How will the proposed copyright law change what you download?

[CBC News]

Copyright law to slap fines on illegal downloading
The federal government has introduced legislation to make it easier to prosecute people who download copyrighted material from the internet.
Industry Minister Jim Prentice tabled amendments to the Copyright Law in the House of Commons Thursday. Individuals caught downloading copyrighted files would be fined $500 under the proposed amendments. The current copyright law — intended to catch commercial cheaters — carries a maximum fine of $20,000 for infringements.
The bill has been in limbo since the Conservatives first put it on the Commons order paper in December. Prentice was caught between business interests who wanted strict protection for intellectual property, such as musical recordings and films, and internet users accustomed to downloading content for free.
Canadian artists, librarians and students, as well as a business coalition made up of some of Canada's biggest companies — including Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp., as well as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. — have expressed their opposition to any legislation that imposes harsh copyright restrictions.
Read full story
How will the proposed copyright law change what you download?


More...

 

[Zzarchov]

I disagree with anything that puts the burden of proof on the wrong person.

It should be illegal to upload not download. Often you can't tell if something is copywritten even after you have it.

Its like fining someone for buying a stolen item at a yard sale.

 

[karrie]

I disagree with anything that puts the burden of proof on the wrong person.

It should be illegal to upload not download. Often you can't tell if something is copywritten even after you have it.

Its like fining someone for buying a stolen item at a yard sale.

I think that is why there is such a vast discrepancy in the fine amounts.

 

[lone wolf]

I disagree with anything that puts the burden of proof on the wrong person.

It should be illegal to upload not download. Often you can't tell if something is copywritten even after you have it.

Its like fining someone for buying a stolen item at a yard sale.

In Canada, copyright is implied at the moment of writing.

Woof!

 

[Kreskin]

Copyright laws in Canada and south of the 49 are joke if YouTube (Google) can continue to do what it does without any penalty.

 

[Biohazard]

Well if this passes there goes a lot of the access to things from other areas of the world. I am sad now. Plus the whole lawsuits over Youtube thing scares me... $20,000 is a lot of money for someone to have to pay.

 

[Zzarchov]

In Canada, copyright is implied at the moment of writing.

Woof!

That doesn't mean its a copyright violation to download things.

For instance, I write this post. I technically can imply copyright in this post.

So when you download this post, to your computer when you open the thread, are you comfortable with a $500 dollar fine?

The problem is the law doesn't take the technical reality into account.

 

[lone wolf]

That doesn't mean its a copyright violation to download things.

For instance, I write this post. I technically can imply copyright in this post.

So when you download this post, to your computer when you open the thread, are you comfortable with a $500 dollar fine?

The problem is the law doesn't take the technical reality into account.

Your post doesn't qualify as a literary work but feel free to interpret as you wish....:lol:
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/en/wr00506e.html#1

 

[Zzarchov]

Your post doesn't qualify as a literary work but feel free to interpret as you wish....:lol:
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/en/wr00506e.html#1

Lets say I wrote and posted material with copyright.

You open the thread, you have just downloaded copyrighten material.
Not only that, the definition between download and upload is semantics, Canadian Content had downloaded material from me.

 

[lone wolf]

Lets say I wrote and posted material with copyright.

You open the thread, you have just downloaded copyrighten material.
Not only that, the definition between download and upload is semantics, Canadian Content had downloaded material from me.

If CC hasn't charged a fee for me to download, then they're not in violation because you have assigned them rights simply by uploading it to their site. If I was to print it for my own use, I'm not in violation. The moment I share it without your express permission to do so, then I am in violation - whether there is commercial gain or not.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

wow...

 

[Scott Free]

My objection is that there are no provisions for fair use. The law basically destroys the idea. It in effect turns our culture into a commodity. I don't see how we can keep a civilization alive under such circumstance. While I agree the creator of a song (or other content) is entitled to certain benefits it can not be completely ignored that the song wasn't written in a bubble and is a derivative product of culture. This means that the public does have a partial ownership of the product as "culture" and this was well reflected in the idea of fair use. Without fair use we are essentially destroying the legal concept of our culture. Again I see that it might be very difficult to keep a civilization alive under such a situation.

 

[Zzarchov]

If CC hasn't charged a fee for me to download, then they're not in violation because you have assigned them rights simply by uploading it to their site. If I was to print it for my own use, I'm not in violation. The moment I share it without your express permission to do so, then I am in violation - whether there is commercial gain or not.

I think your missing the point. How do you know if that book I posted was **MY** book?

If I posted someone elses book. CC and you have both gotten a copy without the authors permission.

Why do you think sites like Youtube and Yahoo are against it?

You as the downloader have no way to tell if you have permission to download something or not. I could easily edit a video for instance, to change its warning to say "this is a shareware copy, feel free to distribute it". Thats an illegal change for me to make, but then how on earth could you as the downloader know its false and not actually FROM the author?

 

[Andem]

This legislation raises a lot more questions than have been brought up thus far in this thread.

Firstly, several years ago judges ruled it was not illegal to download files with a filesharing program however it was illegal to upload; as far as I recall, these rulings were non-binding.

Secondly and most importantly, does this mean that ISPs will now have to release our personal information to the CRIA or MPAA if it insists?

How can somebody ever be fined if a) it's currently within the ISPs' rights to withhold personal information and most likely contrary to privacy laws to release it and b) if personal information is released, how can a fine be enforced when the current legal framework basically says downloading it free and legal?

This is truly a can of works.

 

[missile]

The new law says if you make a mix tape and give it to a friend,you are breaking the law:smile:most of Canada will be paying a big fine if caught.

 

[lone wolf]

I think your missing the point. How do you know if that book I posted was **MY** book?

If I posted someone elses book. CC and you have both gotten a copy without the authors permission.

Why do you think sites like Youtube and Yahoo are against it?

You as the downloader have no way to tell if you have permission to download something or not. I could easily edit a video for instance, to change its warning to say "this is a shareware copy, feel free to distribute it". Thats an illegal change for me to make, but then how on earth could you as the downloader know its false and not actually FROM the author?

The onus is on you, as it always has been, to protect yourself. Simply registering it isn't enough. The public has to be made aware you are protecting your work. That's what a copyright slug (©) is all about.

I suspect the new law will be about as effective as the old one for it simply isn't worth the time and trouble for an author to take an unauthorized user to court for a measly $500. That's less than the court costs! In the case of outright piracy, the returns are more substantial - but just for what amounts to turnstile-jumping, the laws make money for the government.

 

[karrie]

So Andem... hehehe... just to annoy you...

What are the legalities surrounding the videos your site hosts? 8O

 

[#juan]

I wonder if I should throw my Bit Torrent away.......?

 

[lone wolf]

I wonder if I should throw my Bit Torrent away.......?

Legal defense ... you had it prior to this new kaffuffle....

Woof!

 

[Zzarchov]

The onus is on you, as it always has been, to protect yourself. Simply registering it isn't enough. The public has to be made aware you are protecting your work. That's what a copyright slug (©) is all about.

I suspect the new law will be about as effective as the old one for it simply isn't worth the time and trouble for an author to take an unauthorized user to court for a measly $500. That's less than the court costs! In the case of outright piracy, the returns are more substantial - but just for what amounts to turnstile-jumping, the laws make money for the government.

Well thats fairly useless then. You put a copyright slug on your work, I remove it, then distribute it.