Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Walkers/Dundas Burlington
If it is not designed to go after people who own media and format shift, why is the digital locks provision in there? If that is the case, the digital locks provision needs to change to spell this out explicitly, just like it spells everything else out.
Any DVD you buy has locks on it to prevent copying. You can't just copy and paste from Windows Explorer - it won't work. You need to decrypt (break a digital lock) to rip to a hard drive. By leaving a specific provision in and then not enforcing it, the government is admitting that certain laws are ok to break.
The intention is to not allow backups of any kind so that when you lose, break or damage the original media you need to go out and spend more money on a new copy. This bill is all about the money - more for content producers, less for consumers.
The market has been quite successful at reducing piracy through removing DRM, lowering prices and giving choice to consumers. The government and Bell's lapdog, the CRTC, have been pushing us back through bandwidth caps, high prices and limited internet competition/speeds. If the government really wants to reduce priacy, they will open up the Internet for Canadians so that purchasing a movie or two a month doesn't end up costing us additional money in extra bandwidth. These restrictions on the Internet in Canada are holding back investment in new digital video distribution outlets.
Not to give the powers that be any ideas, but if they were to invest a little time and money in flooding torrent sites with viruses, they would be even more effective at reducing priacy through P2P than any law or fines. A lot of movie/music priates are not teck savvy and would be bogged down by viruses and the cost to remove them pretty quickly.