Submissions To Copyright Consultations Via CCER Skyrocket

@103 (2persons): Shhh, don’t tell them, they’re going to target you if they find out you’re as poor as you say you are.

No you are wrong. There is a right to free speech – meaning that you can freely spread information and no one can prevent you from doing so.
On the other side, copyright is not a right – no one has a right to prevent another from doing with their property as their please, including sharing it. It is a privilege of temporary monopoly on distribution to encourage creation of content.

My religion doesn’t believe in material things SO I DOWNLOAD ALL DAY EVERY DAY 24/7/365!

Morpheus: “Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo?”
Neo: “No.”
Morpheus: “Why not?”…

2persons wrote:

“Food especially is, for the first time in my life, it’s hard to keep putting it on the table.”

Ever heard of a corporate farm?

Imagine all the land being gobbled up by corporations and the rich. (It isn’t hard to do, because it’s closer to truth than you might realize.)

…How do we live?

…Neo: “‘Cause I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my life.”

These greedy corporations have now bribed enough U.S. politicians to allow U.S. customs to search peoples’ laptop computers! It’s not an issue of national security, custom agents are mainly looking for movies and music that aren’t legal!

It’s enough already! Regardless of country, it must be made illegal for politicians to pass legislation that is biased towards a particular business sector of the economy! Especially where that legislation would interfere with the rights, privileges and freedoms granted to the citizens and foreigners visiting the country!

…ok Canadian law FREAK

…u fail for being a FREAK

You fail.

Copyright laws are made not for protection of theit pockets they are not for lting them earm money, but thiey always had only single purpose:

to motivate artists make more art, write more books and make movies.

these laws were not made to imrove life of content creators, they are made to EXPLOIT them

and that must be left in that way.
only thing what can be adjusted is some optimizations of that law.

Intelectual properety is NOT PROPERETY at all. it is just reward for making it in form of distribution monopoly for some time.

Out goal is to reduce content creator profits to the bare minimum while maximising content production.
and currently their profits are far bigger that they should be.

canadian ppl joined together on facebook and made a petition so the canadian govt. caved and only made a 500 dollar MAX fine for file sharing…

i DOUBT they will try this again…lulz

Ironically, while you more succumb to the unjustified demands of these foreign corporative delinquents, they demand more and more, even the point of saying that the opinions of the citizens are not valid at all, as a proper fascist regime, that’s a fact.

Many people thought that doing agreements with these USA delinquents could calm them, but this caused exactly all the opposite; creating a bad precedent of weakness and control for demanding more and more bizarre and illegal things in detrimental of the citizens.

The common sense and history tell us that agreements with fascists delinquents are not possible at all, the unique and sane alternative for treating with these individuals who don’t respect anybody is simply ignoring them and rejecting all their proposals, that’s all… It’s the only way, and the citizens are responsible of pressuring to their governments for making this total rejection to foreign corporative delinquents and their illegal demands possible.

And you have now violated my desire to read meaningful comments. Criminal! Get him!

First of all, the biggest thing, is that you’re missing the point. File sharing, by and large, uses files that have been “ripped”, as in someone goes and buys a CD with an audio quality of 44.1KHz sample frequency at 16bit bit depth. This is the format that the artist has approved their material at. Then someone takes that full quality set of songs and downgrades it into poorly encoded MP3′s. You have now violated the artists’ desire to have their music distributed at a nominal level of quality. As an engineer/mixer and producer I shudder when I go to a club, for example, and hear a DJ throw on a poorly encoded MP3. You are ruining the music at this point. (For those of you who claim you can’t tell the difference between an MP3 and a CD quality track it is because you have acclimatized your hearing to a lesser quality, to me the difference is as obvious as night and day and I will stand by that test any time, even at rips of up to 320kbps). As a sound-designer I create my work for theatre playback, not PSP or MP3 embedded DivX or Xvid files. You have now taken the full quality version of the film and attempted to encoded it into a version that is or was not the intended format. It’s like buying the Coles or Cliff notes for a book. You can read the notes, but you haven’t really read the book. On top of that, add the CAMs or TS torrent files burned onto a DVD and sold at a flea market at quality so bad you can’t even make out the characters on screen and now you’re supporting someone, paying someone to downgrade an artist’s, director’s, engineer’s, producer’s hard work. And these people are profiting off downloading and burning, ooh, such hard work! Regardless of how much money CRIAA, RIAA, ASCAP, or the record companies make on the production of the content to begin with, file sharing reduces the overall value of the “art”, it’s like precious metals, when everyone in the world owns a pound of gold it suddenly becomes worthless and you can’t pay the people, the entry level workers, as much to procure it. When the record companies and film companies make less so do the entry level employees and those who are trying to make a living in the industry. Seriously, stop whining about “rights” when really a PRIVILEGE is at risk. You haven’t earned the right to freely distribute other people’s material or make money off it through duplication or downgrade it through ripping. Our rights and freedoms are tantamount of our existence as humans, but seriously, lets not get rights and freedoms mixed up with privileges. Right to file sharing is one thing, right to freely distribute someone else’s material without their consent and make money off it is completely different.

Please stop impersonating neostyles, you’re only ruining your own reputation.

@82 (Reasoned Mind):

Not when it is industry who brings the network in the first place and all governments regulate and administer to it.

No when it is the Internet industry who brings us the network. The ISP’s have absolutely nothing to do with the music industry. Same with the government. To them, the music/movie/digital product industry (RIAA, MPAA, BSA, etc.) are just another company. It’s obviously okay for the government to listen to their demands, but they don’t deserve any preferential treatment.

So, if even the Internet industry goes against the wishes of the music industry, what happens then?

I just can’t put a solid fact based post together.. It’s too bad.. I wonder if I’ll get a warm enema this time..

.neo.style$|nvDX

I think I am bleeding internally.. I wonder if Ill ever get the bawls to reply to the pwnage the CodeBreakers form laid on me for spewing splurge all over their walls.. This is why I come here so much because I can’t play operation Flashpoint anymore.. Which Ofcourse I torrented.

Film Recommends:
‘An Unreasonable Man’ (about Nader)
‘The Corporation’
‘The Fog of War’
‘The Weather Underground’

One possible way to use bit torrent for positive social change is to seed certain torrents extra-long. :)

Yeah, imagine if we just had 69 or 80 or hell, 100% voter turnout… imagine. Between the uninspiring, backstabbing, self serving clowns of tight knit cronies in the pockets of Bush or Obama or equiv.

Things would be so radically different, wouldn’t they.

Piracy will destroy the free communication promise and the original intent of the internet by refusing to respect property rights. And that’s why the good fight is not for online stealing but rather for the general respect of property in all realms; simply not taking that which is supposed to be purchased if you wish a possession. That market fairness doctrine has been in place for all time. Pirates can’t win this, they can only ruin our internet. So that’s what they are doing.

You are right in the sense that government and special interests will work hard to pass arbitrary laws that will benefit only one side but that is when people revolt and things change, till this day in America there is laws that make “squatting” legal you have to be able to protect your physical property and show you can maintain it, it is no different for copyright eventually it will become so cumbersome that it will null itself there is no “market” granted that can be possibly enforced on the internet, there is a market for people willing to respect the people, meaning there is a piece of the pie not the whole pie. Copyright encroach on the civil liberties, freedoms and rights of any society and are tolerated but some think they can demand something well the internet just showed to those people how wrong they are LoL

About the pie, Madonna is making millions, cable that compete with free is doing ok!, radio that is free is doing ok! even opensource beer, cars, housing are starting to appear and this is just more proof that you don’t need all that power to create a vibrant market that can get people paid.

And some questions to all.

- What do we gain buying music?
Seriously why do we pay for sound or images? will bring us more money? it gives me nothing in return why should I pay for it?

- Should the entire market and I mean all of it be granted to a monopoly with no exceptions to IP laws? and knowing that that entails loosing privacy, freedoms, rights and civil liberties? should we allow that?

- Why the pirates listening to radio don’t pay?

- Why is that spotify make songs available for free and their listeners are not pirates did they paid for it? The company pays but do the listeners?

- Why pirates that get free TV and pirate all kinds of movie out of the air are not being prosecuted to the full extend of the law?

About incentives look no further then services like SellABand or SliceThePie that make fans pay for the distribution in physical or digital for and had already launched dozens of artists and it just started. Behold people made arts well before copyright even master pieces were made before the worst that could happen is that those who really love the trade would have to get a second job is that bad?

Yet, some seem to think and speak of governments and corporations as though they were entities somehow beyond them or divorced from their communities and local contexts, etc., (and maybe in a sense they are) and this can be very problematic, such as when they creep into other (sociopolitical etc.) ecosystems (they weren’t made for).

There’s a growing consensus that laws, etc., that govern and describe corporations and their statuses and operations, etc., need to be changed. For example, many countries have already rejected the WTO and IMF, and claim them as being illegitimate and socioculturally-destructive. (I’ve read a little about that and am inclined to agree.)

When governments and corporations get out of hand, like the terminators of the movies, and go against the very people that created them– then they need to be fixed and/or destroyed– and fast!

@ CanadianFilmSupporter:

People pay for their infrastructure!

“fundamental difference makes me wonder why we apply the same set of criteria to both types of products.”

Fair question. The short answer is we have little choice at this juncture.

It’s true that digital products can be infinitely reproduced with little cost by technical means but so what? Just because something can be done and is currently being done illegally in a cowardly way while hiding behind privacy laws doesn’t make it fair and is no justification to do it. I can think of dozens of things on the network that “can be done.” A just society won’t tolerate any of that behavior either. Punishment will become a large part of the deterrent, and the Jammies and Joels will become examples within a system of taking without paying that always had clear consequences. I have very little sympathy for either of them.

(I still love that Jammie tried to blame her own kids and Joel, his own sister. Nice folks. lol)

More and more creative merchandise will move to digital format and will be placed on the network for legal, monetized digital distribution. This is inevitable, but much is waiting until piracy is curtailed to reasonable losses, like shoplifting. Whole industries, like fragrances, are still waiting.

The pathetic “argument” “you can’t stop us” is the very reason why government and industry must and will, If an entire industries valuable merchandise is not to be rendered inherently valueless, (thereby removing the incentive and even the means to create and sell) then even the most modest living standard will no longer be achieved. “Make art for free or get another job if you don’t like my piracy” is just cheap thought from crass people. Every culture has them, alas.

If everything digital becomes “free” because of rampant online lawlessness— indeed if the internet is rendered basically useless for every form of digital product, the seed money is lost and the production ceases. We’ll be left with weekend amateurs posting on YouTube.

So filtering at this point is growing inevitable. Is there anyone here who cannot see that? As VPN’s and encryption become the means for piracy and pedophiles, government will take whatever steps they must. As thumbdrives and portable HD’s are shown over and over to be full of pirated material, the scales will tip so that mere possession will be “reasonable cause” for a stop and search by law enforcement, just as we have similar stop and searches for weapons, fraudulent papers, other forms of contraband already in use today. Surveillance online will establish much. I wonder why pirates don’t see this coming and the damage they are doing. My own theory is the hardest core pirates, the pirates who will NEVER return to paying, at base, are just damaged and have no real sense of right or wrong and just don’t care. Every culture has those, too, and we tend to incarcerate them eventually.

So it’s the pirates who are doing this. The government will push back taking more and more freedom away until there is none. And eventually, the creation of digital product will be protected to it can be sold or traded in the marketplace just as a service or an analog product might, the rough equivalency you asked about. If this paradigm is not achieved, “digital” becomes an avenue left to the hobbiests where there is no monetary value and that just ain’t gonna happen.

Not when it is industry who brings the network in the first place and all governments regulate and administer to it.

Piracy will destroy the free communication promise and the original intent of the internet by refusing to respect property rights. And that’s why the good fight is not for online stealing but rather for the general respect of property in all realms; simply not taking that which is supposed to be purchased if you wish a possession. That market fairness doctrine has been in place for all time. Pirates can’t win this, they can only ruin our internet. So that’s what they are doing.

“Nice folks.”

@75 (Canadian Film Supporter):

Are you a copyright holder? Is that why you’re so mad?

@31 (.neo.styles|nvDX):

Well, since I impersonated you on another thread, I’ll respond properly once.

Since Canada’s current laws have clearly turned Canada into an enormous conduit for losses, it can be concluded that they are inadequate and need to be changed.

Unlike the United States? Since when did the copyright laws in the United States turn it into an enormous conduit for prosperity? Besides the few copyright stakeholders, of course.

It seems like TF thinks that if the entertainment industry (they are the ones who give us the things we enjoy) look out their their own interests it somehow makes them evil. Please try and put yourself in the position of those who are losing money due to your so-called “sharing.” Stop disassociating yourself.

Okay, now I’m starting to doubt your genuinity. You had at least three spelling mistakes in that last passage alone,all of which I corrected in the quote. ^_^

Sure, the entertainment industry can look out for their own interests. That’s not what bothers us. It’s the way they approach them that pisses people off and makes them think that the industry is a bunch of evil snotheads.

Next off, calling new copyright laws a police state is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as all the ensuing melodramatic comparisons to V for Vendetta.

We don’t consider copyright laws to be a police state. We consider the copyright laws outlined specifically in Bill C-61 to be a “police state”, due to the extreme measures it would take to actually enforce this law.

I mean, come on guys, are you serious? They violated your right to not have to pay for things and now you’re going to what, become some sort of masked vigilante and fight for your entitlement to free things? What’s next, money is a government conspiracy too, and pirates are freedom fighters? LOL.

I mean, come on, copyright holders, are you serious? They violated your right to screw artists over to inflate the rest of the industry’s budgets, and now you’re going to what, become some sort of masked vigilante and fight for your entitlement to disproportionate profits? What’s next, the Internet is evil and should be shut down? LOL.

I cannot describe all the things that are wrong with both those statements, even my ironic one.

Trying to curtail piracy is no different than the rest of the laws that curtail other crimes like robbery and money laundering.

Except that all the examples you gave of actual laws are physical laws. Those physical acts will directly affect the victim. Who’s to say whether piracy will directly affect anything?

Trying to curtail piracy is like trying to curtail gossip.

Uhm, when the entertainment industry makes the money it deserves (Jesus, what is it about the concept of people profiting from their own work that is so complicated?), it does foster creativity. Those two are NOT mutually exclusive.

BAD all-caps. BAD.

Sure the entertainment industry is making the money it deserves. And more. And more. And disproportionately more.

Sure those two aren’t mutually exclusive, but correlation does not imply causation. Screw that, they’re not even correlated.

Uhm, yeah, people will be greatly affected, but so what? Aren’t people who want to shoplift affected by anti-shoplifting laws?

See Piracy is not theft.

Draconian? You think having to pay for things is cruel and unusual? Welcome to the real life. This is no different than any other law that has been designed with the intent of preventing crime. People have just gotten comfortably used to not being accountable for anything they do on the Internet. They’ve become drunk off of their anonymity.

No doubt you’ve become drunk off yours, given your response.

The point is not that laws are being passed to prevent file-sharing, it’s that file-sharing is being seen as something to prevent in the first place.

I guess they can’t handle the fact that that’s going to change.

I guess the industry people can’t handle the fact that the Web’s going to change people’s perception of “intellectual property”.

It’s not like they want to send people to labor camps or try drugs out on them. When millions of people become so incensed when they are told that they have to pay for things, I’m sorry, but it just makes you look incredibly spoiled and lazy.

Give me one case where the RIAA or MPAA or CRIA or whatever it was has sent one person to a labour camp to try out drugs on them.

As you said, it’s not like they want to sue people who shared 30 songs for over $600,000 which they won’t even get back because of legal costs. After all, it is a serious offense…

How can you honestly call Hollywood and the RIAA greedy when YOU are the ones who go all nuts when you are told to pay for things?

Because we do pay for things. We just don’t appreciate having to pay for the same not-even-costly, easily reproducible item over and over and over again, like it’s a service or something.

They tried giving you your freedom, you blew it.

Really? When did they try giving us our freedom? (That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way. I actually want an answer.)

I hear what you’re saying and I totally agree, just a selfish generation who think artists shouldn’t make money for their art.
totally bs.

go anti!

Suing people has become their new revenue stream.

It can’t last forever, RIAA/MPAA. Either find a way to move with the times, or use your short term solution of lawsuits, but either way, everyone is coming to the realization that you are not needed anymore, and we would all be better off without you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss

I’ve seen a few of your posts on here, and I have to say I appreciate that you make a consistent effort to provide thoughtful and reasonable opinions. However, while I agree that media corporations have a right to profit off their “products”, I do have to take issue with the concept of “owning” an idea.

You talk about mechanics, among other things. If I visit a mechanic, it’s not feasible for me to give away his service to someone else: even if I myself am a mechanic, I can only provide someone else with my own services.

The same isn’t true for media: media is, for the most part, infinitely redistributable. This (in my opinion) rather startling and fundamental difference makes me wonder why we apply the same set of criteria to both types of products.

Now, recall I said that I do agree that media producers deserve to make money. However, if they wish to do so in the same fashion that a service does, they should provide a service. There is example after example of people using content to derive revenue, frequently by providing a service which includes advertising. I think what Hulu is doing for video entertainment is a huge step forward and one that should be emulated by those wishing to remain profitable in today’s changing world.

While this is better than nothing, it would be much more effective for all involved if you wrote your own response in your own words. If I worked there, I would read the letter once, and then pile all of those submissions (which, according to Google, are about half of all submissions) and set them aside.

It also makes it really annoying for me (who likes to read other people`s opinions) to find interesting opinions, when half of the time all that you see is the same form letter.

Just FYI “hers” should be “here’s” and “cant” should be “can’t”, not to mention that in the English language a sentence starts with a capital letter. Please try learning your own native language first before attempting to criticize others.

Thanks in advance.