Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Ottawa accused of caving in to Hollywood on copyright

BILL CURRY

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:23 AM EST 22/12/07

What was once a low-key issue in Ottawa is morphing into a potential political storm ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Rona Baird-Zundel from Arvida, Canada writes: Too bad. Prentice is already slipping on the copyright banana peel. After the Mulroney door opener to get Peladeau to see Harpo and a sweetheart deal for poor little Quebecor and new spectrum assignation, it's the Hollywood lobby boys to get the fix via a pre-emptive tax on devices to be used in downloading and storing content. That 1% GST cut is certainly going to make up for this regressive tax.
    Whether it's the Accountability Act that is much parroted but has no reglations, the AECL fiasco, the Bali no-show or most other legislation initiated by this government, it's truly the re-born Keystone Cops.
  2. Shamus M from Canada writes: Follow the money. They caved in like a bridge made of soggy Kleenex. (I hope i don't get in trouble for using a brand name).
  3. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    The moment I read 'Hollywood lobbyist', my eyes rolled. This typical tactic of using America to demonize something reveals the utter shallowness of those who do it.

    Protesting an unknown law; paranoia and hysteria rules.

    The people who produce and create therse products should be protected.
  4. Alberto Bayo from Canada writes: I thought the tax on blank CD's DVD's and tapes was supposed to cover all this.
  5. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: The day I lost all respect for the Liberals is when Shiela Copps introduced that 'levy' on all blank media sold in Canada, regardless of how the media is used.

    I guess the Conservatives are just a DMCA away from me hating them too.
  6. J B from Canada writes: Punitive legislation (which has already been shown to be disproportionately applied) is NOT reform; it's just another legal slippery slope possibly leading to things like lack of privacy and increased internet control/surveillance. The only reason we're seeing such a huge backlash is because powerful interests are being challenged by new mediums - this isn't a new historical cycle, or anything. The archaic music industry needs to find a viable solution to the problem, not a harmful band-aid that attacks college students (...for 225,000$).
  7. Raj Rama from Toronto, Canada writes: This is a surprise, won't people just buy these devices when outside of Canada, will this fuel more cross border shopping?
  8. Dana Dana from Canada writes: Lawyers coast to coast are grinning ear to ear!
  9. Charles Martel from Canada from Canada writes: The US is realizing they have lost their competitive advantages and are curling up in their scared little protectionist shells. It's rather pathetic really. Everything from lumber to cd's.
  10. Vincent Clement from Windsor, Ontario, Canada writes: Cause the same legislation in the US has done a bang up job thwarting 'piracy'.

    Maybe if the MPAA and RIAA and their Canadian equivalents focused on adding value to their products instead of making their content unplayable in computers or older DVD players or locked into certain devices, people would gladly pay for their content instead of finding it for free on the net.

    We are steps away from John Doe lawsuits found in the US.
  11. Vincent Clement from Windsor, Ontario, Canada writes: Mary Smith: Who do you think is behind the US government pushing of American intellectual property law when it enters into so-called 'free trade agreements' with other countries? You don't think the MPAA and RIAA have nothing to do with pushing DMCA type legislation in other countries? If you don't then my eyes are rolling.

    The irony of granting government monopolistic powers to companies while entering into free trade agreements is not lost on me.
  12. Paul Sigmundson from Vancouver, Canada writes: The entertainment cartel is just trying to establish a few more ways to wring a buck out of us suckers. They are the ones behind this legislation. Who else has any money at stake? And they do have piles of it taken from us already - more than enough to bankroll a vocal lobby in Ottawa. With internet delivery of entertainment, the cost of the product should have dropped to a fraction of the current rates. They don't have to produce a physical disk, ship it, and pay a distributor and retail marketer. At 99 cents per tune, the price of an album is sometimes actually cheaper in the stores. Milking the consumer? And all they want is a few more ways to charge us for the privilege of paying their luxury prices. Transfer it to another music player? That will be a few bucks more. Save a copy for the time when the original doesn't play any more - another charge. That is the language of the RIAA and I assume, the branch office CRIA.
  13. JEANNE FARINE from Vancouver, Canada writes: I suppose that we are expected to forget that the Mulroney 'gift' of the Free Trade Agreement was only 'free' as long as the United States' laws applied, without exception. Even that blatantly fraudulent condition of a 'free' trade arrangement has never satisfied the Americans, because they want our water, our oil, our gas, our wood, our publishing and entertainment markets...all on their terms...Even the limits on the us of toxic substances are to be adjusted downward in Canada to 'facilitate' the 'integration' of controls in that area. And, have no doubts, Canada, 'integration' is what the corporate world, the new 'continentalists' (Manley, et al) want...that's what the SPP is all about, what Mulroney was/is all about...and what the temporary PM Harper was is and will be all about until the Canadian voters 'get real' about Canadian interests and end this 'conservative' hiatus. As for the Americans posting on these threads...free speech IS a continental reality, supposedly, but this is one Canadian who hopes that this Country successfully resists the U.S. programme of 'integration'...and its Canadian supporters/schemers who more often lack the 'courage' of the temporary PM's once open endorsement of all things American, preferring instead a take-over by stealth...
  14. Wojtek O from Montreal, Canada writes: Raj Rama from Toronto, Canada writes: 'This is a surprise, won't people just buy these devices when outside of Canada, will this fuel more cross border shopping?' This has little to do with the hardware device itself. More with the content that will be placed on the device. If you buy a cd, and you own an mp3 player, you will *not* be allowed to rip the songs and transfer them to your mp3 player. That'll be illegal. If you decide to purchase an mp3 online, most are DRM protected. If in a year your device breaks, or you decide to buy a different brand one, the DRM protected songs will not work on your new device. Think itunes drm mp3 on sony mp3 player for example (wont work). If you remove that protection from your music collection (that you legally bought) to be able to play them on your new player, that'll be illegal as well. Same thing if you have an mp3 cd player in your car. Burning a convenient disc with 100-150 songs on it would also be illegal if you copy from from bought cd's or drm mp3s. And many many other examples.
  15. Gerald Waterous from Canada writes: 'Having seen the devastation of Internet file sharing on the music recording business, movie and television producers want laws to prevent the same loss of revenue.'

    File sharing doesn't have anywhere near as much to do with the losses the music industry has suffered as does the quality of the product they are selling. Get the bean counters out and give the artists back some freedom. See what happens when you have a product worth buying.
  16. Jason Young from digital identityvile, Canada writes: does the new legislation include givin' me mah money back for the recording levy I'd been suckered with for years?

    screw em. DCMA, CCRIA,RIAA,TFB, ROLTF alpabet soup and c.h.e.e.s.e.

    no, the music industry get no sympathy from me.

    as for stupid laws against backing up data, making a back up, copying songs into a play list that'll be burned onto a mp3 disc, the CCRI/RIAAto dumb to survive or /and innovate...can take their trumped up charges, and recycle them...I even have a suggestion where flush
  17. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: This legislation that they have in the U.S. is pure evil. We must oppose it all the way. Not only is the transfer of content from one device to another illegal, but even if you buy the content legally, you can be barred from viewing that content if you don't live in the prescribed zone for which that content was approved. That means that if you go on vacation and buy a CD, the CD will no longer work in your brand-new CD player at home, because the CD you bought was only intended for the market where it was bought and only legal for consumption there. We've already seen what these copyright Nazis do to single mothers who download ten songs for their daughter online; they get dinged with $300,000 lawsuits. How's that for a kick in the face. 'Sorry honey, we can't eat this week or ever and you can forget about ever going to college or having a life because the recording industry decided to make an exaqmple of us on national T.V. for those Britney tunes we downloaded together last week when I was able to get time off work.' Whatever! Pure evil! Resist! That's not even getting into the fact that Radiohead has actually made more money off of their last CD that they released online, allowing everyone to pay whatever they want or nothing than they have ever made on any of their other CD's. This is not about protecting artists or intellectual property. This is about protecting a parasitic and slothfulrecording industry that refuses to evolve. To bad for them. Independent and user created content is good for culture. Industry produced drivel is the cause of so much of the crap we see on TV and hear on the radio now. They can go the way of the do-do bird as far as I'm concerned.
  18. Ross James from Vancouver, B.C., Canada writes: As someone has already mentioned, isn't this what the tariff on blank cd/dvd and other media was for? Isn't that what the companies wanted, asked for and got? Now they want more?

    Anyways, besides all this talk about personal use and the like, there is something I haven't seen mentioned yet. I record music onto cd's and dvd's but it's my own personal compositions. I am a musician. I also use memory cards to load these songs and music onto mp3 players and I also use the memory cards for my digital camera.

    So in essence what is being proposed is that when I record a piece of music I personally wrote and recorded and I put it onto a blank cd or dvd that I have bought, I am to play more money than I am already paying to these comapnies? If I back up my personal email messages or personal pictures onto this blank media I am again expected to pay more money to Hollywood and these people? To record my own personal compositions, emails and pictures?

    Exactly how is that fair to me? And how is it any of their business what I use the blank discs for if I have paid for them? Especially for personal use.

    These music companies and Hollywood companies have had it too good for far too long. Now that they can't have all the pie to themselves they start crying poor mouth. Their inability to change with the times and technology should be their problem and not a problem for the taxpayers and public to suffer from.
  19. Open Mike from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'Having seen the devastation of Internet file sharing on the music recording business, movie and television producers want laws to prevent the same loss of revenue.' Who's kidding who here? The devastation was more to do with consumers finally getting tired of being ripped off by the American corporate music industry foisting off grossly overpriced CD's containing one good song surrounded by a truckload of fill-up crap. Existing copyright laws are strong enough to deal with current challenges. It should not be within our government's remit to grant monopoly powers to an industry solely to protect its business plan and its profits at the expense of the consumer's interest. If the exploitative and greedy music industry can't respond creatively to technological advancement, then it doesn't deserve government help to stave off progress. Especially from our government, from which I wouldn't expect, nor approve of, such socialistic protection. And the Canadian government, regardless of which party is in power, has better things to do than roll over and play dead when Hollywood's greed-dogs come to our country to throw their weight around.
  20. Alexander Slimnich from Canada writes: I can't understand where all of this opposition is coming from.. towards a bill.. that hasn't even been introduced yet. That's right, we know nothing of what the actual bill will include, and yet people are for some reason dead set against it. It really boggles the mind..
  21. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: I was around before free trade came in. The government was able to pay people on welfare then. I don't think free trade has done anything for this country. The Americans only let in what they want to let in anyways. The minute they start to feel the heat of competition, they go off whining to their congressman to slap on some protective tariffs to protect them, see softwood lumber, see Canadian beef. Meanwhile, we have to absorb all the American crap that they feel like dumping onto our market, even if it doesn't comply with our health and safety laws. They get to sue us if we don't buy their crap, but we don't get to make our own laws if they don't conform to American standards. FTA is a load of crap. If there was actual free trade, there would be no Mexican illegals because people in all countries would be free to work anywhere they please within the free-trade zone. The EU is real free trade. What we have is a North American cartel-protection racket-zone sham.
  22. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: The so-called 'music industry' is totally parasitic upon the real artists, making money by controlling the distribution of music. Their problem is that technology has broken wide open their control over distribution. Listeners and musicians alike are exploited by the 'music industry'. Many musicians hate DRM, and think it's crazy to sue their fans. Ask the Barenaked Ladies, or Avril Lavigne, or Blue rodeo, some of the members of the Canadian Music Creators Coalition.

    Artists are experimenting with new business models that are consistent with new technology. Radiohead recently launched an album that can be downloaded off the web, on a 'pay-what-you-like' system. You can even download it for free! And surprise, surprise, they are making more money per album than they would by letting a recording company distribute it in the traditional way.

    So it's not the artists that want to criminalize their fans. It boggles the mind that anyone could seriously argue that if I buy a recording, I don't have the right to play it on whatever hardware I like. It's mine; I bought it; I do what I like with it. It's not complicated. You would think conservatives would understand the concept of private property.

    Of course the Conservatives, who have a natural instinct to come down on the wrong side of every issue that matters to ordinary people, drool over the 'music industry' lobbyists. (Yes, Bev Oda, I'm looking at you). But because of a grassroots protest effort, Jim Prentice was forced to hold off on tabling the announced copyright bill already. So the pressure needs to be kept up, to make sure the Conservatives do not betray Canadian music fans and artists.
  23. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: So all of you who have downloaded this useless crap, have you sent any money directly to the artist? When you download The Simpsons movie did Matt Groening get a fin or two for his troubles? People are so funny sometimes trying to justify theft. Hey I download crap here and there and I know its wrong yet thats the thing I know its wrong and I am not pretending like many above that it is right. Its just that I don't give a damn. However I still buy 90% of what I like. So even though I steal I do think I contribute. Many many rabid freeloaders I have met hate copyprotection only because it hurts them and their belief they are doing no wrong.
  24. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: I heard a church choir went door to door to spread some christmas cheer in the US and had to pay the riaa money because the christmas songs they sang were copyright, lol what next.
  25. matt s from Canada writes: It would be a travesty to revert back to the way things were 10 years ago. For $23.99 the government's piece, you get 1 overmarketed track and 11 fillers per CD....These recording companies seem to miss the fact that we, the collective music consumer, hate them. I am sure most recording artists hate them as well. I do not use the word hate lightly either. I do not feel in the slightest bit guilty about ripping as many tracks as I can, just as the recording companies didn't feel the slightest bit guilty about watering down my favourite artists' works and charging me up the hoop for it.

    For the dollar the artist might make out of that CD price, it makes a HUGE amount of sense to release their works for free on the internet and solicit volunteer payments, like Radiohead did. Considering the goodwill profit alone, Thom and friends will easily recover their dollar in the price of a concert ticket. A band that truly has talent will have no difficulty in generating revenues from their fans.

    Consider the demise of the recording companies as a technological advancement. They had their time, now society has a much more efficient method of distribution.
  26. Har Har from Canada writes: This will be an interesting test of our democracy. Leaving aside the question of whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' to download movies and music, it is obvious that the 'people' want one thing, and the corporations want the opposite.

    We will soon find out who our government feels it is really accountable to.
  27. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: I don't like Universal and I hardly ever buy anything in the top 100. In fact I own all of Radioheads CDs except this latest one(I'm going to goto their site, thanks for the tip) But most bands are not like Radiohead. Do you really think that the honor system is going to work for most music? I'm a loyal fan of music, some movies and games. To say that those people that create these widely used items shouldn't be protected is like cutting your own throat. I like good media and will pay for it when it appears, but it bugs me that I pay while many steal and then have the audacity to say they do because the music sucks. Be warned, many good songs are not going to be made if there is no money in it. Even if they are made they will be so unheard of and so underground that it'll be only by luck you'll get to hear it. It's that simple.
  28. mr. slave from Canada writes: Oh please, it was the pathetic libbbys who started all of this nonsense when they started putting extra tax on blank cd's.
  29. wayne ouellette from Canada writes: Another political firestorm reported by the G&M. Where would we be without this outstanding news source. I hope most of the posters here don't actually pay to read the hard copy of this liberal cheerleader. I expect the spring will bring disappointment and embarassment to all that is liberal.
  30. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Wayne, I think either party would be hardpressed not to address copyright issues. But yes, the conservatives haven't even brought forward their bill, yet they are being accused and its front and center in this rag. I could find many issues where the liberals are accused of being ----------fill in the blanks yet never do I see it here. According to some however there is no such thing as the liberal media, just like fox isn't right wing and Santa brings toys to all the good girls and boys.
  31. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: Liberal media, liberal media, blah, blah, blah! What a load of crap. People go around believing that the universe is five thousand years old and God put oil under the Saudis because he approves of their religion and then anyone that disagrees with them is, aghast! Liberal media! Gimme a break. Reality has a liberal bias. All things liberal to be put to shame this spring you say? The last poll I saw put the Cons two points behind Wonderkind Stephane Dion and his once-mighty Liberal party. If the Cons are able to pull off a victory over that opposition, I don't know if I'll be feeling any shame. I can just imagine what Stevie Harpocrite and his minions will be feeling if they lose against him!
  32. pants 7 from Japan writes: Consumers have a limited amount of money. Basically people would have found better uses for their money then CDs. Myself, I would rather buy a new game then a Paris Hilton CD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe Canada should consider revisiting this legislation again when the Americans clean up their crappy patent system clogged up by squatters, that are bane of the world.
  33. wayne ouellette from Canada writes: Keith......you are correct. Losing an election to the liberals/dion would be an embarassment beyond explanation. Even liberals who would vote for almost anyone who is liberal, would be hard pressed to put our country in the hands of dion. Look in the mirror. Do you honestly believe Canadians are that stupid, even in Ontario!
  34. Christian Drapeau from Canada writes: What some fail to realize, is that this copyright could also affect more important things such as Linux distributions, which are open source. For that reason alone, this is an issue that has to be handled very carefully, by those who have a lot more knowledge of what is involved. It isn't all about sharing music files!
  35. Scott McLean from Lethbridge, writes: What, you Trudeauites never heard of Sarmite Bulte? Seems like you are suffering from premature-speculation (chronic Liberal medical issue which causes mouth to open before brain engaged).
    No where is it mentioned that money is flowing into any Conservative's pockets over this, which is another example of the glaring difference between the party that Pierre built and today's progressive-less Conservatives.
  36. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: Are Ontarians so stupid as to elect Bush's clone Steven Harper next election? George Bush Jr. is going to have alot of free time on his hands after next November. There's no telling what Harpocrite and Bush could be getting up to on the telephone. Although Bush does probably have other things he would rather be doing than running a country, evidenced by the fact that he has taken more vacation time than any other president in American history, even more than Reagan! I think Bush is on vacation like 40% of the time. Stephane may be a bit of a dork, but at least he might stick around parliament and, I dunno, work.

    PS-You are paying to read The Globe & Mail online. It's called advertising revenue. Advertisements are what pay for papers by-and-large anyways. The price of your supscription probably covers little more than the newsprint and delivery. Rather than suing the people that get their news online (like the insanely stupid record companies suing music fans), The Globe, being interested in self-preservation and knowledgeable about the concept of evolution (being liberal and all) decided to adapt.
  37. Oh Canada from Canada writes: You should be able to share whatever files are on your computer with anyone else.
  38. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Keith go to the top of this page and hit home and show me a story in canada that is not pro-liberal and finds things to attack Dion. This paper attacks conservatives and uses its power to show how unfortunate Dion is to be part of this system. Its not a myth, the globe really hates the conservatives. Do you think we're crazy? I know Fox is way right-wing and find myself disgusted by the bias, same as here.
  39. Ben USMC from United States writes:
    Kind of goes hand in hand with the 'Canadian non-tipping practices' that circulate in our local news stories here in Florida.

    Whatever you do, keep them wallets shut eh?
  40. John Stewart from Eden, Ontario, Canada writes: Didn't this legislation start out as a way to punish crooks who camcord new movies in theatres?
  41. Barrie Hebb from Halifax, Canada writes: If only it were so simple as to suggest that the artist deserves to receive as much as possible fromt he generation of 'their' music. To add to it, they simply label anything that does not generate for themselves a revenue - piracy. Well, what artist has ever created completely of their own accord? - zero. All artists live in society, like everyone else, and they use information from previous artists and have been influenced by others when they create - the outcome is partially theirs and partially a contribution from a wide range of other outside influences. A new book on calculus did not emerge from scratch from the current author - part of that book belongs to society - a long run historical accumulation of knowledge that was never paid for and which people contributed for which they will never be paid. Beethoven is not paid an amount of money each time someone plays today one of his tunes. Another factor that remains is that most of us in society are not paid what we produce - we are all exploited and underpaid - Hollywood should joint he club, called society, and argue for a more egalitarian future where we all get more of the value we produce.
  42. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes:

    To Alexander Slimnich:

    Once a bill is introduced, it is usually too late to stop it.

    It is much like an RFP in government - if you aren't in on the ground floor of requirements gathering and influencing, you have lost the bid before it gets published.

    That is the way that government works.

    In this case it is a blatant attempt by millionaires and billionaires, who are already filthy rich, to sqeeze even more money out of the unwashed, and uneducated masses.

    These people are not protecting anything except their $100 mil. bonuses.

    The days of the true copyright infringements have long been over - where publishers stole the work of the artists that created it, and then made money off it.

    Now it is the Publishers that have taken charge and they are using the law for something that it was not intended for.

    Now it is the average citizen that will be hurt -- and for what?
  43. Richard Ball from Charlottetown PEI, Canada writes: Let's say that thieves are stealing furniture. So the government puts an extra tax on furniture that is supposed to go to those who have been stolen from. But the money really only goes to the major players. Now, someone steals your furniture. Because you are a little guy, you receive no compensation. How do you feel? Does the furniture tax make all things OK for you?

    The principle of copyright law is that the author of a creative work owns the rights to the work, period. If you are not willing to pay for it on whatever terms it is offered, move on.

    Love your neighbour. Do not steal.
  44. Paul Jay from Ottawa, Canada writes: One of the sad things about this is that Hollywood has convinced ordinary musicians and writers in Canada that our country doesn't need a cultural policy to keep them out of poverty, only stronger copyright law. That's why you see so many rank and file artists shilling for the Hollywood line on copyright. Too bad. All the copyright law in the world isn't going to protect Stompin Tom from Brittney Spears. What we need is a government that cares about Canada and Canadian artists and uses creative subsidies and regulations to guarantee them a living wage.
  45. The Duffster from Canada writes: Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Liberal media, liberal media, blah, blah, blah! What a load of crap. People go around believing that the universe is five thousand years old and God put oil under the Saudis because he approves of their religion and then anyone that disagrees with them is, aghast! Liberal media! Gimme a break. Reality has a liberal bias. All things liberal to be put to shame this spring you say? The last poll I saw put the Cons two points behind Wonderkind Stephane Dion and his once-mighty Liberal party. If the Cons are able to pull off a victory over that opposition, I don't know if I'll be feeling any shame. I can just imagine what Stevie Harpocrite and his minions will be feeling if they lose against him!' ****************************************************** Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Are Ontarians so stupid as to elect Bush's clone Steven Harper next election? George Bush Jr. is going to have alot of free time on his hands after next November. There's no telling what Harpocrite and Bush could be getting up to on the telephone.' ******************************************************* Yup, no telling what 'Stevie Harpocrite and his minions' will be feeling. However, you're second post beautifully illustrates what the Liberal stooges will be parroting if 'Stevie Harpocrite and his minions' win the next election!
  46. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    The G&M's 'not so hidden scary agenda' of bashing the CPC has taken on alarming tones in the recent months-this story being just one example.

    Headline: 'Ottawa accused of caving in to Hollywood on copyright.'

    This again is an attempt to subliminally paint Ottawa (Harper Government) as panderers to Hollywood-USA- fill in the blank.....

    Then the first sentence: 'The Conservative government hasn't even released its proposed copyright reform legislation.....READ: Hasn't even released!!!NO one even knows what the legislation will be!!!!

    Then it states, 'The Canadian Library Association is urging Ottawa to ensure its imminent copyright legislation does not attack Canadians who copy music and videos for their own use.'

    WHAT!!

    Therefore the liberal librarians say it's OK to steal and pirate other peoples' work......the old 'feel good-do it' liberal mantra regardless how it hurts other people!!

    This is another attempt by the left to hijack Canadian morality and society values for their own loud supposed rights! And people wonder why society is all screwed up and children have no knowledge of right and wrong.

    Only 'RIGHTS,' and NEVER 'RESPONSIBILITIES!'
  47. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: The copyright lobbyists are using their market dominance to protect and advance their market dominance into the future. There is no question that their tactics are abusive in the market place. The levy on CDs or DVDs was designed to protect their market dominance, but it reality it has created a tax on all computer media, regardless of whether the copyright issue even matters. Now that they want that expanded. There is only one word from this,

    GREED at the expense of the public interest.
  48. Peter Kells from Bytown, Canada writes: As Picasso once said 'Good artists borrow. Great artists steal.' - I guess they need a little legal protection to enjoy the profits of their theft.
  49. a noon from Canada writes: Here comes another infringment to our rights to fair use. As long as the lobbyists pay their dues they'll get their way. The music industry fat cats sat on their collective arses and simply watched technology eradicate their prehistoric business model. They failed to invest a dime (remember: this is a cash-out model) to protect their precious racket of screwing the artists. That's why many marquee artists have now gone their own way - The Eagles distributing their new CD directly via WalMart. Even today, now that Steve showed them how to do it on the Internet, they expect us to pay on a per-song basis, the same price as a physical CD - yet they've cut out the manufacturing, distribution, retailing margin etc. How do you spell G-R-E-E-D? SOCAN must be another arm of the CRTC and both should be scrapped and the IRA, oops sorry RIAA are nothing but a band a greedy lawyers looking for the next grandmother to sue. Hey but it's all good as long as you agree to pay a new tax on the memory card that you purchase for your digital camera. Taxing all media just because it could potentially be used to store music just shows how powerful this lobby group has become, and how they've withered our rights down to nothing. If they tax it here, technology will surely help me find a purveyor in a country that doesn't. Simple as that.
  50. Ed Doerksen from Simcoe, Canada writes: Once the CD is mine, I can do with it what I like. If I want to make copies and give it away, that is my business not the music industry nor is it Hollywood's.

    The only ones that are crying is the recording companies who are nothing more than parasites. Screw them
  51. Always Right from Canada writes:
    While I think the G&M's coverage of this story is extremely one sided, I never understood the premise of trying to stop black market activity by raising the cost of something. The black market exists because goods are either priced too high (usually due to taxes or tarffs) or illegal. I think that raising the cost of buying MP3 players and downloading music will only increase the amount of piracy. The lobby's approach is fundamentally flawed.

    Am I wrong?
  52. Pierre Santa Ana from Costa Rica writes: Wow -

    'This is another attempt by the left to hijack Canadian morality and society values for their own loud supposed rights!'

    Reformists, Bush disciples, Christian extremists coming out of the closet. There is nothing Canadian about these guys, there is nothing moral about what you stand for.

    Should we make a list of the right's attempts to hijack morality and values on this continent? Please make sure you don't leave your children with these people. Beware of posters who preach morality and values.
  53. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: Theft as difined by who and from whom? Theft from the recording industry? Do I owe the recording industry a living? No! This thread is about laws that apply to copyright. I think Canadians have every right to be concerned with copyright legislation, especially if it seems that the industry lobby is pushing the government in the direction that the U.S. has taken, ie not being able to play your DVDs on your old DVD player, not being able to play music or movies that you purchase outside of your industry-regulated and industry-approved 'zone', as they have done in the U.S. The changes that have taken place in the U.S. over copyright protection go way beyond simple downloading off the internet. The U.S., under pressure from the industry lobby, the same lobby that basically drew up this legislation (and if it's so innocuous, why won't they let anyone see it, isn't this a democracy, shouldn't people have some say over the laws that govern them) is pressuring our government to do the same in order to 'harmonize' trade. This will not only prevent you from downloading off the internet, it will also prevent you from recording your own music onto your computer or other devices, and as stated already, will legally forbid you from listening to YOUR MUSIC even if YOU BUY it if you so happen to want to do so in a way or in a 'zone' in which the record industry deems innapropriate. It's also worth noting that alot of artists are against this legislation. As mentioned by me and other posters, many artists are finding ways to make more money than they could under the old record-industry cartel system. So what if music in the future is all 'underground' as one poster put it? At least that lets fans decide what they want or don't want, rather than having to go through some suit that can't tell the difference between art and a hole in the wall. This is the internet age. Underground doesn't take much digging anymore. More like peeling back a layer of foil.
  54. The Duffster from Canada writes: Pierre Santa Ana from Costa Rica writes: 'Wow -

    Reformists, Bush disciples, Christian extremists coming out of the closet. There is nothing Canadian about these guys, there is nothing moral about what you stand for.

    Should we make a list of the right's attempts to hijack morality and values on this continent? Please make sure you don't leave your children with these people. Beware of posters who preach morality and values.'

    Like you're doing now?
  55. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:

    From the article: ' the proposed law will go far beyond what's needed to meet WIPO standards, and will be a clone of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act.'

    If the Cons just make a duplicate of the DMCA, won't that be in violation of the law itself?
    They'll have to throw the book at themselves.

    And here's a lil' tip for Harpo: one thing you don't want to do is get the librarian lobby gunning for you. They'll ShhhhhSh you Cons right out of office.
  56. D F from Regina, Canada writes: The levy system is not functioning because most ipod/mp3 users don't burn CD's (they back up to their hardrive) plus you can avoid most of the levy by buying 'data' cd's and putting audio on them.
    I am in a band selling digital and physical product, and the current situation is I can sell it to one person, who at the moment can then share it for free with all his friends without fear of prosecution by the Canadian authorities, thus depriving me of revenue. I want the freeloaders to live in fear becuase they are stealing! Illegal file sharing of copyrighted material is theft! We need a copyright law with teeth! If you want free music, turn on your radio, or learn an instrument, but don't claim the right to STEAL it!! Books are well protected, movies are getting there, and yet the freeloading public doesn't seem to see music as the intellectual property of the music creater, WHICH IT IS!
  57. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Pierre Santa Ana from Costa Rica writes 'Beware of posters who preach morality and values.' I understand you and your ilk dislike morality and values. Thanks for quickly proving my point!
  58. A C from Albertario, Canada writes: Simple question: should it be illegal for me to make a recording of a radio program I'm listened to at home, use for non-commercial purposes, and do not distribute? Or should that be a legal activity?

    a) No, it should be illegal.
    b) Yes, it should be legal.
  59. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Richard Ball at 8:22AM

    Please, comparing material things like furniture to music & movies is really out there, I mean really out there!

    Richard you better get a better grip on what copyright is, was & has become!

    Although your second paragraph does describe one aspect of copyright it also fails to disclose the real purpose of copyright.

    Yes the rights holder own the works, as the owner of the work, the rights holder controls who can distribute, reproduce or broadcast said works. When any of three things take place, distribution, reproduction & broadcasting the rights holder sets the terms, usually monetary compensation.

    That Richard is the underlining principal of copyright as it was set down many many years ago.

    Copyright has everything to do with others using someone else's work & profiting from doing so, & absolutely nothing to do with an individual making a copy they can enjoy on a computer or any other device of their choosing.

    When you buy a music CD, you paid the rights holder. You don't need to pay the rights holder a 2nd or 3rd or 4th time, when you copy that said CD to your computer or burn a copy to play in your car & iPod.
  60. D F from Regina, Canada writes: Budget for an indie entry album without a record company
    10,000 recording
    5000 Producer
    1500 for a 1000 CD's
    5000 Marketing to radio/press budget
    So $21,500 for the first run of CD's @($21.50 per CD)
    This does not include any record company or distributers markup.

    CD's sell for $14 on average for physical, and 9.99 for a digital album at iTunes and the audio quality of CD's is 10 times better than any rip (10 times the data). You might not hear a difference from the latest audio sausage that is 'rock' music, but anything with dynamics will make the difference apparent. CD's should cost more than mp3's is the point.

    Those old records that everyone wishes for in the good old days are no longer possible because the budgets are not there to create them due to illegal file sharing revenue loss. The freeloaders are responsible for the huge lack of talent out there because they killed all the development budgets for the record companies, and now they claim the right to steal music because, in their view, its not worth anything? Freeloaders, please put your head up your arse and listen to your own 'music'.
  61. Brian Pelican from Canada writes: What the hell is wrong with some of you? If you don't like what the US is producing don't download/watch/look at it.
  62. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'Federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice was widely expected to introduce a new copyright law that would bring Canada in line with the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty aimed at reducing piracy.'

    I thought Candians were supporters of the international multi-lateral approach to problems, hence Canadian support for land mine treaty, Kyoto etc. I guess our support is limited only to those situations which have no impact on us.

    When did we become a nation of self-righteous hypocrites?
  63. D F from Regina, Canada writes: brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes:'When you buy a music CD, you paid the rights holder. You don't need to pay the rights holder a 2nd or 3rd or 4th time, when you copy that said CD to your computer or burn a copy to play in your car
  64. THX 1138 from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: Those levies are nothing more than revenue-grabs.
  65. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....why not bow to Hollywood's demands to stay ahead of the curve?...this is all in line with the Neocon philosophy of achieving full statehood in the not too distant future....
  66. D F from Regina, Canada writes: brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes:'When you buy a music CD, you paid the rights holder. You don't need to pay the rights holder a 2nd or 3rd or 4th time, when you copy that said CD to your computer or burn a copy to play in your car

    You don't however have the right to distribute it to friends or strangers via the internet or by making them a copy, which is why the industry is tring to put some teeth in our law!
  67. earl pearl from Canada writes: File sharers and downloaders are freeloading.
    Freeloading is a Canadian right.

    Who can we preach to about this? There are many citizens of many misguided countries who actually pay their share for stuff. Where should we start the morality lessons?

    Resist the urge to be responsible, don't be like *them*. If you do, the Americans have won.
  68. kinda interested from toronto, Canada writes: lol downloading is the best thing for small artists, it's the easiest way to get exposure. After that if people like it, there are plenty of ways to make money.

    If people aren't looking from more after hearing an artist then the artist isn't going to be financially successful no matter what happens here. That's the age old hardship of being a musician.

    Besides this issue extends to more than music, it reaches out to all data. The MPAA and RIAA have already proven that these laws don't work and personal legal freedoms are systematically stripped. The only criminals here are the ones that profit from the artists without consent.

    Anyone who cares about this can google studies that show that sharing has arguably as many positive effects in the various industries as negative. In some cases there is some understanding and evolution (notice T.V. shows are being provided online after airing by some networks now? *With advertisements).

    The fact is, media usage has changed a lot and fast due to technological advances; the industries have to catch up and let go of the old ways because all the whining in the world isn't going to change things. New approaches and expectations need to be developed towards the marketplace. These laws won't do anything for the purpose they are designed but set scary precedents that could be applied in endless, non-related ways.

    Like any business when the market changes, you have to change with it to succeed, why do these organizations think they are above this concept?
  69. earl pearl from Canada writes: I am shocked at the view towards rights holders.

    Conversation heard in my household:

    dad to kids: 'Happened to notice that you guys are using Limewire on the family computer to download music, do you think that's it's ok to get all that music for free'.

    Kids to dad: 'Is it illegal?'

    Dad to kids: 'technically no in Canada, but if you were a musician would you want to be deprived of money for your hard work?'

    Kids to dad : 'Those musicians are rich, and all my friends do it'

    Dad to kids: 'forget about whether you'll go to jail, do you think it's right?'

    Kids to dad: 'My teacher downloads all the time. Get with the times dad.'

    end of conversation.
  70. Might makes right? from Toronto, Canada writes: Wake up folks. Lobby groups make the rules.
  71. Disillusioned Conservative from Canada writes: Welcome to the Nanny state.
  72. Liam Smith from Canada writes: As an active musician from a Juno nominated band, I have to say that I don't mind file sharing. The people that it hurts are the executives, the large record labels, the moderately popular artists who are signed to large record labels. And even the last aren't really hurt that much. Musicians make there money in two ways, really. Performing and educating. There is some money in licensing and through other avenues but that is not the average musicians bread and butter. The real problem is that these huge industrial dinosaurs don't want to have to adapt to the times. I can't speak for the movie industry but in music, the large companies that are prospering right now in the music business are the ones who are getting there hands into tour management and artist promotion. Example, LiveTour, who just signed a deal with Madonna.

    As I said, I can't speak of the film industry because I don't really know the ins and outs. What I do know is that, for the most part, the major record labels and the major movie outlets are white bread. Vanilla. Maybe this is the kind of shake up we need to get some artistic integrity back into our mass media.
  73. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: D F -

    That's where your wrong, it's not distribution, it's sharing!

    It's only distribution when you profit from it.

    That's where the CRIA made their mistake when they lobbied & got the Private copying section added to the copyright act.
  74. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: D F from Regina -

    There is no illegal file sharing in Canada, the CD levy the CRIA lobbied for & got took care of the illegality of file sharing several years ago, didn't you get the memo?

    So D F take your freeloaders comment & stick it, I'll continue to download whatever I want.

    There's no lack of money where the record companies are concerned, their still having record profit years. Sure CD sales have dropped but the profits haven't, get your facts before ranting.

    Lack of talent has everything to do with the record companies exploiting new artists for a chart topper & some fast sales, if the artists fades away in a year or two they just don't care, there's hundreds more lining up right behind the last one. Even if the artists fame continues the record company's have them locked into multi-year contracts & own the rights to everything so it's a win win situation for them.

    Record company's are simply not interested in nurturing talent for years & years like they did in the 60's, 70's & 80's, they have the puppy mill mentality today!
  75. Canadian Eh from Canada writes: Ben USMC, what does your comment have to do with the story? I'm perfectly willing to pay for my music, tv shows and movies I download but in Canada there are no tv shows and movies on itunes for my iPod. I suggest you check out the lack of entertainment available for this. Or should I say not available. As for tipping, if I get good service, I tip 20% for good service. If I don't get good service, 10%. Most of the time it's not good service.
  76. Still Learning at 77 from Canada writes: Control Freak Harper and his trained seals will do what the American Lobby groups ask of them. I wonder who financed Harper's leadership campaign. Anyone seem the list of donators yet? Bet not.

    Have a good day everyone and may the Grease Money be returned to us.
  77. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'That's where your wrong, it's not distribution, it's sharing!
    It's only distribution when you profit from it.'

    So if I break into your home, steal your stuff as long, as I share it with friends no crime is committed?

    'A victimless crime: like punching someone in the dark' - Nelson Muntz
  78. Stuart Dean from Ottawa, Canada writes: There are many sides to the copyright debate, Yes the artist need to have income (reasonable income) from there works. Copyright is a monopoly for a limited time originally 25 years now thanks to Disney and others it is 70 - 90 years and keeps being extended so works never will get in the public domain which was the deal. A guaranteed monopoly for a limited time followed by public ownwership of the cultural works. Filesharing, well it is often the only means of obtaining works, just try and by some releases from Europe never mind the far east. You cannot buy them except maybe throug a few specialist importers. The same applies to many older recordings they are not in the list. This has improved now but only because filesharing forced the industry to respond. The Betamax decision allowing VCRs was predicted to kill the film and TV industry instead it created a massive revenue stream for them. That industry needs to adapt to the new world order. It behaves like a dinasour. Remember many of the measures they want not just protect there works from copying but will prevent independant artists from distributing there works except through the music and film monopolies.
    What really scares the industry is that the internet has made there business model redundant. They are not needed............We must regulate so they can be protected. They give the artists as litlle as possible treat the customers as thieves and the expect government protection. Never before in the History of the arts have artists had so much money for so little effort.
    Reduce copyright to 25 years protect fair use, produce good entertainment and the customers will come back. If you cannot make money in 25 years for 25 years you shoudn't be in the business.
  79. D H from Montreal, Canada writes: This reminds me of the Luddites. I guess some people think that legislation will protect their market; however, you need to control the distribution channels in order to maintain that market. There is no way in hell that the music industry can control 100% of its distribution channels. Anybody out there remember what it felt like to pirate tapes?
  80. Green Defender from Canada writes: Notice that the 'hollywood producers' are the very same people who are trying to screw the WRITERS who are the CREATORS, out of any money from their content appearing on the internet!!

    So they are trying to screw the Artists as much as possible, as they always have.

    They make a lot of money from Libraries, as they buy tons of content from them.

    Hopefully huge parts of the industry will go broke, so all the greedy 'executives' who are trying to screw the Writers will get fired and have to get a real job, maybe in entertainment law for porn, which is where they belong and would be at home.
  81. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: J.C. Davies - So if I break into your home, steal your stuff as long, as I share it with friends no crime is committed?

    Should you also pay Honda a fee if you borrow a friends Civic?

    I expected such pointless comparisons sooner!
  82. vic w from Canada writes: Gee.... wonder who's 'on the take' now? Where corporate interests are concerned, Harper is guaranteed to roll over, fetch, and heel.
  83. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    'Should you also pay Honda a fee if you borrow a friends Civic?'

    The difference lies in the value of intellectual property and that of tangible property.
  84. Green Defender from Canada writes: I support Fair copyright Law not the American DMCA act in Canada! Radiohead is spearheading the direction of the music industry. Major record labels are afraid to experiment with new business models. Record companies are afraid to embrace new technologies and new opportunities because they don't know what to do with the web. Remember when Cassettes were around the Music/Movie Industry mouthpieces were aganist that ..They were also aganist VHS and Beta , MP3 players, photocopiers,computers (Music/Movie industry want to have a tax on computers for copyright infridgment) and so forth. The funny thing is VHS, cassette technology brought in addition revenues for the music/movie industry. The spokepersons for severe restrictions in the copyright law are the same people who would be considered as Luddites. Who hate technology .. I feel another problem why sales of music is sliding 1)is the quality of the product. Music Labels are producing music that most people don't care for and that is ' Rap' etc and the other problem is 2) demographics ..As we age we become less involve in listening of 'new' forms of music. 3) As I age my m