Slashdot Mirror

How about this http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/125/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/12/artists-lawsuit-major-record-labels-are-the-real-pirates/

and the end of the line http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/

How about this http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/125/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/12/artists-lawsuit-major-record-labels-are-the-real-pirates/

and the end of the line http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/

There are many organisations already working on behalf of ordinary people in cases such as this...the summary already has highlighted one such in the most excellent EFF but there are a number of others who are charitable donation funded and the like so negating your belief that huge wealth is needed to have voices on our side in this, and other, conflicts with the corporations who seek to enrich themselves by removal of our freedoms and liberties. I'll offer a small selection of such organisations below: https://www.eff.org/ http://ffii.org/ http://www.publicknowledge.org/ http://keionline.org/ http://infojustice.org/category/trade-agreements/ http://www.article19.org/ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ http://www.edri.org/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ The last link is to Professor Michael Geist a prominent a noteworthy intellectual and activist in the field. All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.

Seriously these people should be tried, convicted and shot for of trying to keep humanity from moving forward. This is how fucking retarded media companies are http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6642/135/

Canada sufferes from much of the same non-sense. The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a large decision on copy rights in Canada which included technology neutrality. Beyond Users Rights: Supreme Court Entrenches Technological Neutrality as a New Copyright Principle I have to wonder if this decision can be applied in this case. If a book is sold in Canada in it's hard form for example can it be blocked in it 'E' form? If I can walk across the border and bring back a movie can I be stopped from bringing it across over the internet? Many possibilities.

Here is a preliminary analysis from professor Geist. It's slightly more technical and interesting than TFA.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6588/125/

I think Colonialism might be a better word for it.

But, very much the same thing.

I wonder how long before countries decide they aren't willing to receive that person. Already Canada has basically said:

In regard to the watch list, Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.

Courtesy of Michael Geist. Everyone already knows these guys are industry shills ... adding them to your official diplomatic corps isn't necessarily going to gain you credibility for a position which is an industry one.

Probably none. It's not like the Canadian music industry hasn't been sued before for failing to pay royalties due under current contracts.

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1077
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5563/125/

At least give attribution to the summary, lifted in its entirety from Michael Geist's blog:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/

The original post also gives a great breakdown of the specific policies that will change under this new legislation.

The majority Conservatives already dropped all of these provisions from C-11 as they're highly unpopular. Recent polls are now in the news showing that the New Democrats are tied with them, and may even be slightly leading. I really doubt they will back this and risk the next election over it.

Please cite your sources.

All the sources that I can find claim that C-11 is completely unchanged from its first introduction as Harper's Conservatives blocked *all* of the proposed amendments.

Some light reading:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/c-11

"The report doesn't mention that the Business Software Alliance recently released its annual global software piracy report with new data that not only shows that Canada hit yet another all-time low but has the biggest percentage decline in the world over the past five years." - http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6528/125/

I would hate to see what they would do if pirating was getting worse.

Well, there's this:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6456/125/

But did you also know that the Conservative Party of Canada lobbied the US government to bump up Canada's position on that list?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1048993--leaks-show-u-s-swayed-canada-on-copyright-bill

The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list.

Facts are fun!

While I agree with you in principle, the problem is the copyright special interest groups often uses extremist, raving lunatic language too.

Except they are backed by millions of dollars, have PR agencies, and have the ear of politicians (or are politicians, in the example where a Conservative Canadian MP called backers of fair copyright "radical extremists").

Well, this will mean the Americans will put the Netherlands on the "Priority Watch List".

Which is fine, since it's mostly a government talking piece put together by industry lobbying groups.

According to Michael Geist, we ignore it too because it's drivel:

In regard to the watch list, Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.

Me, I think it's time more countries stood up and said they don't want to be controlled by the US content industry and lobby groups.

Saying you don't want to risk a free and open internet is a good thing. Saying you're not willing to be bound by what American corporations want (which is the whole purpose of this stupid Name and Shame watch list) is also a good thing.

This whole stupid treaty is hypocrisy -- censorship is bad, unless you're doing it because we said so, mostly to protect corporate profits.

Bill C-11 is a done deal.
The only hope is to elect a more citizen-friendly government that will amend/repeal that atrocity.
But until then, we get to live with it.

Obligatory link:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

the Cons are in full swing to get Bill C11 passed http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6488/125/

I'm am of the belief that only taking up arms is the way to go in the next 15 years to remove corruption and corporate influence and introduce liability to political positions and decisions.

Didn't some Canadian government representatives *ask* the US to put Canada on that list?

Yes, that came out in the Wikileaks cables. See the story here.

The IOC and the Olympics has been nothing more than a deeply corrupt, out-of-control marketing engine and ruthless trademark troll for 30 years. I think the Los Angeles games was the turning point.

They took a paint company on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington to court because they had retail stores in Vancouver in 2010. They lost of course, but it was still a monumental hassle.

There's a good writeup of how crazy the mess was from Vancouver 2010 here: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1777/125/

I'm sure a summer olympics is 100 times worse.

[offtopic_shameless_plug]My company in also needs some senior developers for our PEI office, mostly for Java client/server work. Don't email me, just click the Careers link on our website.[/offtopic_shameless_plug]

On topic, I'm glad to see at least some of our justices are taking their jobs seriously. Appointed by Stephen Harper, yet curtailing government invasion into private lives. A nice breath of fresh air in a recent gale of anti-privacy legislation. (Thanks Michael Geist, for keeping us abreast of all the government's IT shenanigans!

I'm sure both you and your colleagues are good. There are just too many people who want to be musicians. Between 2000 and 2007, the number of music albums created more than doubled. (Michael Geist)

In general, there are too many people who want to live by doing creative work. I spend a lot of time writing fiction, and send it out to friends and acquaintances. I hope to earn money from it one day, but I'm not counting on it.

Good thing that I live in Canada where something like that could never happen...

Hi msobkow. I guess you're in the US, looking north towards all that beauty. Unfortunately the grass isn't greener over here:

And what have we here? MPA "The Voice and Advocate for the Major International Producers and Distributors of Movies, Home Entertainment and TV Programming in Canada"

We also have a Canadian RIAA, formerly and still colloquially known as CRIA, but renamed Music Canada to obfuscate the Recording Industry interests. "Representing Canada's Major Labels".

And "pounding us and hounding us over so-called piracy" - they do that too. And like MPAA/RIAA want to change the (proposed) laws to fit their own interests; see Dr. Geist's blog entry.

government (Harper Government) to introduce SOPA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6307/125/

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6287/125/

Is 15 of 32 "among world's fastest"? RT @gregobr: Canadian Internet speeds among world’s fastest: report http://natpo.st/yARz0G

You totally stole my comment! I'm getting you shut down!

ACTA is coming into force, SOPA/PIPA will be coming back, and the upcoming Trans Pacific Partnership means that if you even think of dressing up like a copyrighted character then you'll be censored off the 'net.

Here's coverage on the TPP from a Canadian perspective: here, here, and here.

The point is that Hollywood and content holders in general have all the strings in their hands right now and for the foreseeable future. Like ACTA the TPP is being negotiated in secrecy. Which, when you think about it makes it undemocratic just by it's procedure.

You totally stole my comment! I'm getting you shut down!

ACTA is coming into force, SOPA/PIPA will be coming back, and the upcoming Trans Pacific Partnership means that if you even think of dressing up like a copyrighted character then you'll be censored off the 'net.

Here's coverage on the TPP from a Canadian perspective: here, here, and here.

The point is that Hollywood and content holders in general have all the strings in their hands right now and for the foreseeable future. Like ACTA the TPP is being negotiated in secrecy. Which, when you think about it makes it undemocratic just by it's procedure.

You totally stole my comment! I'm getting you shut down!

ACTA is coming into force, SOPA/PIPA will be coming back, and the upcoming Trans Pacific Partnership means that if you even think of dressing up like a copyrighted character then you'll be censored off the 'net.

Here's coverage on the TPP from a Canadian perspective: here, here, and here.

The point is that Hollywood and content holders in general have all the strings in their hands right now and for the foreseeable future. Like ACTA the TPP is being negotiated in secrecy. Which, when you think about it makes it undemocratic just by it's procedure.

Can we link to Michael Geist's actual article rather than that horrid looking ActivePolitic website?

Original

If we're arguing that Canada has become Americanized, then the biggest risk of this is that Canada will adopt the same type of idiotic, tech-blind, censorious legislation that is represented by SOPA and PIPA.

No worries there. PIPA declared Canada to be part of the US, so they've got us covered.

Alternately, the RIAA/CRIA is already trying to turn Bill C-11 into SOPA Canada. (My favorite part is the one where they can stop Canadian 'infringers' from ever using the Internet but somehow forgot to mention needing any proof beyond their own word. Those forgetful sillys!)

And even if they somehow don't manage it, we'll be extending copyrights AGAIN anyway if we join the Trans Pacific Partnership because Ernest Hemingway's poor orphaned children need the money from the extended copyright to live. In their retirement homes.

If we're arguing that Canada has become Americanized, then the biggest risk of this is that Canada will adopt the same type of idiotic, tech-blind, censorious legislation that is represented by SOPA and PIPA.

No worries there. PIPA declared Canada to be part of the US, so they've got us covered.

Alternately, the RIAA/CRIA is already trying to turn Bill C-11 into SOPA Canada. (My favorite part is the one where they can stop Canadian 'infringers' from ever using the Internet but somehow forgot to mention needing any proof beyond their own word. Those forgetful sillys!)

And even if they somehow don't manage it, we'll be extending copyrights AGAIN anyway if we join the Trans Pacific Partnership because Ernest Hemingway's poor orphaned children need the money from the extended copyright to live. In their retirement homes.

>It's also been "industry" standard to know that Megaupload is very nice for piracy uploaders.

From the same industry that says every download is a lost sale?
From the same industry that pirated and sold works they didn't have rights to? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/

> It's only good - criminals are taken to court and jail

Alleged criminals....

>so companies can again produce goods and software and they don't have to see the widespread piracy that is going on.

Strange so are you saying movies, music and software would be that much more creative and better quality if there was no piracy? I mean all movies and music albums should reap in millions from every release. If they don't apparently its because the companies can't make good works because piracy is holding them back.

> most sites outside USA still use .org, .com and .net

Well now here's their incentive to change, with plenty of time to implement the gradual redirection to the new domain.

Why are people so lazy?

Hey, let's do that! Let's move over to a regional one like .ca or something in the Caribbean!

Oh, wait. PIPA specifically declares its jurisdiction to be an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States, in other words EVERYTHING ARIN DOES. As far as PIPA is concerned, much of North America is "domestic", i.e. part of the USA and subject to American law. Happy Annex Day, United States of North America!

Rick Falkvinge and his colleagues in European Parliament: help us, you are our (North America's) only hope!

The US and Canadian election systems are inherently undemocratic (if democracy = every vote counts); in Canada a minority party (this interview the Green Party leader states clearly that a 12 year copyright term "seems reasonable". Unfortunately for most Canadians, a vote for the Green Party is a vote that ends up in the trashbin.

That being said, I do endorse the copyright monopoly... as long as the copyright term is reasonable, and Rufus Pollock's "optimal" 15 years sounds like a good line-in-the-sand maximum, and as long as there are generous exceptions for private, non-commercial and research use. The exceptions make the draconian laws obsolete.

The reason for my opening line: any change in this Culture of Copyright can only come out of Europe.

Note and case in point: for fellow Canadians, please be aware that the Canadian government is planning to enter into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, which would "force" them to extend (!!!) copyright term by another 20 years. For background information and how to voice your opinion, see Dr. Geist's blog.

Further to your comment (and re-posting this as original post from hours ago hasn't shown up!?!), do not forget to add your name & address to the email!

From Mr Geist's blog:

All it takes a single email with your name, address, and comments on the issue. The email can be sent to consultations@international.gc.ca. Alternatively, submissions can be sent by fax (613-944-3489) or mail (Trade Negotiations Consultations (TPP), Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Trade Policy and Negotiations Division II (TPW), Lester B. Pearson Building, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2).

I bet this'll end up being a double-post, but I swear the original isn't visible as I write this.

Just to add to your post, the email *needs* your name & address.

From Mr Geist's blog:

The consultation is open until February 14, 2012. All it takes a single email with your name, address, and comments on the issue. The email can be sent to consultations@international.gc.ca. Alternatively, submissions can be sent by fax (613-944-3489) or mail (Trade Negotiations Consultations (TPP), Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Trade Policy and Negotiations Division II (TPW), Lester B. Pearson Building, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2).

This news is old, and the ISP has said that it will stop, but the point I am making is that it is technically feasible to do this, and the Powers that Be don't care if the internet is usable or not by the little people (you and me).

The CRTC's UBB Decision: Bell Loses But Do Consumers Win?

The cost of piracy in Canada was grossly overstated in an attempt to impose draconian controls on the transport of music. The Canadian Intellectual Property Council (an agency of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce) actually proposed that travelers entering the country have their luggage searched for counterfeit recordings.

On investigation,it was discovered that the Council based its estimated cost of piracy on data circulating in the U.S. The U.S. costs were contained in various reports from the FBI and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). However, neither agency could substantiate the data. Their estimates of the costs of piracy turned out to be "brain farts" with no real substance.

See http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5841/125/ and the follow-up http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5850/125/.

The cost of piracy in Canada was grossly overstated in an attempt to impose draconian controls on the transport of music. The Canadian Intellectual Property Council (an agency of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce) actually proposed that travelers entering the country have their luggage searched for counterfeit recordings.

On investigation,it was discovered that the Council based its estimated cost of piracy on data circulating in the U.S. The U.S. costs were contained in various reports from the FBI and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). However, neither agency could substantiate the data. Their estimates of the costs of piracy turned out to be "brain farts" with no real substance.

See http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5841/125/ and the follow-up http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5850/125/.

That video generates more questions in my brain than it answers.

What questions?

"ACTA is bad, nnkay?" it says, which is not enough.

It's enought for the video. Nobody would watch a 30 minutes boring video quoting obfuscated texts refering to more obfuscated texts already signed by countries dozens of years before that.

The point of this video is to try to get the interest of a lot of people. The one who didn't heard of ACTA before. Once these people are interested, they can seek informations by themselves. The link provided in the video, that's a good start. Or see the wikipedia page, seek on the search engine, or seek on their favorite online newspaper.

The extremely one-side view on ACTA the video provides sickens me.

Well, what do you suggest? A more positive approach? Like "Think of the future, nobody will be able to share knowledge, wouldn't that be great?".
What if everything is bad in ACTA?

It doesn't even tell me who "The Negotiators" are.

That's the point. "The Negotiators" are not known. ACTA has been negotiated in secret during the past few years. Withoout the control of the democratically elected parliaments or other institutions. Now the treaty is finalized and signed by some Countries. The other Countries now have a gun pressed against their head "sign it or you're out".

I can't say "No" to ACTA based on this video alone.

Of course you can't.
But maybe you can say no to ACTA based on this video + my comment + few other comments on this news, + on https://www.eff.org/issues/acta + https://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta + http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_tags&task=view&tag=acta&Itemid=408 + http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/why-acta-declaration + http://www.ffii.org/ + your own sources of information.

And if someday you want to say no, here is how: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/How_to_act_against_ACTA :)

Australia finally threw out the worst of the fascist garbage in its last federal election whereas my dumbass fellow Canadians just handed a majority to the worst corporofascists possible.

You might want to educate your brain cell before you voice your 'opinion'.

at a 800% markups over net cost for bandwidth, they sure can afford some upgrade, but they wont : http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5952/125/

While there are certainly lobbyists here in Canada, their power is considerably less than their American counterparts. The lobby laws are stricter, and the very strict campaign finance laws in Canada mean the lobbyists are unable to wield the same degree of influence as they do in the USA as they have very little cash to throw around.

The Conference Board of Canada bills itself as "the foremost, independent, not-for-profit applied research organization in Canada. Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests." These claims should take a major hit based on [may 2009]'s release of a deceptive, plagiarized report on the digital economy that copied text from the International Intellectual Property Alliance (the primary movie, music, and software lobby in the U.S.)

There are ways to pay off corrupt politicians that aren't campaign contributions. You can promise them a high-paying job after they leave public office, you can pay for their vacation expenses, you can let them borrow your luxury car, you can spend the evening with them in a fancy restaurant, eating delicious meals and drinking expensive wines, and you pay their bill, etc.

This bill is written to please a specific lobby, they have shown in the past that they break rules and laws in complicity with those lobbies, it's a logical deduction that this law was written under the moneyed influence of that same lobby/cartel/oligarchy.

Between this secret document and the wikileaks cables uncovered it's pretty clear that the US owns Canada.

While the bill from the article is from a year ago, and therefore the summary sucks, the basic premise of the story remains very much intact under the current Harper government. The real story is as follows and is only six months old, as opposed to a year, so its good for slashdot:

"A bill will soon be passed into law by the Canadian government, which will require that ISPs disclose customer information such as name, phone number, email address, IP address, house address, and more, and furthermore require ISPS to allow for the monitoring, interception, and isolation of internet communications in real time. This will be brought forward in an omnibus collection of other bills by the majority government."

If you think the idea of the linked bill was bad, enjoy the one that will *actually* come to pass.

Surveillance?

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5733/125/

First mention of bundling "lawfull access" (aka monitoring) and crime bills for passage within 100 days.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Conservative+majority+would+bundle+crime+bills/4580146/story.html

Link to Conservative platform containing the promise
http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf
Search for "100 days"

Subsequent comments:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/blogsection/0/126/10/10/

"The first prong mandates the disclosure of Internet provider customer information without court oversight. Under current privacy laws, providers may voluntarily disclose customer information but are not required to do so. The new system would require the disclosure of customer name, address, phone number, email address, Internet protocol address, and a series of device identification numbers.

While some of that information may seem relatively harmless, the ability to link it with other data will often open the door to a detailed profile about an identifiable person. Given its potential sensitivity, the decision to require disclosure without any oversight should raise concerns within the Canadian privacy community.

The second prong requires Internet providers to dramatically re-work their networks to allow for real-time surveillance. The bill sets out detailed capability requirements that will eventually apply to all Canadian Internet providers. These include the power to intercept communications, to isolate the communications to a particular individual, and to engage in multiple simultaneous interceptions."

The Conservatives Commitment to Internet Surveillance

Interestingly: "None of this is to say the Liberals would be any better. They introduced their own lawful access package many years ago and the reaction of MPs like McTeague in 2009 was "what took you so long." The Liberals point to protection from digital threats in their platform, but do not specifically discuss lawful access. They should be asked about where they stand now (so too for the NDP which marshalled opposition in 2009)."

Looks like NDP are the ones to support on this issue.

Michael Geist, Canada's copyright law guru and law prof at the University of Ottawa, posted an interesting observation about the copyright fight a lot of these organizations like RIAA and MPAA engage. It's marketing failure, not bad behaviour that is the cause of piracy.

Meaning, it's RIAA and the MPAA failure to properly price their products at a reasonable level that makes the consumer believe that the purchase is reasonable. I mean, if a movie to buy was $1 or $2, would you purchase it or DL it? If a music CD was $3, not $20, would you own your own copy? Or if they offered monthly subscriptions, like the Netflix model, would you subscribe or pirate?

Not only are they missing the boat and stifling innovation, they're attacking and going after consumers who don't believe the purchase is worth the money and then lobby governments to put in CRAZY laws that illegally downloading a movie can cost you $250,000 + 5 years in jail if you're charged and found guilty. Yet get in your car drunk and kill a family of 5, spend 2-3 years in jail + $50,000 in legal fees.

Is it me, or does the who copyright debate sound complete like corporate sheit they've bought and paid for and then rammed down our throats?