There is little insightful or balanced about your comments. You quote Michael Geist, but no one else and have completely missed the creation of the academic world as a "fair dealing" zone which would decimate existing royalties to authors through Access Copyright, when their works are photocopied for educational use. This is an existing income source amounting to millions of dollars that would be stripped away. In all the discussion of copyright issues, no one seems to think to ask those most affected: the creators of the works being sold, licensed and (often) pirated. As an author, songwriter, music publisher and arts administrator I have to point out: we cannot survive without fair compensation for the use of our works. In the digital world, this is being stripped away. What will become of creativity if creators cannot survive to do their work? You would do better to offer less biased coverage of these issues in future.

I create to make a living; I do not owe anything to the public for free because of that.
If you're complaining because *some* creators make a decent living, then get off your ass and create something yourself that has value and sell/license it.

Amen hoohoo, nice to see a commenter with some real common sense.

Backing Up Ones' birthday, let alone Copyright issues, Clone & , Simply Dl, Well, HObama esq couldn't of done so Well:

QEII has New'ay to Clone, Have ?two birthdays Each year, One as Backup.

official British policy.

The queen's actual birthday is on April 21, but she celebrates a second, so-called official birthday, on a Saturday in June decided by the government - this year on June 12. The tradition of celebrating two birthdays began under King Thinqk of IT, Two of everything, Two Mikes, Too Much.

20 everywheregirls' = O.K. Bonus plan.

Hey- Back Yourself UP. Whadya R Rules,Not to Say HRM Is Bit On Gimme Side, Yet, Gifts Are HER Business.So Are Birthdays.Back Ups. Clones, & & Unique Multi Family Family.

drashek certified Gift.

It is not at all obvious from the legislation that a backup is a violation of the bill. In fact the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered several times that a backup is fair play.

If this has in fact changed - I do not see that it has - I'll meet you on the front lines in Toronto or Montreal or Ottawa.

Please do try to distinguish between USA hyperbole and Canadian due process.

Canadian due process cuts both ways, and it is available to both parties to the argument.

I suspect, though I do recognize that I could be wrong, that you two clowns would argue that the Cdn Supreme Court usurps the authority of Parliament.

Yet the place where your hobby horse will likely be decided is the Supreme Court. Past decision from the Supreme Court have in every case supported the concept of fair use plus the right of people who make stuff (as opposed to people who just take stuff) to be compensated for their work when too-extensive-use of their stuff amounts to theft.

Read your civil law, read your Hansard, read your British Common Law. Read your western political philosophy for the past 1000-odd years - which more than most product nations of Europe Canada embodies.

FWIW, I'd have you keep your braying to yourself until you have read the political and commercial and patent-law history of Canada, and understood what you have read.

"You seem to have missed the part where the folks that are into P2P are also the folks who tend to lay down the most money for media. They tend to be collectors."

You need to back that claim up with references and/or market research. Not one single instance of the people *I* know who use P2P or BT to acquire music or movies or software spend any significant amount of money on the retail CD or DVD. Every single one of them tells me something like (qua musicians at least) "they should make their living from live performance, I'll keep downloading their studio releases".

Indeed, if the primary users of P2P and BT are also the ppl who lay down the most money - why do they need P2P/BT? They'll have already bought the CD or DVD or software title.

I've always found it amusing that these people that I know, as described, are people who will not spend $40 or $60 or $80 to attend a live show by same musicians... but these same people think they have a right to tell musicians how they may earn their living.

Communism in theory is fantastic. In practice it does not work. OK? Do you get it?

If I make a thing, it is mine by the simple fact that I made it. I can offer it for sale on the terms that I choose - it is *mine*. You need not buy it if you disagree with my terms. Your disagreement with my terms is not a justification for you to simply take my work.

It's that simple, buddy.

You seem to have missed the part where the folks that are into P2P are also the folks who tend to lay down the most money for media. They tend to be collectors.

I think the person that made the comment about choose protection by law or drm (but not both) made the best point here.

The bill is a compromise. Compromise is a defining feature of Cdn politics. If parts of this thing prove onerous or unworkable (DRM & co. I'll bet), then in a few years those parts will be changed.

As for P2P & bittorrent: come on now - 99% of use of P2P & BT is actually for the purpose of infringing copyright. 1% is Linux-distro ISO install images. Everyone knows this. There is very little honour amongst P2P/BT users.

Stealing digital content should be punished by immediate death.
Those poor media companies are almost broke. I read that one of them has already had to give up his lear jet.

As children learn and then insist on putting media into the players themselves, media gets damaged and unplayable.

A wear ‘n’ tear copy of an out of print movie or show saves a lot of aggravation and tears.

This is just Nucking Futs!!

Someone on Slashdot made a comment the other day that I thought was interesting... force content producers to choose between the protection of digital locks, or the protection of Law, but not both.
Basically, a content producer that did not lock their content would have the full protection of the law, and be able to sue or charge anyone they found to be violating copyright, but if they choose to digitally lock it, they're up the creek once that lock is broken.

What's the point of allowing backups etc only if DRM remains intact?

Most DRM prevents copying of any kind! backups or otherwise...

He was interviewed by the CBC a couple of days ago and he fumbled through the portion of the interview for enforcement and fines. He was trying to explain they'll only be going after bootleggers but it was so obvious he was lying and they'll be going after little kids, grannies and dead people too just like in the US. If Tony thinks this is supposed stop people from breaking a PS3 DRM and playing the games on their Wii, how can we expect this moron to understand the law he wrote? It's because lobbyists wrote it for him.
Expect people to be thrown in jail with murderers because they downloaded some mp3's or ripped their own store bought CDs.
He was caught making a promo video while he's still in office for a company which just shows he's in bed with corporations.

All in all a fair law. Until you get to the part about DRM. If you can not go around ANY DRM then you have no rights to move music or movies to your potable device.

DRM is an EVIL attempt to force us to re-buy digital content in mutilple formats. You tave the VCR tape but now you have to by the DVD. You have the DVD but now you have to buy the BLU-RAY. You have the BlU-RAY but now you need to buy the AVI. ETC...

Email your MP, express your views. Government jumps at using the excuse "well nobody complained" to justify something like this.