What is Digg?136 Comments
- Stevanoski, on 06/29/2008, -1/+66So I won't get to see my favorite bands on youtube clips any more?
- lucy22, on 06/30/2008, -3/+61If you are interested in opposing this proposed bill, you can check out these links. There is a petion to send M.P.'s letters to express disatisfaction and also a facebook group which are organizing protests too.
http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/action/firstlo ...
http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6315846683 - blackhappy, on 06/30/2008, -2/+42How come the Canadian government is acting like a bigger tool then the U.S. government?
- xoxuxox, on 06/30/2008, -0/+36Format Shifting: Limitations
"With respect to audiovisual material such as films, the format-shifting provision would apply only to videocassettes and would not allow you to make copies of material stored on other media, such as DVDs."
So taking a DVD and ripping it to VHS is illegal? That doesn't even make any sense! - Abominable, on 06/30/2008, -3/+36Because the Canadian Government takes it up the ass from the US.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -9/+38Nice try Terrance and Phillip, I'm behind 7 proxies.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -17/+41This is the ultimate effort to suppress innovation and growth in searching for new energy production technology. This will kill any desire to look for answers in alternative energy.
- twiztidsinz, on 06/30/2008, -0/+24Logic holds no sway with the government.
- Kohaxx, on 06/30/2008, -1/+25"In all cases, the court would retain the power to award punitive damages to ensure that there is an appropriate deterrent against future infringement."
So in other words while the $500 is what you are liable for, the court can still decide to punish you to whatever extent they feel like to make an example out of you. - hexydes, on 06/30/2008, -1/+24Oh, nice, way to edit your post. Now mine doesn't make any sense.
- Diggnabbit, on 06/30/2008, -12/+35The quote for the Digg article is pretty misleading. It's $500 $20,000 for those activities, and it's the same as under current copyright law.
AND, for private-use infringements, the statutory damages are capped at $500, even for multiple infringements.
"A court could only award $500 in statutory damages against an individual for all private use infringements identified in the lawsuit.
For example, if you downloaded five movies without authorization:
* Under current law, you could be liable for up to $100 000 in statutory damages
* Under the proposed bill, you would be liable for $500"
So, while I'm sure the new law is pretty draconian in various ways. This article is actually not pointing that out at all. - Spudster, on 06/30/2008, -1/+22I'm going to owe nearly a billion dollars. I just calculated.
Hmm.. that might take awhile to pay off... - M724, on 06/30/2008, -1/+20This won't take off. It's just a pathetic attempt from greedy ignorants who expect you to dish out some more money.
- Skod, on 06/30/2008, -1/+18Buying music should be a way to show support and get a nice package in the process, not trying out a new band to see if you like them or not.
- Spudster, on 06/30/2008, -1/+17We have a Conservative government in power out of touch with its true roots of conservatism. I really hope they get hurt on this, because many of their supporters do not agree with them on this.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -1/+16Wow, you can't sell your ipod with music left on it? Someone, you know, might want to at least know that music plays in the god damn thing before they buy it.
- Protoman, on 06/30/2008, -0/+14Wow, I hate this new bill. I don't think I could find a single decent Canadian who would agree with it. Nothing was wrong with our copyright laws before this, everything was working fine and dandy. I hate the perpetual greed of these stupid people down in the States who just love to stuff their pockets more and more with the money of decent hard working people and are lobbying our government to become even worse. Do you think someones parents want to spend a dollar on a song every single time their kid wants one? Give this kid a job and I bet (s)he is going to go out and buy a CD when in a few simple clicks they have have the only good song off the disc. Just because the copyright laws in another country are the way they are doesn't mean there's anything wrong with ours, the problem is lies within your own greedy system. When the Conservatives first got office I didn't trust them one bit based solely on Stephen Harper, he looks like someone you can't trust and isn't. He's importing all these American ways of doing things and it's going to get him kicked out of power in the next election, good thing for Canada, bad for him. I could care less about how awful his public image is getting but I'm more concerned about the amount of damage he is doing to us as a country.
- sockpuppets, on 06/30/2008, -3/+16Whatever. Throw all the potsmokers and copyright violators in jail, there won't be any Americans left to power what's left of the economy.
- veganima, on 06/30/2008, -10/+22What we should do is begin to listen only to Creative Commons issued music. We would see what kind of license the artists should decide to publish their work after some time.
- drakia, on 06/30/2008, -0/+12You're aware this is referred to as the "Canadian DMCA" right? As in, that ***** up _American_ law thing that everyone hates...
- hexydes, on 06/30/2008, -9/+21ZOMG THEY'RE ENDING PIRACY!
- locojones, on 06/30/2008, -0/+11lol Would you like to explain how statutory damages for copyright violations stunts research into alternative energy production technologies? I'm dying to hear this.
- Thejax, on 06/30/2008, -2/+11God, what ***** douchebags.
- Spudster, on 06/30/2008, -0/+9Unless you're American, then you're already ***** up the ass.
- Senious, on 06/30/2008, -8/+16Oh ya didn't even consider this, well I suppose best case scenario, bands revolt and start giving everyone explicit rights to do whatever they want with their music/video/porn.
- crossmr, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9if you tried to make a wireless network that everyone could jump on you would end up with ***** for speed.
You'd be lucky if you could transfer tiny text files before your next birthday.
Wireless is good in limited scenarios. Even in a dense apartment building you can see your wireless go to ***** if everyone is using the same channel. - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -3/+11so according to this
the post of this other thread on the frontpage at the moment
http://digg.com/movies/A_100_Movie_Montage?OTC-ig
will be fined 2,000,000 dollars
sounds reasonable.... - Xondar, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8Remember when their predecessor party, the Reform Party, was all grassroots and stuff?
I think about that and shed a tear. - scorpo55, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8This information is wrong wrong wrong. Please see
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM ...
It is especially wrong if you downloaded the movies using bittorrent, as that is not considered for personal use since you're also uploading to others. - bejayel, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8I said all this was going to happen and the conservatives were too pro-american. What the the rest of Canada say? YEAH, good ties with the United States. That way, everything that goes wrong there, happens just as bad here!
I said it once and i will say it again. The O N L Y reason the conservatives havent royaly ***** Canada up is because it's a minority government. God help us if they win a majority next election. - toeMas, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7Hell, I already shut down production on my DCoke/Mentos fueled scooter.
- NorthernPCTech, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7For all you clowns that cry "Read the article, this is actually BETTER not WORSE" follow your own advice.
Every single piece of the legislation contains the caveat about having to break any digital locks to make your copies. Once you do that the fines are huge again.
In other words, even the lamest attempt to copy protect anything (like the standard copy protection that comes on DVD movies which is all but worthless) negates your right to make backup copies and increases your fine for doing so to 20k. Right now you can make backup copies.
So in short, as soon as the distributor of the original work adds any sort of DRM, no matter how badly implemented, even if it is just a pop-up that says "Do not copy me", you no longer enjoy your $500 dollar cap, no longer enjoy your right to time shift, no longer enjoy your right to format shift, no longer enjoy your right to place your music on multiple devices.
So while the Canadian government gets to pat themselves on the back for "protecting our rights", its actually handing the music and movie industry a very easy method to remove the rights we already have altogether by adding even a smidgen of copyright protection to their products.
All those benefits and reduced fines and rights to format and time shift will be LOST under this legislation, NOT GAINED in real practice. - mCanada, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7Bill passes = I'm voting anyone except for CONservative's,
Bill doesn't pass = I'm voting for anyone but CONservative's.
I'll even pay a ***** carbon tax over this *****, and that's saying a lot. "Theoretically" it'll go to income tax. This is nothing more than a cash grab from the US *.AA's. - ActiveOpt, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6This is only about canada correct?
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -2/+8I don't think you can get much tool-ey-er than the U.S. government.
- nightwing2000, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Hmmm... $20,000 for posting your wedding picture online.
Sneakily saying "only $500" when that's for downloading, not uploading.
Even in the US of Amerika they don't go after downloaders.
Way to go, Prime Minister Harper!
Did anyone notice how the minister who introduced this has bailed out of the Trade portfolio and left the mess for someone else to play with and get blamed for? - Llanowar, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6From what I gather he said Uncle Sam instead of Terrance and Phillip at first.
- XxERMxX, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7May we have at leat 1 reason for downvoting "Senious" ?
- hexydes, on 06/30/2008, -3/+8Psh, whatever. Let them get their money somewhere else. What about the Internet? There's lots of money from the Internet. Why can't they just have some of that Internet money?
- Lancelot9201, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5What is the world coming to when it seems I read daily how governments everywhere are writing new laws to protect big business, but we the citizens continue to go without. We are exposed daily to toxins, chemicals, global warming, bad air, bad water & no health care but all that gets the Government's attention is how can they assist Big Business in recouping lost revenue, which never sees its way back to the damaged artist anyway..!!!
- brianpeiris, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5E-mail has been sent, letter has been posted and I joined the facebook group months ago.
Thanks for submitting this. - Ganpachi, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5That is private use, as well, say they decide to bust you for going above and beyond the timeshifting/formatshifting clauses, say, by buying CDs, ripping the CD and then selling it and not destroying the rip. Even if you did that for a bajillion CDs, the minimum would still be 500.
Public infringement, however is on a per title basis. So every movie and ever song (not album) you are currently seeding is liable at a minimum of 500.
Basically it turns the government into a media industry goon squad and makes criminals out of ordinary people. Yay. - lopla, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Well digg serves copyright images and videos within their site structure, looks like they'll be forking over about 25.2 million dollars a day!
- aliguana, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5as comical as that statement sounds, there is truth in it. If you fined/jailed everyone who shares music, downloads music, sells their cds, sells their iPods, burns CDs for friends etc etc there won't be many people who you are NOT fining. Everyone does it, and those who don't are lying. Hell, I bet even the people who drafted this bill have "compilation" cds in their car that their mates gave them. It's ingrained in Western Culture, has been since the first recordable cassettes. "Home taping is killing music! and is illegal!" remember that? No, it didn't kill music. What killed music is over-inflated prices for inferior product just to make profit for record company.
On the other hand, I can understand business trying to get a handle on all this, but draconian laws just make everyone criminals. You can't legislate to get rid of a cultural trend (they tried that in the middle ages with Catholics. And didn't Hitler try it with the Jews? What about prohibition... yeah, that stopped everyone drinking). - tomega, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Ahh, then maybe it is a time for young people to vote?
- aliguana, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5quite hard if you sell it on Ebay
- PopcornDave, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4FTA:
"For infringements that are not for private purposes, the current range of statutory damages (between $500 and $20 000 for each work infringed) would remain available. For example:
* Selling, renting or giving away a device (e.g., iPod) that contains copies of music that were originally copied onto the device by you for private purposes."
I know of a few libraries in California that have CD's, both music and books on CD, that you can check out. If they have this option in Canada, what does this bill do to that? - chongli, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4The idea is not to throw all of those people in jail. The idea is to have the power to do so. That way, you can throw your enemies in jail, since you have something on everyone.
- charro, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Because the Canadian government still hasn't grown some balls when dealing with the US government. Whenever they feel threaten by commercial sanctions they bend over right away.
- sockpuppets, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Fix your sarcasm meters.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is