'Anti-consumer' copyright bill on way: expert

I find this to be very worrysome. I want the internet to remaind as open and free as possible. Here in Canada we are already haveing our bandwidth throttled by our internet service providers. I think this could be another step in the wrong direction.

If your interested in this topic you may also be interested in the following articles (I dunno how to put them into nice links so...)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100411-US-Calls-Out-Piracy-Ena... [3]

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/05/canadian-prime-minis-2.html [4]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/canadians-drop-gloves-pu... [5]

http://torrentfreak.com/canada-fast-tracks-draconian-anti-piracy-law-100... [6]

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5008/125/ [7]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/week-in-tech-blame-canad... [8]

Also these were posted in another thread. I dont mean to spam but this issue is very important to me (i'm kinda a computer nerd) and I want people to be informed. Others may very well think this is a good idea I just want to make sure that if a new copywrite bill passes it is because Canadians fell it is a step worth takeing in order fight piracy. As it stands I think this is more of a result of pressure from forign governments and of course the entertainment industry. Even if you do not dowload pirated media this bill can still effect you. (especially if you like some of my friends are aspireing software enginers)

I want to always be legally allowed to take music off a cd I purchase and put it on a mp3 player that I purchase. I like to listen to music on the walk to work and I like many others no longer have a cd walkman :P

I am also concerned with this. Plus the fact that bandwidth based use age and throttling is coming too us all. 

What can be done to stop this digital assault?

Stop buying it?  Don't use it?  

I stopped paying full price for CD's years ago when I found out that of the (that time) $21.00, $2.00 of that covered overhead, and of that $2.00, something like $0.35 ended up in the artist's pocket.   The rest was pure label profit.

Yeah, I could afford the $21.00, but I can't afford the blow to my self esteem for knowingly being played for a rube.

Similarly, the original "I Pods"  couldn't have their batteries replaced, and only lasted about 18 months.   I can't trust anything made by that company, so I don't buy their toys.  Sorry, essential bits of life that I somehow manage to do without.

We've been taught that music can only be done by special artist professionals, and can only be enjoyed as such.    

But you can sing if nothing else, and it's actually more fun than listening.  Who knows, maybe you can pick up an instrument too.

There were four whores of Baltimore,

drinkin' the blood red wine,

and all the conversation was..... 

I know this is about more than music, or Steve Jobs' claptrap, and fundamental issues of individual freedoms are at stake.   However, it seems to me industry hasn't quite sussed out where the line of diminishing returns are when it comes to protecting their "products".    The music industry is a fine example, thinking that pirating is responsible for the reduction in profits, when it's actually a reduction of disposible income coupled with their zealous gaurding of copyright. 

You can only attack your customers for so long before they stop being customers.

And, we can play a role to hurry their discovery of the line of diminishing returns by educating our fellow consumers about how this all effects them.

Nobody like being taken for a rube.

This article was brought to my attention. It takes a interesting look at some of the issues involved in copyright law.

http://heywriterboy.blogspot.com/2010/05/state-of-copyright-debate.html

Im not sure what the correct was to treat copyright legally but it seems like the legislation that may be comeing will be the wrong way to treat the issue.