Proposed copyright law puts squeeze on downloads

New copyright legislation was introduced that's intended to discourage the practice of illegal downloading. But many believe the draft legislation needs a lot more work.

CTV Edmonton: Joel Gotlib on the proposed changes

The federal government tabled legislation on Thursday that will see individuals fined a maximum of $500 if they are caught downloading copyrighted files.

CTV Newsnet: Jim Prentice announces the new bill

The Conservative government has introduced new legislation to regulate downloading and copyright infringement.

CTV Newsnet: Heritage Minister Josee Verner on what the bill is intended to do

New Conservative legislation to modernize Canadian copyright law is intended to protect creators, consumers and rights holders.

CTV Newsnet: David Fewer, University of Ottawa, describes the bill's lack of consideration for future technologies

While the private use exception is a positive move, one critic says they look backward, and don't apply going forward.

CTV Newsnet: Rosemary Thompson on the bill's impact on consumers

The federal government has tabled legislation making it easier to prosecute people who download copyrighted material.

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

A A | Email This Email | Print | Comments (232) Tweet

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Thu. Jun. 12 2008 8:21 PM ET

The federal government tabled legislation on Thursday that it claims will see individuals fined a maximum of $500 if they are caught downloading copyrighted files.

However, industry experts say the figure is a smoke-screen and that the legislation sets the stage for fines that could reach the millions.

Industry Minister Jim Prentice tabled the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act in the House of Commons on Thursday.

The proposed amendments include:

New exceptions that will allow Canadian consumers to legally record television shows for later viewing and copy legally acquired music onto other devices, such as iPods or cellphones
An explicit ban on peer-to-peer file sharing
New exceptions for some educational and research purposes
New rights and protections for those who create content

Provisions to address the liability of Internet service providers and the role they should play in curbing copyright-infringing activities on their networks

The new legislation would also make it illegal to copy a CD or DVD if it involves breaking a so-called "digital lock" place on the material by a distributor.

Prentice said one of the motivations behind the amendments was to balance the rights of those who hold copyright with the needs of users accessing copyright works.

"This is a unique made-in-Canada approach to copyright reform," Prentice told reporters Thursday. "This is truly a win-win situation for Canadian consumers who use digital technology and for everyone who creates material that becomes digitally accessible."

Made-in-U.S. approach?

However, David Fewer, staff counsel at the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, compared the amendments to a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

Fewer, speaking to CTV Newsnet on Friday, said the amendments are not "made in Canada" but are instead similar to legislation in the United States.

He said the legislation paves the way for the kind of file-sharing lawsuits that have occurred in the United States.

Fewer said the $500 maximum fine for downloading is not applicable to situations where a user makes their copyright files available for others to access.

"So if you have music or video in your shared folder you are subject to the ordinary rules of statutory damages -- which is $500 to $20,000 per work -- that could be millions of dollars worth of damages," he said.

The $500 fine limit could also be increased depending on how many people hold copyrights to the illegally shared document, said copyright lawyer Howard Knopf.

For example, each song generally contains three copyrights -- for the music, the sound recording and the performance -- allowing for fines of $1,500 per song in those cases.

"If you've got 1,000 or 2,000 songs, it could be hundreds of thousands of copyrights," he said Thursday on CTV's Mike Duffy Live. "I'm not sure the $500 limit is going to help anyone... There are a lot of things in the bill they aren't what they seem to be."

Musician Safwan Javed echoed these sentiments, saying the bill seems to designed to favour corporations such as record labels above the creators of the content.

"Look at the example south of the border, which this legislation essentially mimics," said Javed, the drummer from the band Wide Mouth Mason and a law student. "It's been a strategy of suing fans. We don't believe this benefits musicians in any way. We believe it benefits the corporate stakeholders."

Comments are now closed for this story

Doug
said
0 0

Let me explain the difference between sharing and stealing.

Theft - My friend comes over and takes my hammer.

Sharing: I lend my hammer to a friend so he can put up a picture in his living room. (Thank god there are no rules that he has to pay Sears $0.99....yet)

Theft: My friend comes over and takes one of my books.

Sharing: I tell my friend a good story.

Sharing: I give my friend some 000110101010.

Theft: My friend comes over and takes my IPod!

Does that help?

Jeff
said
0 0

To all who are STILL saying that you won't be able to transfer your music to your iPod, STOP IT!! Yes, you can!

Stop filling this board with bad information. Take a deep breath and read the article.

That's the problem with the internet. People are all given an equal voice, whether you read the article or not, whether you're qualified to give an opinion or not. Maybe you should have to take a quiz on an article before you can post. It would prevent people from polluting discussion boards with ignorance and misinformation.

dwight c
said
0 0

The government says you cannot share your files over the internet with other people then what the difference of buying a cd or dvd and lending it to other people for they can watch it or listen to it and most likely to download it to there pc or ipod. So,when this happens is it against the law to lend things to people because the way thing are going the government will have a law on lending your own personal property. So, tell me whats the difference.

Brett (Vancouver)
said
0 0

Everyone should know that this Bill means that you can no longer back up your dvd's (which many do with kid's dvd's)
All dvd backup software circumvents the DRM on dvd's. If you child scratches the original, you will have to go out and buy a new one.
Also, this Bill allows for private companies to force ISP's to hand over your account info and even monitor your use of the internet.

I'm a staunch Conservative supporter and have been in touch with Jim Prentice, urging him not to follow US style copyright.
I am now without a party I can support.

Mr Chillz
said
0 0

This should be a warning to ISP's:

Rat me out and you'll lose my business.

Jim Lad
said
0 0

This is a direct result of lobbying on the part of SOCAN & the failing record industry.
They have held artists and consumers hostage for the whole of the twentieth century but have seriously dropped the ball with the onset of the Internet, independent artists and the booming, home recording industry.
I am one independent artist who is more than happy to see these giants fall but saddened by the absence of any artist advocates when it comes to this kind of legislation.
We are by our very nature, individual artists with no facility to address the government.
I have no problem with anyone downloading my work but willingly pay for the work of others. Such as music, software etc.
My page offers a choice; Pay for the music or download it for free.
You'd be surprised at the results.
Not too often that I've been dissapointed with this government but in this case I have to say "You just don't get it"!
Here http://jimbrannigan.com/ help yourselves.

Daniel H
said
0 0

Yes people should pay for what they get for their own use. However, the music and movie industry is to blame for this problem in the first place. The cost of production and distribution is peanuts compared to years of the past when 45RPM records and VHS tapes were popular. Make the cost of purchasing music and videos reasonable and the piracy will stop. Remember when the movie industry tried to stop rentals? They lost and suddenly the cost to buy movies dropped.

Rafal Dyrda
said
0 0

We pay a levy on all DVD's and CD's to cover copyrighted material. This is money that is supposed to compensate the artists. I pay that by purchasing an iPod, DVD's and CD's, where the latter I use for personal backup of photo's and movies from trips. Therefore, the government is already collecting money for that purpose alone. Did they take that levy of the media that we pay for? NO!

Ladies and Gentlemen. This is another way for the government to make more money of possible money that the artist, lawyer etc make off this. These parties pay taxes, taxes that go to the government, so yes, it does benefit the government. You can't win, simple as that! This is become a POLICE country. Pretty soon you'll need permission to buy an iPod. Communism at its finest. CASE CLOSED, $500 dollars, $50 to the government.

Louise
said
0 0

Everyone talks as though this never happened before the internet. My friends and I would never by the same albums or cassettes, we would just buy one and copy them. Doesn't anyone remember tunes tapes? Why is it suddenly a big deal. All anyone has to do is go to the library or internet cafe, how are they going to get caught?

Stig X
said
0 0

readthearticle did read the article. Unfortunately, the article didn't tell the whole story.
From http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

As expected, Prentice has provided a series of attention-grabbing provisions to consumers including time shifting, private copying of music (transferring a song to your iPod), and format shifting (changing format from analog to digital). These are good provisions that did not exist in the delayed December bill. However, check the fine print since the rules are subject to a host of strict limitations and, more importantly, undermined by the digital lock provisions. The effect of the digital lock provisions is to render these rights virtually meaningless in the digital environment because anything that is locked down (ie. copy-controlled CD, no-copy mandate on a digital television broadcast) cannot be copied. As for every day activities like transferring a DVD to your iPod - those are infringing too. Indeed, the law makes it an infringement to circumvent the locks for these purposes.

Brian from Edmonton
said
0 0

As I write this, there are 190 comments on this article.
You all abviously have internet connections, so use your e-mail capabilities and e-mail your MP and Jim Prentice with your concerns. That would be much more effective than this comment section (unless you do both, as I do)

Matt
said
0 0

So on top of the ridiculous gas prices, now the government wants to control what we do on the internet? I won't be voting Tory next election.

If it wasn't for free downloading, I wouldn't have discovered half the bands I know and I wouldn't have shelled out 50-100 bucks to go their concerts.

At one concert, the artist told everyone in the audience to go home and download their new song. They got a guy in the front row to record them performing it and then made him promise to upload it on the internet when he got home.

There is more to free downloading than "stealing". Our local radio station has a free download on their website to a new song. The artist wanted an easy way to be discovered by more people. So will the artist be fined? The radio station? How does that work?

Good luck trying to enforce this on millions of people.

Guy
said
0 0

I don't understand why I have to buy the same music 4 times. Got the record , got the tape got the CD, now I have to pay for the MP3. I can see this law applying for new music but older music should be free. Same goes for movie.

JJ
said
0 0

Now I hope the government is going to give us a list of allowable downloads, and that the ISP's are going to make sure it isn't downloaded if it is "copyright" because as the "LAW" stands, anyone viewing a video from any web site that is determined at a later date to be copyright WILL be liable as browsers "cache" or download this material on your local machine. Anything you look at on the web will have the potential of making you a criminal. Enjoy Big Brother and rule of law by Corporation.

cheers
JJ

Marc
said
0 0

Well If I'm unable to download the odd thing here and there, and the fact that Shaw might be forced to give up my IP, home address I think I'll just give up my internet connection.

I have work for emails and surfing can be done on my lunch.

J
said
0 0

Everyone seems to be missing the fact that there is no theft involved. It is a copyright issue. By this copyright law 'sharing' is made illegal, which means if i buy a song or album I can not lend it to my friend to listen to nor can I even let them hear it over the phone while talking to them. ie. telecommunications.. This legislation is being rammed through by the Recording Industry and no one else. What about privacy rights? How do you think they can prove you d/l or shared files - by getting records from ISP's which means they are watching and recording what you do on the internet - packet sniffing etc. Also - according to the legislation you are not even allowed to give away music that you legally bought. There are just too many loopholes and restrictions that can be brought to bear on people in this legislation. It is not fair to people, or artists. Just means that most people that d/l music will now encrypt their methods more than before. It is a very sad state of affairs when government takes orders from business. This is a bad bad piece of legislation aimed only at consumers.... next up will be what you can and can not talk about online, and in your own home. Welcome to the decline of Western Civilisation

What a joke...the Feds have NO clue what's what!!!
said
0 0

Who's going to enforce these laws if they're passed? Copyright Cops? Police may write-up the fine but if challenged in court I believe it'll become a Human Rights & Freedoms issue and be thrown out. Am I the only one that sees the incredible waste of time & resources passing this law?

greg cambridge
said
0 0

I can see the Conservatives don't care if they win the upcoming election....because they won't.

Prince
said
0 0

Lets cheer the labels they'll make sure we have to buy other formats, because of this:
"The new legislation would also make it illegal to copy a CD or DVD if it involves breaking a so-called "digital lock" place on the material by a distributor."

Jaynee64
said
0 0

Let's just say you go into a Pawn Shop or go to a Garage Sale and buy a used CD or DVD. Is that now illegal. Will they arrest and fine both the buyer and seller. No royalties are going to the artist or label in those cases. How is this all going to work?

MP3
said
0 0

Right now, sharing and downloading files is not illegal.

What happens when this law comes into play - what happens when they catch you in posession of music you downloaded last year when it was not illegal to down load?

Do we all have to pile our downloaded CD's in the streets and set them on fire to apease the mighty record coke snortin gods?

Chris
said
0 0

Those of you comparing copyright infringement to theft really need to get your heads out of your collective asses. The person who said he'd come by and borrow my car, and equating that to downloading music is way off the mark. The big problem with that statement is...I no longer have the car. When you download music, you're just taking a copy of it, the original is still there. Seriously...you holier than thou people who say it's stealing really need to get outside more. Will I continue to download music? Yes, yes I will.

Mike Webster
said
0 0

@Shaking my head....if you had taken a moment to simply read the article, you would haver discovered that copying legally obtained music onto your iPod or other such device is PERFECTLY LEGAL under the new law. It would only become a crime if you decided to unlawfully distribute said copies to others. You're paying too much attention to the anti-copyright extremists and not enough attention to the facts.

Karen
said
0 0

I am glad to see that they've changed their minds on what we can do with the products we own...alot of others seemed to have missed this point in this article!

It says that it will make it "LEGAL" for us to copy products we own to our ipods, comps, etc.

Thank you for this!

Madashell
said
0 0

I was a Carpenter (retired now) and for every hour that I worked, I got paid for ONE HOUR! Why do these so called musicians expect to get paid time and time and time again for ONE SONG? Get real, they and the Label Companies are just a bunch of Crooks. The real artists that everyone should be supporting are the ones that put their music online for free. That way, later on their CD sales will soar, that is of course, if their music is any good!

Brian from Edmonton
said
0 0

Does anyone know how much Radiohead made off their pay what you can internet release of In Rainbows?
According to Wikipedia, their front man claims that release earned more money than all their previous albums combined. Then they released it on CD and made more millions.

That should tell the Recording labels and marketers something about the way of the future.
Also, most artists (the good ones, anyway) make most of their money on concerts and the peripherals i.e. tee shirts, posters, etc.

Richard
said
0 0

This bill is another attack on Canadian consumers driven by the American Media cartels. By supporting Digital Rights Management software the Conservative government is sacrificing the privacy and security of all consumers (as evidenced by the Sony DRM fiasco in which their digital locks were essentially found to be viruses that made computer users vulnerable to online attacks). This law will only encourage such dangerous software....

Logan
said
0 0

Last I checked, the Conservatives do not have Majority. Doesn't this mean this BILL can be challenged, or do they have rights to just put it into law effective immediately without bringing it to the other Parties' attention? That's what's confusing me.

Jojo
said
0 0

WHO WILL GET THE MONEY?

Not the artist, you can guarantee that!

Sales of MP3 players will go out the window. iphone now coming to Canada is screwed.

FreakAlert
said
0 0

Ever since the 60s, high music polyrhythmic beats have been very harmful to the brain and our thought process - short and longterm.

Cameron
said
0 0

Hey guppies,
I guess you are spending so much time ripping CD's you didn't read the article. This will change the law so it is legal for you to use MP3's. Under the old law it was illegal and nobody enforced it. As for the rest of you stop feeling sorry for yourself now that you cannot steal music online.

Jack
said
0 0

I thought the conservatives want smaller government?

Why are they trying to bring in more regulations?

ken
said
0 0

This has nothing to do with artists, this is to protect the American record producers not the artists, I would like to see a financial statement that shows an artist receiving any money whatsoever from a lawsuit brought by a record producer.

This is a huge scam to put money in the pockets of record companies.

And a question! if this legislation is to protect artists, then why is it that artists are not the ones bringing suit.

Chris
said
0 0

as I type this I am downloading seasons of a tv show that were recorded by somebody else. it is no different than recording on your vhs vcr, in my opinion. it's just like borrowing a recorded tape from a neighbor or friend, except that you never meet the neighbor/friend, and there is no tape. nobody can stop P2P, ever.

Jack
said
0 0

I never bought music before music downloading was available. I still don't. Have I hurt anyone?

If I clone something, I am not stealing. I am not profiting from it. Who does this hurt? If I had no intent to purchase in the first place who am I hurting?

Norm
said
0 0

First I swore I could no longer vote Liberal and then I could no longer vote NDP. Now I can no longer vote Conservative. I guess I don't vote anymore. On the bright side, look at the gas I will save by not going in to vote.

Tommy Chase
said
0 0

This article is wrong! Its $500 per file! Not $500 total. EVen the media is trying to do the message deliverying for our rediculous Conservative government.
Throw them out. Throw them out. THROW THEM OUT

Steve
said
0 0

Well with youth crime going crazy in this country the government can't find time to make new tough laws, So they do this. Cripes sake harper get off your butt and do what really needs to be taken care of in this country. maybe what we canadians should do to the music industry and entertainment industry is call to have our cable disconected for our television and computers. Make sure nobody goes to the movies or concerts either.We have been getting ripped of for years with high prices for concerts.

Chris Hanlon
said
0 0

The new bill legalizes making 1 copy for each of your devices, of any legally obtained material.

It then amends that by stating that you can't tamper with any digital locks on that media.

One cancels out the other. If I have a right to make backups, or copies for other devices, then I have that right. Turning around and voiding that right by allowing the manufacturer to remove that right by adding copy protection to that media is ludicrous.

It is currently legal to make a backup copy of copyright material in Canada. That is being codified in this new bill. It should *also* abolish digital locks on that media. Or at the very least, require that those locks be created in such a way that they allow us to exercise our legal right to 1 copy per device.

Alex
said
0 0

I think one thing that everyone is forgetting here is the days when cd's were $18-20. Why are albums now as low as $9.99? It's because of the pressures that piracy places upon record labels. I think several others would agree that $9.99 is a very fair price. Piracy is not morally right, but what the government is suggesting is not right either. This is just another prime example of politicians sticking their noses in a matter that should be ranked as low priority over national issues such as healthcare and fuel charges.

Jay
said
0 0

All you people posting that you should have the right to copy a music CD you purchased, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE!!!

proposed amendments include:

* new exceptions that will allow Canadian consumers to legally record television shows for later viewing and copy legally acquired music onto other devices, such as iPods or cellphones;

If you're going to comment at least take the time to know what you are commenting on.

FreakAlert
said
0 0

I think this is just a front to setup another 'Room 641A'

Shaking my head !
said
0 0

Can someone help me out here.....
I don't really download tunes or movies.....I have a couple of thousand cd's and about a thousand Vinyl LP's
In order to prevent wear and tear on my vinyl albums, mainly Jazz and Classical I have copied same to cd's and play them....are you now telling me I have committed an offence and can be fined ?
Or how about my young son, who purchases tunes from a Russian site that only charges 10-12cents a tune....he claims this is legal and prefers it to the old way of downloading free stuff that often was not what was advertised or was full of viruses and trojans.
Should we both get a lawyer and surrender to Police now !

guppies
said
0 0

O.k if they collect the fine, how they use it.
And the money go to who ?

By the way, I would like to know where that extra tax money goes when we purchase blank CD for protect copy right ?

Humm ! look's like go to lunch money for them.

Kerri
said
0 0

It costs 50.00 to download LimeWire (a file sharing program). Shouldn't these lawyers go after the companies that offer this program?
They are making a lot of money!

PrimeNumbers
said
0 0

Remember, this is not about copyright. It's not about downloading, it's about control. You and your control of what you buy.

This bit, that Prentice says, is a lie: "new exceptions that will allow Canadian consumers to legally record television shows for later viewing and copy legally acquired music onto other devices, such as iPods or cellphones"

These "exceptions" are bogus because of DRM - that's the stuff that Sony did with their rootkit fiasco that crippled people's computers. None of these exceptions have any meaning because now, removing DRM is illegal.

Say this had been law a year ago, and you'd got hit with Sony's DRM rootkit. It would have been illegal for you to remove that hacker back door from your own computer. Think about it. This isn't balance, it's ludicrous.

Anyone who talks about musicians loosing money from downloads is missing the point. This is a bad law, it won't help musicians earn a single extra cent.

And remember, you pay 23c on each blank CD bought to musicians for the right to copy music you've bought on to it. That's a rippoff as most people use CDs for backing up their photos that they took, or their files, databases, spreadsheets etc.

Backing up your legally purchased DVD so your kids don't scratch it - now illegal. Hell, that doesn't harm anyone! Unlocking your mobile phone. Yup, you're now a criminal.

Mandy
said
0 0

I think file sharing is a great way for new artists & bands to reach the public & increase their fanbase. Even with older artists/bands, not everyone is familiar with them, & file sharing gives them a chance to discover the music. I don't want to go out & spend up to $20 on a CD I may or may not like. I know you can buy music on iTunes & the like, but not everyone has a credit card. A lot of young people are doing the downloading for free because they don't have a way to pay for it. Also, many parents don't like the idea of using their credit card on the interent. Once I've become a fan of an artist/band, I will actually go out & buy a physical copy of the record. I understand not everyone will do this, but true music fans will. Also, I end up spending a lot of money of bands later on, like on concert tickets & merchandise. I'm positive there are other, much more important issues in Canada that we could be focusing on that would benefit our country a whole lot more than this ridiculous law.

Pam from Ingersoll
said
0 0

I am relatively new to the free downloading thing. I don't have a problem with the free downloading (yes I do understand it is stealing!) but at the same time I DO go to concerts where some tickets are $100 - $200 a ticket. Therefore, for my husband and I to go to a concert we mus save for a LONG time in order to be able to go. and when we do go, the concert is an hour maybe a little bit longer but not much. So I figure I am just getting my monies worth for the concert that didn't play very long. Anyways, the point of why is irrelevant - with all the issues going on in today's society who is going to monitor this?? We already don't have enough police to monitor the car jackers, murders and other violent crimes going on, are we really going to take those officers off the street so we can bust people who are downloading music??

guppies
said
0 0

If all Canadian can get a break for gas price and paid less on auto and other items instead of 18 - 30 % more.

For sure it will cut down the number of people trying to download a illegal song trying to save them $ .90 cent.

Lee Szigety
said
0 0

Everyone here keeps centering upon the WHY and not the HOW of the matter.

Form will always follow function.

How are they going to get access to someone's home without a warrant and probable cause? High levels of data streaming are not considered to be probable cause.

How are they going to collect information to present to a judge for a warrant without first interrupting a closed data stream that is purely within the contract rights between the internet provider and the consumer?

This legislation is part of a greater attack on information distribution systems, and has little to nothing to do with copyright infringements.

Hanging around enough electrical engineers, database compilers, programmers, internet security specialists, and web designers; it tells me two things...1) that the government is at least 10 years behind the technology used for sharing...and 2) that the supposed limitations of excess internet usage on other consumers is a fraud.

Governing bodies everywhere that are intent upon finishing their designs for the Single World Government, along with the creations prior to that of the EU, NAU, APU, and AU are intent upon total control within the closed clique of those creating such a single world governing infrastructure.

Information is nothing without the ability to freely disseminate it between peers. The powers that be know this and are giving the illusion that technology is either clogged or can go no further without massive restructuring of infrastructure...which will in turn give them and their conglomerate control junkies the ability to manifest their own grids of information control through lobbying for anti-consumer legislation such as this.

Wake up people...and oppose the North American Union put in place with the authority illegally obtained by the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Get Real !
said
0 0

Why don't the record companies and others who claim they are "victims" of copyright infringment simple go after Microsoft for making available the tools (in Media Player) to rip and copy songs. Why not try to ban the sale of DVD/CD burners as these items are the true cause of all this duplication they are so outraged about.....
The answer is simple....Microsoft and the companies like LG and Samsung that manufacture these items would tie them up in knots for years in court costing them millions in litigation and appeals....
Much easier to go after the twelve year old burning a copy of the latest Avril CD she borroowed of her girlfriend !

BBL
said
0 0

If you didn't create it than pay for using it. The nay-sayers beleive that capitalism no longer exists and that everyone has the right not to pay the rightful owner for his product.
This practice can be equated to "squatters rights".Would these protesters be willing to have someone walk into their home just because it and occupy it for free . Wake-up and pay your share

Stephanie
said
0 0

I've noticed that nobody comments on the fact that recording artists and movie "stars" are two members of a very elite group of people who get paid continually for work performed only once. Real artists such as painters, sculptors, architects etc. get paid only once and, unlike recording artists, have no opportunity to re-perform their work live for additional income. If you buy a painting from an artist, you are free to do with it whatever you wish without fear of reprisal. You can even sell it for a profit without being required by government to compensate the artist in any way, shape or form. Is this fair? Why can we go to museums and view for free, paintings and sculptures by the masters? Why can we go to a public library and borrow a book without having to pay a dime to the author? I feel once a song or movie is made available to the public, it then becomes public property and therefor the public has the right to do with it as they wish. In my opinion,it is copyright laws themselves that are unjust. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could get paid today for work they performed ten years ago? I know I would certainly enjoy that.

Sky
said
0 0

Here's whats dumb...

You can record a tv show and put it on whatever medium you want(pvr, dvd, vhs). But you can't record music from the Radio and put it on whatever medium you want.

and....

You can take music you purchased, and put it on any medium (cd, computer, tape, ipod/mp3 player) But you can not take a Tv show or Movie you purchased on Dvd, and put it on your computer or Ipod.

How fair is that?

guppies
said
0 0

Look's like they (Fed) got nothing to do.
Trying to find ways to waste our tax $.

Illegal download is world wide issue. And they think %500.00 with fix it.

And we are paiding 18 - 30% more for the same item selling down south.
So who protect us for paid higher pricing ?

Addison
said
0 0

I'm seeing a lot of comments complaining about not being able to copy legally obtained music/film onto other devices.

Did none of you actually read the article:

"new exceptions that will allow Canadian consumers to. . . copy legally acquired music onto other devices, such as iPods or cellphones"

I fail to understand what your complaint could be. The new law CLEARLY makes provisions to allow you to essentially do whatever you like with media so long as you've paid for it.

Don
said
0 0

The new legislation would also make it illegal to copy a CD or DVD if it involves breaking a so-called "digital lock" place on the material by a distributor.

People!!! the paragraph above is right from the article. In the case of a "digital lock" you will not be allowed to copy your legally purchased CD or DVD if it has this. All DVDs and many CDs have these locks so you can not legally backup something that you have paid for.

Ed
said
0 0

OK.. SO now when are these high paid idiots going to something about real problems like Gas prices or high food prices or starving kids. What's next.. Hiring a full force of download police?

Andy
said
0 0

For all people who say that "Sharing" is not "stealing", please who do you think you are fooling. Maybe I can come by and "borrow" you car and forget to give it back. If I don't call it stealing, well then I guess it's OK

Shawn
said
0 0

@Eric: Red Hat and Ubuntu can give away their stuff because Open Source licenses distort copyright in favour of the public. It is the reverse, people want you to distribute their works in this case.

It's only a matter of time for the younger generation to undo these laws. A law isn't a law if the majority of people don't agree.

goodbourgeois
said
0 0

The problem in my view is that copyright was originally created to help foster the art by limiting the distribution system and returning money earned to the creator. The original period of time covered by this protection has been extended time and again, thus diminushing the incentive for creators to make new work. The lengthier the period of protection, the more the creator benefits and the greater the cost to society which is offering the protection. Additionally, this 500$ per file is too high. Computer programs could run into the millions of dollars, while CD and DVD would go between 5000$ and 50000$. If I was working to abuse such a system, I'd make many more files then needed, hoping someone would download it, so that I could nail them with incredible damages.

In effect, even if this makes it to law, we the people have demonstrated our opposition by action. Perhaps if prices ran down, instead of up, as we are getting better duplication technologies, we consumers would feel more inclined to pay.

Wendy
said
0 0

OMG.......

Logan------- What planet are you from? How many businesses do you support where the person (s) profiting from your business drink or do drugs? You comments are just out of this world and to say something like that, I have to wonder what drugs you are on.

90% of you seem to think that your lives are going to drastically change because of this. Do you really think that they are going to know if you taped a TV show to watch at a later date. Do you have video hook-up in your homes that are linked to the copyright police.

Give your heads a shake. Most of you are not seeing this for what it is. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. All it means now is that you had better not get caught on filesharing websites.

The issue today is technology. The widespread availability of being able to share music, videos and whatever online has become an issue.

For us older folk, think back to cassette tape days. Was there ever an issue in recording an album from vinyl onto tape and passing that around with our friends? Of course not! No one knew except us. Now with the internet and file sharing, it is an issue.

Max
said
0 0

This legislation certainly has some bugs in it; however, it's nice to see a move towards treating theft like theft. I'm continually amazed at the number of people who think there's nothing wrong with stealing copyrighted material. As it's become so easy and so common, countless people have been conditioned to think there's nothing wrong with it; that it's some sort of god-given right now. Particularly amusing are those who think legislation like this will somehow ruin the world. Yikes.

Dave
said
0 0

While I agree that artists deserve compensation for their work, I recognize that the majority of profits are going to the LABELS, and not the INDIVIDUALS or GROUPS. This legislation will help to line the pockets of big music companies, but do little to funnel money to artists.

Since we're now going to take the US approach (they're in love with the litigation approach), I demand that the surcharge on CD's and the proposed levy on MP3 players and external hard-drives be scrapped immediately. This money ALSO goes to the "artists" in compensation, as there has long been view that if you're buying blank media you're going to be downloading copyrighted work.

They shouldn't be able to have it both ways - levys from EVERYONE who buys blank media, and litigation from those who download illegally.

Justin
said
0 0

Wait, does this mean I won't be able to get music without paying for it anymore?

Brandon
said
0 0

Now what I would like to know is, is the government and its little task force that will be enforcing this be able to go to someone and say, "Back on June 10, 2003 you downloaded a song illegally. You are subject to a $500 fine" I think you will see a drop in CD sales as a result of this. Personally, if I download a song or an album and enjoy it, I go purchase it. Why would someone buy something they are not entirely sure they will enjoy. That's like buying a car without taking it for a test drive.

Guppies
said
0 0

I think they should spend their time in other more important issue.

Don't we already paid extra charge for purchase blank CD for protect copyright issue ? And where the money goes to ?

Illegal download is a major problem world wide. They think 500$ fine will fix the problem and scary people away.

We should pass a law to make sure the Fed. don't waste our tax $.
And if they do fine them.

Chris
said
0 0

How does the government plan on enforcing this? Where are they going to get my information? Not from my ISP. They tried that before and a judge ruled that their fishing expedition didn't outweigh my right to privacy. And the ISPs were the ones fighting for their customers. This is pretty much going to be an unenforcable law. Lip service is all it is.

bryguy76
said
0 0

So... as far as I'm concerned, every time I purchase recordable media, I'm paying the recordable media tax which goes to the production companies and artists; therefore, I am already paying for anything I choose to download.

If this becomes law, will the tax go away?

Somehow, I doubt it...

Mike W
said
0 0

I'd be curious to see how this would affect me, as I download TV shows but have a cable subscription (or at least did, in the process of moving).
I paid for cable so that anyone could watch it in the living room, but I prefer to have it in a window on my desktop while I work. Will they consider *that* illegal?

Mike
said
0 0

So many people are leaving comments complaining that with this new law, they can no longer copy their own legally purchased cds for their friends or onto their computer. If they had properly read the article, they would realize that this is not true. It clearly states that people will be allowed to make copies of legally purchased material.

Skyler
said
0 0

If we can video tape/pvr tv shows, why not record songs off the radio? The canadian government and the RCMP have more important things to do than worry about who downloads music. Maybe the government should focus on what is really important.

Ron Speakman
said
0 0

Clearly industry lobbyist have been successful in influencing Tory policy.

Ian
said
0 0

Read what a real expert has to say about this: michaelgeist.ca

This is worse than the American DMCA. Format shifting, time shifting - all these things sound great but the copyright holders can shut it all down. You're even a criminal if you unlock a cell phone! This is NOT fair for Canadians.

Not Alone
said
0 0

I think everyone has forgotten that even if you buy all your CDs, the artists actually see very little of that money. It all goes to the record labels, who are the people leading forward this fight. Many artists have gone online and released their content for free. They make money at their shows, not from their CDs.
Below is my source for citation.
www.musiclaw.info/contractbasics.html

But I like to share!!!
said
0 0

So, teaching our kids to share could backfire in their faces?!?

If I really like an artist, I'll spend the money on their album. Maybe the record industry should focus on producing quality instead of quantity!!!

And, would it be illegal to record from the radio?

David
said
0 0

This bill betrays the rights of Canadians. All the exceptions that supposedly benefit consumers are undermined by other sections of the bill. This is the government sticking it's nose where is doesn't belong to try and prop up deficient business models.

The caps on downloading fines are a smokescreen for the actual meat of this bill which makes something like unlocking a cell phone illegal and extends certain copywrites.

Sid
said
0 0

Oh Tories!!!! This is still Canada and please think about Canadians before your own backs.

Control the internal affairs and then the businesses rather than consumers.

Canadians are the kindest in the world to bear CONSUMER ABUSE even when the dollar is at parity.

Canadians are patient even when we watch the Tories say that Consumers should hunt for bargains themselves while they do the leg work for Corporations.

Why not fine Businesses when they still have not come to parity after 8 months?

Why fine downloaders? We are simply looking for the best value we can find.

I do not support the proposed law because I still see no Canadian Consumer benifits.

Larry
said
0 0

This is simply a matter of getting paid for what one produces. The proposed law allows for people to use the copyright material they purchase on a different medium, so no restriction there. The real issue is to prevent theft - yes theft, for that is exactly what it is when you distribute material for which you do not hold the copyright. There is not a single person who is moaning about his rights being infringed upon who would also agree to work 40 hours and get paid for one - exactly the sort of treatment they expect to dish out to others. A guiding principle is - if you get something you didn't have to work for, someone else did have to work for it! How fair is that ???

Marc
said
0 0

Seems like the only option everyone is mentioning is Itunes. If only there was more then just one option. The programs available for buying/downloading legitimate movies are horrible. (I love me DRM) If consumers don't have choice then how can you blame them for going somewhere else? I've searched for legal ways to download movies in the format that I want which is AVI and theres no way of doing it other then going through "illegal" sources.

Pirates have a better product then the billion dollar industry. Until this is resolved I will not buy a DVD or CD or any of the drm crap.

A. Conda
said
0 0

Copyright is more than music. It's just that the music industry has been so lucrative during the analog years. If there was a secure method of permitting me to one-time download the music I want directly from the artist, I would do it in a minute. Stores and on-line digital retailers inlcuding IPOD have a very limited inventory. There are lots of "criminals" out there but really limited resources to prosecute them. This is to scare people and satisfy the industry giants who haven't found a way to adequately distribute digital music.

Hackers will always find a way around this one!
said
0 0

I think that artists should get with the times, and get off their butts! No longer can they make millions of dollars from record sales while they sit back in their mansions and watch the money roll in. Instead, they need to get to work and get out there to perform live shows. This will weed out the ones without talent, (since there's no mixing or retakes when you're on stage.) All this new law will do will give Lawyers more $$$$$!!! Besides, who really wants to spend $20 on a CD that might have only 2 or 3 good songs?!?

PJ
said
0 0

Maybe if artists made an album that contained ALL good music instead of one or two cuts the consumer may go back to buying retail but when you buy albums,cd's,cassettes and pay the outrageous price for a couple of good songs you are getting ripped off!
Downloading gives you the option to get only what you like from any artist.
They whine about piracy yet don't care they rip us off so they can drink their faces off and smoke their dope and carry on like they are special people!

Keith
said
0 0

An amazing number of those posting here seem to have trouble understanding what they read. The article quite clearly states:

"new exceptions that WILL ALLOW Canadian consumers to legally record television shows for later viewing and copy legally acquired music onto other devices, such as iPods or cellphones" (emphasis added).

How so many of you misread this as WON'T ALLOW boggles the mind.

I am concerned about another aspect of this, though:

"The new legislation would also make it illegal to copy a CD or DVD if it involves breaking a so-called "digital lock" place on the material by a distributor."

This seems to give distributors the right to prevent my making otherwise-legal copies of legally purchased goods for my own use. I hope it ALSO forces the sellers to CLEARLY & PROMINENTLY LABEL products with such locks, as I will want to avoid buying them.

Enraged
said
0 0

This is ridiculous. Why do we have to prop up a bunch of behind the times Record labels?

boomer
said
0 0

Guess I'm a criminal now.. bought a CD and converted it to MP3 for my computer... listening to the Music I bouth on my Computer now makes me a criminal......

Mike Webster
said
0 0

I find it amazing how many people are on this site trying to justify out and out theft. Do you people feel that if you believe a store charges too much for something or makes too much money that you should be able to steal from them with impunity? It's equally amazing how many people are inventing their own aspects to this bill. For thos of you complaining about not being able to load up your iPod...what part of this: "new exceptions that will allow Canadian consumers to legally record television shows for later viewing and copy legally acquired music onto other devices, such as iPods or cellphones;" don't you understand? If you legally acquire the music (i.e. you don't steal it by downloading it without paying for it), you can do whatever you want with it.

Jay
said
0 0

I guess we will have to build more jails!

Jeff
said
0 0

So if I copy
10101010101000001000100010
To my IPOD from a CD then I can be fined up to $500??

When is the government going to stop protecting greedy corporations and start acting in the consumers best interest. This Bill first defends the corporations and then the artist. I would be all for a bill that helps the artist (oh wait we have that already). The idea of copyright is dying in the information age. We should be forcing these corporations to change to meet the needs of the consumer not the other way around.

Save the Dinosaurs
said
0 0

Another sign of consistency - I think? When technology changes, is it really appropriate to put in legislation to stop the progress? Would it not be better to leave the onus on the record companies etc. to find their own solutions?
Change seems to have made it impossible for GM to sell enough trucks. Maybe we should make those gas sipping cars illegal? That would preserve jobs and profits. Aren't these gas pinching cars actually steeling profits from industry?

Tom
said
0 0

Have you ever photocopied pages from a library book? Did the money you fed the copier go to the author? Yet this isn't considered piracy.

When you record TV shows in any electronic format this is not considered piracy.

When you record TV shows on your computer because you have a TV card, this is not considered piracy.

When you record streaming music from the net, this is not considered piracy.

For the last decade, Canadians have paid a levy / surcharge on all blank media that the Liberal government was *supposed* to pay film and music artists. Instead the monies have gone into general coffers to be used for everything else but paying royalties.

The prices of factory CDs and DVDs was supposed to fall in price but hasn't, and yet most of the royalties don't to the artists.

Borrowing books, cassettes, CD, DVD, audio books and other things from libraries, schools, friends and family isn't piracy even though the items are being read, listened to and used by more than one person, so this isn't considered piracy.

The Liberals have said that file sharing is not illegal, it is solely sharing files - data. And the public having paid royalties in advance on all blank record media, MP3 players and so on are not engaging in piracy because the royalties on music and movies, etc have been paid therefore there IS NO PIRACY.

We live in an age where we can download and copy whatever from wherever - and file-sharing will continue because the internet is constructed in such a way as to promote the sharing of information from computer to computer.

This piece of legislation is too vague and faulty to be of any use. I can foresee a lot of Court challenges in the future.

Andy
said
0 0

Think of something:
You are the one that's confused. When you buy a CD, you own the CD not the music. That music is the intellectual property of the artist, which is why other artist or radio station must pay royalties to use it

Capitalism is killing us
said
0 0

Musicians don't work on commission, especially if they are signed to a major label. They get paid for their album before it is released, so they are hardly starving artists. I think the amount of money "artists" like Britney Spears make is despicable and not even close to being well-earned. These people are millionaires and for what? What exactly do they contribute to the betterment of society? It's all ego and a sick sense of entitlement.

I can't remember the last time I bought a cd - I've been downloading off limewire for years, and I don't feel a bit of guilt about it. Is it about the music or the money? Is it about exposure, which certainly helps with tours, or principles? I spend my money on concerts, and that's it. People who can't afford to buy music can't enjoy it - there's no place for class politics in the arts. Shame on these greedy artists, and their state and corporate benefactors - they won't get a dime from me and I will be on downloading overdrive until this legislation is passed. Finally, if I actually purchase music, I'll share it with whomever I like via sites like limewire and I'll continue to burn cds, so proponents of this legislation can stick it!

Dean
said
0 0

How many people will be employed by the gov't to try and catch and enforce this new law? If the fine is only $500 maximum, how many people need to be caught each day to pay for this new department?

Canadian Interest
said
0 0

Don't they have better things to do (such as deal with 30% price difference of the same product, 100km away, south of the boarder).

jeff from edmonton
said
0 0

lets all remember if the artist is truly into there work they are not concerned about the money side of things, take a look at The Tragically Hip they share there own music on the net, same thing with Blue Rodeo all their songs are on their web site, many new artists release their work on the net as well. I think we need to listen to what the artists want not the "Establishment" as they really just want the tax money they can make off of it. Something to think about!

Cambob
said
0 0

I've actually given up pirating. Every time I go to steal the latest song or movie, I end up with horrible porn or a sloppy theater-cam clip. If the government was seriously on the side of the people, they would regulate the files themselves, and hire thousands and thousands of people to verify each file on the internet was authentic and in excellent condition. Then, once the governement had bankrupted the country, they could blame illegal immigrants or solar flares.

Ian
said
0 0

Twenty thousand dollars per work?!

Talk about extortion! It will not take long at all for the record companies and their armies of high-priced lawyers to start threatening Canadians with that club! Imagine: share ten files on your computer that are legally worth 99 cents each, and you can be sued for a whopping two hundred grand!

A horrible piece of legislation, and you can bet the next time a Conservative fundraiser calls me on the phone, I'm telling him/her so!

Bart F.
said
0 0

Beware the "made in Canada" approach advocated by some. This is code for stiff levies on blank DVDs, iPODs, hard drives, flash drives, etc.

The alternative is this legislation which may make habitual and large volume copyright violators nervous.

Pick your poison.

Randy
said
0 0

Hey, it's simple. They make this happen, never vote for them again.

Jason
said
0 0

This legislation is totally in line with what the RIAA has been able to swing in the US.

I personally do not purchase, download or listen to any artist that is represented by any label who is a member of the RIAA. Through their ham fisted protectionist policies and idiotic positions they have lost me as a customer.

There are a lot of artists out there not represented by the RIAA and I choose to spend my dollars on them not some corporate juggernaught. Any artist who makes the decision to have themselves represented in that way has lost me as a fan.

Matt
said
0 0

Did most of you even read the article? While I don't agree with this legislation, it DOES allow you to copy mp3s to your iPod. It DOES allow you to record TV shows to watch later. It DOES allow you to make backups of your software, music, etc. Please read the article before posting.

Shawn T
said
0 0

It looks like many of you are not reading the proposed law. You WILL be able to legally copy music onto your IPOD or other MP3 or make copies as long as you are doing so with LEGALLY OWNED content.

The free ride is over pirates! Support the artist by paying to enjoy their music.

Phil
said
0 0

Pirates collect more and more MP3's just like labels collect more and more money!

A fight between two obsessive compulsive disorders!!

Both music and money are living our their last days of being truly useful.

Kieran
said
0 0

With Rogers and Bell traffic shaping illegal downloads (slowing illegal downloads to a snail's pace), the industry is already self-policing. We don't need fines directed at the consumer, we need to target the isps for hosting the material in the first place.
And perhaps we should target some legislation at the oligopoly of cable providers in this country. And perhaps the CRTC should start acting in favour of Canadians instead of following a vision of benign neglect...

Sean B
said
0 0

DM, i think you have your morality mixed up. Sharing is taking something that you own and giving some to someone else - causing you to have less than you would have if you wouldn't have shared. What we're talking about here is taking somone's hard work and *copying it and giving it to someone else free of charge - hence infringement of copyright laws. The only issue of morality that I see here is the immorality of people disobeying copyright laws.

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Heb 13:7

hawkbill
said
0 0

Are the Libraries next?
We should all be concerned.

Rick from Alberta nailed it and Alex D from Montreal.

The government should be listening to the musicians not the corporations.

Jermz
said
0 0

If they want to take it all away now let them go ahead and do so. Most downloaders by now have collections of music and movies that'll last a lifetime!

nonamebrand
said
0 0

''If I have paid for a CD either at a store or though a pay as you go internet site such as I tunes, why should I not be able to put it on my MP3? Since I purchased the music am I not entitled to use it as I see fit?''

Because if you download a CD to your computer you can potentially share it. In case you don't know, your computer is also a regular CD player, so you can just play it on the computer without downloading it.

Mamad
said
0 0

Sorry. another thing I was gonna mention is that software such as office, or assistive software like dragon, they cost over 100 and how many people can afford that? Bring their prices down and I'll buy it instead. I don't care much about music or movies. I only download TV shows which is legal and software which should be legal. Or make them so that they can't be cracked. that's not my problem. I'm only getting a copy off a peer. It's not called stealing. It's sharing. Last time I checked that wasn't illegal. It's like I buy a CD, burning a copy for a friend and giving it to him. If I can't do that, then my basic rights are being violated.

Heath, Moncton, NB
said
0 0

Here's some food for thought:

I don't download music or movies online, but I DO download TV shows all the time. Way I figure it, if I'm paying for a cable subscription then I should be able to download the shows without repercussion. I do this frequently when a show airs in HD in the US but not in Canada so that I can get a better picture on my plasma TV.

In my view, there's nothing wrong with downloading TV shows if I'm already paying. Agreed?

eddytoronto
said
0 0

In the near future you will recive a keyboard with your new internet 2 service. In this keyboard is a finger scan strip this will enable you to log on and be traced and if you have a web cam they will also be able to see you. This keyboard is now in all hospitals. The Dr's and Nurses all complied without a fight. So we are in for a big wake-up .

The arrival of the new iPhone 3G what you are not told is everything you say and every place visited ,pictures you take will be watched .Ive been informed that they can also see and hear you even when its turned off. Thats why cam is placed ontop of the phone and they price is intenionally made low for everyone to have.

Crystal from Toronto
said
0 0

They need to remove the tariff that we pay for blank cds etc. Since they want to stop downloading of music.

musicpro
said
0 0

How long will it be until the government tries to regulate my thoughts? Soon we won't be able to afford anything and we'll all be slaves of the state. I agree that content owners need to be compensated, but content providers need to look at how to provide new ways of delivery for the consumer. Most people don't understand how much (or how little in actuality) money the artist makes. The owner of the sound recording is the company and not the artist. The artist gets around 3-7% after initial costs are recouped. The artist makes money off public airplay and performances. The recording (audio and video) lobbyists have money and are powerful. They are also run by old school executives that still do not understand the power of technology and adhere to archaic pricing and distribution models. That's OK though, because Rogers will price the monthly rate of an iPhone so that most of us can't afford it anyway, and we won't be able to use unlocked phones in Canada anymore to use the iPhone on a competitor's network.

Jay
said
0 0

How do authorities plan on finding out who is downloading what??

They can't just ask Bell to hand over records of bandwith usage. The police need probable cause to ask for records.

I'm wondering what rights of the consumer they plan to infringe when it comes down to collecting their data.

Who's to say that I'm not legally downloading something other than music and movies.

Sounds like a huge grey area that needs to be sorted out.

Mamad
said
0 0

That's so stupid. Now government wants to look at our computers to see what we do on it. Stop those who make file sharing software and not the consumers.

brenda
said
0 0

I don't care if the creators want to put digital locks on their creations. I just won't buy their product.

I am concerned with the usage of ISP's policing the net. This is a direct infringement on my privacy!

A $500.00 fine is nothing to get excited about, it only makes the lawyers get fatter, if anyone even takes the trouble to try to enforce this.

No one has mentioned that prior to this, private, personal use downloading of music was legal under fair use, so how is this better for consumers?

parker armstrong
said
0 0

This is just more proof the gov. only cares about those who have money. Of all the problems Canada faces right now, you clearly show by changing theses laws you only care about those who are higher class or with money. I love music and i am a cd buyer and i still think this is ridiculous. Artists are putting their cds online for free because they know that that 50 cent disc they sold us, for upwards of 20 plus dollars for barely 30 minutes of music was the biggest rip off ever. Like always you look at the problem and blame the people downloading and not look at the reasons for it happening. I'm not saying its right for people to not pay for music but with the oil companies clearly gauging while the gov. is busy worrying about who's downloading too many Britney Spears songs you know you country is messed up!

Outraged!
said
0 0

This is an OUTRAGE! What's next, I can't steal candy bars from Loblaws? It's bad enough that I've had to stop stealing my neighbours' newspaper, now I have to pay for a song! Ridiculous! I'd better sign-off now before my other neighbour turns off the wireless router I'm piggybacking off.

Darren
said
0 0

How do some of you people not see downloading as stealing. It's really not that complicated. And nothing says that you can't load the songs onto your ipod so long as you pay for the cd or the downloaded music in the first place. It's the people in the music industry trying to making a living that are being cheated, not the the other way around.

readthearticle
said
0 0

For all the posters that are complaining about not being able to use a purchased CD the way they please, did you not read the article?? For your convenience here it is....

new exceptions that will allow Canadian consumers to legally record television shows for later viewing and copy legally acquired music onto other devices, such as iPods or cellphones;
new exceptions for some educational and research purposes;
new rights and protections for those who create content;
provisions to address the liability of Internet service providers and the role they should play in curbing copyright-infringing activities on their networks.

Bad for Canadians.
said
0 0

BOOOOOOOOOO!

This proposed law will not stop downloading or file sharing.

This proposal is designed to maintain the pocket books of record companies and their execs.

Artists who create popular works will never suffer, free music or not.

Greg
said
0 0

If my friend buys a great cd, and lends it to me, I will put that music on my computer, just as I might ask him to make me a tape. Instead of physically getting the cd to change hands, now the concept has been extended to the internet. I'm familiar with the kind of garbage that major record labels are putting out, and the fact that no one will pay for it isnt surprising. I have discovered innumerable bands thanks to the internet and word-of-mouth, many whom I've later supported if they come to my town to play a concert. If the artist wants to keep producing music, the presence or absence of filesharing isn't going to influence their decision. If it does, they should do something else with their time.

Craig in Ottawa
said
0 0

The record companies have been supplying us with inferior products from the beginning of CD's. They compress the sound to make it cheaper to mass produce but charge a premium rate. They offer music to buy off sites at 128k (poor quality). Give me cd's (like from the company MFSL - no compression) and I would gladly pay. Give me garbage, why should I pay?

Mario
said
0 0

Corporate greed wins again. I would like to know when they are going to start paying me to cram ads down my throught. I myself will not get cable because of this. If people would get a brain and just refuse to fuel their greed life would be a whole lot better. And yes, if this law passes, I will disconnect from the internet alltogether.

Jason
said
0 0

Tories wont get my vote

I wonder which tory has downloaded or one of there kids have downloaded with out paying???

Steve V
said
0 0

The police is not going to do much on that matter. Yes they can issue the fine, but they are already stretched thin, they will not supply more cops to watch the net. No funding, no watching! Beside, it's way too many rabbits to chase and catch. Too many manhours to put in for so little. They'll be easy to fight in court as well...Oops somebody hijacked my router....

Makinaw Dandy
said
0 0

This proposed legislation will be VERY unpopular with younger voters.

Nick
said
0 0

I, like so many other people in this country, download music. I would like to know where it ends though? Most music that people are introduced to nowadays is an mp3 that someone has downloaded. The majority of people that I know, if they like what they hear will either buy the CD, or in even more cases pay the outrageous amount to buy a ticket to a concert.

I agree to the extent that if a person is downloading music, burning that music to a CD and SELLING that CD for profit, he is making money on other people's work - Which is wrong.

To the people who say downloads should be illegal though. Have you ever done anything that somebody might think is wrong? Ever record a TV show, or a televised movie? Ever photocopy copyrighted material without the publisher's consent? Ever lend a movie, or CD to a friend? I think you get the hint. P2P is just that - photocopying.

So before running your mouth next time, stop and think about things that you may have done in the past that somebody else might find inappropriate.

Lastly, to the government. Is there anything better that you can waste our tax dollars on?

Robin The Hood
said
0 0

Fairly typical legislation coming from a right wing party.. no surprise. Business priorities over everything else. we do not really live in a democracy when it comes to capitalism.

John A
said
0 0

First, don't bother with any online site that uses DRM [Digital Right Management]. DRM controls where the downloaded music file may reside. More and more online music sites have removed the DRM from their music files because customers were upset. I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes uses DRM. Wouldn't tough anything from Apple anyways. Over priced & over hyped.

Second. The music industry sank when small developers started to release software that could rip music from a CD. Government did nothing and probably couldn't. Now you see retail software packages offering the option to rip CDs.

Third. The music business tried to release music on CDs that weren't standard [Sony/BMG tried this]. But those same software developers found ways around it.

Forth. The musicians may not be getting the big bucks on selling their albums anymore. Instead, they've jacked up ticket prices. Artists like Van Halen, Madonna and The Police have raked in over $100 million on recent tours. Even artists genres who didn't tour much [rappers as example] are touring more and more as they see that's where they can make money - selling tickets and overpriced merchandise.

[I'm heading off to see Rush in Montreal tonight. $90 for a premium ticket is still a cheaper ticket.]

KMD
said
0 0

I find it hard to believe that all of the people on here are saying we should pay for digital downloads because the artist deserves money for what they produce. How many singers/bands/artists do you see out there that are not doing well? None in fact, they are still popping the Cristal, Dom Perignon, wearing Fendi, Prada ETC. I can not afford any of that. I am not saying I am not willing to pay for music, but that is just silly�..ARTISTS are far from needing money from digital downloads. They get it elsewhere! Digital music has enhanced the careers of many!

Justin
said
0 0

What a joke, yet another pefect example of why our current government doesn't work. They do their own thing because they know no one (espically the librals) will stand up and say "Hey, this isn't what is best for the Canadian people." Instead they just hide and put their heads in the sand waiting for the whole thing to blow over in true Canadian fashion.

Well Liberals, here's your chance to make a stand and put yourselves back on the political map. Quit pointing fingers and actually do something for once!

Don't get me wrong, I think download laws are needed, but such a blanket policy leaves way to many loop holes open and the poor 16 and 17 year old kids mothers are going to get slapped with thousands of dollars in fines over a few songs they most likely had no idea their kids were downloading in the first place.

You see all those poor folks in the US who are getting sued over ilegal downloading and it just makes me sick. To think that that will be us in a few years leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. We're Canadian, we're better then that, surely there must be better a way to handle the situation?

JR
said
0 0

I 100% agree with this legislation. Free downloading is stealing, and when music was put up on the internet for downloading, it didn't mean that songs and albums were going to be free, it was just another consumer based source and option.I applaud the Harper Government for proposing this legislation. Artists and actors are people like us "they want to get paid"

Warren
said
0 0

The distinction between infringement and theft must be made, as people are equating them here.

You cannot steal potential revenue. People downloading music are infringing on copyrights, not stealing. No one is deprived of anything when a file is downloaded because there is no guarentee that the downloader would have payed for the data in the first place under different circumstances.

PBW
said
0 0

SO, according to many posters, a composer like myself gets to work many hours creating a product, and should only be entitled to minimal payment for the work - only those royalties that come from people who actually PURCHASE a copy.

OK, let's apply that reasoning to every product; on that basis, I can pay for one potato at the supermarket and get god knows how many more for free. Or buy one 2x4 for house repairs (I have to do it myself, because the lack of royalties prevents me hiring an i-pod wielding carpenter) and get the rest for free.

In spite of what pirate downloaders think, it is EXACTLY the same thing. Maybe if the law is passed, I will get more royalties - though I doubt it.

Mark5
said
0 0

Money, money, money.The artists become multi-millionares, the producers get rich,all the middlemen jump on the big cash cow and dumb consumers get sucked into all of this.What we all need to do is stop buying this stuff alltogether.It`s ridiculous how half these so called artists are anything but.As for music, its all showmanship and style with little substance. There are plenty of good ameteurs out there, just check out youtube.As for movie downloads,most of them are grainy low resolution cam recordings.If the music and movire industry wants to stop this then they need to stop being greedy and make this stuff so inexpensive that it won`t be worth pirating.

CJ
said
0 0

Theft is theft. Time to grow up and admit intellectual property is legitimately just as privately-controlled as any other kind of property, just that it's always been easier to steal. But nowadays content can be legally-obtained so cheaply and flexibly, that there's no excuse to steal (if there ever was one). Accept the truth, be a good person, and quit coming up with lame excuses.

Downey
said
0 0

For those people making comments about buying music and not being able to reproduce it for yourself, you are very wrong. If you buy a CD you can rip it and save it to your iPod or any other MP3 player. You can do what you want with it. You are just are not allowed to reproduce it to sell to others, or download illegally. I don't see why you people are so confused about this.

Rob
said
0 0

instead of feeding off of the exaggerations, why dont you go thte site and read the bill and the fact sheets...fair use, still there.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home

Freddy's Friend
said
0 0

They are making it illegal to unlock a cell phone? I bought and paid for mine - full price, not part of a package or contract. It is MY phone to do with as I please and I don't recall receiving any information either verbally or in writing stating I was prohibited from doing so. Maybe the providers should charge cell users what it really costs to use their services, like in Europe, where everyone has a cell phone because they are cheap to use. No huge markups or gouging. Maybe I should start charging back for lousy reception, no-service areas and dropped calls. I unlocked my phone while in Florida so I could use it without being robbed by my provider. The roaming charges were killing me! I paid to have it done and I paid for the card to get a more reasonably priced service while state-side. I went back to my home provider once I crossed the border to come home, and I still had to pay my full monthly fee for to my home provider for the two weeks I was away. My invoice that month was not pro-rated. It is getting ridiculous, our evey move is being legislated from our recreation to communications to what goes on inside our cars and homes. I don't remember inviting Big Brother in!!!!

Phil
said
0 0

What is often forgotten here is that at some point the music was purchased. What they are legislating is the sharing of that music. Soon they will want to charge people ever time you lend a friend your MP3. Micro chips in everything you purchase to track your every move. They want it both ways. The exposure sharing gives their product and cash ever time it's played.

Bill from America
said
0 0

Harper taking orders from the US? That's pretty funny... the US hardly cares about the tiny Canadian market. Canadian consumers are a drop in the bucket. In case you hadn't noticed, it's an election year down south. I predict this new Canadian law will get approximately zero coverage in the US media.

Kevin Aubie
said
0 0

Typical right wing PC politics. Ignore the people, cater to the big corporations that have the most money to donate.
Why is it that they feel they need this law to "come into compliance with WIPO treaties", yet they are unconcerned about honouring Kyoto, which regardless of how you feel about it, is also an internationally binding agreement Canada signed on to?
That's the great part about being conservative I guess, just pick and choose which international agreements you wish to honour.

Write your MP

bunny
said
0 0

So if the poll is right on CTV, the 19% will have to suck it up.I have never downloaded anything, and I dont intend to steal from any artists

Graham
said
0 0

Hold on here. Making unlocking cell phone illegal? What? Why? I paid for my cell phone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to put it on a different network?!?! I buy CDs to support artist and the only person who sees any of my money is some greedy person who has more than I'll ever have and that he'll ever need. It would be nice if for ONE MINUTE our government would STOP ROBBING THE POOR AND GIVING TO THE RICH! Sounds like about time to go off into the wilderness and be one with nature. At least that way I CONTROL MY LIFE, not our CORPORATE GOVERNMENT!

Database builder and XML familiar
said
0 0

People all over the world have been sliding into the easy convenience of the Internet for several years. We are just now beginning to hear about the boxing-in legislation and technology that will leave them with no way out. Please don't be naive!

eddytoronto
said
0 0

The development of a new form of internet with new regulations is also designed to create an online caste system whereby the old internet hubs would be allowed to break down and die, forcing people to use the new taxable, censored and regulated world wide web.

Make no mistake, the internet, one of the greatest outposts of free speech ever created is under constant attack by powerful people who cannot operate within a society where information flows freely and unhindered. Both American and European moves mimic stories we hear every week out of state controlled Communist China, where the internet is strictly regulated and virtually exists as its own entity away from the rest of the web.

The Internet is freedom's best friend and the bane of control freaks. Its eradication is one of the short term goals of those that seek to centralize power and subjugate their populations under tyranny by eliminating the right to protest and educate others by the forum of the free world wide web.

------------------------------------

Nick T
said
0 0

If they really want to make unlocking cellphones illegal, then they should also make it that the cell phone providers aren't allowed to brand a product they didn't make. When i buy my iPhone from APPLE, it's more than likely going to be brnaded with Rogers logos and names everywhere... yet it is an APPLE product... If this is going to apply to the consumer, make it apply to the providers too!

think of something
said
0 0

Andy, I think you are confused. You say Canadians are becoming a society of socialist welfare deadbeats who want everything for free, yet you want the government to lay down laws to tell people what they can or can't do with their own property.

It's my CD, if I bought it and I want to share it with 20,000 people, that's my business. Who is to say that is theft. If you want to make money, change your business plan. Tour more, sell more t-shirts, put something in the CD case that people want... I don't know think of something. I do know that accusing your customer base of being thieves is not the way to go.

This whole idea that the government can fix this with legislation is ridiculous. Businesses need to adapt or die. It is a business cycle, let it happen. Eventually someone will come up with an idea, but regulation only works on the people who are already buying the CDs -like myself.

I think you need to figure out what socialist means, my friend.

Craig
said
0 0

I will continue to download music, I don't want to give record companies one penny. I give artists money through merchandise purchases and concert tickets. They get pennies on record sales.

Zach
said
0 0

Andy,
File-sharing is not theft, as many have pointed here already. It will never be theft, and saying that downloading music for free is akin to stealing a CD from a store is disingenuous and contributes nothing to the debate. If you don't bother to enlighten yourself as to what the legislation actually entails, don't debate.

Jaid
said
0 0

I must say then. How do they plan to restrict this? With torrents? How about if we knew sites that simply hosted the material. Is downloading that a crime? So just because there's a download link for me and I click it because it's a song for free, I get slapped with a fine (if caught). But wait, doesn't this simply kill business in Canada? Especially if people start downgrading their internet because now their net usage gets nowhere near breaking the cap limit?

Money talks, you strike the source, not the consumer. Another way of "passing the charges" to the consumer

Erik
said
0 0

Nope I will continue to d/l pirated movies/game and get my music. I'm tired of being ripped off for everything in my life, everything is WAY more expensive here, and I'm sick of being overtaxed!

This is my little bonus in life. Although I am elite when it comes to my d/l techniques ;) unlike most of you... well we call you people "normies?"

Mel Blake
said
0 0

There's really no difference between stealing materials off teh internet and going into a record store and shoplifting a CD. Just because the company that makes the CD is "rich", the record store is "rich" and the artist is "rich" doesn't make it right. No one would defend me shoplifting a DVD at a store. So there's a lot of hypocrites out there. The people download music know this to be true even if they won't admit it. Next time a government official steals, can they say 'Yeah, but the government has millions of dollars, it can afford to pay for my house'?

Papagrypgon
said
0 0

The way I see it under this law if you put a DVD movie that you have purchased on the iPod that you also own you will be breaking the law. Or putting a copy of the latest cd you bought on that same iPod... your breaking the law.
Show me the justice in regulating tyhis .

knox
said
0 0

I download music to preview it. If its good ill buy if not ill delete it.
Tell the artists to make good music for a change and stop caring about money so much greedy pigs.
This is why i go to concerts most of that money collected goes to the band.

LEN
said
0 0

If one looks at this law and the restrictions it places on Canadians. This can include you personal video recorders being a breach of the law! This law was a rush and not really thought through it should not even of been tabled. Where is the fair use for one when they buy a MP3 to use it on a different mp3 player? This is not a law for the artists but for big industry!

Danny
said
0 0

Concert ticket sales are through the roof. People don't even bat an eye at $150 concert tickets. $150 x 10,000 seats x 5 days work a week x 50 weeks a year = $375,000,000 a year in revenue easy for top acts. Don't try and tell me artists can't make a go of it with free downloads. The only people who are hurting from downloads are the redundant middleman who can no longer leech off the artists via an obsolete business model.

Lucie
said
0 0

Once again it is the regular people who are getting punished. How about cracking down on the files sharing applications? If such application are rendered illegal, you eliminate a big part of the problem...But oh WAIT! The goverment wants to make money!

Lynn
said
0 0

I understand about protecting the artist's property. I am a collector of music and love the process of buying a new c.d. and exploring the music and reading the liner notes, however the music industry like the movie industry is putting out crap entertainment at a high cost. The artists act like elitist or whores. There is no identifying with them anymore. It just isn't worth it to me to spend my money on something that is likely garbage. So I have stop buying, and covet the good 'ol days.

Mark
said
0 0

Steven: My concern is not with the downloading of music for free, but with the loss of my rights as a media owner over how I can use that media. If I buy a CD for $20 then want to put it on my iPod why should I have to pay again? If I buy a DVD and want to watch it in my Linux PC am I a criminal because I have to use so-called "illegal" decryption software to do so? What about all the money the recording and movie industries have received as free handouts from the blank media levies that we've been paying for years? This bill isn't about punishing illegal downloaders, it's about taking away the rights of consumers to use the content they've purchased as they see fit.

It's quite obvious Mr. Prentice knows that this bill isn't in the best interest of the Canadian people, otherwise the bill wouldn't have been developed under a veil of secrecy with no public consultation.

Victor Temchenko
said
0 0

I have never felt more betrayed by the government then now. FOLDING FOR THE US CONTORL AND LIES.

Artists deserve more money! Not the companies that steal from them.

If i spend money on a cell phone, i want it ILLEGAL to lock it...

IF I spend money on a CD/DVD i either own the right to listen to it or own the CD to see fit what i want...

I WANT A CHANNEL EXPRESS MY CONCERNS AND PROTECT MY RIGHTS!

Jim in Edmonton
said
0 0

Hey DM:
Teaching our children that "sharing" something that doesn't belong to us or that we haven't paid for is still theft. I can imagine taking food off my neighbor's barbeque, "sharing" it with my kids and not thinking it is theft ... what would my neighbor think? The key to the problem to those of you who don't think it is theft is the general society attitude today or something for nothing. If you really believe this, open your home and invite strangers to help themselves, afterall they are only sharing what you own? How would you feel about that?

Richard
said
0 0

A few people have noted that back in the 80s and 90s people would always record songs off their radio onto a cassette tape, or copy a cassette onto another cassette. To compare this to the technology of today is misleading. A third-generation tape of a radio rip is nowhere near the same quality level as a 320kps MP3 or a lossless audio file, which can be replicated over and over without any quality loss. To compare the two is like saying that a filet mignon is the same as a chunk of cardboard because they're both potentially edible.
That being said, the music industry is in the terrible condition that it is in, not because of downloading, but because of people collectively realizing that the industry (the labels, the executives) is outmoded, stale, and exceedingly greedy. It has been a spectacle to see the music industry suing, for tens of thousands of dollars, teenagers who are excited and eager to hear their favourite artists. That is a great way to treat your customers, actual, potential, and future. Recall that, just a couple years ago, the music industry was so terrified of downloading and so desperate to get the cash flowing again that it briefly lowered the price of CD's back to $10-$12, from $16-$20. Only a couple years later, they have once again risen so that the average price on a 10-cent piece of plastic is back over $15.
When you compare the manufactured musical products of the world, who are utterly dependent on the music industry for their survival, and actual artists like Trent Reznor, the difference is astounding. Nine Inch Nails has been around for nearly 20 years, shackled to a horrible record deal that compelled completist fans to buy multiple versions of a single; almost immediately upon becoming a free agent, he was releasing his music to the world digitally for (in one case) a very low price or (in the other) free. Which side of that coin is going to have great longevity and have more appreciative fans? The side which embraces technology, or the side that sues fans who have?

Buddy kat
said
0 0

As it is right now Americans , Germans, Koreans etc...can and do reverse engineer Canadian products with no respect to intellectual property, using knowledge and technological research as an excuse.

This is an made in USA copyright policy that stimeys Canadians from doing the same to them, hence giving a competitor in one of those countries an unfair advantage.

Typical conservative behaviour...bending over to US pressure..especially now that the US is desperation.

Sly
said
0 0

Hypocrites!

They say from one side of their mouths that with the ongoing wireless spectrum auction is to bring MUCH NEEDED competition in the wireless market, BUT...

- you can't unlock your cell phone in order to move to a more reasonably priced competitor

Oh, and please tell me WHEN we are replacing the maple leaf from our flag and putting stripes and stars on it???

Morons,

NEVER would these idiots get a vote from me.

Never voted NDP, but Jack, for some extremely weird reason is starting to look like the one who stands to gain a lot in the next election. Both the Liberals and Conservatives have shown us all they are capable to do: corruption, pot-de-vin, Americanism, scandals, make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Guess it's time I give a chance to someone who's never had the chance; to put their money where their mouth is!

rob
said
0 0

it truly doesn't make sense there are artists that actually SHARE their own album ONLY it's an advertising tactic look at NIN they did it whats the problem will the RIAA and MPAA fine NIN for SHARING their own album NO people download it they like it they buy it simple as that.
if they think that the sales of cds will increase they are dreaming. they already have their MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars with the OVERPRICING of gas and everything else you buy it is impossible we're the ones who are suffering and were the ones who know what work is!!!!

dave
said
0 0

A question for the Harper Gov't. Besides, your marching orders from the United States....what else is on your iPod?

I've read all the comments. Clearly, a lot of folks think this bill is simply about toughening up the copyright laws to prevent illegal downloading. That's part of it, but far more disturbing is the portions of the new bill which will restrict the way you can use legally purchased music.

As someone who has spent far more money on legal music purchases ( since the 1960's ) than the average person, this bill simply makes me want to dig in my heels....and purchase no more music OR video.

I can express my disatisfaction quite easily, with my wallet.

Ted
said
0 0

Tara, you totally missed the NEGATIVE comparison to the US - that is not indicative of an inferiority complex.

While I do believe that artists should be fairly compensated for the work that many of us enjoy, they are not the ones who stand to directly benefit from this proposed law. The levy on blank media was a cash grab IMO, as consumers buying small amounts of blanks were penalized for doing so, instead of going after those duplicators who ordered blanks by the thousands. As a musician I resent the tax grab on my own efforts to distribute my own music.
The music industry is its own worst enemy.

Mike Webster
said
0 0

DM, this isn't about sharing. It's about theft. Thankfully most of us do teach our children that theft is wrong and immoral.

Andy
said
0 0

Sean,
You have it backward, they are not bashing the consumer, rather they are trying to make you into a consumer instead of a thief.

heintzy
said
0 0

I prefer to watch TV shows when I want. As for music were has the creativity gone todays artists hardly have any talent and we are forced to listen to them. why can'y it be like the old days where if you sucked you failed. now if you suck you hire a laywer and sue fans for not buying your crap.

mia
said
0 0

pure capitalism!!!

its all about the money....isnt it enough that everything is so expensive already, why are you taking the only free things that we can get. its not like we have watch or listen to it before it came out in the cinema or the music store, you capitalistic people have made money out of it already!

fed up
said
0 0

Couldn't have said it any better Rick from Alberta!!

DM
said
0 0

This is a moral issue not a court issue. Do we teach our children that sharing is immoral?

Zac
said
0 0

what about the added cost to every CD/DVD that we pay to provide the 'artists' with income due to 'pirating'?

And they are only 'expected' to allow for you to use a VCR/DVR to be able to watch your shows after the fact... no commitment, just a vapor promise so far.

Andy
said
0 0

Again people blaming the USA for Canada now doing the right thing. Downloading movies and music unless authorized by the creator is stealing. Canadian are becoming a society of socialist welfare deadbeats who want everything for free.

we need fewer David Fewers
said
0 0

Ridiculous. how about spending all this time and money on something that matters. stop regulating the consumer! Let the market figure out how to respond to new technology. Stop hindering our progress with law.

Musician and Song Writer
said
0 0

As a musician and song writer, I disagree with this law. It completely useless and punitive. I'm a strong Conservative supporter, but Jim Prentice has potentially changed my vote to liberal over this law. If I bought the CD, I should be able to listen to the music on my iPod. Mr Prentice, the Conservatives cannot afford to lose support; I urge you to scrap this bill.

Ivo
said
0 0

15 years ago, before MP3s, it had been common practice for years to go to the dollar store, buy a blank audio cassette, bring it to your friends house, and ask him to make you a copy of a new album he had. Artists didn't get a penny from that. Around those years we have dozens of artists going platinum.

That being said, can we truly believe that MP3s are killing artists? I doubt that. Quite frankly, most people I know wouldn't pay for the music they download, so keeping them from downloading simply means that the spread of the artists' fame will slow down. On the other hand, music that people consider worth paying for, they pay for, regardless of the availability of MP3s.

Furthermore, making a digital copy of a file, is not comparable to theft. If you steal a car, that can no longer be driven by it's owner. If you download an MP3, the original copy isn't destroyed.

All file-sharing is is free advertising and exponential fame growth for artists.

All acts aiming to ban private file sharing (excluding illegal mass replication, retail and profiteering) are acts of pure corporate greed.

The cultural development is due in large part to the easy access to intellectual material. Music broadens people's understanding of their world and society and generally helps increase the social consciousness of society. That being said, the first and foremost effect of restricting access to music is that the impressive broadening in people's culture we've witnessed in the last decade is likely to slow down.

Finally, addressing the issue of cell phones and unlocking them to use with a different carrier. Seriously, if I buy a phone I like and pay retail price, what makes it logical, or even legal to obligate me to use it with a specific provider? What's next if you buy a Honda, it will be illegal to have it serviced at a garage owned by anyone but Honda? This is getting ridiculous. In my experience, people who are interested in unlocking a phone for use with another provider are people with specific expectations, who know how to get unbranded phones should they need them, which implies that this law is most likely to make them simply spend their money elsewhere (notably overseas where unbranded phones are easy to come by). On the other hand, people who wouldn't go through the trouble of seeking out an unbranded phone are people who probably wouldn't care about what kind of phone it is in the first place.

The bottom line is that corporations continue to follow an economic model which dictates that each year's net profit must surpass the previous year's. And we've reached a point where to keep that up, companies need to grow faster than their "food supply"... people aren't becoming richer fast enough to sustain corporate greed. That's the bottom line.

Jason Daniel Baker
said
0 0

I think artists need more protection to keep the wealth (what little there is) they earned from their work.

I do not care which kind of government of whatever partisan stripe introduces it. I support this kind of legislation.

It is difficult for artists to make a living these days due to illegal downloading etc.

Henry
said
0 0

If this bill is passed, then my purchases (games, music, movies) will drop back to nothing again. I have been burned to many times to buy anything that I have not tried first. (i.e. 1 good song on the radio and 10 crappy ones on the album, a movie trailer that is the best part of the movie, etc. etc.) And yes, if I download it and like it I do buy it, even if it does take several years to make it to North America.

Jonathan Abrams
said
0 0

This law pure hostility towards consumers. It limits our freedoms, not in favour of artists, but in favour of record labels that refuse to adapt to the new market. The amount of copyright bias towards the labels is unprecedented.

To get more informed about the history and implications of copyright, read Lawrence Lessig's famous (and free) book "Free Culture".

Patrick in Ottawa
said
0 0

"Can you people ever talk about something without comparing yourself to the USA? It seems like many Canadians suffer from inferiority complex.

I think this law is great."

We don't compare ourselves to you, we just don't want to become you or have your gov't come into our country and make rules.

Inversity
said
0 0

The problem of copyright is not limited, in any way to just one country, like Canada. What is the music industry doing with respect to the millions of others in many other countries who are "illegally" downloading their copyrighted music, like the millions who are doing so in China and India, for example? Taking Canadian citizens to court for such copyright infringements, while, at the same time, saying it is virtually impossible to persecute or seek damages towards those who do exactly the same thing in China just shows how nationalism, on a global scale, is just not going to work.

Only a concerted global plan, by all countries, with input from artists (including writers and musicians), industry, and consumer representatives will eventually work out a plan that is far more just, on a global scale, and the sooner this is done, the better for both artists and consumers, Canadian or foreign.

Shoe
said
0 0

Why would I pay $15-$20 for a CD that has only 3-4 good songs? I have not paid for music ina long time, and do not plan on doing so either. Artists are rich enough as it is. No need to send $$$ to more criminal rappers, artists, etc...

Nick, Ottawa
said
0 0

The music industry hasn't changed in the way it sells its product since we went from cassette tapes to CD's. Why is it illegal for me to download a song, yet I can freely and legally copy a song from the radio onto a cassette tape?

Artists should be compensated for their work. However, at 12.99$ a pop, I'm expecting much more than just 10 songs. Artists need to develop a new way to market themselves and offer the consumer something that they cannot get by downloading songs online. Extra content DVD's, inserts with photographs or poetry, etc is where this industry needs to go. However, since governments are much obliged to bring in laws that protect their right to NOT adapt to the times, we won't be seeing that. I for one do not agree with this law, and don't care much for my tax dollars being wasted in courts for some ridiculous fines.

Artists: Come up with something NEW, UNIQUE and FRESH and I will be more than happy to pay 12.99-15.99-20.99 for your product. Get with the times.

Scott
said
0 0

Well, I think its safe to say that everybody has downloaded a song at some point...

But government's miss the point about a lot of things. Usually, downloading is a precursor to a person going to buy an album to support that artist. Consider downloading like a sample at a grocery store; it helps you decide whether you want to pay for more.

ThunderBay is on lifesupport
said
0 0

For how many years and how many dollars has the music buying public been ripped off? Labels have been releasing, and re-releasing the same songs on "best of"s and "greatest hits" etc...

Its time their business was corrected, and time is the great equalizer. Technology has allowed this market to self-correct.

not to mention, we need less laws, not more!

These maroons just keep coming up with proposed laws to make their self-importants lives mean something.

Michael vdB
said
0 0

The music labels are quite similar to the Big Three Auto Giants. For years they thought they could rely on the consumer towing the line and they in turn make billions of dollars and fat CEO bonus'. Both are still trying to hold onto a product that people don't like and are turning away from and in turn, are losing out on new ideas and innovation. Companies that don't at least try to reinvent themselves and always fight to keep the old ways will always lose ground and in the end go broke.

Jamie
said
0 0

Its fairly obvious that this law is made to protect industry interests and not to protect the actual artist who put there time and creative efforts into the product that we may be enjoying. It would be nice if the government made some laws that made sense, but that may be to much to ask.......

The Bet
said
0 0

I knew Canada would be influenced eventually by the U.S. with respect to copyright laws and infringements to intellectual property rights. It started for me with Microsoft's Vista program (which doesn't allow for downloading music from the web and I'm sure there are more examples) and now it ends up with the government of Canada enforcing these intellectual property rights in all respects. With everything increasing in cost to the consumer, it makes it tempting for some to take what doesn't actually belong to them with no fees attached. So much for a "free" country; however, I wonder how far this will go as far as implementing new laws in respect to infringements to copyrights and the average person.

LS
said
0 0

So much for "fair use". Too many people think this is only about pirated music but it goes far beyond that. The DMCA in the US was a total scam by greedy corporations with unintended consequences. If I purchase a piece of software I have the "right" to make a legitimate backup for my own use. This protects my investment in the event the original media is scratched or becomes unusable. Listen to the musicians not the labels!

fleamarketcreep.com/ep
said
0 0

As an artist, I'm concerned about new copyright laws that resemble the US, in which fans are being sued for listening to music they didn't pay for. I would much rather not make a dime off my music than for someone who enjoys it to have to pay thousands in a lawsuit. It's the greed and failure to adapt to technology that is causing the problem, not the people who want to listen to music and watch movies on their computers.

Not that it justifies it, but these big labels screw the artists out of their hard earned money. It's somewhat of a poetic justice that the shoe is on the other foot. A band who makes the industry millions can still be in debt to their label. In what other industry does math work that way?

jprlk
said
0 0

technology isn't going away, nor is it going to be stifled by laws created to support centuries old business models. content is an infinite good that will always approach $0. since technology is removing the need for finite goods to deliver it (paper for books, silver plastic discs for music, etc.) all it takes is for one person somewhere in the world to release a song or book or movie onto the 'net and anyone can get it. the 'production companies' aren't in the business of creating content, they're in the business of selling silver discs. if a musician can create, record, edit, release their own music, and even promote it (thanx to technology), why would they need the big labels? the answer is they don't. this is a close parallel to several other times in history when people were trying to tie content to support a specific industry's business model. monks were upset when gutenberg created the printing press, radio stations were upset and tried to stop tape recorders (8 track and then cassette), then there was the whole debate over VCRs. why is this any different? because some people are afraid of the internet and feel it is somehow going to lead to the destruction of humankind through lack of oversight and restrictions. look at how much more money was to be made when cassette tapes came along. could people copy them? easily. where was the extra money coming from? concerts, t-shirt sales, the recording of radio and copying cassettes promoted the musician, just not the record label, because, seriously, people only care about the final musical product, not the name of the company that mailed it from factory to store. so when they introduce the law, they will be granting a government enforced monopoly to record labels to support an old business model that technology is rendering obsolete.

one last example. when the automobile was invented and began its mass production, what if the government had tailored a similar piece of legislation to the makers of horse whips? technology will win every time. i guess i'm saying that they can pass this legislation and others like it, but it won't matter. the musicians will continue to (try to) give their music away for free and the record labels will continue to (try to) get legislation to support them financially, and people will continue to record music off the radio with their cassette tapes.

don't be fooled into thinking that the recording industry represents the artists themselves. most artists want their music freely available - as promotional material it's gold. it helps them sell the finite goods at concerts, promote them into writing advert jingles and tv show theme songs, and hundreds of other business models yet undiscovered.

i realize that my arguments are a bit scattered, but they are still valid.

Matt Sale
said
0 0

100 years ago, the only way an artist got paid was through public performance.

Then in 1906, technology introduced a medium in which an artist could record his / her work (i.e. onto a 'record') and then 'perform' anywhere anytime to anyone who had a phonograph or turntable.

Further advancements led to better quality records, magnetic mediums such as cassette tapes, 8-tracks, and finally CDs in 1982. Artists and record companies earned billions.

I suppose technology is a double-edged sword. It provided hundreds of billions in revenues for artists, yet now it makes it easy for consumers to share amongst each other.

I believe that if there is some degree of utility derived from listening to an artist, that artist deserves to be compensated - no question.

However, before we feel bad for how much technology (copying) is hurting artists, let's stop and remember how much technology has benefited them.

Jim from Edmonton
said
0 0

This is not a matter of bashing consumers! If you are taking something that is copywrited and not paying fot it ... it is theft! I would not want to give away my business services for nothing, nobody would. You are not a consumer if you don't pay a royalty, you are simply taking it!

Jimmy Hoo Hoo
said
0 0

Here's a thought that nobody ever mentions.

Way back in the day of BETAMAX and VHS you would record your movies off the tv, for free. Recording radio music on a stereo recorder was free. Borrowing your buddies cassette tape to record it on your cassette to cassette stereo recorder, was free. Everybody was doing it, nothing was said.

Making a mixed tape for your girlfriend back in the 80's and 90's was cool. But doing so today would land you broke in an effort to label you as a pirate.

BETA, VHS, Cassette to Cassette, TIVO, PVRs, CD and DVD burners all record your favorite shows and music. Go after these guys for a change. I'm sure Panasonic, LG and the rest of them have deeper pockets than the end consumer.

Microsoft's free Mediaplayer rips songs off of CDs, I thought that was illegal. Other programs let you rip movies off of DVDs. You can now rip Blu-Ray movies. Go after Microsoft...*chuckle chuckle*...and the other guys.

Why not impose something on these companies instead of always making the end consumer the bad guy?

If the technology is there, sorry, I'm going to use it. Just like I did in the 80' and 90's.

I have to go now and make my girlfriend a mix CD.

Eric
said
0 0

Why can companies such as Ubuntu and RedHat give away their products on cds, for free, but producers and some artist say they are being robbed of their money because only most of the population is buying their cd's instead of everyone. When I buy a cd it's because I respect the band enough to give them money. I wont give money to someone because they tell me to. I earned my money, so can they.

And even then, bands like Linkin Park have stated that they dont care if people download their music because they make music to be heard, not sold.

If they want to make this legislation, good for them. But if I get fined for downloading a song I rightfully own and paid for, then we will let the judge decide.

Jeff
said
0 0

More than one poster has said something along the lines of "I can't even use it on my iPod"... where are you reading that? I didn't read that. The article says that they're targeting file-sharing and illegal downloading. You're still free to move it to your MP3 player if you've paid for it. Maybe people should calm down and not overreact.

And to Zelko, who says that songs downloaded from iTunes can only be played on that computer.... no!? They can be played on up to 5 computers, along with an iPod. You can also burn them to CD or hook your iPod to your car stereo. I have no idea what you're on about, but it sounds like you're just making excuses to yourself to justify your free downloading.

Miramichi Kid - Vigilante at Heart
said
0 0

Ian, I agree 100% with your comments. Technology has finally change to favor the consumer. As for the artists, well you can never duplicate a live performance, again great for the consumer :-)

Thomas
said
0 0

Fair point about downloading music/movies etc... though $500 is insanely excessive and may eventually be struck down as a for of cruel and unusual punishment disproportionate to the crime.

But how banning the unlocking of cellphones is in anyway good public policy or will enhance the competitiveness of our already oligarchic wireless industry is utterly beyond me.

Talk about industry writing their own regulations. Some day we're going to have a government in this country that is on the side of consumers.

When that happens, the CEOs who write awful laws like this should be locked up. I mean literally: incarcerated in jail for their crimes and their greed.

Here's hoping!

Matty
said
0 0

Great. Does this mean that the price of CD's will drop? The government already collects a premium on CD's that is supposed to go to the artists or are we going to continue to be ripped off by ouir own political hacks and thugs.

frustrated in halifax
said
0 0

This is so much bigger than downloading free music... we won't be able to download and watch a show that we missed on tv last night (and we certainly pay for cable) or make a copy of a CD that we purchased. I agree that things should not be available for free but the costs are insane and as a result, people resort to finding ways to get the stuff for free. If they weren't a bunch of money-grubbers, we wouldn't have to find ways to get around making the purchase. The various industries involved have created this mess and we will be "fined" to help clean it up.

Tarah from the USA
said
0 0

"This legislation paves the road for the kind of file-sharing lawsuits that we've seen in the United States," Fewer told CTV's Canada AM on Thursday.

Can you people ever talk about something without comparing yourself to the USA? It seems like many Canadians suffer from inferiority complex.

I think this law is great.

BcDemon
said
0 0

Steven : "it is the same as stealing anything else from a store and there should be a penalty."

It is nothing like stealing from a store. You are not denying the principle owner the right to use said product. It is copyright infringement.

fitzz
said
0 0

Leave it alone!

What ain't broke should NOT be fixed,

Logan
said
0 0

I can see that this is going to turn into nothing but a Free-For-All for american music and movie companies to invade our country and prosecute Canadians under USA law. How would you feel being ripped out of your own home and brought to a foreign country for imprisonment because you infringed on a law THEY made? That's what I think is going to happen. This bill is going to allow you to be prosecuted as an American, even though we're Canadian. Even though I think downloading movies and music is wrong, the price for music these days are criminal. Also, most of these musical artists do nothing but drink and smoke up anyway. Is that where my money is going, towards drugs and alcohol or 10,000 dollar parties? I refuse to allow MY money be used for such stupid purposes. Therefore, I will continue to go free, and if I get fined 500 dollars, so be it. They made high speed for a reason: DOWNLOADING. If you have high speed internet but don't download large files, then you need to learn again what High Speed was REALLY made for. Freedom in Canada? If this country is following in America's footsteps, I'm going to spit on the flag, because I would have lost all respect for what the flag represents. WE ARE NOT THE STARS AND STRIPES!

Patrick in Ottawa
said
0 0

It amazes me that they want to tell me how I can use MY OWN MUSIC THAT I BOUGHT WITH MY OWN money! If I buy a CD, I have every right to put it on my Ipod, blank CD(forcar), on my computer, or any other mp3 device. It's MINE.

Also, what's with not being able to record to PVR time shifted shows if the broadcasters say no? SO now they will force us to watch TV when THEY want us to? So lets see. I get home at 10:40, I'm tired and want to go to bed. But no, I can't record the tv show that I missed at 8pm I have to stay up and watch it?

Alex D Montreal
said
0 0

Supporters of this bill need only look to the America's DMCA. It's been in place for ten years and how many artists have been compensated by it? None. Instead you end up with censorship and a broken internet.

I'm a musician, I want the biggest audience possible. Why would I sell a CD in HMV when I can offer free MP3s that can be played on almost any device by anyone anywhere in the world? The only people who don't like that concept are the labels. The labels are obsolete now and instead of embracing change, they have alienated music fans and musicians, and this idiotic government is caving in to a now failed system that lobbied for this.

Musicians need to earn money sure, but they don't need to be millionaires either. What's wrong with making a good middle class salary from licensing your music for commercials, tv shows, and movies? What's wrong with merchandise sales and ticket sales and beer sales at small places?

I honestly can't figure out why anyone would want to support something so backwards to the progress of society. As a musician I'll continue releasing my music for free, increasing my audience, and the record labels who want to control me and what I do can kiss parts of my body that I can't mention on TV.

Much to do about nothing
said
0 0

You can have all the copyright laws you want but they wont be respect unless they are deemed reasonable. The reason why there is so much infringement of copyright is due to unreasonable demands by the copyright holder. If greed were not the driving factor behind copyright they would have this problem. Secondly, to try and enforce copyright against the entire world population? GOOD LUCK! It wont happen ever. This is about placating the music and movie industry who make too much money as it is.

Copyright laws are outmoded
said
0 0

The entire notion of intellectual property rights and copyrights ends up coming down to money 99% of the time. If explored further in most cases it is born out of greed and an attempt to gain monopoly over a specific idea or product or process where there stands to be a financial gain. Rarely will you see copyright where there is not a financial gain.

There isn't one person in Canada including judges who hasn't breached copyright laws somewhere along the line simply because they are often unreasonable and essentially a land grab on the part of the copyright owner.

We need to lighten up in regards to copyright not make more ridiculous laws.

dennis doyle
said
0 0

i thought we had that extra surcharge on blank DVD's and CD's to go to the artists? just when Senator Obama in the U.S. is talking net neutrality, Canada takes a step back the opposite way. another great day for big business, and a loss for individual freedom.

Lawrence
said
0 0

Considering the last public input was in 2001, before the interactive web, self-publishing, blogging, youtube, and on and on, this will be an interesting "law" made behind a wall of secrecy, by private lobbyists and the Harper elites.

This secret government-industry consultation? I don't like it a bit.

Louis
said
0 0

I have downloaded music online without paying, but the songs are all the identical version of the vinyls, e-tracks and cassettes I already own. I will NOT pay for more than one copy of anything. If I purchase a licence (that came with a song) I have the right to do as I chose with that music, as long as I do not share it with others by either selling it or just giving it away.
Once you own a copy, you can do as you wish with it. No one is allowed to say otherwise.

Zelko
said
0 0

I tried to purchase songs from iTunes once, paid for 3 entire albums at $0.99 a song, then found out I can only listen to them on that particular computer, not my iPod, my car or my stereo. So I went back to free downloads. If I buy it, I should be able to listen to it where and how I want. Take that into consideration, and I would support the new copyright law, for the sake of the artists, not the record companies. It's only fair. Otherwise.......

Johnny T.
said
0 0

If I buy a cd by a musical artist, I am buying those songs not the 3 cent cd they are encoded on. Therefore if I want to copy those legally purchased songs for my own use I should be allowed to without fear of fine or punishment. It is ridiculous to think that people should have to buy every format of an album if they wish to use it with a turntable or a tape deck, etc.

��
said
0 0

ok so now if i buy a cd i cant play it on my ipod? so i either have to buy it twice or not at all ?

what if my PC crashes and i lose it all? will they replace lost songs?

at least when you agree to a license for an OS you can re-install on same machine if it goes awry but if i lose my songs i cant have a legal backup copy on a cd?

and will the cost of blanks come down now ? as they will no longe need the payout from the tax levied on them (i use blanks to store my own data that *I* create btw so can i get a refund ?)

I almost wish we had an opposition party that would stand up for us...clear up this bill and stand up to the US or listen to artists themselves or just develop a new system (even if the old one was ok)

and if we MUST purchase digital copies how about improving the quality some ?

Mark
said
0 0

If this applies to file sharing, hooray! Finally- no longer will music and film be exceptions within a democracy. No more product in perpetuity for free! Despite what any opposer feels, increased performace revenues, if present, would never make up for the loss in royalties. This is a huge victory for the music and film/video industry artists et al. Good show Mr. Emerson!

Mike
said
0 0

Sean, I am fairly certain that this law is not aimed at consumers. I hope that this will allow people to get paid for what they create. All the internet has done is allow a way for normally decent people to steal without feeling guilty for it.

Mike Webster
said
0 0

Sean, this isn't about bashing consumers....It's about protecting the rights of copyright holders. If you obtain copyrighted intellectual property, whether it's a song, a movie, a book or a piece of software, without paying for it - you've stolen it. It's that simple. The people who produce those items deserve to get paid for their efforts. Pirating music and movies is hardly the only or even the main reason for having high speed Internet. The vast majority of those who use high speed internet connections are not thieves and pirates.

Ian.
said
0 0

The current climate of the music/movie/game industry exists because they have been treating the public like cattle for such a long time. We were expected to buy their products over and over again with every shift in technology: buy the vinyl album, then buy the 8-track, then buy the cassette tape, then buy the CD, then buy the MP3? Just keep giving the record companies money for "their' music over and over again.

It's long known that customers have been getting shafted by these big companies, not to mention their abusive relationships with the artists who they represent (in much the same way that pimps 'represent' prostitutes, unfortunately)

Customers should support the artists -directly-, and bypass the record companies entirely.

That being said, consumers should also realize that artists should be paid fairly for the work that they do.

Any laws passed should be directed to supporting artists, not directed to supporting companies. Laws that constrict the way that we use something that we've bought don't benefit consumers, they only benefit companies.

Marco
said
0 0

Annette, there is a lot more to this so called law than just downloading music.

Rick from Alberta
said
0 0

Although I agree that there must be some compensation for artists and companies producing films etc., but where will it end.
I will never accept someone telling me that I can't purchase a CD and then use it how I please whether it be downloading it to my iPod or keeping an electronic copy for when the original is too scratched to use. Why can't they make a more durable CD platform?
If the industry pushes too hard to clamp down and tries to weasel every nickle out of our pockets then people will cut down on purchases and become more creative and steal more of it using newer methods. The industry loses even more!

Again, as one other commentor alluded, the only winners in this battle is the damn lawyers, and the main complainers are the multi billion dollar record companies.

Personally I don't download stolen music and movies from the net, because of the high potential for viruses, trojon's etc, although I do see the benefits to some forms of pay sites because they are more secure. But to each his own right!!

The main thing I dread here is that Big Brother will be once again sticking their noses, by way of more laws, even further into my life, which is already overwhelmed with too many laws!!!!

Steven
said
0 0

"Music" is not free. It is the work of the artist. If you download music provided at a cost without paying it IS stealing. Why would would you need to steal music when Itunes provides music for 99 cents a song or $9.99 a CD ? I fully agree with this new legislation. If you download music without paying, it is the same as stealing anything else from a store and there should be a penalty.

shapeshifterz@hotmail.com
said
0 0

sad! now if you want people to download your song or movie for free its illigal to do so. Rich truly will keep getting richer now while our court systems get bogged down with trival fines and penalties.

Fed Up
said
0 0

Another way of the Harper Gov't restricting what Canadians can and can not do.

Why don't they work on something like bringing down the price of Cdn goods on par with the US or Do something about fuel costs. If fuel continues to soar, there will be alot of Canadians out in the cold come this winter.

Tori
said
0 0

If I have paid for a CD either at a store or though a pay as you go internet site such as I tunes, why should I not be able to put it on my MP3? Since I purchased the music am I not entitled to use it as I see fit?

Annette
said
0 0

It's about time.
People have been getting free music far too long.If I want a song or movie I will pay for it. We all have to make a living.

glengaffney
said
0 0

cant see how any side can be happy with this leglisation. for artists and producers 500 dollars is a pittance. legal expenses are so expensive. in this age of freebies for everone the downloaders are going to be angry and find ways to avoid paying. the lawyers must be rubbing there hands with glee.

Sean
said
0 0

It looks like a combination of Industry and Government are going to continue to bash the Consumers until we simply refuse to consume. They are going to legislate away the need to bother having a high speed internet connection. Once they limit and outlaw what we can download watch how many people switch back to a dial up internet connection.

CTV.ca Special

Digital Dos and Don'ts

What you need to know: breakdown of the new digital dos and don'ts for Canadians.

CTV.ca Blogs

Kris Abel's Tech Life

A few troublesome points about the proposed copyright reform.

Related Websites

Bill C-61 - An Act to amend the Copyright Act

Most Viewed News Stories

View More News Stories

Most Talked about Stories

If there weren't so many people who hide their faces when committing violent acts then we wouldn't need a law forbidding masks. Unfortunately this is our society now. No one can hide their faces... we aren't special over here, violence has arrived and it is here to stay. Let's not kid ourselves. Violence just escalates to new levels. We've let this "hiding the faces" scenario go on far too long.

KC

Montreal bylaw could offer preview of federal mask ban

Got something to say? Share on CTV News

Pick your location

Top Stories -

News Sections

News Programs

Features

Browse: