On the table: DRM trumps fair dealing (Canada)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The time-limiting DRM mechanism on library books is a mechanism for implementing the usage limits that the library has purchased for a particular book. It's difficult to see how such limits could be implemented and enforced without using some form of DRM system. Can you suggest a viable alternative?

Yes. My suggestion would be the one that they have already implemented for MP3 audio-books. It's not far fetched to come up with a mechanism besides DRM, because they are already using one.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If it's an eBook, they buy a licence to distribute "x" simultaneous copies of the book for a restricted period of time.

Restricting the number of copies of a digital file is, obviously, pointless. You're trying to figure out how to apply the old model to new technology. Moejoe's point is that the old model makes no sense with regards to new technology, and any attempt to apply it to new technology is an illusion at best.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes. My suggestion would be the one that they have already implemented for MP3 audio-books. It's not far fetched to come up with a mechanism besides DRM, because they are already using one.

And what's that solution ?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

...Of course, in our society, we presume anyone is innocent until proved guilty, right?...

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by omk3

...Because I sure as hell am not going to buy anything twice just because it's 'illegal' to move it to another device.

Actually, you can legally move it to another device. You just can't legally remove the DRM. Ironic, isn't it?

[guyanonymous]

So, for music, would it be legal to format shift the old way - through analog recording?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It seems like simple common sense to me, Tommy.

Copyright law grants the creator of a work the exclusive right to control it and profit from it. I don't need to conduct "empirical studies" to tell me that if that exclusive right to profit from a work did not exist, neither would the motive to create it.

The only problem with your statement is the copyright laws no longer just protect the work of the creator. Big concerns, such as Disney, have successfully lobbied to have the "protection" expanded to include the heirs of creators or anyone who buys the work from the original creator and maintain that "protection" forever by allowing infinite renewal of copyrights beyond a reasonable time frame.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by grumbles

There is an Italian film done sometime in the '70s (I think) that was a gentle send-up of Fantasia. Different music, different animation and different presentation (I seem to recall a cleaning lady in the live sequence.)

Disney sued of course and there are very few that can stand up to American Corporate attack lawyers.

The film was Allegro Non Troppo and it screened here in the USA. I don't know about Disney's suit but it stills sells in DVD form here (I recently bought it from Amazon). It's a classic, satyrical ripoff of Fantasia. They even allude to Disney (by the use of the name Prisney) in the live portions. Very (as in ridiculously) low budget but still a classic.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

So, for music, would it be legal to format shift the old way - through analog recording?

As long as it isn't DRM protected. Analog recording is just another way that can be used to circumvent DRM. Stupid, isn't it?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Doesn't that rather depend on the situation? For example, I think most people would accept that having DRM on library books is essential, and that to remove that DRM is not fair use.

That would depend on whether your ereader will open DRM infected files or not.

[grumbles]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

The film was Allegro Non Troppo and it screened here in the USA. I don't know about Disney's suit but it stills sells in DVD form here (I recently bought it from Amazon). It's a classic, satyrical ripoff of Fantasia. They even allude to Disney (by the use of the name Prisney) in the live portions. Very (as in ridiculously) low budget but still a classic.

Thank you! -- that's it. I'll have look for a copy.

This bill would make make scanning books legal. Of course the publishers could claim any of, poor paper, poor printing or poor typography all of which are far too common, is an implementaion of DRM.

I'm currently scanning the complete collection of Dorothy Sayers short fiction (she's PD in Canada ((for the moment))). The font used for italics sends ABBY Sprint into paroxysms of invention. I'm also doing Joshua then and Now -- this is straight format shifting for the wife's PRS-300, this time it's poor ink on poor newsprint. And no, none of his fiction is available in ebook format.

But I wander, thank you for the title.
G

[grumbles]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

This is going to end up like the situation with pot smoking. You get pulled over, and the officer asked you if he can search your car for "weapons". In the process, he finds your Kindle on the console, in plain open sight, and since you've already given up all your rights after allowing the search, he checks it out and finds ebooks with DRM removed (he thinks), one of the new IP laws they have to enforce. You are now under arrest. Let's see, recently the movies guys are filing lawsuits for $150,000 per person for copying a movie, so a book is worth what, $100,000? So now you've got to make a $10,000 bail. Of course, in our society, we presume anyone is innocent until proved guilty, right? And of course, we have some people, actually members of this forum, that will try to say that the civil act of IP violation is a criminal act, so we can expect some jail time also, right? I mean now we are (I've been hearing this lately) of jailing or even sentencing someone to what, death? for IP violations?

This stuff is going too far. Better look out... history can repeat itself.

Oh give me a break! This is not a banana republic (or state) that we have here, this is Canada. Even if this bill does pass, I will continue to only buy DRM infested products where I can remove the DRM. Nothing will change.

The government's interest is not with individuals in possession (of either pot or IP) but with those making it available. I have no (NONE) fear of the police breaking my door down looking for broken DRM. I am simply of no interest (or is any other individual) to the authorities.

The the law against DRM circumvention is a bad law and should not be passed for the simple reason that laws that cannot be enforced subvert respect for the law in general.

Or maybe I just have insufficient paranoia.

Cheers

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

And what's that solution ?

I described what my local library does for MP3s in a previous post in this thread.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright law grants the creator of a work the exclusive right to control it and profit from it.

Copyright grants neither control or profit.

[Iphinome]

Looks like the CRIA have started their astroturf campaign on this bill. *looks around at some of the posts on moilberead*

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5123/125/