P2P downloading legal in Canada

[poertner_1274]

That is a very good point, but what makes it so messed up is that like you pointed out, you can buy and sell them, just not use them. The laws are so messed up sometimes.
I don't think an internet tax or tarrif would be the best solutoin. I know this would create quite a problem amongst companies and just about everyone else.

 

[StormBringer]

Originally posted by poertner_1274
I don't think an internet tax or tarrif would be the best solutoin. I know this would create quite a problem amongst companies and just about everyone else.

I agree Poert, it also creates a situation where people who don't download anything that is being covered by the tax are helping to pay for the stuff the others are downloading. I don't personally think that is fair to the casual web surfer. It also creates another area for Government regulations, not exactly my idea of an ideal solution.

 

[Nodsu]

ANother problem: tax money goes to artists and not record companies. RIAA won't have it that way..

Laws are weird.. Over here it is illegal to produce, sell and use pirated software but it is not illegal to own it. So if I have a rack of pirated CDs (which I don't ) but none of the stuff is on my comp I am clean.

 

[poertner_1274]

All the strange laws that make the world interesting. Gotta love it.

 

[{{clewless}}]

From StormBringer:

I agree Poert, it also creates a situation where people who don't download anything that is being covered by the tax are helping to pay for the stuff the others are downloading. I don't personally think that is fair to the casual web surfer.

The premise that I postulated supposed free access supported by a tax or tarriff. Casual users do indeed download pages, pictures, and files, upload email, and conduct internet transactions that use a combination of up and down traffic . Their cost would be significantly less that the dedicated downloaders and the large ad campaigns. At the rate of $1/Gig, the casual user would probably come out better than the current pricing scheme where the casual user pays the same as someone who downloads 24/7 at 100Mbs or so.

 

[poertner_1274]

I still think this is a horrible idea, we are already paying to use the service as it is, if the companies don't like the way it is working, then I think they need to do something about it, not the government. The people who download a lot aren't ruining it for anyone else, the way I look at it the ones who aren't downloading that much are missing out on their opportunity. It's freely available to them, and they are choosing not to use it.

 

[StormBringer]

Originally posted by {{clewless}}

The premise that I postulated supposed free access supported by a tax or tarriff. Casual users do indeed download pages, pictures, and files, upload email, and conduct internet transactions that use a combination of up and down traffic . Their cost would be significantly less that the dedicated downloaders and the large ad campaigns. At the rate of $1/Gig, the casual user would probably come out better than the current pricing scheme where the casual user pays the same as someone who downloads 24/7 at 100Mbs or so.

So you are essentially saying to make internet access free, then tax all bandwidth usage and make piracy legal. There are just so many things wrong with that idea. One being the control the government would have over regulating it.Its also not fair to consumers nor to copyright holders.

 

[{{clewless}}]

Originally posted by StormBringer
So you are essentially saying to make internet access free, then tax all bandwidth usage and make piracy legal. There are just so many things wrong with that idea. One being the control the government would have over regulating it.Its also not fair to consumers nor to copyright holders.

I'd like to take this in two parts. Piracy is legal because the cost of piracy is so small. At a buck a Gig, it would still be cost effective to download illegal wares. But what about the uploader? If he's being charged a buck a Gig too, then access to those illegal wares would be harder to come by. Presently anyone with an account and enough storage can D/L to his hearts content. I have a feeling that if it costs the uploader to provide those files, he's gonna wanna be reimbursed for his time and money. Thereby you create a situation where a money trail between downloader and uploaded can be established. Most ppl believe (wrongly) that their transactions are anonymous. If they are charged per transaction, I'm sure the casual pirate will fall by the wayside and only the die-hards will remain. This will make enforcement of the copyright laws easier (in my opinion, which is definately not infallable.).
The second point being... The government is already in control covertly. Anything that they wish to track, can be tracked. Most things they wish to decrypt, they can decrypt. They already have more control than a majority of casual users know. What is better for the people? Covert control or overt control? The latter surely.

 

[StormBringer]

That's all just a bit too "big brother" for my taste, I also don't think that software companies, RIAA, or MPAA would go for it either. They like making big profits and I don't see them going for something like that, sounds to me like they would stand to do themselves more harm than good.

 

[agrav8r]

Originally posted by {{clewless}}
I'd like to take this in two parts. Piracy is legal because the cost of piracy is so small. At a buck a Gig, it would still be cost effective to download illegal wares. But what about the uploader? If he's being charged a buck a Gig too, then access to those illegal wares would be harder to come by. Presently anyone with an account and enough storage can D/L to his hearts content. I have a feeling that if it costs the uploader to provide those files, he's gonna wanna be reimbursed for his time and money. Thereby you create a situation where a money trail between downloader and uploaded can be established. Most ppl believe (wrongly) that their transactions are anonymous. If they are charged per transaction, I'm sure the casual pirate will fall by the wayside and only the die-hards will remain. This will make enforcement of the copyright laws easier (in my opinion, which is definately not infallable.).
The second point being... The government is already in control covertly. Anything that they wish to track, can be tracked. Most things they wish to decrypt, they can decrypt. They already have more control than a majority of casual users know. What is better for the people? Covert control or overt control? The latter surely.

This Ideal fails to take into account off shore websites in international waters, Countries that are generally hostile to "our " ways of life, and third world countries that do not havethe means nor the funds to go after hackers.
Also with priracy "legal" the funds fail to make it to the game developer , who then straves to death and cannot make half life 3.
Really the best way is to place near unbreakable encryption on the software, and charge an extra fee for those who wish to make "copies" for there system so that they don't "mess" their CD. If each of the copiable Cd's has a unique code placed in a vital spot, the copies could be traced to the unique buyer and that indivdual could be charged. While there are some bugs with this scheme, it is better that than saying every thing is legal if you have enough money.

 

[{{clewless}}]

Originally posted by agrav8r
Also with priracy "legal" the funds fail to make it to the game developer , who then straves to death and cannot make half life 3.
Really the best way is to place near unbreakable encryption on the software, and charge an extra fee for those who wish to make "copies" for there system so that they don't "mess" their CD

Perhaps there is a misconception here. I don't want piracy to be legal, I just want it to be more costly than buying the product would be. By default, only the true hacks would have the interest to rip apart the code and brag about it and trade it to their peers. Everyone else would simply buy the original and download any enhancements that make it more playable.
As for anticopy schemes, software companies are already adding programs subversively (Gator and their ilk.) to their products and amending the bootsectors of harddrives with their own private 'cookies' (Such as Turbotax last year.). They already make you agree that you don't own the program. They would be happy if you were only allowed a single install. The ability to make archival copies is one of the few things the consumer has going for him; most of the advantages are with the developer and distributor.
Furthermore, this is just a fanciful discussion about a broken system that I surely can't fix. Politicians and experts will make all the calls and I'll sit by idle and hope for the best.

 

[agrav8r]

Originally posted by {{clewless}}
Perhaps there is a misconception here. I don't want piracy to be legal, I just want it to be more costly than buying the product would be. By default, only the true hacks would have the interest to rip apart the code and brag about it and trade it to their peers. Everyone else would simply buy the original and download any enhancements that make it more playable.
As for anticopy schemes, software companies are already adding programs subversively (Gator and their ilk.) to their products and amending the bootsectors of harddrives with their own private 'cookies' (Such as Turbotax last year.). They already make you agree that you don't own the program. They would be happy if you were only allowed a single install. The ability to make archival copies is one of the few things the consumer has going for him; most of the advantages are with the developer and distributor.
Furthermore, this is just a fanciful discussion about a broken system that I surely can't fix. Politicians and experts will make all the calls and I'll sit by idle and hope for the best.

Sorry I misunderstood
However, by taxing downloads, would you not eliminate shareware, freeware, and patches? This scheme would have us paying for a game which is unplayable due to bugs, than paying again to dsownload the proceeding patches, perhaps 10 or more times as they catch more and more problems.
Really i wasn't looking for a program to install to hard drive, i was looking at encrypting the data on the cd to make sections near impossable to read/copy unless you bought the copiable version, then we would now who you are.
Some companies ( and if they are wise all) give a replacement CD if yours becomes scratched- just send it in and they send you the new one. the arguement for making legitamite copies than goes away.

 

[StormBringer]

Originally posted by agrav8r
by taxing downloads, would you not eliminate shareware, freeware, and patches? This scheme would have us paying for a game which is unplayable due to bugs, than paying again to dsownload the proceeding patches, perhaps 10 or more times as they catch more and more problems.

I completely agree with that, that goes along with what I'd said earlier about this.

Originally posted by agrav8r
I was looking at encrypting the data on the cd to make sections near impossable to read/copy unless you bought the copiable version, then we would now who you are.

I have problems with this, first off, even "near impossible" encryption is not a feasible solution, for one thing it isn't possible to make something that isn't crackable. If the machine can read it, then its only a matter of time(usually a week or less) before someone cracks it or finds a way around it. Second, it violates "fair consumer use" in at least a few countries.
The copieable version also bothers me a bit. I doubt that it would go over well, as it would then tie a person to a piece of software, you'd have to destroy the disc one you no longer had use for it, if it were stolen, you'd be responsible for the possible copies made and distributed.

This line of discussion was already a dead horse before it was ever brought up in this thread. I don't think there is any miracle fix for piracy. As for the problem with RIAA, I think that they have hurt themselves more since they started this nonsense than anything else. Before they started shouting so loud about everyone stealing from them, not many people knew that RIAA made so much off album sales and the artist so little. I think this has been a factor in the reason for some people continuing to pirate music. Maybe if RIAA would increase the artist's cut, it might motivate people to support their favorite band rather than steal those few cents(along with the huge by comparison, RIAA profit)

No, I don't think thats a cure, but I think it might help the problem, which is all you can do.

just my $0.02

 

[poertner_1274]

Taxing the internet is just a horrible thing to even consider. It will only make the world worse off than it is. Especially to businesses who have to run websites like TechSpot, and get quite a bit of upload a week. Also it will put the average person under because they will have to pay extra money to use the internet, and just surf the web. Not something that people will go for.

 

[{{clewless}}]

Originally posted by agrav8r
unless you bought the copiable version, then we would now who you are.

THEN WE WOULD NOW (KNOW) WHO YOU ARE

I chose to remain as anonymous as possible. I never return product registrations or fill out questionaires. Think me paranoid if you wish, I think I'm just private. If that was the only conditions upon which to buy software, I would surely look elsewhere for versions stripped of this requirement.

 

[{{clewless}}]

I would like to deep six this part of the thread because it seems to be moving further and further off topic, although I do enjoy the discourse. Also, like most of the replies I've had, I too realize that taxation isn't the way to go. Most of the parallels that I have drawn are already in use. Most websites already pay a fee (tax) based on the amount of web traffic they incur (The more disk space your pages use the higher the price. The more traffic, usually measured in Gigbytes, the more you are charged.). This is found further down the line with the endusers (us). A modem connection is free (if you can stomach all the ads) or at most twenty something a month, while a cable or dsl connection costs substantially more. This is an indirect fee\Gigabyte. The faster your connection the more you can D/L per month. I'll still play devil's advocate if there continues to be interest in this part of the thread.

Meanwhile back at the ranch :>}.

I seem to hear a lot about the COMPANIES should do something about it rather than the government. Most companies will do nothing unless it increases profit or prevents getting fined. Altruism is a distinctly individual thing and companies are seldom individual.