digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at canada.com —

Copyright Law would turn Millions into Criminals

canada.com — There are at least 400 movies and an uncountable number of television shows on about 200 VHS tapes stored in my den. I will apparently be branded a thief for keeping these tapes and will have made Brigitte into a criminal -- the receiver of "stolen" goods.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • alapoet, on 06/21/2008, -11/+142This is a poorly written law. How did legislation this flawed get passed? It's absurd!
    • impei, on 06/22/2008, -0/+68It hasn't been passed but it was tabled with almost zero public consultation but plenty of industry (read **AA) input.
      • Stallionism, on 06/22/2008, -31/+2Because it doesn't have to do with the public. You don't have a right to steal. Why do you always seem to miss that point?
        • diablozx9, on 06/22/2008, -0/+22To many laws and overly picky laws make otherwise good people into criminals.
          It creates the "dead man walking" effect where if I am going to be guilty anyway,,, why not break more laws (eg. Prohibition, some say Marijuana)
          Don't start with your high and mighty "You don't have the right to steal" argument... I can tell that you must be about 14 years old. Your words have no basis in reality.
        • marjo9, on 06/22/2008, -0/+15who determines these rights?
        • Stallionism, on 06/22/2008, -29/+3The creators *****. People don't write software ***** just so people can have them for free. Authors don't give up a year of their life without earning a nickel to write a book, just so some asses on the internet download. Musicians don't create music, so you can get it for free.

          People own their intellectual creations. Stealing them is wrong. You have no right to steal them because you DIDN'T CREAT THEM.

          STEALING IS WRONG.

          diablo. Don't compare this to prohibition. What you do with you own body is fine. Stealing people's hard work is different. If you were STEALING marijuana, than you'd be a CRIMINAL.

          I'm a 14 year old because I think stealing is wrong. Wow. What happened to this world? Can I have free access to your car, house, and bank account since stealing seems to the new thing to do?
        • Optimus, on 06/22/2008, -4/+29Can I COPY your car? Can I COPY your house? Can I COPY your bank account? Because that's what COPYright infringement is. It is NOT stealing.

          Grow up.

        • Nitrodist88, on 06/22/2008, -1/+12Do you actually believe people are going to agree with you after you call them *****?
        • marjo9, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6the government ultimately decides just exactly what kind of rights a content provider has if they decide to market their product in said country. have you heard of antitrust laws?
        • dsmx, on 06/22/2008, -8/+1SO stealing is wrong. Hmm lets go with the classic example against this then. If you have no money and your family is starving is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your family?
        • orenshk, on 06/22/2008, -0/+13@Stallionism:
          You have a point, stealing is wrong. However things aren't as morally clear as you paint them out to be. In the US, it's rarely the artists that come after pirates (read everyone) it's the industries. In other words, not the people who created the property, but the people who produced it, or published it, or distributed it and so on, and the people that seemingly hoard all the money while overcharging the public. Is it the public's fault that an artist gets payed less than dollar for every CD sale? or that authors get paid even less for each book that is sold?
          Historically, piracy has always come up as an answer to a poor market. And the only thing that stopped it was a better supply mechanism. The difference with the internet, and P2P software, is that we are no longer simply consumers of pirated goods, but in consuming we also participate in the piracy. Medium aside though, it is still a pirate market and if the various industries want to battle it they must change their business models. Making examples of people clearly isn't working. As for the low morality of the whole situation, I submit that file sharing has been dubbed piracy by those who have a vested interest in calling it so (the industry), seeing as I don't hold these interested parties as my moral compass, I don't consider myself a thief, more than I consider them so.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/22/2008, -9/+5Yeah the artist and marketer argument is crap.

          Let's not pretend the artists don't choose their marketers and publishers.

          They hire them for a service and sign their rights to their work away. Nobody is getting ripped off. Unless you make the argument that a consensual contract between two parties who negotiated the terms of agreement constitutes a rip-off.

          There's no sound argument you can make about this not being theft. It's not yours, you don't have any right to have it, you take it. That's theft.

          If artists feel ripped off, let them advertise their content on the internet themselves and allow anyone to download their content. They are free to do that, and be bankrupt.

          "I submit that file sharing has been dubbed piracy by those who have a vested interest in calling it so (the industry)"

          Well ***** duh. They are the ones who own what is being stolen.

          "I don't consider myself a thief"

          Then you're insane. Or in denial.

          You are also free to download anything that is not protected by copyright. There are millions of very bad and unknowned artists all over the internet.

          You're claiming an unexistant right to someone else's property.

          The fact that you copy the material instead of depriving someone of it changes nothing, because you are not authorized to have that material. Owners have the right to choose who gets their material. They chose customers.

          "Historically, piracy has always come up as an answer to a poor market."

          Absolutely not, that's completely made up. Piracy has never been stopped and it exists since the invention of the recording device. It has nothing to do with market conditions.

          If you want to make a real argument, say that the law can't possibly be enforced adequately and make a cost to the state argument.

          Pretending copyright infringement is somehow your right is even dumber than trying to make the argument that pot should be legalized because it's not a psychotropic drug.

          Infringing the right to property is completely unethical. Make the argument that these companies should adapt to the market by offering a better alternative, not that the right to property shouldn't be guaranteed under any form of government.

          And I say that having thousands of songs on my HDD. That I didn't pay for.
        • diablozx9, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5Prohibition was used as an example of an overly harsh law.
          (lets stop drunks by eliminating alcohol all together)
          I do NOT agree with stealing,, BUT, this law is to restrictive.
          You cant broad brush support by saying stealing is stealing.

          This law is overly restrictive is my point.

          If they made the speed limit on the highways 30 MPH,, and everyone drove 50,, would you just say,, breaking the rules is breaking the rules ,, NO.
          You might just realise what I am saying and that is,,, use logic when making laws,, don't make EVERYONE a criminal.

          I appologise if i offended with my first comment but,, I am getting a little tired of feeling like the only one who remebers freedom.
          Recording devices have been around for a long time,, yes I realise th intenet made copying easier but,, tapes and bootlegs have ALWAYS been here.. why make multiple layers of laws ..

          For those of you who dont know,, the record industry already imposed a tax on ALL blank media in Canada (this is a Canadian law we are discussing here) the tax pays copyright fees.. so,, it is legal to copy in Canada as long as it is on bland cd's.
          With this law,, you have to paycopyright fees AND if you copy,, you break the LAW...LOL.. CRAZY.
        • orenshk, on 06/22/2008, -2/+8@ElAssoWipo:
          As for artists 'choosing', they have an absurd choice. I'd like to see you make it.

          "Absolutely not, that's completely made up. Piracy has never been stopped and it exists since the invention of the recording device. It has nothing to do with market conditions."

          Yes, but how strong has it been? Also I was discussing piracy in all of its forms. Western culture has shown that given alternatives most westerners would avoid obtaining pirated goods.

          "Well ***** duh. They are the ones who own what is being stolen."

          No they are not. They are, as you point out, guardians of this property. And they manage it poorly, and use their ill-gotten influence to define what it means to steal from them. You do not get to decide what constitutes as theft with regards to your property. There is a legal definition of 'property', which you can lay stake to. Why is this intellectual property any different? why does it seem reasonable, for example, that one who makes copies of material he or she has purchased, for the sake of preservation, is defined to a criminal? My argument is against the copyright law that makes it possible to define everything from humming a favourite song to doodling a company's logo illegal and subject to prosecution. Of course no one would sue you for these things, but it brings into question the whole affair.
        • thedaylights, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7Let's remember that protecting copyright law is not motivated solely (or even mostly) to protect the rights of artists. While in principle an artist is free to market their art independently, they would be going up against a massive print, television, radio and street advertising industry that is competing for the attention of the citizenry (commonly re-branded as "the market"). I submit that not only are we, as people, better served to be understood as citizens than as a market, but that this notion that our economy and its "market forces" are red herrings, notions that cheat us of our own rights to produce work and not consume it, but share it and take part in it with others. This produce-consume notion drives the engine of the economy, which we all understand as a good thing because it provides us with jobs. The economy is not a thing. People provide themselves with jobs, as long as they are not restricted from doing so by concentration of ownership. A man can farm a field as long as all the fields are not owned. But once all the fields are owned, this man has to sell his labour rather than produce crops and sell those.

          Similar to the ownership of land and material goods, we are now in an era of increasing encroachment on the field of ideas. Instead of ideas belonging to all, they are now the province of a few. And those few are not the artists. A new author does not have the right to make a movie of her book, or to use the characters in that book to sell candy to children, as odious as that is, without negotiating with the rights owners - i.e. her publisher. Even though she wrote the book, she does not own the ideas. She sold those ideas to the publisher, so that the publisher could sell her book to people. This is problematic, because it is obvious that the author is in a losing situation here. I'm not talking about J.K. Rowling or Stephen King. I'm talking about the other 99% of authors.

          If you understand copyright as a means of protecting the rights of the publishers (Time Warner, GE, Vivendi, etc) then you can see that a law that criminalizes the citizenry for reproducing art, reproducing information - without even making a profit on it - is an unjust law. If we want to protect the rights of artists, we should address the most fundamental injustices in the distribution and ownership of art through the studio and publishing system. This law is only meant to try to bolster industry control over their stolen property.

          An unjust law is no law at all.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2Yeah, an absurd choice. I'm a published author. I chose to sell my rights to my work to a publisher because I wanted it published. I was paid a grand total of 670$ for two published works (about logic) over 11 years.

          I could've chosen to make copies myself and sell them on a street corner. Making a grand total of 0.

          "No they are not. They are, as you point out, guardians of this property."

          No, they are the owners. Because artists sold them the work. They have the rights, not the artists. They purchased the rights from the artists. That's the deal. Some don't sell their work, like madonna, they just sell publishing rights, but in general, they sell the property rights.

          I don't own the content of my own work anymore. I don't have the right to sell it again to another publisher unless the first one gives them back to me (which they will, in about 14 years).

          "Why is this intellectual property any different?"
          You need me to explain to you the difference between physical objects and untangible ideas?

          "You do not get to decide what constitutes as theft with regards to your property."

          Ok then, I'm moving in to your house. It's still yours, I'll just mooch off you. I'll take nothing of yours, just intangible things like cable, electricity, etc.

        • theonlywizdum, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1If you can't even sell your own work then I think you need to take a look at your life choices, because this whole "Author" thing doesn't seem to be working out. Maybe if your work didn't suck, more people would buy it.

          You seem to be the type that blames your failures on the people around you.
        • orenshk, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Exactly! Your choices ranged from making very little money on your own work, to making no money on your own work. Is that really a choice?

          "Ok then, I'm moving in to your house. It's still yours, I'll just mooch off you. I'll take nothing of yours, just intangible things like cable, electricity, etc."

          Ok, and if I shoot you for it, I'll face an investigation, where as if use the proper channels to deal with it, it would be more effective. In other words, I don't get to arbitrarily decide how to react to your described infringement. The suggested copyright act being discussed above attempts to redefine this.

          "You need me to explain to you the difference between physical objects and untangible ideas?"
          Please, do.

          And you have conveniently ignored my argument against the copyright law, which thedaylights stated much more eloquently than I
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1@theonlywizdum

          A french book about semantic logic selling over 6,000 copies is about as successfull as a french book about semantic logic can be.

          @orenshk
          Yes it's a choice. If I want my work to be accessible to the public, I need a book factory (publisher). Just like any inventor needs a manufacturer, a marketing team, etc.

          And besides, it's a non argument. The alternative is artists without any funding to promote their work. You think albums sell because they'Re good? OF course not. Albums sell because marketing companies pay the media to tell you what is good. Britney Spears sold millions of albums, it's not about quality.

          IF you want to see what an artist without representation looks like, go to youtube. Tons of crap on there that you can copy at will. Nobody is preventing you from getting your music there.

          "And you have conveniently ignored my argument against the copyright law"

          No I didn't, my first and second comment addressed it.

          Copyright is about the owners of music, not artists. Artists produce and sell music. They sell their work to record companies.

          And companies have a right of property.

          Since you actually need it to be explained to you:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property ...

          "The suggested copyright act being discussed above attempts to redefine this. "


          This argument is about copyright infringement being theft, not the amendment.
        • orenshk, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, but why are you perfectly ok with making so little money? Because you had no other alternative, as you constantly say. It's either that or don't publish at all. So you tolerate the absurd amount of money that was offered to you for your work. I call that theft.

          As for things like youtube and other self promoted artistry, you are being very short sighted. Artists will move to platforms like that eventually because of the limited choices presented to them by the industry.

          The amendment discussed is to the Canadian law, and bares disturbing similarities to the DMCA, which did just that, and as said before me 'is an unjust law' to say the least.

          You have not answered any of my questions: why are provisions that allow copyright holders to define what it means to steal their material acceptable to you? Why is humming equivalent to downloading, for example? why are the damages left to the industries to ascertain? My argument is that these laws are unjust, and as such will not survive with revision. I no more consider my self a thief for downloading a band's music, than I do scribbling their logo. That is the letter of the law.

          Nice cop out giving me a link to wikipedia. With it you have failed to answer yet another of my questions, and reduced this argument to ad hominem attacks. Well done.

        • JoEb0x, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1@ ElAssoWipo

          I can listen to the radio (switch channels during ads) and get free music. I can also hop online to websites, millions of websites, playing free streaming music (any song I want). Oh, I must not forget streaming high-quality internet radio! Hell, youtube has songs and music videos of all kinds of artists, unfortunately, you're wrong about it only being the bad ones; youtube is free too!

          Do you not agree that I can access whatever song, whenever I want? If you disagree you're a moron (I doubt not only in my opinion - but seriously).

          So, if I can access this anytime I want - why not just store it myself? Make it easier for me, and at the same time not affecting cd sales at all. Maybe youtube might lose a few pageviews. I should be considered such a bad, bad THIEF who must PAY! PAY loads of money for something I never would have bought in the first place? (I'll remind you, as stated above - so-called 'legal' methods of finding free content are EVERYWHERE) How is that logical?

          All you've said is that 'stealing is bad.' You want to protect copyright owners? Do you live in Canada? The big labels here don't give a flying ***** about you downloading 'sexual eruption' on Limewire or from TPB because they know there's nothing wrong with it. I have lots of music, the odd time I buy a CD just because I feel like having one. This bill would make me a criminal for putting song (I PAID for) with DRM on my iPod (many many cd's have 'protection').

          Here's something for you to consider: Paying a $20 000 fine for backing up a DVD of Winnie the Pooh, because your children have a habit of ruining disks. You've already paid a copyright based tax for your blank media - but now you must pay $20 000 for that 40 minutes of Winnie the Pooh goodness.

          I don't even need to argue how illogical you are acting. It's easy enough to point out how hypocritical your entire basis it - you have thousands of songs on your HDD! You think you deserve to pay assloads of money for that? If a bill like this ever passes, you better be a ***** man and turn yourself in. I doubt you'd have to balls to do it.

          You _c_a_n_n_o_t_ stop the so-called 'illegal pirating' of music. Distributors shouldn't be OBVIOUSLY bent on ripping off customers with 20-40$ CD's usually consisting of one or two songs worth listening to. You see, dear boi, the sales of CD's are dead. Nobody can reverse it, that's just how it is. Then the labels try to ACT like they're protecting the artists - you know this is true - you've seen all the ***** propaganda! Unless the artists are washed up and no longer popular (MJ, Kiss, etc) they will be pirate supporters too. Artists will make money by performances in concerts. That's it.

          As for your ridiculous argument about copyright owners and the sale of books - who the ***** reads a book from their computer screen? Nobody. The pirating of books is not very popular whatsoever. The pirating of useful/incriminating information (scientology secret doxx) is popular. Distributors of books won't see a decline in sales, books aren't quite outdated yet my friend.

          You can support this bill all you want, but you'd be crying like the bitch you are if it were to pass.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Ok you clearly fail at thinking.

          "So you tolerate the absurd amount of money that was offered to you for your work. I call that theft."

          That's like saying paying for cable is theft. You tolerate the absurd amount of money that's on the bill because the alternative is to not have cable.

          And it's not even an argument. It's just randomly saying that a market condition in which the offerers of services have about the same price for their service is theft. It's ridiculous.

          That's called resentment of the weak. You claim an unexistant right to decide what the price of a service should be. Nobody prevents anyone from trying their ***** on their own, it's just that the ones who do fail miserably because they're competing with a marketing team that has a million dollar budget.

          "Artists will move to platforms like that eventually because of the limited choices presented to them by the industry. "

          That's not an argument either. They are free to live the industry now. Instead of being "stolen from" as you would say.


          "My argument is that these laws are unjust, and as such will not survive with revision."

          No. Your argument was that the law was wrong because it protects the owners of music instead of the artists, which makes copyright infringement something other than theft. And you also claimed your unexistant rights on someone else's property. It's called the robin hood argument. You were proven wrong two posts ago.

          And the link to wikipedia is an accurate definition, it's not my fault if reading insults you.

          And there's no such thing as an ad hominem attack. There's the ad hominem fallacy. And it means to reject an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making it. Pseudo intellectuals = still ignorant.
        • auto98, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3You didnt bother to read the article stallion? It would make people who read a magazine they haven't bought a criminal. It would in essence make pretty much every citizen a thief by your logic - and if a law is passed that makes pretty much every citizen a criminal, that government is no longer representing the people
        • spinksa, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0If you sold your work for 670$ just so that the information could be made available. Does the modern framework not directly represent what you want, the sharing of information? The market conditions have changed, instead of 670$ you could make 0$. Perhaps we should consider stricter copyright protection, but I do not understand why modern information sharing should be ignored simply to protect old business models. The emphasis should be on protecting property rights, while providing more efficient sharing services wherein artists make more money, and the distributors are left out.
      • pauleric, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3'Tabled' is a fun word. In the US it means postponed (and probably canceled) by being taken off of the table. In the UK is means put on the table for consideration.

        Since I don't know what the usage is in Canada (or even whether you personally are from Canada), and this article is unforgivably vague as to what "Act" or "amendment" they're referring to, I have no idea what you meant by that.

        Let's assume you're against the proposed law (whatever law it is we're talking about). Are you happy that is has been taken off the table in spite of heavy RIAA opposition? Or are you annoyed that it has been put on the table at the behest of the RIAA?
        • cnosal, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4The bill is C-61 amending the Copyright Act. In this case it has been 'put on the table' in the House of Commons, but IIRC they'll go into summer recess and the bill won't have a second reading until afterward.

          As a Canadian, I am against the legislation, and annoyed that it's on the table with no consultation with the public or Canadian interest groups, at the behest of the RIAA as you say.
    • freedomwv, on 06/22/2008, -8/+2It poor legislation as far as the rights of the people but it is a very good bill for the government.
    • KiraDnote, on 06/22/2008, -0/+18New laws should not turn ordinary people into criminals. They really need to rethink these issues.
      • mojomichael, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. You write your laws so that it is nearly impossible for citizens to be in compliance, then you can extort whatever behavior you want from them in exchange for "looking the other way."
    • Tarnum, on 06/22/2008, -1/+39It's a great law, if you are in the law enforcement!
      If everyone can be declared criminal, it's the law enforcement officers that have the power to decide who to prosecute. It's the key to unlimited power to persecute one's personal/political/business opponents.
      Reminds me of the '50s in the USSR.
      • cnosal, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2With a quick skim through the current copyright act and C-61, it's only a criminal offense if you infringe for monetary/other gain. So while it would make most Canadians liable for fines, it wouldn't make us all criminals, at least not in the sense that the cops can arrest whoever they feel like.
        • zeromous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1And being held liable for what was previously legal is perfectly ok.

          As you attempted to point out, let's not confuse criminal proceedings with civil damages/statutory fines.
    • smrt173, on 06/22/2008, -12/+0you will get caught.
    • Ratteler, on 06/22/2008, -6/+8"This is a poorly written law. How did legislation this flawed get passed? It's absurd!"
      The MPAA/RIAA used a ***** load of the money you gave them by legally purchasing their products to buy your representatives.

      You know what they call it when a group tries to exert undue influence against the will of the people? TREASON!!!!!

      The punishment for Treason is the DEATH SENTENCE!!!!
      • aspec, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2I'm not sure what the MPAA or RIAA have to do with Canadian law, but I'm pretty sure they're not going to agree with your assessments.
        • cnosal, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Aside from certain provisions of the bill, the main source of outcry is that Prentice didn't consult the Canadian public or interest groups in drafting this bill, though he did meet with US interest groups (read RIAA/MPAA).
        • Ratteler, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4I give as much of ***** what the RIAA/MPAA thinks about my assassement, as they do about my rights.

          What they have to do with it is they are BUYING votes from your elected officials, and if it's as bad in Canada as it is in the USA, they are WRITING the actual legislation.

          You might as well ask what Al Quida has to do with Canadian Terrorism.
        • zeromous, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Actually cnosal, I think it has more to do with the fact that he lied on public radio regarding the bills contents...he is purposely misleading Canadians and other politicians into supporting this bill and believing that it will not affect them in any meaningful way.

          Added to the fact that our other parties our powerless to do anything about this bill due to our current minority government...

          /furious in ottawa
      • q1006662, on 06/22/2008, -1/+7We do not have the death sentence in Canada. I encourage you to shut up until you know what you're talking about.
        • Ratteler, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Oh... what do you do with your traitors?
        • Devotia, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5They make them live in Newfoundland.
        • q1006662, on 06/23/2008, -0/+2Put them in jail forever
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#Canada
        • Ratteler, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1So some one sells out your country, and they get free room and board for life. Nice.

          Lucky for you the bastards dictating your Copyright law are U.S. Citizens also waging a civil war against their own country.

          When the tide finally turns, the good ol' U.S. of A. will kill your enemies for you... as usual.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Treason isn't the act of "exerting undue influence against the will of the people", you could accidentally commit treason. The American Olympic Team would be traitors if they won less gold medals than China.

        And what is "due influence against the will of the people", since you're talking about "undue influence".

        A traitor is someone who betrays his affiliation or relationship for another, in a situation of conflict. Legally this means that two countries need to be at war.
    • Vessol, on 06/22/2008, -9/+3Because congress gets sucked off by corporations? Dunno, that might be the reason..
    • pdbailey, on 06/22/2008, -2/+5I think it's a poorly written article. Is there a straightforward description of this proposed law change somewhere? Does it overturn the right to record TV for personal use? Does it revoke your right to turnover your copyrighted material in a complete transfer to another person? The article suggests that these things are true, but I can't tell.
      • impei, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6You can record television to watch *once* at a later time. You may not archive these recordings. You can give the original copy to another person but you can't make a copy of it for them. You are not allowed to back-up your own DVD's because they are digitally locked and you would be subject to $20,000 damages for breaking that lock. They could easily do the same thing to any other digital medium by adding some encryption. The critics of this bill are not saying that they should allow unlimited file sharing or anything just reasonable fair use.
        • Sil369, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Thanks for the sumup...

          Question, does it include old shows/movies taped before the law comes into effect?

          Also, all we gots to do is catch a Cdn politican doing this and smear them for it, claiming how retarded this law is in the first place.
        • impei, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3I'm not sure if we have to turn in or destroy all our old recordings. Maybe they'll have a big bonfire that we can throw all our old cd's dvd's and vhs tapes on.
      • kbattack, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1the article did not set out to describe the law in detail. i think it got the point across for those canadians who dont want to delve into the more complicated aspects of C10
    • sh4rkb1t3, on 06/22/2008, -0/+9How about instead of this law, we just put the whole country in jail, since everyone has or will eventually share something via P2P.
      • cnosal, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1As I mentioned in another post above, you're only criminally liable if you infringe for commercial gain. The rest of us are just liable for a fine.
        • sh4rkb1t3, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Well then lets just charge everybody an extra $500 on our taxes next year, because everyone has downloaded something "illegally."
        • swong7, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I thought any type of "sharing" will result in the $20K fine.
        • earthforce1, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Not true - if you break "digital locks" i.e. Bypass the crappy CSS encryption to watch DVDs under Linux or use a region free player you get stung for $20,000.
      • ninjabob7, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0No, we'd need a huge jail... like a whole country. Yeah, let's send them to a big empty country where it's really cold.
        How about Canada??
        Oh, wait.

        (joking, no offense to Canadians)
    • gnotDigger, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Make'em take a long walk off a short plank, say I! ARRRRRrrrr................
    • nunyabuizness, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1its a good thing i dont live in that socialist ***** canada

      no offense
    • jdenton88, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0BLAME CANADA!
  • netgeek06, on 06/21/2008, -6/+59copyright law pass without judiciously.
    • computerusr, on 06/22/2008, -1/+9wat
    • gnotDigger, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Right u arrrrrr me lad.... Right u arrrrrr
    • Fjosnisse, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2without judiciously? kay.


      • arjie, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Ha ha. But as an exercise, find the error in:
        "He passed without judiciously."
        • mudpuddle, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0I'll take a shot: judiciously is an adverb, not a noun.

          Alternatives:
          "Copyright law pass without judiciousness."
          "Copyright law pass injudiciously."
    • bananaspiders, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5im not sure... but i think your grammar is way off right there...
    • aserer511, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2english errors don't pass without notice, thank god
    • purelithium, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I really can't even find a way to salvage the meaning of that sentence. He really ***** it up.
    • rentmitchum, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3I don't understand moonspeak.
    • backseatdog, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0como?
  • Temlakos, on 06/21/2008, -0/+84Very likely some venal MP turned the task over to an industry lobbyist, from whatever is your equivalent of the MPAA, AMPTP, RIAA, or whatever. And they got, frankly, greedy--trying to insist that you, the consumer, buy a studio copy, and if the studio hasn't yet transferred it to home-video media, you're out of luck. Here on our side of the border, the SCOTUS long ago ruled that recording a motion picture or television program off the air or off the cable signal for your own use was entirely fair. (The recording industry prayed for the absurd relief of the impounding and destruction of all home videocassette recorders that had been sold at the time!)
    • Olfster, on 06/22/2008, -0/+29That is sick. I know it happens all the time, but anytime a representative turns to a lobbyist to write the laws for them is in my mind a criminal act against those that voted them into office. I realize it is the way things are done, but doing so is nothing short of defrauding those that voted them into office.
    • gnotDigger, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1scurvy ridden dogs they be! arrrrrrr
  • ibeckett, on 06/21/2008, -2/+98time for old industry to fade out... but not before a nasty (and dirty) fight
    • gnotDigger, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr matey, all hands on deck! MPAA off the starboard bow! get ye the rum and gun powder!
    • zephyr42, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1too late for avoiding a nasty/dirty fight... if you have to arrest cripples and kids to get your agenda by you may wanna rethink your agenda.
    • freshgrease, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I'd rather see them fade into non-existence. Lord knows they are sucking on every federal judge's, congressman's, and top leader's Popsicle and givin them tons of money to be in their favor. You won't make them go away with litigation unless the feds realize that their actions are bad for the people of this country. If the feds had enough honor to do their jobs to help the people (as they are supposed to), we wouldn't be in this mess. Sadly, until Obama gets rid of the old regime of dirty politicians, the honor amongst politicians will remain that of honor among thieves: none. No, if you want change, thousands of people need to get off their asses, march to the respective organization and throw them out of power by force.
    • Rocco03, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1This seems like a job for Guybrush Threepwood.
  • davidhallstrom, on 06/21/2008, -1/+37This law would seem to go way to far. This is what happens when politicians don't pay attention to the details of a law that there staffers draft. Good luck in fighting this one. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.
    • secrity, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Was it their staffers, or was it lobbyists who drafted the law?
    • NEWNHLISLAME, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Yeah who's blaming the Staffers? I would say the MP and any of of the legislative Bodies should be held More accountable
  • michaelwong38, on 06/22/2008, -4/+7O-O!
  • Olfster, on 06/22/2008, -2/+96That is the way our governement works in the 21st century. If you are not yet a criminal they will make you one. Gun control is the same way. You think criminals register their guns? MOre gun control does not decrease the criminals mind about obtaining one illegaly. I just don't get the reasoning of laws enacted that make the honest non criminal citizen a criminal.
    • Meesher, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Not just our government. Like the new extreme porn law that will soon take effect in the UK, this law will, with one swing of the ax, suddenly make illegal the possession of content that was previously legal to possess. The leaders of our supposedly democratic governments are finding ever more ways (i.e., more laws) to make everyone a criminal, so that they can prosecute whomever whenever it suits their purpose.
    • gnotDigger, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3aye, there be no justice in this world say I. What with me a law abiding citizen and all just drinking me rum always hav'n to look o'er me shoulder for the long arm of the law.... Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........
      • Jlaugh, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Dugg for the pirate reference. Shiver me timbers.
    • 808ethan, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Its done so every citizen has something the government can 'legally' arrest you for. Think about it, if any one of us pissed off Bush, he wouldn't even need to make a new law to destroy you. Just use the resources to find what ignorant laws you are breaking.

    • avatarish, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0Well, I always thought the gun control action would be aimed more towards the suicide/shoot-up-schools kids. Even though it's impossible to put an end to all civilian control of guns, it would limit it... and I don't think it would turn into the failed 18th amendment (banning alcohol) because they used guns to control the illegal alcohol flow. Using guns to control illegal gun flow would be... interesting. It's way too complicated to call
    • Rocco03, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2I recommend reading The Trial from Franz Kafka.
      • Olfster, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Very interesting thank you for the recommendation.
    • FRuGFoREST, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Yeah.. .funny how in Washington State, something like 70 to 80% of the people with guns are already optionally registered (because of 'concealed weapons' permits). But when the legislative law proposal went in front of 'the people', it was shot down because it was thought nobody wanted to register ? Yeah... like huh?
  • scot333, on 06/22/2008, -13/+2I loves me some MPAA. I can't wait until this passes and becomes a law. until then its just a bill.
  • TheMachine1, on 06/22/2008, -1/+143Jury selection:

    Prosecutor: "Have you heard of file sharing?"
    Me: "No".

    On Jury:
    Me: "I'm prepared to wait till hell freezes over for a not guilty verdict".
    • djasshat, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Too bad most of the cases will be in civil court.
      • garageboy101, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1How is this civil? It's copyright... it's not you stealing your neighbors homemade sex-tape.
      • drmangrum, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1You can have a jury in civil cases. I've done it.
    • ricepicker4000, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Too bad the important ones are going to be higher up in the Judicial system.
  • Tyorant, on 06/22/2008, -0/+57The picture really captures the frustration and anger many will have over this law.
    • CaptainTater, on 06/22/2008, -3/+2You guys, relax! It's only in Canada. So what if America's hat can't keep VHS tapes. They won't have anything important recorded anyhow. Have you seen Canadian television? Awful.
      • Syujinkou, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Corner Gas is pretty good...
      • BestJaxx, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Terrance and Phillip. That is good television.
  • Stallionism, on 06/22/2008, -36/+3The article title is stupid. If you're stealing you're a criminal. Finally the government is going to stand up for what is right for a change.
    • luchid, on 06/22/2008, -0/+9^ MAFIAA Shill. Check comment history.
    • Tahiri, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7Stallionism - The problem is, it's not stealing. Recording a show and keeping it is not theft, this was determined decades ago with the Betamax. Copying a CD you own to an MP3 player you own isn't theft. Copying a DVD you own to a portable movie player you own isnt theft.
    • artfiend77, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Shut up Lars.
    • iiiears, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Your troll fu is weak and obvious. - still very humorous so keep trying.
  • emkaysmith, on 06/22/2008, -0/+36This has been a problem in the U.S., too, ever since Sonny Bono (that idiot) pushed through the first changes in the copyright law that extended "protection" for, basically, forever -- and which keeps being extended with each new revision. That's not what copyright was intended to be, and it's become a sham that serves only the media conglomerates.
  • Austerist, on 06/22/2008, -32/+2Stealing is wrong and you should be treated as criminals for doing criminal acts.
    http://capitalist-shrugged.blogspot.com/2008/06/en ...
    • bungoman, on 06/22/2008, -0/+14AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      you're obviously new to the internet.
      • Austerist, on 06/22/2008, -17/+0I've been on the internet since the 90s. What does that matter? I don't know. Anything keep your mind occupied from the fact that you're stealing.
    • diablozx9, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8(I just used this same response to another kid above)

      To many laws and overly picky laws make otherwise good people into criminals.
      It creates the "dead man walking" effect where if I am going to be guilty anyway,,, why not break more laws (eg. Prohibition, some say Marijuana)
      Don't start with your high and mighty "You don't have the right to steal" argument... I can tell that you must be about 14 years old. Your words have no basis in reality.
    • Nitrodist88, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Wow, like that site isn't obviously bought and paid for by a lobby group. Wow, lol.
    • Akairenn, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4Copyright infringement isn't 'stealing' or 'piracy'.

      And maybe if shills like you weren't being paid for; perhaps if they put out things that the market deemed worth paying for, the RIAA and MPAA wouldn't have to cry wolf so much over their bottom lines. It's rather amazing, you know? The publishing industry does quite well for itself, even with libraries offering free access to their product. So what's up with you hacks?
    • BoneheadFarker, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6You know...for being the loudest shill on Digg, I truly hope that one day someone reports you for giving away a magazine, or letting someone borrow a CD to play at their family reunion, or god forbid you actually have to break the DRM to get your music off of your CDs and onto an MP3 player.

      Go back to your CRIA bosses and tell them that their shill campaign isn't working...
      • mrhuggy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1If you paid attention to what he was saying you'd realize there is nothing wrong with giving away a magazine or letting someone borrow a CD, but alas, you prefer to think that file sharing is the same thing when its actually not.
  • Rudegar, on 06/22/2008, -0/+14where do i sign up for my striped outfit and the eye mask ?
  • sarchosis, on 06/22/2008, -2/+96This *****'s getting old. I'm getting sick of reading about new and 'innovative' ways of limiting my freedoms.
  • freedomwv, on 06/22/2008, -1/+19This is not about copyright it is about the control of information. If the people cannot keep a record of politicians are saying and the manner in which news is bring reported then what is considered truth can be controlled.
    • Tiltmenot, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4That's the new governmental trend these days. Pass laws to limit peoples freedom. There's going to be a revolution in a few decades if this keeps up.
      • gobbleplex, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Not as long as people are secure in their middle-class lifestyle, there won't.
  • blacklilyninja, on 06/22/2008, -1/+45vote of non-confidence now

    time for an election
  • omgwhataguy, on 06/22/2008, -1/+13If you go to the police station with your pirate booty and admit your sins, they will go easy on you and sentence you to only 10 years in jail for your high quality VHS pirating.
    • gnotDigger, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5O'er me cold dead body will they be taking me booty! This treasure be cursed!!! arrrrrrrrrrr!
  • fr3ddie, on 06/22/2008, -3/+68After reading this... I decided to let all of my Bit Torrents continue to seed... SEED!.... SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • zephyr42, on 06/22/2008, -0/+15sharing is caring!
    • namochan, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Reminds me of Alex saying that about 2girls1cup. It's 2 girls and 1 cup, not 2 girls 2 cups... share people.
  • liah, on 06/22/2008, -2/+77So I guess all these people calling us file-sharers criminals have never given away clothing or food at a charity drive, or let their friend have one of their old CDs, or given their cousin a gift they received for their birthday that they didn't really like (I know, I know, regifting is wrong), or had a yard sale and sold a bunch of your old albums and movies (that's even worse! reselling without express written permission?! onoez!), or recorded that disney movie for your daughter, son, cousin, niece, nephew, whatever, so they could watch it before bed.

    It's sharing. Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that I'm a criminal because someone else decided to put something up on the internet and I decided to download it or watch it? Why not target REAL criminals who are out stealing cars or committing murders? Give me a break. Use your head for once.
    • Sil369, on 06/22/2008, -4/+4I'm reporting you to the RCMP. ~:)
      • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2or the CSE or CSIS? This is ridiculous.
    • bdbr, on 06/22/2008, -7/+3Giving away physical property isn't sharing, its giving. It doesn't relate to copyright any more than theft of physical property.
      • xaeon, on 06/22/2008, -2/+8That's where you're wrong. Giving that CD you bought away to a friend? That will be illegal.
        • bdbr, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1In what country? I've never heard of a place where it is illegal to give away something you've bought. Certainly not in the US.
        • ninjabob7, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0It's only illegal if you make a copy of it and then give it away. But if you give away the copies with the original, that's okay.
        • xaeon, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1@bdbr
          In all countries. Take a look at the back of a CD or DVD and notice the bit which says something along the following lines: "Any unauthorised use including but not limited to copying, editing, _lending_, exchanging, renting, hiring, exhibiting, public performance, radio or television broadcasting or any other diffusion is strictly prohibited."

          And I'm from the UK, where copyright law is slightly more relaxed than the US. But trust me, you basically have no rights over any CD or DVD, regardless of what fair rights you may (rightly, may I add) think you have.
    • DRFU, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7Don't forget checking out anything from a Library. Where are the loyalties that should go to the author?
    • Demean, on 06/22/2008, -5/+2There is a difference between receiving a book from your friend and downloading something off of a torrent. Whats the difference? Your friend most likely paid for that book while the file you are downloading is illegally ripped from somewhere without its rightful owner's consent.

      Now if your friend stole that book from a bookshop and gave it to you (and that you know he stole it), then you can make the comparison with file sharing.
      • Parkinsons, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2I am pretty confident that whoever ripped the movie/cd bought it.
      • bdbr, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Not really, because then there would be a theft of physical property, and the library couldn't loan it anymore. Copyright violation isn't theft.
    • MrNeom, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4I think a more reasonable comparison would be saying I bought the Little Mermaid (under sea, darling its better, down where its wetter) on VHS, posted an offer on the internet asking anyone who wants a copy to send me their address and a blank VHS. I then made hundreds or thousands of copies and sent them out to all these people. I make sure and circle the penis castle on each one. Each of these people also post an offer of a free copy. Then all of a sudden it becomes easier and more convenient to get free copy instead of the store.

      The big difference between piracy and a garage sale is that when you sell a CD, that means you no longer have a copy (assuming you didn't make a copy of it). When you pirate, you're actually increasing the number of copies in existence and then taking a copy.
      • Parkinsons, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1What if I was a super duper good painter and could make a exact reproduction of a other painters work? If I created a reproduction would I be committing a crime?
  • r3bol, on 06/22/2008, -2/+63Did you guys know that if you even borrow a friends legit dvd/cd/book, you are also both stealing!?
    • Diggnabbit, on 06/22/2008, -3/+7Actually, that's not true. Under the first-sale doctrine you can do whatever you want (that's not copying) with a dvd/cd/book including lending or selling it. (You can also rent out books and movies under the first-sale doctrine, but not music recordings, which is why blockbuster exists but there are no music rental stores.)
      • brstilson, on 06/22/2008, -0/+9But used CD stores exist. Music rental stores don't exist because movies aren't like music. Most movies I would be perfectly happy to watch once or twice. Music, on the other hand, is something I listen to again and again and again. I think the same is true with most people, and as long as that's true, music rental will never be a viable business plan.
        • Diggnabbit, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2That's what I said. Your reasoning about the difference between movies and music (people want to watch movies once and listen to music over and over), plus the reality of copying, is why music rental is illegal (everyone would just rent the CD and copy it).
        • bsonline, on 06/22/2008, -2/+3Music rental is common - not going into the who iTunes thing where if you lose your file it's just gone. Beyond the nonpermanance of a purchase....
          Think about all of the unlimited download drm crap services out there. You pay your rental fee and listen to your music... don't pay said fee and the music stops. If that's not rental, I don't know what is.
        • DRFU, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Also, technology and software today makes it easier to copy the files with little to no loss permanently and duplicate it easily. The idea of paying money to rent a CD and give it back without copying it on my computer is silly. Plus, a music Blockbuster would make hardly any money.
      • zeabu, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3It seems you haven't bought a lot of films... There are a lot of them, indicating on the disc itself that they are only intended for sale, no rent. Upon watching it, you get nagged with a black screen, red title, white letters, stating that only you are permitted to watch it, and that for lending or selling it to a friend, you need written permission of the copyright holder.
        • Diggnabbit, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3They say that. But it's not true. You have a right to sell or lend a copy of a movie that you own legally (as you do for any copyrighted work that you own legally).
        • Jlaugh, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I have a decent size cd collection, but there's no way I could prove let alone keep track of all the songs I've ripped over the last 13 years.
    • lougoose, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Not entirely true. You can legally send a CD to someone, and there is nothing they can do about it. There are multiple sites that specialize in this. For $, they give you the address of someone to send it to. You put in the CDs you want, send them along, etc. Perfectly legal.
  • subterfuge, on 06/22/2008, -12/+6and millions aren't criminals already? i'm pretty sure the government could find a reason to arrest at least 50% of americans.

    ex: college drinking
    • sebby2022, on 06/22/2008, -0/+19You know this is in Canada right?
    • zeabu, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5It's like stopping you with your car. If they really want, they always find something.
      I've been once stopped by a cop, and got fined for the windshield being reflective (it was "too clean"), and "various traffic infrictions", needless to say I didn't pay. Then I was brought to court. There I was condemned.
  • Jenadae, on 06/22/2008, -4/+13That ferret is so ***** cute!
    • vinnyn, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6it's a baby red panda, look on the bottom of the page.
      • MasterGrief, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1That explains it. Red pandas are the closest thing in nature to a modern teddy bear--in appearance, anyway.
  • fubar1367, on 06/22/2008, -0/+25For updates and letter writing visit http://www.ccer.ca/
  • tufftugg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7 At least ''the industry'' will take care of what is prosecuted. Oh, Canada your Conservative government is so Neocon. Comical this article is from Neo Central.
  • cmost, on 06/22/2008, -8/+0Americans are idiots. Trying to copyright music and movies in the days of the Internet is trying to copy certain square feet of airspace.
    • sethorama99, on 06/22/2008, -0/+9That's a Canadian story. Idiot.
      • Akairenn, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Who do you think Canadian lobbyists answer to?

        Sure, there are movies and television shows coming out of Canada, but when legislation criminalizing an entire society is drawn up, the hands of the MPAA and RIAA are holding the pen.
        • sethorama99, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2So America is responsible for Canadian laws now? I always knew Canada was our bitch.
      • leakus, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1They moved Canada to a different continent?
        • sethorama99, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, I'm sure that the poster of that was saying Americans in the most literal way.
    • newms32, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1"Square feet of airspace"? Are you Pac Man?
    • kelder27, on 06/22/2008, -0/+0Oh don't worry. We will get our airspace. Just wait and see.
  • elektriknoizz, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2Now you know what it's like.
  • newms32, on 06/22/2008, -15/+2"There are at least 400 movies and an uncountable number of television shows on about 200 VHS tapes stored in my den. I will apparently be branded a thief"

    That's because you are a thief. You copied movies on to tape so you wouldn't have to rent or buy them again, depriving the creators of the money they are legally and morally entitled to, whether you like it or not. I copy music and movies too but at least I'm not in denial.
    • publiclurker, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3Rent or buy television shows? Considering that he said tapes and not DVD's, these options were not possible.
      • newms32, on 06/22/2008, -5/+2Apparently you missed the part where it said "There are at least 400 movies..."
        • publiclurker, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1You're probably right about the movies. When I read it I assumed those made for TV movies, but even I would never tape that many of those.
    • Tahiri, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3If he recorded them off TV then he's not a theif. And DVDs don't let you record to VHS, they have scrambling hardware (macrovision) that prevents that.

      So he's not a theif, and you're a jackass
      • newms32, on 06/23/2008, -0/+0You should check out what the laws actually say. The fact that there's scrambling hardware involved should clue you in to the fact that it's illegal.

        I'm not saying whether or not it should be legal (in fact I think the laws are much too severe), but if you break a law then you're doing something illegal.
  • LilBambi, on 06/22/2008, -0/+14I hope they will listen with their minds and not their pocketbooks in Canada, unlike they did in the USA. It's amazing how quickly your country can be sold for 30 pieces of silver.
  • Akraz, on 06/22/2008, -0/+31Are you telling me NONE of these government workers use the internet and have some way or another indulged in file sharing?

    This bill is pretty much saying "If you are a human being living in the year 2008 and have any form of internet access, you will be fined"

    You cant tell me there hasnt been one single person that has never EVER downloaded at least ONE song
    • snak3st, on 06/22/2008, -1/+10Hate to say it, but my uncle is an MP, not sure what his stance is on this bill. But I remember back in the years of the Playstation, he had it modded and just rented games then copied them onto blank CDs, and I believe he does some downloading.

      If he votes for this bill, then he'll just be a hypocrite.
      • Akraz, on 06/22/2008, -1/+8Which is what all these politicians are.
      • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Have a talk with him about this, and let him know what it's about. He probably hasn't even read the bill. Most MPs just look at what they have to gain by signing or not signing.
      • muniak, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Yeah but... assuming he does all that, why would he ***** vote for this bill?
    • mrhuggy, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2and if he doesn't he'll just be covering himself?
    • smashhell, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1If you not just download but also Seed/Upload a song, you won't be fined, you'll be in jail. =/
    • freshgrease, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2The only effective means of "fine"ing us enmass would be to have a special "tax" on Internet access to be charged by the ISP and funneled in proportions to the pocketbooks of the US and the other members of the MAFIAA. It is cheaper than suing the entire nation, and it provides a steady source of income to multiple parties.
    • CaptainTater, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Akraz, when typing a response, were you aware that the featured article centered mostly around a new law being passed that would limit our rights to make and store VHS recordings of movies/tv programs, or were you merely focused on the somewhat indistinguishable comments posted, of which a majority utilize the terms "copyright" and "law"?

      I for one refuse to destroy my gold mine of Bobby's World episodes and a somewhat uncooperative tape of Honey I Shrunk The Kids. Ludicrous fines and unjust imprisonment be damned!
    • davewashere, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1I think most of them are too ignorant to understand these laws that they are passing. The MPAA and RIAA lobbies feed them the worst cases of infringement -- like industry insiders leaking pre-releases of movies and music, and they put them in the same legal standing as someone who has taped a TV show. The fact is many politicians commit copyright infringement (by the legal definitions that they passed) all the time, probably without even realizing it. President Bush once inadvertently admitted to copyright infringement when he told a reporter he listened to The Beatles on his iPod, many years before their music was legally available in a format that can be played on the iPod. The criminals are not just the "hackers" sitting in the corner of a dark room operating a server that shares the latest movies and music with everyone around the world, they are also our elected leaders who really don't know any better, but at the same are telling us that we should know better or we'll be criminals.
  • Onoes, on 06/22/2008, -0/+16brb.. gotta go set fire to my basement..
  • KibblesnBitts, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4wow, that really sucks......I mean at least the USA has Ex Post Facto in The Constitution
    • publiclurker, on 06/22/2008, -0/+10How September 10th of you.
    • shadowblade989, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6Its just the constitution, that doesn't matter.
  • tychoish, on 06/22/2008, -3/+0the penalties in such laws aren't widely enforced, but are useful to law enforcement and prosecutors who have weak cases or insufficient statutory support for going after people for other crimes. That's what makes them *even more scary*
    • cnosal, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Again, you're only criminally liable if you infringe for commercial purposes, the rest is civil courts. The cops won't come after you pirated collection as an excuse.
  • holyskeleton, on 06/22/2008, -0/+10Hey don't drag the baby panda into this, he has nothing to do with it!
  • lazyfisherman, on 06/22/2008, -2/+15We need to boycott the entertainment industry, go outside, talk to other people, enjoy our communities.. live like people instead of isolated consumer zombies.

    The entertainment mafia has gone too far and it makes me not only want to never pay for mainstream "entertainment" again but also to never want their tainted products anymore. There's an evil stench that hangs on everything they produce and I don't need their ***** and I certainly don't need to pay for it. Major label CDs + music.. big studio movies.. watered-down, boring tv shows.. with a few exceptions, I find them more and more disgusting with every law that is passed limiting my freedoms.
    • onedingo, on 06/22/2008, -0/+9My TV broke almost 3 years ago. I will not be replacing it. I couldn't tell you what a single movie is in a theater right now.

      Quit buying their damn content! It is what empowers them to buy laws like these.

      All the content coming out next week, you are living just fine without right now.
    • bdbr, on 06/22/2008, -0/+7Then don't buy from major labels. There are plenty of independent music labels that aren't pulling these legal maneuvers.
      • artfiend77, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2And the independent labels music is waaay better anyways! You know, I used to download, 20-30 GIGS a week on average of music, movies and games. I realized out of the 10 - 15 gigs of music, I would only listen to about 1 - 2 gigs. The rest was crap. Then I switched over to independent groups ( or check out the unsigned section of certain torrent sites) and cut my music downloading down to about 2 - 3 gigs a week, and I've donated in the last 6 months about 400 - 500$ to these great bands. That 400 - 500$ record companies won' be getting out of me cause they vomit out the same generic mind dumbing ***** over and over, and their draconian ways of regulating illegal downloading ( bullying the masses and potential clients with their money) The thing is it's not that people are cheap in most cases, they DO have the money. It's just that the ***** out there isn't worth buying anymore. It's frustrating to spend15 - 20$ on a CD with two, three good songs. Buying a CD or music in general shouldn't be a gamble.
        • bdbr, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Good point! For small labels, musicians, and content creators, downloading on the internet is a form of advertising. Many small labels are GROWING right now because of that.

          It seems like all this regulation is just a way to provide a preferential treatment to big labels with advertising budgets and radio ties.
  • muniak, on 06/22/2008, -3/+16I ***** hate the conservatives, the rest of the parties need to step it up and stand up to this ***** minority government!
  • ZedoMann, on 06/22/2008, -1/+5Wait...Let me get this straight: If you receive so called "stolen goods" from a friend who doesn't need them anymore, then you're going to get a fine? That is the stupidest law I ever saw.
  • anewname, on 06/22/2008, -0/+12People voted for Harper to "punish" the Liberals... This is what we get. ***** Neo-Cons.
  • t4m5t3r, on 06/22/2008, -2/+20what makes this amazing is that it actualy puts the power back into the hands of the people who they claim they are trying to stop, ORGANIZED CRIME,

    in glasgow we have a place called The Barrowlands (or The Barra's if your from glasgow) it a big market, and used to be the place (and probably still is to an extent) where pretty much everybody in glasgow got their pirate tapes,dvd's,games, music,clothes, you name it you can get it at the barras, these guys where busy, i mean realy busy, these guys where easliy taking in hundreds of thousands of pounds a weekend (and anybody who was there in its day could vouch for that, may even still be like that, havent been there for years),

    But downloading pretty much put a stop to that, there was no money to be made, as most people could get the same but usualy better quality of movies, music,games, online, for FREE, and this took the money out of it for these guys, now if a law like this was to pass in the UK it would put that power right back into their hands, (and will probably do the same in canada)

    but again, this is not about stopping piracy, this is about making money, MORE MONEY, i for one am never gonna stop downloading. infact my 20mb connection gets put in next month (NO MORE virgin media and their throttling of my connection at peak times, YAY!!) but ***** them, if they want to make us criminals so they can extort money then im not gonna stop, they'll get none of my money, and the minute they start blocking it ISP side, will be the day the internet dies, so we need to simply ignore these corporate sponsored laws, tell them to stick it up their ass, and if that doesnt work, go buy a guitar, or whatever takes you fancy but just dont give them your money, thats what its all about, bankrupt these ***** and kill them off, thats the best solution ,although they do already have most if not all the money, so dont know how we could manage that, then they'd probably just sue us for not BUYING music anyway!lol!
    • JustinHopewell, on 06/22/2008, -0/+9Despite your ridiculously long run-on sentences (especially the last one, which runs eight lines long), I can appreciate your enthusiasm and spirit. :D
  • atlbraves10, on 06/22/2008, -0/+22Isn't TiVo the same thing? This is pretty dumb.
    • Chasey, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5yep, but they seem to be aiming at file sharing sadly
    • ricepicker4000, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8If the USA makes tivo illegal, im moving to Canada and i don't even own a Tivo.
  • l800LEMMINGS, on 06/22/2008, -0/+6well a law is useless when no one listens at that point they can do nothing except set a few examples out of us that we will fight to defend those few
  • TimFrost, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1This law has been around for a long time in the UK.
  • dgbradl, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8I'm pretty certain that laws are not retroactive. Anything done before a law is passed that would make an activity illegal can't be applied to actions that take place previous to the passing of the law. Also, notice and comment are requirements before a new law is created so get out there and COMMENT THE HELL OUT OF THIS. It will take a huge number to override the Lobby's influence.
  • dexter411, on 06/22/2008, -8/+5Blame Canada...
    • CCoe, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5Actually, I'm afraid that in this case we're all pointing the finger South.
  • mrhuggy, on 06/22/2008, -8/+2You guys do realize that if all of this stuff were free or 'shared' as you prefer the artists/writers/directors/actors will receive little to no income and then would have little to no reason to continue to put out the music/video or the quality of music/videos? The difference between file sharing and lending a buddy a CD/DVD is that when you file share that friend (multiplied many times over - and whom you probably don't actually know) generally keeps the CD/DVD permanently rather than (if he/she likes it) eventually going out and making a purchase.

    That said, copyrights need to be updated and re-worked to actually put more money in the hands of the creators than the MPAA and RIAA, or whatever governing body actually does the recording and distributing.
    • Evicted, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4the only people protected by these laws are the huge corporate record labels and production houses, they're seeing an end to their monopoly on culture and are fighting back. If you believe artists or creators are going to be affected you're wrong. Have you noticed the only artists who are involved in this battle are greedy rich pigheaded rock stars or actors, not independent labels and bands, those who will theoretically be the "worst hit" by pirating. But they aren't, they are thriving. People have been creating music and art for the last 35 000 years, at least, somehow I doubt the collapse of the big moviehouses and record labels will change that.
    • RetardoCrisp, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Mmmm if that is fact, I wonder why people are still buying movies and music en mass then, hey? I know lots of people who download tunes and then buy the CD...primarily to have the case with the booklet etc. Having them on a hard drive is less clutter and far more portable IMO.
    • cnosal, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3Musicians get most of their money from live concerts and merchandise, movies get most of their money from theaters. As a google search will tell you, a large part of enjoying media is the experience (going to the theatre/concert with friends, big screen and sound instead of your old 20" TV). Also the recent examples of NIN and Radiohead offering 'pay what you want' packages have worked out well for them.

      It's also been shown in studies that people who download are more likely to buy music (you get exposure to music you wouldn't have otherwise known about), or download to sample music. The music industries' claims that every download is a lost sale is false.

      Sharing doesn't make the content industry shrivel up and die, bad business models do.
  • MildApplause, on 06/22/2008, -2/+17News flash: Gas is $4 a gallon. Please tell the RIAA and MPAA goons and thugs that there are real issues in our country that need real legislative attention, and that you are currently busy doing the work for the people that you were chosen by them to do.
    • iericg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+8Oh man... I wish it was $4. Down in San Diego your looking at about $4.65 per gallon ; (
    • smashhell, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3HA, don't you know Los Angeles and New York are already at $5.09 a gallon ? =(
    • ZachE84, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1We're still cheaper than any country in Europe, by about 4$ :)

      I wouldn't complain.
  • koopertrooper, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4***** ***** *****, WHERE DO WE KEEP THE MATCHES?!
  • ksalminen, on 06/22/2008, -7/+4Am I the only one who noticed that it's Canada.com instead of Canada.ca?
    • TheLD, on 06/22/2008, -3/+4And why would that matter?
    • astericks, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2As far as I can remember, it's been Canada.com
    • supermanred, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4Canada.com was built before there was a .ca domain or any other international domain for that matter.
    • CrushThemTorg, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4It was made before the first .ca domain in 1988? That's some serious old-school *****.
  • bshock, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2It always has.
  • gemlarin, on 06/22/2008, -0/+11Welcome to the battle my brothers to the north. We got your back.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.