[kwlug-disc] Meeting with (not so new) MPs in KW region.

Fri May 6 23:29:28 EDT 2011

Yes, Linux is not in the vernacular, but did you explain how you got
your movie onto a BB?  Does RIM have a media market? If not, you've
already waded into a muddy pool of questions.  For most people the
problem of mobile video is solved:  buy an iPod and sign up at iTunes.

I am aiming at a more fundamental problem.  Is it necessary for the
government to specify the system on which I play back my legally
purchased (licensed) media?  No confusion with format shifting,
archiving/storage, etc - just pop in the disc and play.  Literally kids
stuff. Once the legality of using libdvdcss for personal use is
established, format shifting follows as a corollary.

I believe the sharp point of our collective disagreement with C-32 lies
in not allowing the circumvention of TPMs for non-infringing purposes.
This is the point we need to drive home.

On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 21:07 -0400, Darryl O'Neill wrote:
> The person that I talked to in the office grasped the watching movie on 
> BB concept. 
> Everyone watches video on mobile devices.  They had never heard of Linux.
> 
> 
> 
> L.D. Paniak wrote:
> > DVD on BB is probably a little too abstract for a politician.  DVD on
> > Linux laptop (with DVD drive) is something that anyone on the street can
> > get their head around. This is something that would be outlawed by C32
> > and really highlights the issue we are concerned about.
> >
> > Not punishing the law-abiding for the bad behaviour of criminals is
> > (was?) standard Conservative philosophy (eg. gun registry).  I think
> > this would be an effective avenue for persuasion with the new
> > government.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 01:46 -0400, Darryl O'Neill wrote:
> >   
> >> There was a Wiki leaks news article about how the US basically 
> >> instructed the conservative government what to put into C-32.
> >> Peter Braid has not shown any interest in even the simplest example of I 
> >> should be able to watch a DVD that I purchased on my blackberry.
> >>
> >> Having said that we should still try.
> >>
> >> Darryl
> >>
> >>
> >> Russell McOrmond wrote:
> >>     
> >>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:06 PM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> I think this idea, unfortunately, will be very true in many areas and bills.
> >>>> The Conservatives no longer having to pander in any way to any other party.
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>   A majority government is a majority government, not matter what
> >>> party is in power.  While I am not a fan of single-party majority
> >>> governments, it is unfortunately the norm in Canada both federally and
> >>> provincially.
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> Things like gun registry and crime legislation, despite being
> >>>> demonstratively shown to not make sense, to not achieve the desired goal, or
> >>>> to not be what the majority of Canadians want, will go ahead without regard
> >>>> to other voices - be they parliamentarians, or citizenry.
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>   While this is the nature of majority governments, it is always a
> >>> matter of framing issues in a way that is consistent with the values
> >>> of the person you are speaking to.
> >>>
> >>>   We may differ on the importance of registering a long-gun, and
> >>> whether that is more an emotional reaction to École Polytechnique
> >>> Massacre than good gun control policy.
> >>>
> >>>   Ignoring that for the moment, the concept can still be used to our
> >>> benefit even if you don't agree with what the majority of
> >>> Conservatives and people in rural areas (Including the NDP from rural
> >>> areas) believe on the issue.
> >>>
> >>> Examples:
> >>>
> >>> The long computer registry and IT control
> >>> http://creform.ca/5209
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   At the end of my intervention in front of the C-32 committee,
> >>> talking about non-owner locks on information technology protected by
> >>> C-32, I said:
> >>>
> >>> "For no other type of property would this be considered. We would
> >>> never legally protect non-owner locks to all guns in a country where
> >>> many are uncomfortable with the mere registration of long guns. We
> >>> would never legally protect non-owner locks on our homes, alleging it
> >>> was necessary to protect the insurance industry from fraud. We would
> >>> never legally protect non-owner locks on our cars, allegedly to ensure
> >>> that automobiles could never be used as a getaway vehicle."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   Given what you are feeling about the Conservative crime legislation
> >>> proposals, I suspect you will agree it is critically important than
> >>> the Conservatives don't confuse copyright with a "law and order"
> >>> issue.
> >>>
> >>>   Some of the same groups that Conservatives typically distrust
> >>> (violent video game creators, sex-infested movies and music, artist
> >>> unions and people who generally hang around at expensive galas asking
> >>> for government handouts, etc :-) allege copyright reform is all about
> >>> stopping bad people from "stealing".
> >>>
> >>>   We just need to clarify that it is about unfair taxes
> >>> (inappropriately applied compulsory licenses), attacks on property
> >>> rights (TPMs), double-dipping (overlapping royalty schemes), and
> >>> excessive regulation (Copyright applying to private activities in ones
> >>> home, purely technical processes like ephemeral recordings/etc).
> >>>
> >>>   All the political rhetoric we would like to see MPs express were
> >>> expressed by Conservatives at C-32 committee hearings -- just not
> >>> consistantly as they don't yet understand the connection between
> >>> various issues.
> >>>
> >>>   The greatest problem is the lack of technical understanding to
> >>> realise that TPMs don't reduce copyright infringement, just allow a
> >>> subset of technology hardware manufacturers and software authors to
> >>> circumvent the traditional contours of many different federal and
> >>> provincial laws.
> >>>
> >>>   In other words, who are the worst "bad actors" abusing the law is
> >>> quite different than what they have been told so far -- especially
> >>> from those protectionist Democrats south of the border :-)
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> I'll be glad to be shown wrong.
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>   The only sure way to lose this game is to decide not to play.   I'd
> >>> rather be considered naive than apathetic.
> >>>
> >>>   There are 3 people who have offices in the area that  KWLUG serves
> >>> that could be influential to this issue, and I hope we do everything
> >>> we can to harness this.
> >>>
> >>>   And it would be great for people to "pass it on" to people outside
> >>> of the region you know so we can ensure we have a successful summer.
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> kwlug-disc mailing list
> >> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> >> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> >>     
> >
> >   
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > kwlug-disc mailing list
> > kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> > http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> >   
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20110506/35507a1c/attachment.sig>