UBS ups Apple estimates on new product expectations

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 52
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,004member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    Courts in Canada have repeatedly upheld an individual's right to copy and/or download for personal use. The Canadian copyright act specifically states that copies made for private use are not an infringement of the copyright.



    That is only part of the story. Uploading to P2P sites is still illegal. AND there are additional levies to try to compensate content creators. This is an attempt to deal with freeloaders a different way. But they are still freeloaders...



    Quote:

    the Copyright Board of Canada imposed a government fee of as much as $25 on iPod-like MP3 players, putting the devices in the same category as audio tapes and blank CDs. The money collected from levies on "recording mediums" goes into a fund to pay musicians and songwriters for revenues lost from consumers' personal copying. Manufacturers are responsible for paying the fees and often pass the cost on to consumers.



  • Reply 42 of 52
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    It's not theft. Theft requires a loss.



    Not as far as I can tell, according to the OED. It can also be someone taking something that doesn't belong to that person. The OED has some examples that show it's acceptable to say someone stole an idea, even though it should be obvious that the original person isn't deprived of that idea.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    Courts in Canada have repeatedly upheld an individual's right to copy and/or download for personal use. The Canadian copyright act specifically states that copies made for private use are not an infringement of the copyright.



    http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html



    Then Canada might be in violation of treaties that it signed. I would expect that to be a route considered in the next couple years.
  • Reply 43 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Not as far as I can tell, according to the OED. It can also be someone taking something that doesn't belong to that person. The OED has some examples that show it's acceptable to say someone stole an idea, even though it should be obvious that the original person isn't deprived of that idea..



    Thank you. My mom always taught me that a thief is a person that takes something that isn't theirs (from money, to credit), and it's wrong. That's how I teach my son. It's the "sea lawyer" attitude of some people -- "I'm not... 'technically' a thief." -- that makes me crazy. They know full well they could get busted for something, but since they aren't, they have a rationale. Now, if in Canada it's okay on all fronts -- maybe... but I agree with the fact there may be some treaties that might be getting bent, and we'll see how it all shakes down. And don't be crossin' the border with your iPod, cause we'll nail your "thievin'" butt.
  • Reply 44 of 52
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    It is legal to download music in Canada, especially considering that Canadians pay a surcharge on blank CDs to compensate artists for downloading.



    It is, however, illegal to upload copyrighted material to file-sharing websites.



    Edit: Just noticed Bagel had beaten me to posting this.
  • Reply 45 of 52
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    It is legal to download music in Canada, especially considering that Canadians pay a surcharge on blank CDs to compensate artists for downloading.



    It is, however, illegal to upload copyrighted material to file-sharing websites.



    Edit: Just noticed Bagel had beaten me to posting this.



    How does that work? I guess it's so you can bust the "pusher" and not the "user." But it seems a chicken and an egg sort of thing.
  • Reply 46 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    Courts in Canada have repeatedly upheld an individual's right to copy and/or download for personal use. The Canadian copyright act specifically states that copies made for private use are not an infringement of the copyright.



    http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html



    This is a very dubious decision, at best. It relies on a poor premise. It seems to rely on a concept that has nothing to do with downloading copyrighted material.The laws still stand though.
  • Reply 47 of 52
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    Uploading to P2P sites is still illegal.



    Even there, only if it's active distribution. Just putting something in your downloads folder that somebody else would have access to is not illegal either.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Then Canada might be in violation of treaties that it signed. I would expect that to be a route considered in the next couple years.



    If anything, it's the US that's in violation of international copyright laws with the DMCA. Just look at the DRM situation. In the US it's illegal to remove DRM, many other places it's illegal to put the DRM there in the first place.
  • Reply 48 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    If anything, it's the US that's in violation of international copyright laws with the DMCA. Just look at the DRM situation. In the US it's illegal to remove DRM, many other places it's illegal to put the DRM there in the first place.



    Actually, you're wrong about that. The DMCA was legislated in RESPONSE to the new international obligations. The EU will be enacting similar legislation sometime next year, and I assume, from what I'm seeing, that other areas will as well.
  • Reply 49 of 52
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    If anything, it's the US that's in violation of international copyright laws with the DMCA.



    No it's not as far as I've heard. It's a codification of WIPO treaties, among other things.



    "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was signed into law by

    President Clinton on October 28, 1998. The legislation implements two 1996 World

    Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and

    the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The DMCA also addresses a

    number of other significant copyright-related issues. "



    http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf



    Quote:

    Just look at the DRM situation. In the US it's illegal to remove DRM, many other places it's illegal to put the DRM there in the first place.



    I don't know where those places are.
  • Reply 50 of 52
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Actually, you're wrong about that. The DMCA was legislated in RESPONSE to the new international obligations.



    Some parts of the DCMA comply with international regulations, other parts clearly violate them.



    Quote:

    The EU will be enacting similar legislation sometime next year, and I assume, from what I'm seeing, that other areas will as well.



    I strongly suspect you will see the opposite. People are tired of pro-corporate/anti-personal freedom legislation. The tide is clearly turning in favor of opening up personal use rights, not restricting them. Industry is certainly making a lot of noise, but governments for the most part are telling them to sit and spin. The US pretty much stands alone with respect to favoring corporate rights over personal rights. We've already seen Canada strengthening its personal rights recently by telling the recording industry that ISPs are not liable for what's transmitted over their networks, that they cannot ask those ISPs for the names of suspected pirates, and that collecting the suspected offenders IP addresses violates the users right to privacy.



    It's hardly open season though. Last week a guy was charged with selling movies to companies in Asia that make counterfeit DVDs. That's what makes it illegal, profiting from another's work. We probably will see a strengthening of those laws, and well we should.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't know where those places are.



    You haven't been paying attention to international news then. Mfrs have been forced to remove DRM from their products in Europe, and many other lawsuits are still pending. The bottom line is, people have the right to make a copy for personal use and DRM takes that right away.
  • Reply 51 of 52
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    You haven't been paying attention to international news then. Mfrs have been forced to remove DRM from their products in Europe, and many other lawsuits are still pending. The bottom line is, people have the right to make a copy for personal use and DRM takes that right away.



    What? Do you really have any examples that are less vague? I don't read BBC everyday, but I do regularly visit a small number of news sites with plenty of readers with anti-DRM / pro-file-sharing bent and I've heard of no such thing. The closest I remember is some complaints with Scandinavian consumer ombudsman about Apple's music DRM, but that seems to have shriveled. The complaints also seemed to ignore that it only takes a CD-R to break Apple's Fairplay. That's it, and hardly a legit case IMO within the frameworks of what you say.
  • Reply 52 of 52
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    Some parts of the DCMA comply with international regulations, other parts clearly violate them.



    None of them violate any of them. You're just making statements.



    Quote:

    I strongly suspect you will see the opposite. People are tired of pro-corporate/anti-personal freedom legislation. The tide is clearly turning in favor of opening up personal use rights, not restricting them. Industry is certainly making a lot of noise, but governments for the most part are telling them to sit and spin. The US pretty much stands alone with respect to favoring corporate rights over personal rights. We've already seen Canada strengthening its personal rights recently by telling the recording industry that ISPs are not liable for what's transmitted over their networks, that they cannot ask those ISPs for the names of suspected pirates, and that collecting the suspected offenders IP addresses violates the users right to privacy.



    Sometimes, what "people" are tired of is not what you might think. Besides, these rules are done, not to make everyone "happy", nor should they. They are meant to protect the producers of content from people who, like yourself, find nothing wrong with taking their work for yourself without paying for it, and somehow, think that it's fine.



    If people didn't do that, there wouldn't be a perceived need for DRM.



    Now, that doesn't mean that I, personally, am happy about DRM. I'm not. But, I do understand the need for its creation.



    When people begin to mistakenly think that theft only means physical property, because the theft of digitized property is so easy, and for the most part, safe, then the owners of that property will do what they can to prevent it.



    Quote:

    It's hardly open season though. Last week a guy was charged with selling movies to companies in Asia that make counterfeit DVDs. That's what makes it illegal, profiting from another's work. We probably will see a strengthening of those laws, and well we should.



    That clearly is illegal, but it's not the only problem. While violating a copyright does not rise to the level of criminal behavior unless certain actions are done, and certain benefits accrued, it's still at the very least, a civil case, which also goes to the courts, and large fines can be assigned.



    Quote:

    You haven't been paying attention to international news then. Mfrs have been forced to remove DRM from their products in Europe, and many other lawsuits are still pending. The bottom line is, people have the right to make a copy for personal use and DRM takes that right away.



    I have been. France just tightened the copyright laws considerably. Germany is now in the process of doing so. The EU itself will be issuing legislation that has been considered by some to be even tighter than the DMCA here. In Canada, due to this opinion, and another one, the case of which eludes me at the moment, Canada is also considering more comprehensive legislation even before they begin work on legislation to meet the WIPO standards, something they've been talking about for five years now.



    Which products in Europe, and where, have they been removed by order of law?
Sign In or Register to comment.