[D'rek]

Cocoreturns, on 18 January 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

And Forbes provides some interesting historical perspective from thirty years ago,

when the then head of the MPAA declared that:

"The public is the loser when creative property is taken and here is the reason why. The investment of hundreds of millions of dollars each year to produce quality programs to theaters and television will surely decline."

regarding the use of the home VCR.

so yeah........

storyhere

I've heard the same thing happened when the photocopier, television, home radio and printing press came out, too.

[cerveza_fiesta]

I hate that argument (sry drek).

The cassette recorder, CD, printing press, VCR, etc etc etc all require a physical piece of hardware to trade around creative property, limiting potential distribution only to the social circle of the person having a copy of a given piece of creative content. With the exception of CDs quality is lost at each generation of copy from the original source, further limiting the potential for distribution.

Digital files do not lose quality, nor is distribution in any way limited to people within one's immediate social circle. One person with a single copy can literally share that content with the entire net-connected population of the planet. Digital files are also dead easy to copy and distribute compared to old fashioned recordable media. It takes only seconds to copy a song or TV program and post a torrent, vs minutes to hours to record or dub the same on a VCR or cassette.

Therefore, the comparison of digital pirating to pirating via older media is completely invalid. The digital revolution is called a revolution for a reason. It's an entirely new beast. If it was the same as VCR, cassettes, photocopiers, printing presses, etc... then the recording industry, film industry and publishing industries would still be just as fat and healthy as ever.

Not to say that the decline of the industries is entirely attributable to pirating, it isn't. The creative property industries have all willfully ignored the fact that their old distribution model doesn't make them money anymore. People are just as happy to pay for creative content (music, TV, books and movies) as they ever were, but they don't buy it as much on a disc, paper book or DVD. All of those industries should have embraced the new state of affairs and the new distribution model rather than resisting it. In fact, the only ones making money at all now are the ones (like itunes, Amazon, etc...) that got on the paid digital distribution bandwagon right away.

There's a lot more to it than that, but at this point bills like SOPA/PIPA are beating a dead horse and for all they spout "we're protecting artists' rights!!!", everybody knows that they're protecting their pocketbooks by trying to forcefully curb people back to their endangered species of a business model.

Nice to see public opposition winning out over the industry lobbyists once in awhile too. SOPA /PIPA are dead in the water after losing key supporters in congress, and the whitehouse more or less said they'd veto it anyway.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 19 January 2012 - 02:17 PM

[Gothos]

Meanwhile, ACTA moves forward. Was SOPA/PIPA just decoys to pull away the public from ACTA?

[Anomander Rake]

I have to agree with the comments that the industries have been slow to adopt new distributions channels, and seem to still be quite slow at adopting it. We see the massive popularity of services such as iTunes and Amazon, which have been a lot quicker at adopting and have managed to take a large slice of the pie, that other slower adopters are struggling to bite into.

There are many advantages to digital versions for consumers who are willing to pay (as long as its a reasonable cost):
> You will never lose it, as you can download from your cloud (e.g. a music cd or book can get lost)
> Put onto as many devices as you have etc

As to TV/Film, they have probably been the slowest and are still way behind were you would expect them to be in creating a new digital distribution channel (though I can understand to an extent the delay in that broadband wasn't fast enough etc, but surely they must have known that broadband speeds are constantly speeding up and should have been prepared to give legal avenues to download movies/tv).

If you look at Anime, a lot of Anime isn't available outside of Japan, so what developed was the anime would be recorded, then go through a process of subtitling it by fans and made available to overseas fans. This actually had a positive effect, as it provided exposure to Japanese Anime to international audience, and meant they started releasing more and more Anime to other markets with dubbed or subtitled DVDs, increasing revenue etc. There are some models for foreign drama's/shows that you can subscribe to a service and watch, which allow you to use fanSubs with it etc.

I just see that too much legislation is being brought in by Governments around the world to control more and more of the internet.

You probably heard today megaupload.com has been closed down by the FBI, so it seems that there is more than enough powers available.

[Tsundoku]

Gothos, on 19 January 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

Meanwhile, ACTA moves forward. Was SOPA/PIPA just decoys to pull away the public from ACTA?

Is this what you're referring to?

http://en.wikipedia....Trade_Agreement

[Illuyankas]

Anomander Rake, on 20 January 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

You probably heard today megaupload.com has been closed down by the FBI, so it seems that there is more than enough powers available.

Yeah, I thought that too, but then I read some of the indictment or whatever they released and the owners were, instead of deleting reported copyrighted material, rather paying people money to upload them and actually kept notes on these uploaders like '$100, several TV series and films' so megaupload was a case of genuine purposeful illegal activity with really shitty timing and not an abuse of Safe Harbor etc.

[worry]

Yah, Illy's right, megaupload screwed up big time and allegedly was active in pirating rather than merely acting as a honor system youtube-like content host or even like more neutral file storage sites. And what do you know, law enforcement was apparently able to fulfill its duty within the bounds of the Constitution.

[Darkwatch]

Apparently it might be migrating North soon:

http://www.michaelge.../view/6257/125/

Quote

The Behind-the-Scenes Campaign To Bring SOPA To Canada
Monday January 23, 2012
The Internet battle against SOPA and PIPA generated huge interest in Canada with many Canadians turning their sites dark (including Blogging Tories, Project Gutenberg Canada, and CIPPIC) in support of the protest. In writing about the link between SOPA and Canada, I noted that the proposed legislation featured an aggressive jurisdictional approach that could target Canadian websites. Moreover, I argued that the same lobby groups promoting SOPA in the U.S. are behind the digital lock rules in Bill C-11.

While SOPA may be dead (for now) in the U.S., lobby groups are likely to intensify their efforts to export SOPA-like rules to other countries. With Bill C-11 back on the legislative agenda at the end of the month, Canada will be a prime target for SOPA style rules. In fact, a close review of the unpublished submissions to the Bill C-32 legislative committee reveals that several groups have laid the groundwork to add SOPA-like rules into Bill C-11, including blocking websites and expanding the "enabler provision"to target a wider range of websites. Given the reaction to SOPA in the U.S., where millions contacted their elected representatives to object to rules that threatened their Internet and digital rights, the political risks inherent in embracing SOPA-like rules are significant.

The music industry is unsurprisingly leading the way, demanding a series of changes that would make Bill C-11 look much more like SOPA.

For example, the industry wants language to similar to that found in SOPA on blocking access to websites, demanding new provisions that would "permit a court to make an order blocking a pirate site such as The Pirate Bay to protect the Canadian marketplace from foreign pirate sites." Section 102 of SOPA also envisioned blocking of websites:

A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

The music industry also wants Internet providers to be required to adopt a termination policy for subscribers that are alleged to be repeat infringers. According to the industry document:

To incent service providers to cooperate in stemming piracy by requiring them to adopt and reasonably implement a policy to prevent the use of their services by repeat infringers and by conditioning the availability of service provider exceptions on this being done.

This demand would move Canada toward the graduated response policy that could result in loss of Internet service for Internet users. There is no indication in the music industry document of due process or even proof of infringement.

Several lobby groups also want language similar to that found in the infamous Section 103 of SOPA. That provision, which spoke of sites "primarily designed or operated for the purpose of...offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates" infringement, raised fears that it could be used to shut down mainstream sites such as YouTube.

According to the music industry document, Bill C-11's "enabler provision" should be expanded to include "services that are primarily operated to enable infringement or which induce infringement." Those demands are echoed by the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, which called on the government to "amend the enabling provision to ensure that it applies to services that are "designed or operated" primarily to enable acts of infringement." Both groups also want statutory damages added to the enabler provision so that liability can run into the millions of dollars for a target website.

Just as there are questions whether SOPA is even needed in the U.S. (the takedown of Megaupload suggests that current laws are effective), the same is true with the enabler provision in Bill C-11, given that the music industry is already suing IsoHunt, the Canadian-based torrent search site, using current law. The expansion of the enabler provision to include sites that operate to enable or induce infringement could extend far beyond so-called "pirate sites", since many user generated content sites (such as YouTube) and cloud-based service sites can be said to enable or induce infringement, particularly in a country like Canada that does not have a fair use provision.

As for the government's plans, C-11 committee member Dean Del Mastro specifically referenced changes to the enabler provision in a recent interview about potential changes and there are rumours that the U.S. government is pushing the Canadian government to toughen the enabler provision (while keeping the digital lock rules unchanged). That suggests that just as the U.S. is moving away from SOPA in its own laws due to the political uprising against it, the Canadian government may be headed toward a similar quagmire as the U.S.-backed lobby groups lead it down a politically risky path.

[Mentalist]

Fortunately, we have a Supreme Court ruling from 2004 that tell us that our ISPs do NOT have to treat everyone like pirates.

I really should take a look at this bill, though...

[QuickTidal]

Anomander Rake, on 20 January 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

If you look at Anime, a lot of Anime isn't available outside of Japan, so what developed was the anime would be recorded, then go through a process of subtitling it by fans and made available to overseas fans. This actually had a positive effect, as it provided exposure to Japanese Anime to international audience, and meant they started releasing more and more Anime to other markets with dubbed or subtitled DVDs, increasing revenue etc. There are some models for foreign drama's/shows that you can subscribe to a service and watch, which allow you to use fanSubs with it etc.

This is a very important point. As a person who has been into Anime for years, back in the '90's you could go to any store that carried anime and rent "fansub" tapes. Not only were these copies considered legal, but the companies who produced the shows in Japan actually encouraged the subbing and distribution of their shows in North America (and elsewhere) since as Rake above said, it got them press in other countries with an entirely new audience who otherwise wouldn't see them. Back in the 90's anime was considered a VERY expensive hobby since very few companies existed to do proper voice dubs and releases of shows. They used to charge an arm and a leg for 4 episodes. Fansubs grew and no one wanted to stop it.

What's great about this dynamic is that it has mutated into a viable business process for the Japanese companies, for getting a wider audience. With sites like Anime News Network and Crunchy Roll legally streaming many shows that have yet to be picked up over here in subbed versions and can continue to do so as long as an English company hasn't bought the rights to it. Once they do (companies like Funimation) then those sites stop streaming them. It totally works. As long as you are watching free (AKA without a premium monthly account at like $7) then each show has Ads in it (3 single commercials per half hour show) paying for the site to run and pleasing advertisers.

I truly feel that buried within this unique system is the future of TV and movies as consumed by us. They just need more companies to take the plunge and adopt new strategies.

[Darkwatch]

So SOPA and PIPA raised internet awareness to the other bigger threat that is ACTA.

Here's a video describing it.

[Mentalist]

Darkwatch, on 29 January 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

So SOPA and PIPA raised internet awareness to the other bigger threat that is ACTA.

Here's a video describing it.

hmm
ACTA isn't binding in most places though.
yes, it's a step in the wrong direction, but it's not a fatal one, as after it's adopted by the executives of the state, it still needs to become part of a country's law via legislateure, giving the people of a given country a chance to influence a decision a la SOPA in the States.

EDIT: k, it's a bigger deal in the EU. I was speaking from Canadian perspective, since here, after the PM signs a treaty, Parliamnt needs to pass a law to make that mean anything.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 30 January 2012 - 08:40 AM

[Mentalist]

oh, btw, i'm reading the proposed Bill C-32 (the proposed amendment to the Canadian Copyright Act)
note: I read about half the Bill before starting this, the rest is "comment as I read"-type commentary.

to summarize: it acknowledges the existance of ways to broadcast works via telecommunication, in a way that makes them available to multiple users, at the time of the users' choosing (i.e., youtube), and sets out a whole host of rules about that. Most of them are about allowing people to host stuff there w/o it being infringement.
Gives a whole lot more rights to the educational institutions.
Explicitly makes cracking "circumventing digintal restrictions placed to prevent reproduction" illegal. At the same time, it allows users to make backup copies w/o it being infringement (unless it involves cracking). Also, recording non-"on-demand" broadcast for later viewing is now legal, provided you dispose of them after watching.

oh, more on the topic of cracking: if something you acquired legally and hold a license to won't work on your machine, you may "modify" it, in order to make it work.
Also, this gem:
30.62 It is not an infringement of copyright for a person to reproduce a work or other subject-matter for the purposes of encryption research if
(a) it would not be practical to carry out the research without making the copy;
(B ) the person has lawfully obtained the work or other subject-matter; and
(c ) the person has informed the owner of the copyright in the work or other subject-matter.


I wonder what'll fit under the umbrella of "encryption research"?
the only equivalent of SOPA is this, really:

18. Section 27 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):


(2.1) For greater certainty, a copy made outside Canada does not infringe copyright under subsection (2) if, had it been made in Canada, it would have been made under a limitation or exception under this Act.

Secondary infringement related to lesson

(2.2) It is an infringement of copyright for any person to do any of the following acts with respect to anything that the person knows or should have known is a lesson, as defined in subsection 30.01(1), or a fixation of one:

(a) to sell it or to rent it out;

(B ) to distribute it to an extent that the owner of the copyright in the work or other subject-matter that is included in the lesson is prejudicially affected;

( c) by way of trade, to distribute it, expose or offer it for sale or rental or exhibit it in public;

(d) to possess it for the purpose of doing anything referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to ©;

(e) to communicate it by telecommunication to any person other than a person referred to in paragraph 30.01(3)(a); or

(f) to circumvent or contravene any measure taken in conformity with paragraph 30.01(6)(B ), (c ) or (d).

Infringement — provision of services

(2.3) It is an infringement of copyright for a person to provide, by means of the Internet or another digital network, a service that the person knows or should have known is designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement if an actual infringement of copyright occurs by means of the Internet or another digital network as a result of the use of that service.

Factors

(2.4) In determining whether a person has infringed copyright under subsection (2.3), the court may consider

(a) whether the person expressly or implic- itly marketed or promoted the service as one that could be used to enable acts of copyright infringement;

(B ) whether the person had knowledge that the service was used to enable a significant number of acts of copyright infringement;

(c ) whether the service has significant uses other than to enable acts of copyright infringement;

(d) the person’s ability, as part of providing the service, to limit acts of copyright infringement, and any action taken by the person to do so;

(e) any benefits the person received as a result of enabling the acts of copyright infringement; and

(f) the economic viability of the provision of the service if it were not used to enable acts of copyright infringement.

Which seemingly puts ISPs on thin ice, but I'd like a publisher to come up with sufficient empirical data to convincigly argue that an ISP's only getting business b/c people can pirate stuff. Also, this may lead to increased filtering/surveillance, but if ISPs decide to do that, it'll get challenged as a violation of privacy.
Granted, this is an unwelcome departure from an established judicial positoin under the old Act (where ISPs were found not to be liable, with the general presumption being "we can't assume all users pirate". This is something I may write my representative about, actually.
oh, and said fact is acknowledged here:

31.1 (1) A person who, in providing serv- ices related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, provides any means for the telecommunication or the reproduction of a work or other subject-matter through the Internet or that other network does not, solely by reason of providing those means, infringe copyright in that work or other subject-matter.


Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a service provided by the person if the provision of that service constitutes an infringement of copyright under subsection 27(2.3).


Incidental acts

(3) Subject to subsection (4), a person referred to in subsection (1) who caches the work or other subject-matter, or does any similar act in relation to it, to make the telecommunication more efficient does not, by virtue of that act alone, infringe copyright in the work or other subject-matter.


Conditions for application

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply unless the person, in respect of the work or other subject-matter,

(a) does not modify it, other than for technical reasons;

(B ) ensures that any directions related to its caching or the doing of any similar act, as the case may be, that are established by whoever made it available for telecommunication through the Internet or another digital network, and that lend themselves to automated reading and execution, are read and executed; and

© does not interfere with the lawful use of technology to obtain data on its use.


Hosting

(5) Subject to subsection (6), a person who, for the purpose of allowing the telecommunication of a work or other subject-matter through the Internet or another digital network, provides digital memory in which another person stores the work or other subject-matter does not, by virtue of that act alone, infringe copyright in the work or other subject-matter.


Condition for application

(6) Subsection (5) does not apply in respect of a work or other subject-matter if the person providing the digital memory knows of a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction to the effect that the person who has stored the work or other subject-matter in the digital memory infringes copyright by making the copy of the work or other subject-matter that is stored or by the way in which he or she uses the work or other subject-matter.


k, onto remedies: seems the gist is to limit the amounts of compensation, esp for innocent infringement. also, courts get a lot of discretion on electing to minimize damages.

ooh, there's a section on cracking (41) that defines what is the definition of a "technological protection measure". Since it's something designed to circumvent distribution, i'm not sure it applies to the standard restrictive DRM a la "always online connections". which means bypassing that wouldn't be illegal. technically.
also, this lovely bit:
(2) Paragraph 41.1(1)( does not apply to a person who offers services to the public or provides services for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure if the person does so for the purpose of making the computer program and any other computer program interoperable.
the paragraph mentioned being about circumventing stuff. so, cracking for compatibility purposes is not illegal, huh. There are a number of warning assigned about how the exception doesn't apply if the act itself involves infringement of copyright.

also, circumventing said protection for commercial purposes is a criminal offence.
(3.1) Every person, except a person who is acting on behalf of a library, archive or museum or an educational institution, is guilty of an offence who knowingly and for commercial purposes contravenes section 41.1 and is liable

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both; or

(B ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.


hmm, ok, getting to the grim parts:
41.25 (1) An owner of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter may send a notice of claimed infringement to a person who provides

(a) the means, in the course of providing services related to the operation of the Internet or another digital network, of telecommunication through which the electronic location that is the subject of the claim of infringement is connected to the Internet or another digital network;

(B ) for the purpose set out in subsection 31.1(5), the digital memory that is used for the electronic location to which the claim of infringement relates; or

(c ) an information location tool as defined in subsection 41.27(5).

(2) A notice of claimed infringement shall be in writing in the form, if any, prescribed by regulation and shall

(a) state the claimant’s name and address and any other particulars prescribed by regulation that enable communication with the claimant;

(B ) identify the work or other subject-matter to which the claimed infringement relates;

(c ) state the claimant’s interest or right with respect to the copyright in the work or other subject-matter;

(d) specify the location data for the electronic location to which the claimed infringement relates;

(e) specify the infringement that is claimed;

(f) specify the date and time of the commission of the claimed infringement; and

(g) contain any other information that may be prescribed by regulation.

41.26 (1) A person described in paragraph 41.25(1)(a) or (B ) who receives a notice of claimed infringement that complies with subsection 41.25(2) shall, on being paid any fee that the person has lawfully charged for doing so,

(a) without delay forward the notice elec- tronically to the person to whom the electron- ic location identified by the location data specified in the notice belongs and inform the claimant of its forwarding or, if applicable, of the reason why it was not possible to forward it; and

(B ) retain records that will allow the identity of the person to whom the electronic location belongs to be determined, and do so for six months beginning on the day on which the notice of claimed infringement is received or, if the claimant commences proceedings relating to the claimed infringement and so notifies the person before the end of those six months, for one year after the day on which the person receives the notice of claimed infringement.

so, essentially, if a publisher finds someone infringing, they may request the IP address of the infringer from the ISP. this may run into privacy challenges. hrm

overall, it's not too grim. It tries to curb piracy, but I don't see this going overboard, until there's an interpretation of just what the standard of care for an ISP should be. and precedent on that front is encouraging.
for anyone interested, the bill is available here:
http://www.parl.gc.c...d=4580265&File=

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 30 January 2012 - 08:31 AM

[Mentalist]

also, another "food for thought" bit about C-11 (the 2012 version of C-32 above, with 0 changes)

The parliament has been trying to pass the same identical bill for about 5-6 years now. hasn't had any luck yet.

[Nicodimas]

http://www.zerohedge...g-warning-signs

[Darkwatch]

So there's the "Lawful Access" part of the new Omnibus Crime bill making the rounds on the Parliament Hill.
It would allow the authorities to access your online information without a warrant. The backlash has been pretty heavy. The problem seems to be that the bill is so badly written that amendments would be useless.

http://fullcomment.n...nline-predator/

http://openmedia.ca/StopSpying

http://www.huffingto...canada-politics

[worry]

http://www.forbes.co...never-kill-you/

A practical look at piracy (?)

[rhulad]

Didn't really see a point in starting a new topic for this, not directly related to SOPA but in the same vein. Apparently the gambling site Bodog.com was taken down via US court order based on some money transactions outside of the US. The scary thing is, this site is not american, it is owned by a Canadian from Saskatchewan and its headquarters are in the UK. Here's the Article, thoughts, opinions?

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Currently the US has jurisdiction over all .com, .net, and .org domains, regardless of where they're registered.

That's just how the interwebs is set up, ATM.

Almost all the internet regulatory organizations are American, too.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 06 March 2012 - 11:50 PM

[QuickTidal]

Adjutant Stormy, on 06 March 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Currently the US has jurisdiction over all .com, .net, and .org domains, regardless of where they're registered.

That's just how the interwebs is set up, ATM.

Almost all the internet regulatory organizations are American, too.

Yep, this. all those site locations are run through a place in Cali (IIRC), thus they are beholden to US laws...if the US chooses to fight them.