The DMCA cancer spreads....

[stuckless]

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...-montreal.html

My personal opinions is that the bill has some very good and "fair" provisions...

* The express legalization of format shifting, or the copying of content from one device to another, such as a CD to a computer or an iPod.
* The express legalization of time shifting, or recording television programs for later viewing but not for the purposes of building up a library.
* Allowing consumers to make a back-up copy of content to protect against loss or damage.
* A YouTube clause that allows people to mash up media under certain circumstances, as long as it's not for commercial gain.
* A "notice-and-notice" system where copyright holders will inform internet providers of possible piracy from their customers. The ISP would then be required to notify the customer that he or she was violating the law. The violator's personal information could then be released to the copyright holder with a court order.
* ISPs and search engines would be immune from the copyright violations of their users.
* A differentiation of commercial copyright violation versus individual violation. Individuals found violating copyright law could be liable for penalties between $100 and $5,000, which is below the current $20,000 maximum.
* New exceptions to fair dealing that will allow copyright violations for the purposes of parody, satire and education.

Unfortunately much of that is rendered useless with the provision of anti-circumvention.

A key clause regarding the breaking of digital locks, however, could trump many of those other permissions. The bill would make it illegal for a person to crack a digital lock placed on a device, disc or file. It would be illegal to copy a CD or digital song sold with copy protection on it, for example.

I guess Clement has a different meaning of "fair and balanced" than what I do

[kingwr]

Without the text of the law, it is hard to know what trumps what. The U.S. DMCA has language that suggests that it may be legal to break DCM measures on content that the consumer legally owns for legal purposes (such as fair use). However, it still remains illegal to sell or purchase software to crack DCM. So everyone must, essentially, code their own hacks. Crazy (and inconsistent) stuff.

[vividweb]

Hopefully the other parties will help scale back the digital lock. From what I have read the digital lock trumps all and any type of lock removes all other rights. Does something like the HDPVR qualify as a lock breaking device?

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by vividweb

Hopefully the other parties will help scale back the digital lock. From what I have read the digital lock trumps all and any type of lock removes all other rights. Does something like the HDPVR qualify as a lock breaking device?

I don't think the HDPVR would be considered a lock breaking device, but, if you record a show and decide to keep it beyond a reasonable time it would take to view the show, then that would be illegal. ie, "time shifting" would now be legal, which is funny since I've been "time shifting" for many years using BellTV's own hardware, and I didn't realize it was iilegal Although under the new provisions, I guess Bell would be required to delete my recordings if I failed to watch them after a certain amount of time All the more reason, that I need to get my sagetv setup recording tv instead of just using it for movies.

[vividweb]

I can't believe that you aren't using Sage for TV. I can't wait for the tools/plugins you are going to create when you start that.

The laws seem to have the teeth to punish the average user, but enforcement will always be the issue.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by vividweb

I can't believe that you aren't using Sage for TV. I can't wait for the tools/plugins you are going to create when you start that.

I'm working on it... i'm just not having a lot of luck with irblasting

The laws seem to have the teeth to punish the average user, but enforcement will always be the issue.

Yeah, I don't think police are going to be kicking down my door for ripping a few cds, but I shouldn't have to feel like a criminal for doing so

At least there is still hope...

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I'm working on it... i'm just not having a lot of luck with irblasting

Really? Can't say I recall seeing a thread asking for help on this. Surely you don't have something that hasn't been seen before by someone... I think people would be jumping at the chance to help you out for once!

Yeah, I don't think police are going to be kicking down my door for ripping a few cds, but I shouldn't have to feel like a criminal for doing so

At least there is still hope...

Looks like we Americans aren't the only ones with idiots in politics, who follow the money trail, as opposed to the people they supposedly represent. SO glad we could infect another country.

[vividweb]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I'm working on it... i'm just not having a lot of luck with irblasting

I have 4 Bell receivers working great using a USB-UIRT. My server is headless, so only sending out IR commands. The Bell receivers are nice because they have addressable remotes so you only need the USB-UIRT and no additional IR buds.

[Skirge01]

FYI... looks like Tony Clement, MP is taking and responding to questions about C32 on Twitter. Very cool!

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

Really? Can't say I recall seeing a thread asking for help on this. Surely you don't have something that hasn't been seen before by someone... I think people would be jumping at the chance to help you out for once!

It's not that I don't have it working... I just don't have it reliable . I've used lirc and a MS USB IR blaster, and it was hit or miss. I then switched to using the ir blaster on the HD-PVR and it was hit or miss. I used to have a serial ir blaster, that did work ok, but my new rig doesn't have a serial port.

Originally Posted by vividweb

I have 4 Bell receivers working great using a USB-UIRT. My server is headless, so only sending out IR commands. The Bell receivers are nice because they have addressable remotes so you only need the USB-UIRT and no additional IR buds.

I have toyed with the idea of getting the USB-UIRT... but I didn't want to shell out the cash for yet another IR blasting solution Maybe I'llhave to break down and buy one.

[HelenWeathers]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I have toyed with the idea of getting the USB-UIRT... but I didn't want to shell out the cash for yet another IR blasting solution Maybe I'llhave to break down and buy one.

In the 15 months or so I've used the USB-UIRT I have never missed a channel change. I always lived in fear when I used the MS blaster.

The $50 I spent on the USB-UIRT has been worth every penny.

[MeInMaui]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I have toyed with the idea of getting the USB-UIRT... but I didn't want to shell out the cash for yet another IR blasting solution Maybe I'llhave to break down and buy one.

I have 2 that I'm not using (1 has never been used). I'll send one to you.

Aloha,
Mike

[vividweb]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I have toyed with the idea of getting the USB-UIRT... but I didn't want to shell out the cash for yet another IR blasting solution Maybe I'llhave to break down and buy one.

Definitely worth the money. Has been flawless and zero worries for channel changes.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by MeInMaui

I have 2 that I'm not using (1 has never been used). I'll send one to you.

Aloha,
Mike

Sorry Mike, I TOTALLY missed this post. That's not necessary, but since I have already gotten the shipping notice... Thanks

[dead_ferrets]

I actually took a gander at the legalese of the proposed bill and I found this clause in paragraph 41.1 Section 3 titled: No statutory damages

"The owner of the copyright in a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) has been contravened may not elect under section 38.1 to recover statutory damages from an individual who contravened that paragraph only for his or her own private purposes."

This paragraph is in the circumvention of TPMs section. It seems to me to suggest that you can't sued if you circumvent for private purposes, e.g., format shifting, back-ups, etc.

The funny thing is I don't hear anyone talking about this clause, so I wrote Michael Geist, our resident academic copyright lawyer/activist who is hoping to ensure we do get a balanced copyright act. His take was that you certainly could get sued but the copyright holder would have to prove your circumvention was for commercial purposes otherwise no statutory damages.

Now, I'm not saying the bill is fantastic or anything, especially since it would make it quite hard to get hold of TPM circumvention software, and for a variety of other reasons. But it is nice to know it would be very difficult to use this legislation to mount ridiculous lawsuits that could result in outrageous statutory damages.

Please write your local MP and Tony Clementto let them know your concerns.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by dead_ferrets

This paragraph is in the circumvention of TPMs section. It seems to me to suggest that you can't sued if you circumvent for private purposes, e.g., format shifting, back-ups, etc.

The funny thing is I don't hear anyone talking about this clause, so I wrote Michael Geist, our resident academic copyright lawyer/activist who is hoping to ensure we do get a balanced copyright act. His take was that you certainly could get sued but the copyright holder would have to prove your circumvention was for commercial purposes otherwise no statutory damages.

Now, I'm not saying the bill is fantastic or anything, especially since it would make it quite hard to get hold of TPM circumvention software, and for a variety of other reasons. But it is nice to know it would be very difficult to use this legislation to mount ridiculous lawsuits that could result in outrageous statutory damages.

I emailed Tony with my concerned already, many of which were already covered by professor Geist in his "32 Questions and Answers".

While I welcome the no statutory damages section, I don't think it will stop the extortion suits that we are seeing the US and UK. Let's face it the the real money isn't in the $250K wins that require a trial, where the defendant can't pay the fine anyways... the real money is in just submitting 1000s of "pay us $1000 now for your alleged infringment, and we'll make the case go away... or go to court, and have to lawyer fees, travel costs, etc". Many people are opting to pay the $1000, since it's less than what it would cost them to fight it. That's the real business model here.

There shouldn't be a legal risk to circumventing the TPM for personal use, period. While I may not have to worry about the RCMP breaking down my doors for watching a DVD on linux, it shouldn't be illegal.

And the ban on tools that can break locks is just as ridiculous. At what point do we decide that simply having a computer that is NOT locked down can be used to break a technical lock.... i guess Apple's idevice world vision will be the only option

[dead_ferrets]

I'm not quite as pessimistic on the 'extortion suit' side of things as the act seems to take very clear aim at commercial infringers. Specifically, clauses like a cap on the total possible payout of 5K for non-commercial copyright infringement and no statutory damages for TPM circumvention for private purposes (that you don't see in the DMCA) make those kinds of suits much more risky IMO. Not to mention, those kinds of suits seem to be much less in fashion these days compared to say, two years ago.

I wholeheartedly agree regarding TPM circumvention tools and their use for private use. TPM circumvention on lawfully obtained copyright material for private, academic, or research purposes must be a cornerstone of new the bill. C'mon Tony, you know it's the right thing to do!

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by dead_ferrets

I'm not quite as pessimistic on the 'extortion suit' side of things as the act seems to take very clear aim at commercial infringers. Specifically, clauses like a cap on the total possible payout of 5K for non-commercial copyright infringement and no statutory damages for TPM circumvention for private purposes (that you don't see in the DMCA) make those kinds of suits much more risky IMO. Not to mention, those kinds of suits seem to be much less in fashion these days compared to say, two years ago.

I wholeheartedly agree regarding TPM circumvention tools and their use for private use. TPM circumvention on lawfully obtained copyright material for private, academic, or research purposes must be a cornerstone of new the bill. C'mon Tony, you know it's the right thing to do!

Do keep in mind that our wonderful DMCA Clinton signed into law was originally sold as a means of stopping the large counterfeiters, as opposed to individuals. But, the attorneys and companies saw the gray areas and jumped at them. Then, the courts decided to allow them to do it, as did the lawmakers who chose not to change the law or enact the DMCRA. Sometimes I feel like Detective Munch's view of the world isn't quite as silly as it's made out to be.

[wayner]

This new bill, C-32, actually has a provision which could make some types of timeshifting illegal. Here is what I see on Timeshifting: (source)

29.23 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to fix a communication signal, to reproduce a work or sound recording that is being broadcast or to fix or reproduce a performer’s performance that is being broadcast, in order to record a program for the purpose of listening to or viewing it later, if

(a) the individual receives the program legally;

(b) the individual, in order to record the program, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection meas- ure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;

(c) the individual makes no more than one recording of the program;

(d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than is reasonably necessary in order to listen to or view the program at a more convenient time;

(e) the individual does not give the recording away; and

(f) the recording is used only for private purposes.

What I am concerned about is section d. I bet that I am not the only one that keeps some of my recordings from SageTV permanently, or at least for many years, this is particularly the case for children's shows, and movies. If this Bill passes then I will be breaking the law if I continue to do so.

Section c could also be an issue if you transfer a Sage (or other PVRed) recording from your HTPC to a laptop/iPod, etc.

And I wonder if using a device like an HDfury would violate section b?

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by dead_ferrets

I'm not quite as pessimistic on the 'extortion suit' side of things as the act seems to take very clear aim at commercial infringers. Specifically, clauses like a cap on the total possible payout of 5K for non-commercial copyright infringement and no statutory damages for TPM circumvention for private purposes (that you don't see in the DMCA) make those kinds of suits much more risky IMO. Not to mention, those kinds of suits seem to be much less in fashion these days compared to say, two years ago.

It's sad, but I think what you mean is that the big studios do see suing consumers as a very good PR move, and it doesn't do much, if any to deter filesharing, so they have stopped it. But, laywers, not to be left out to dry, have decided that this is a great revenue stream, and what is on the rise, is a smaller pockets of bandits, I mean lawyers, deciding that it's actually a pretty good business model, if they can convince very small studios that currently release very crappy, and often unheard of movies, so sue 14,000 people at once, with the hopes that many will take the bait. Here's an ars article from 13 days ago... I'd say we are just seeing the rise of the extortion suits

Also keep in mind, what an act is "intended" for has little to do with how it will be used The DMCA in the US has been used to block ink manufacturers and creators of garage door remotes, which were not probably the intended uses. (you can check out this article by the EFF on the unintended consequences of the DMCA)

I'd love to be optimistic... I really would... but history and the present, is already giving us a glimpse of our future

Originally Posted by wayner

Section c could also be an issue if you transfer a Sage (or other PVRed) recording from your HTPC to a laptop/iPod, etc.

And I wonder if using a device like an HDfury would violate section b?

I would think so.