Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:47 pm
Sounds like his real name ought to be Senator Hatchet. If you axe me, anyway. 
Tech discussion, website creation and the world's best OT Forum!
https://forums.cricketmx.com/
Did I miss something or is Liza in line to become another abuser of the public trust ?Heritage Minister Liza Frulla recently said she hopes the changes to the Copyright Act, which she called "antiquated," would help outlaw file sharing in Canada. According to the government, an altered copyright law could appear by the end of the year.
it would have been much better if it had read that... can you imagine them making a law that makes it illegal to break laws? what effect would that havequicksilver wrote:The wording should have read "would help outlaw illegal file sharing in Canada", I can see who pays her bills
i believe canada is like most other countries, where something is automatically copyrighted as soon as its made...quicksilver wrote:The correct english would be "would help outlaw copyrighted file sharing in Canada", I hope that makes it clearer to anyone who got lost the first time around
The House of Representatives passed copyright legislation on Tuesday that would dole out criminal penalties to those who make unauthorized recordings of films in movie theaters.
The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 (HR357) also would permit technologies that allow users to skip objectionable content in movies viewed at home.
As I think its only fair that they make some money out of their investment , I have to say I was suprised that this sort of problem was not covered by existing copyright law .This legislation will permit theatre operators to combat movie theft at its main source, by intercepting and detaining thieves who brazenly attempt to copy movies from our screens," Kendrick Macdowell, general counsel and director of government affairs for the National Association of Theatre Owners, said in a statement.
File-swappers who distribute a single copy of a prerelease movie on the Internet can be imprisoned for up to three years, under a bill that's slated to become the most dramatic expansion of online piracy penalties in years.
You may have noticed that this is the same peice of legislation being looked at here .The bill, approved by Congress on Tuesday, is written so broadly it could make a federal felon of anyone who has even one copy of a film, software program or music file in a shared folder and should have known the copyrighted work had not been commercially released. Stiff fines of up to $250,000 can also be levied. Penalties would apply regardless of whether any downloading took place.
An RIAA attempt to force two universities to hand over the identities of college students bit the dust when Judge Russell A. Eliason of the US District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina, agreed with the students that the subpoenas violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The Big Music cartel's RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) wanted 'expedited' subpoenas issued by a clerk rather than a judge, "as a likely precursor to filing lawsuits accusing the students of swapping music online in violation of copyright law," says the Chronicle of Higher Education.
The subpoenas issued to Chapel Hill and North Carolina State were the same as those already ruled illegal by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which decided ISPs couldn't be compelled to reveal the identities of subscribers accused of music piracy by the RIAA - or anyone else.
Judge Eliason didn't like the RIAA's argument that, "Congress - in drafting the digital copyright act - meant to allow the expedited subpoenas to also apply to Internet-service providers that are only thruways for peer-to-peer file sharing," says the Chronicle, continuing: "To allow such subpoenas to be served, the judge stated, 'would amount to a rewriting' of the digital copyright law. 'There are simply too many dangling threads in this cloth for a court to tailor it into a garment fit for the use' that the recording-industry group proposed, the judge added.
"Judge Eliason also endorsed a separate argument by the North Carolina State student that the subpoena sent to her institution was invalid because it was issued by a court that does not have jurisdiction over the university."
The RIAA is considering whether or not to appeal Judge Eliason's order.