflects a win-win approach."

However, Liberal industry critic Scott Brison blasted the government for its lack of consultation with Canadian stakeholders and for not considering the implications of the bill if it passes.

"There's no excuse for why the government has not consulted broadly the diverse stakeholders," he said. "The government has not thought this through. It has not thought about how it will enforce these provisions."

"There's a fine line between protecting creators and a police state."

Bill C-61 spells out consumers' rights in how they are allowed to copy media and clears up some grey areas. Existing laws do not specifically allow consumers to copy books, newspapers, periodicals, photographs, videocassettes and music. The new bill would expressly allow them to make one copy of each item per device owned, such as a computer or MP3 player. The bill would also expressly allow consumers to record television and radio programs for later viewing.

The Conservatives' bill, however, also contains an anti-circumvention clause that will make it illegal to break digital locks on copyrighted material, which critics say could trump all of the new allowances. CD and DVD makers could put copy protections on their discs, or television networks could attach technological flags to programs that would prevent them from being recorded onto TiVos and other personal video recorders.

Cellphones would also be locked down, so when consumers buy a device from one carrier, they would be unable to use it with another. Breaking any of these locks could result in lawsuits seeking up to $20,000 in damages.

University of Ottawa internet law professor Michael Geist, a vocal opponent of the legislation, said the anti-circumvention clause invalidates all the other new provisions.

"They've got a few headline-grabbing reforms but the reality is those are also undermined by this anti-circumvention legislation. They've essentially provided digital rights to the U.S. and entertainment lobby and a few analog rights to Canadians," Geist told CBCNews.ca. "The truth of the matter is the reforms are laden with all sorts of limitations and in some cases rendered inoperable."

Cory Doctorow, co-editor of the influential Boing Boing blog, said the anti-circumvention clause will lead to a revival of digital rights management, or the software that prevents media from being copied. The entertainment industry has for the past few years been moving away from protecting its content with DRM because consumers have shied away from buying restricted media.

"You have to wonder what they're smoking on Parliament Hill if they think there's this compelling need for DRM, given that the marketplace seems to be rejecting it left, right and centre," he told CBCNews.ca.
YouTube uploads could bring lawsuits

People caught downloading music or video files illegally could also be sued for a maximum of $500, but uploading a file to a peer-to-peer network or YouTube could result in lawsuits of $20,000 per file.

Canadian internet service providers, meanwhile, would continue to be immune to lawsuits from copyright holders for infringements over their networks. The bill recognizes ISPs as intermediaries and would only require them to pass on violation notices from copyright holders to their customers.

Prentice deflected questions about potential lawsuits by saying the bill is necessary to modernize Canada's laws and bring it up to date with its obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty it si
Reply With Quote
  #2  
  06-12-2008, 09:59 PM
lordsmurf's Avatar
Site Staff – Forum Moderator
 
Arcade Wins: Asteroids Champion Minigolf Champion People on Fire Champion
Location: The Smurfs Village
Stats: 9,754 posts since May 2005
Status: Moderator
Thanks: 128 times in 113 posts
Ridiculous.

Give consumers "rights" but allow ways that companies can avoid allowing the rights to happen. That's the problem already in the USA. And here I thought Canadians had better sense than that. Let's hope that bill fails and dies before becoming law. I wonder which Liberal Party member is getting paid on the side.



__________________
The LS Collection:. My Cartoon and TV Show List | My Want List | My Future Projects
Reply With Quote
  #3  
  06-13-2008, 09:23 AM
 
Member Removed / Locked / Why?
 

Stats: 130 posts since Jul 2007
Thanks: 0 times in 0 posts
yep this is complete crap, I cant believe they would propose something this stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
  06-14-2008, 07:26 AM
 
Verified Member
 
Location: Canada.
Stats: 89 posts since Jun 2005
Status: Verified Member
Thanks: 0 times in 0 posts
Actually, it is the Conservative Party in power right now. The Liberal Party opposes the Bill. Our copyright laws definitely need to be updated but some of the things the Conservatives have in that Bill are ridiculous. You want to record your favourite tv show? Well if the Bill passes then you better comply with section 29.23(1):

29.23 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to fix a communication signal, to reproduce a work or sound recording that is being broadcast or to fix or reproduce a performer’s performance that is being broadcast, in order to record a program for the purpose of listening to or watching it later, if the following conditions are met:

(a) the individual receives the program legally;

(b) the individual, in order to record the program, did not illegally circumvent a technological measure or cause one to be illegally circumvented, within the meanings of the definitions “circumvent” and “technological measure” in section 41;

(c) the individual makes no more than one recording of the program;

(d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time;

(e) the individual does not give the recording away; and

(f) the recording is used only for private purposes.



So... no recording of a tv show for your private collection would be allowed. I hope the Liberals force an election soon.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
  06-23-2008, 05:19 PM
SavageAmusement's Avatar
Verified Member
 
Location: Aurora, Illinois
Stats: 2,781 posts since Aug 2005
Status: Verified Member
Thanks: 31 times in 29 posts
Send a message via Yahoo to SavageAmusement
You forgot the user must be AB negative, only watch it in their home with a sheet over their head, having the disc self destruct upon the last credit being played, and then bury it while they spin 3 times counter clockwise praying to Viacom


But other than that- perfectly logical.

ugh.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Court Returns Superman Copyright to Siegel Heirs wayshway Superheroes, Cartoons and Anime 3 03-29-2008 09:56 PM
Supreme Court Refuses Pooh Copyright Case wayshway Superheroes, Cartoons and Anime 1 06-28-2006 10:44 AM

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:10 PM  —  vBulletin Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd

Contact Us   -   Top of Page   -   Site Home   -   Forum Home   -   Archive   -   Forum Policies