| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2008 03:07:47 PM · #1 |
| Canada's new copright law is looking to be a harsh one. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 05:30:48 PM · #2 |
It's not a law; it's still a bill, which means it hasn't been passed yet. In fact, it hasn't even gone to committee yet.
Based on the article, it doesn't seem that bad.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2008 05:36:54 PM · #3 |
| Looks to be bad for pirates (so, everyone under 25 and 50% or more of everyone else), but actually quite good for photographers. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 05:40:21 PM · #4 |
I think it is insane. They have the right to inspect your ipod or laptop at airports and decide if the music was copied legally. How in the world would they know that? Also, if I have a cd that I bought I cannot copy it to my ipod, I have to buy it again in MP3 format. That is just crazy.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2008 05:44:22 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
I think it is insane. They have the right to inspect your ipod or laptop at airports and decide if the music was copied legally. How in the world would they know that? Also, if I have a cd that I bought I cannot copy it to my ipod, I have to buy it again in MP3 format. That is just crazy. |
You're thinking of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is not the same as C-61. Neither will pass. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 05:54:54 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Also, if I have a cd that I bought I cannot copy it to my ipod, I have to buy it again in MP3 format. That is just crazy. |
Is that any different than what photographers do?
We take the picture, we sell the prints..if you want more (say a digital copy for internet usage) you are required to pay us more. If you want the digital form in the first place, to 'print on demand' and 'any personal use'...we charge out the BUTT. Maybe the entertainment industry should just offer different packages that allow a tiered level of service...like photographers.
Seems sensible to me.
Message edited by author 2008-06-12 18:00:04. |
|
|
|
06/12/2008 11:17:23 PM · #7 |
| yeah bill not law... this is kind of ridicules it won't bring more money into the artist pockets but give companies the ability to sew some ones grandma because her sixteen year old downloaded some hippity hop music on her computer. I would consider this to be a very stupid bill one I hope not to pass. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 03:21:33 PM · #8 |
The two main sections of importance to photographers are Section 10 and section 13(2) of the act being repealed. Repealing these sections will automatically pass copyright of an image to the photographer, even for a commissioned work. While this sounds good on the face, I believe that most of us photographers do work with contracts and likely include a clause in the contract pertaining to copyright. It seems poor business practice to put the onus on our clients who rarely if ever need to be familiar with the laws regarding our profession. Ensuring our ownership of an image is easy in contract...I do not believe we need a law to do so.
Further, Section 29.21 of Bill C-61 seems to permit making a copy of a photograph for personal use. If you are looking for reprint business, think twice about supporting C-61.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 03:30:25 PM · #9 |
One of our security people broke it down
· $500 limit per copyright holder (i.e. artist or studio) fines, if you upload it is a more serious offence and the fines can go to the higher amount of $20,000.
· If you circumvent digital locks the fine goes to $20,000 (DRM, DVD region codes, Cell phone unlocking, console mod chips and things like DS flashcard/passcard, cracked games/software)
· Courts can levee punitive damages, so on top of the fines they can assess an arbitrary amount as punitive damages.
· Private use exceptions do not apply to IPod video and similar technologies
· PVR'S (personal video recorders), VCRs any copies of broadcasts by any means, You can keep the recording "no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time". So you can only watch it once
The last one REALLY sticks in my craw. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 04:32:10 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
· PVR'S (personal video recorders), VCRs any copies of broadcasts by any means, You can keep the recording "no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time". So you can only watch it once ... |
I'm usually so short of time that I always seem stop the tape before the closing credits roll, so I can finish watching it later, like in July ... 2056. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 10:17:23 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
PVR'S (personal video recorders), VCRs any copies of broadcasts by any means, You can keep the recording "no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time". So you can only watch it once |
How in the world can they enforce this? Come into our homes and check to see what is on the PVR or VCR?
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 10:29:18 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[quote=Citadel]· PVR'S (personal video recorders), VCRs any copies of broadcasts by any means, You can keep the recording "no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time". So you can only watch it once ... |
If they can fine someone for watching more than once we should be able to file a lawsuit for them showing reruns... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/03/2025 06:55:52 PM EDT.
