Slashdot Mirror

Please don't just pull stuff out of your ass; nothing about your statement is true. The *IAA's 2 biggest weapons, right now, are the DMCA and the threat of statutory damages. Both of these were first pioneered (or only exist) in the U.S. We don't have anything like the DMCA (they've tried, it is just that we fought back). Statutory damages are set to be reduced in Canada. This is, in part, to prevent the abuse of the law like what has happened in the states. If you want to learn some actual facts about copyright in Canada, subscribe to Michael Geist's blog: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

I'd bet they aren't even putting any effort into writing their own version, because they know they will have one dispatched to them, anyway.

Hell, there quite the circumstantial case that the CRIA has been using Dan McTeague as a puppet: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5655/125/ Relevant bits:

The Toronto Star letter to the editor includes quotes from two old posts on my blog.... The visitor log for my site reveals that only one party accessed both posts in the period between February 14th (when the column first appeared) and February 21st (when the letter to the editor appeared). That party was CRIA, suggesting that the McTeague letter may largely be a cut and paste of materials supplied by CRIA lobbyists.

But don't take my word for, listen to the several dozen civic organizations that filed a protest, listen to Senator Whyden, whose excellent letter to USTR went unanswered. Listen to Canadian law professor Michael Geist. Listen to Knowledge Ecology, whose FOIA request the Obama Administration denied on "national security" grounds.

Knowledge Ecology ACTA News: http://keionline.org/taxonomy/term/95

Knowledge Ecology ACTA timeline: http://keionline.org/node/991

Michael Geist: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_tags&task=view&tag=acta&Itemid=408

If it hasn't already been mentioned an interesting source of discussion on the Canadian Copyright can be found on Michael Geist's blog:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

He's a copyright legal expert and professor that has been vocal (he also writes a column for the Toronto Star) about copyright and striking a balance between users and content producers.

I go to his site from time to time to get a laugh about how the record companies etc... are trying to misinform Canadians...

The Root:

SLRP: The suggested list retail price of a CD is currently $16.98, while the standard wholesale price -- what retail stores pay the label per CD -- is about $10. Once the retailer gets the CD, they can sell it for however much they'd like -- hence "suggested." Artist's royalties are a percentage of the retail price. Superstars can get 20 percent of the SLRP, but most get 12 percent to 14 percent.

I've seen other estimates which are lower, but this was the only citation I could find for now. Online sales through the record label usually pay a few percent units less.

Half-pint HAL wrote:

You may be interested to know that most musicians I know are still selling CDs. In fact, most musicians I know still say that direct sales of their CDs at concerts is the main source of income (they get over 50% from direct sales).

Perhaps, but a study from the Norwegian School of Management shows that CD sales have never accounted for more than 20% of the income of music artists, on the average. It's based on Norwegian artists, but the figures shouldn't be drastically different for other developed nations.

Half-pint HAL wrote:

Music is a musician's business, and taking away the ability to profit from music takes away their ability to profit.

I'd say that music is a way of life, and getting paid for it is just a way to be able to do it full-time. The supply of artists has always been greater than the demand for them, and most artists have never been able to support themselves from their music.

That being said, artists are able to produce more than twice as many albums today as ten years ago:

Overall production figures for the creative industries appear to be consistent with this view that file sharing has not discouraged artists and publishers. While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded. In 2000, 35,516 albums were released. Seven years later, 79,695 albums (including 25,159 digital albums) were published (Nielsen SoundScan, 2008). (Harvard study cited by Michael Geist)

If I was running **AA, I'd hire a PR firm to create the appearance that downloading takes place for profit. Planting such text files, though silly, might achieve just that. Even though it's easier to shut such sites down (but expensive), I stand to profit more from creating the appearance that "pirates" are not so innocent and allowing the sites to continue.
Canadian RIAA has been claiming that Canadian laws are inadequate while dragging its feet before suing IsoHunt: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5636/135/

From http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5636/135/: "The lawsuit may come as a surprise to politicians and other observers accustomed to hearing that Canada does not have the legal tools to address online infringement, yet that perception has always been more myth than reality. As the isoHunt lawsuit demonstrates, the legal power to combat online infringement has existed within Canadian copyright law for years. It has been the industry’s reluctance to wield those powers – not their absence – that may have allowed infringing websites to call Canada home."

As many others have pointed out, there is a real negative effect on the Canadian digital economy, harming innovation and keeping new business models out of the country. Simply put, Canada is not competitive when compared to most other countries and the strict bandwidth caps make us less attractive for new businesses and stifle innovative services.

Addressing the bandwidth cap concern involves far more than reversing the CRTC's poorly reasoned UBB decision, however. Independent ISPs have functioned without UBB for years, yet have struggled to make a serious dent in the overall Canadian Internet services marketplace. Moreover, the CRTC has indicated its strong preference for "economic measures" to address bandwidth congestion.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5615/125/

This guy gets it. We need to keep pushing against this sort of thing because the market is fundamentally anticompetitive. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The CMRRA then set up an agreement that allowed the recording companies to use a work and pay for it later. Which they never did.

I don't know what the CMRRA is. This case is about the Copyright Recording Industry Association (CRIA) in Canada. See Michael Geist's coverage of the story. I'll quote:

The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences.

This is plain-as-day copyright infringement.

Also, here's a citation for Rogers that I should have included in the last reply.

Canada has had a copying-tax for many, many years. It's worked very well for the executives of the RIAA and the CRIAA:

Canadian Recording Industry Faces $6 Billion Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Monday December 07, 2009
Chet Baker was a leading jazz musician in the 1950s, playing trumpet and providing vocals. Baker died in 1988, yet he is about to add a new claim to fame as the lead plaintiff in possibly the largest copyright infringement case in Canadian history. His estate, which still owns the copyright in more than 50 of his works, is part of a massive class-action lawsuit that has been underway for the past year.

As my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes, the infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $6 billion. If the dollars don't shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association.

The CRIA members were hit with the lawsuit [PDF] in October 2008, after artists decided to turn to the courts following decades of frustration with the rampant infringement (I am adviser to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, which is co-counsel, but have had no involvement in the case). The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences.

Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list", which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee.

Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment.

It is difficult to understand why the industry has been so reluctant to pay its bills. Some works may be in the public domain or belong to a copyright owner difficult to ascertain or locate, yet the likes of Sarah McLachlan, Bruce Cockburn, Sloan, or the Watchmen are not hidden from view.

The more likely reason is that the record labels have had little motivation to pay up. As the balance has grown to over $50 million (Universal alone owes more than $30 million), David Basskin, the President and CEO of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd., notes in his affidavit that "the record labels have devoted insufficient resources to identifying and paying the owners of musical works on the Pending Lists." Basskin adds that some labels believe addressing the issue would be "an unproductive use of their time."

Having engaged in widespread copyright infringement for over 20 years, the CRIA members now face the prospect of far greater liability. The class action seeks the option of statutory damages for each infringement. At $20,000 per infringement (the amount owed on some songs exceed this amount), potential liability exceeds $6 billion. These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that has led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millio

Oh crud. Here's the fixed version w/ proper formatting:

Paypal refuses transaction for porn or nudity. They enacted that policy over 5 years ago and even though they were sued by the US DOJ (and lost), that policy was still allowed to stand. As for theft: The Canadian RIAA (and probably US RIAA too) has stolen more from artists then any of us ever could. They owe billions in unpaid royalties to their artists.

"The claims arise from use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences. Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list", which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use.

"It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee. Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment." http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/

I'd rather keep a box full of gold or titanium, since they take-up less space, and they can't be devalued by the Federal Reserve's printing presses. As for theft: The Canadian RIAA (and probably US RIAA too) has stolen more from artists then any of us ever could. They owes billions in unpaid royalties to their artists. "The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences." "Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list", which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee." "Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment." http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/

Not so.

The law, as originally written, was entirely based on what a person made. And it followed the longstanding legal precedent used in most other laws of this sort, also known as "treble damages."

If you were out selling bootlegs at $5/cd, your "treble damages" would be $15/cd. Enough to take away all your profits, any equipment, and make it absolutely clear that you were being punished.

The first fraud that has been perpetrated in respect to copyright law is the removal of that phrase, which is what allows subhuman MafiAA snakes to put the dumbest shits on a jury that they can and then try to convince them that there were billions of dollars worth of "damages" done by someone. The second fraud is the ridiculous notion of a 1:1 correlation between a shared file and a "lost sale."

Numerous studies have shown that far from being damaging, so-called "piracy" actually is a net benefit to the industry as a whole: the only "artists" who get burned are the talentless, overproduced hacks like Britney Spears, Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus who really shouldn't be on top anyways.

Those aren't the only bad parts of ACTA. Here are some more odious provisions, in my opinion:

* ACTA would impose the DMCA's "no circumventing DRM" clause everywhere
* ACTA imposes 3rd party liability for infringement everywhere (it already exists in the US & much of Europe)
* ACTA creates ISP safe harbors (plus notice & takedown), but raises the bar for qualification, e.g. ISPs must have some plan to curtail repeat infringement by subscribers
* ACTA offers statutory damages to copyright holder, as well as actual damages, and as Jammie Thomas can tell you, that wipes out any relevance to damage
* ACTA targets transferring pharmaceuticals across the border, which is mostly designed to get those going from Canada to the US
* ACTA requires criminal penalties for "willful" infringers, and their aiders/abettors, which is looser than the current US standard
* The forfeiture provision for large scale infringers is vague enough to possibly be a problem
* ACTA has broad

China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, New Zealand, & Japan really don't like it for a lot of reasons. To a some extent, the developing world doesn't like it because it would cost policing resources enforcing copyright/trademark when the resources are needed for more important activities, like stopping crimes. The US & Western Europe are the largest proponents.

Those aren't the only bad parts of ACTA. Here are some more odious provisions, in my opinion:

* ACTA would impose the DMCA's "no circumventing DRM" clause everywhere
* ACTA imposes 3rd party liability for infringement everywhere (it already exists in the US & much of Europe)
* ACTA creates ISP safe harbors (plus notice & takedown), but raises the bar for qualification, e.g. ISPs must have some plan to curtail repeat infringement by subscribers
* ACTA offers statutory damages to copyright holder, as well as actual damages, and as Jammie Thomas can tell you, that wipes out any relevance to damage
* ACTA targets transferring pharmaceuticals across the border, which is mostly designed to get those going from Canada to the US
* ACTA requires criminal penalties for "willful" infringers, and their aiders/abettors, which is looser than the current US standard
* The forfeiture provision for large scale infringers is vague enough to possibly be a problem
* ACTA has broad

China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, New Zealand, & Japan really don't like it for a lot of reasons. To a some extent, the developing world doesn't like it because it would cost policing resources enforcing copyright/trademark when the resources are needed for more important activities, like stopping crimes. The US & Western Europe are the largest proponents.

Up here in Canada, we've got a new copyright bill coming down the pike. It's been spearheaded by two Cabinet ministers, Tony Clement (Industry) and James Moore (Canadian Heritage). While Clement has been sensitive and seems open to suggestions, Moore has definitely taken a more combative approach.

In fact, in a recent speech, Moore decried copyright "radical extremists" with a "babyish" attitude toward copyright.

Notice the same phrase?

Up here in Canada, we've got a new copyright bill coming down the pike. It's been spearheaded by two Cabinet ministers, Tony Clement (Industry) and James Moore (Canadian Heritage). While Clement has been sensitive and seems open to suggestions, Moore has definitely taken a more combative approach.

In fact, in a recent speech, Moore decried copyright "radical extremists" with a "babyish" attitude toward copyright.

Notice the same phrase?

The US should immediately withdraw from all copyright treaties, amend its copyright law to best serve the domestic interests of all Americans

Except, you forget that it's US politicians cramming these copyright laws down the rest of the world's collective throat, under the guise of protecting US interests. Heck, the *AA's help their equivalent group in various countries lobby the government to get your DMCA passed. So much so, that, they'll just re-use the document in another country.

TFA points out that Congress is acting under the belief that they are protecting US interests since more US property was being copied in foreign countries than the reverse. At least, according to data provided to them by the people who wanted the law.

Trust me, other countries aren't saying "oooh, we need a law like that". The US is saying in lightly veiled threats that if the other countries don't adopt the law, there might be some consequences. Sadly, the lobbying groups in the US are pushing very hard to use faulty 'reports' to get certain things deemed 'true' in the US, and then pushing the same crappy data abroad. Data they made up via arms length think-tanks which are basically paid shills to write position papers they need.

As long as your politicians give such weight to the testimony of the RIAA/MPAA, we're all getting shafted. But don't think for a minute that it's the rest of the world imposing these treaties and laws on the US. That's why the appeal court basically said that Congress could do this ... because they claim to be protecting US interests.

Well. ACTA is negotiated in Switzerland at WIPO next week, not in the US.

Well the way its going in Canada, Hollywood is already entrenched in out gov pockets even though the majority of Canadian voters don't want the new DMCA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5079/125/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5017/125/ and many more http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php

Well the way its going in Canada, Hollywood is already entrenched in out gov pockets even though the majority of Canadian voters don't want the new DMCA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5079/125/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5017/125/ and many more http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php

Well the way its going in Canada, Hollywood is already entrenched in out gov pockets even though the majority of Canadian voters don't want the new DMCA. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5079/125/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5017/125/ and many more http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5049/125/

So the majority of canadians don't want this but the government goes the other way... nobody listens, oh joy

Your telling me.

Harper is just a totalitarian freak, 99% of the last round of comments on Bill C-61 were against it in one way or another...
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ has been awesome at covering this and not letting it all go under the carpet but he can't save Canada alone!

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.), at times without full attribution. The report itself was funded by copyright lobby groups (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, Copyright Collective of Canada which represents U.S. film production) along with the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. The role of the Ontario government obviously raises questions about taxpayer dollars being used to pay for a report that simply recycles the language of a U.S. lobby group paper.

As a Canadian, I am half-bored by this and half-annoyed. This is ridiculous.

Another US organization slammed Canada as being a hotbed of music piracy because our CD sales had dropped off 7.4%. The US market had dropped off over 10% but nothing was said about that.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4996/125/

The US should manage its own problems - it has enough. We should manage ours - we have enough, too. This is a joke but it's an offensive one.

This is such a great, simple resolution. The current copyright greed is out of control, based on a 'because we can' model. I was very inspired by http://www.ripremix.com/ . Changes in this stuff is essential for progress of global culture. Go India. PDF is here http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4974/196/ for those who want to look further.

I can't say if I am for or against the ACTA . . . because I don't know the details.

If you want to know the details, the full text of the treaty (as of March 23rd anyway) is out there.

In 2009 Canada also rejected software and business methods patents. As far as I know, this has not changed. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

I don't think they've completely outlawed software patents. The way I read it is that anything tied to a business model is not allowed (hence Amazon's silly 1-click being tossed.) It appears you can still patent a computer-implemented process, but not the program itself.

From what I've read, Canada generally will not allow a patent on software unless it's been tied to hardware in some way. Almost all software patents currently in the US would be ruled as business methods here and thrown out as a result.

Sources: Source 1 and Source 2.

The "Pirate" in The Pirate Party's name implies the duplication of digital information. One side of the "Pirate" argument, mostly being represented by large digital distributors such as the Music Industry and Motion Picture Associations, believe that our society needs strong legislation enforcing Artificial Scarcity into the digital medium via treaties such as ACTA. In other words, they appear to hold the view that only certain rights holders should have exclusive legal right to make and sell unlimited digital copies for fixed cost, just like any physical good for sale. On the other side of the debate we have the "Pirates" who appear to hold the view that digital information should not be treated as a scarce good, that digital distribution is just a natural property of any digital medium and should be available to everyone.

How does the Pirate Party intend to allow those wishing to distribute original creative digital works to make a profit without legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium?

The "Pirate" in The Pirate Party's name implies the duplication of digital information. One side of the "Pirate" argument, mostly being represented by large digital distributors such as the Music Industry and Motion Picture Associations, believe that our society needs strong legislation enforcing Artificial Scarcity into the digital medium via treaties such as ACTA. In other words, they appear to hold the view that only certain rights holders should have exclusive legal right to make and sell unlimited digital copies for fixed cost, just like any physical good for sale. On the other side of the debate we have the "Pirates" who appear to hold the view that digital information should not be treated as a scarce good, that digital distribution is just a natural property of any digital medium and should be available to everyone.

How does the Pirate Party intend to allow those wishing to distribute original creative digital works to make a profit without legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium?

Hundreds of fabulous girls from forty different countries kicked off Teen Vogue’s annual Fashion University with [url=www.juicycouturecvs.com/]Juicy Couture[/url].The launch cocktail party was hosted by Juicy at their 5th Ave Flagship in New York City. The energy in the line outside the party was an indication of what was to come and that excitement exploded when the Girls hit the store floor. They sipped on smoothies and pink lemonade, devoured treats from silver platters all as they experienced the colorful and insanely fun world of[url=www.juicycouturecvs.com/]Juicy Couture bags[/url]. There was a DJ spinning and NY band Lion of Ido added to the frenzy. All had an amazing NY night, meeting new friends, taking photos, exchanging emails and of course a little retail therapy. [url=www.juicycouturecvs.com/]Juicy [/url]was thrilled to be host to these up and coming trendsetters that will surely make up the next generation of fashion mavens.

The "Pirate" in The Pirate Party's name implies the duplication of digital information. One side of the "Pirate" argument, mostly being represented by large digital distributors such as the Music Industry and Motion Picture Associations, believe that our society needs strong legislation enforcing Artificial Scarcity into the digital medium via treaties such as ACTA. In other words, they appear to hold the view that only certain rights holders should have exclusive legal right to make and sell unlimited digital copies for fixed cost, just like any physical good for sale. On the other side of the debate we have the "Pirates" who appear to hold the view that digital information should not be treated as a scarce good, that digital distribution is just a natural property of any digital medium and should be available to everyone.

How does the Pirate Party intend to allow those wishing to distribute original creative digital works to make a profit without legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium?

The "Pirate" in The Pirate Party's name implies the duplication of digital information. One side of the "Pirate" argument, mostly being represented by large digital distributors such as the Music Industry and Motion Picture Associations, believe that our society needs strong legislation enforcing Artificial Scarcity into the digital medium via treaties such as ACTA. In other words, they appear to hold the view that only certain rights holders should have exclusive legal right to make and sell unlimited digital copies for fixed cost, just like any physical good for sale. On the other side of the debate we have the "Pirates" who appear to hold the view that digital information should not be treated as a scarce good, that digital distribution is just a natural property of any digital medium and should be available to everyone.

How does the Pirate Party intend to allow those wishing to distribute original creative digital works to make a profit without legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium?

Hundreds of fabulous girls from forty different countries kicked off Teen Vogue’s annual Fashion University with [url=www.juicycouturecvs.com/]Juicy Couture[/url].The launch cocktail party was hosted by Juicy at their 5th Ave Flagship in New York City. The energy in the line outside the party was an indication of what was to come and that excitement exploded when the Girls hit the store floor. They sipped on smoothies and pink lemonade, devoured treats from silver platters all as they experienced the colorful and insanely fun world of[url=www.juicycouturecvs.com/]Juicy Couture bags[/url]. There was a DJ spinning and NY band Lion of Ido added to the frenzy. All had an amazing NY night, meeting new friends, taking photos, exchanging emails and of course a little retail therapy. [url=www.juicycouturecvs.com/]Juicy [/url]was thrilled to be host to these up and coming trendsetters that will surely make up the next generation of fashion mavens.

It's mostly because those professions work on actual physical items and things, but while digital things don't cost almost anything to copy and sell to a new customer, they cost a lot to product.

Most, but not all. For an interesting real world novalist example see the post in the thread above

Which brings us to another question:

How will computer game developers afford making games?

I notice that many of the new games are now emphasizing the online multiplayer aspect- e.g. Left4Dead 2 single player mode is the least interesting and almost hidden at the end of a long line of cool value added online multiplayer games. All value added services that cannot be copied. WOW has been profitable, popular and has little competition. Are the game studios happy about being forced to do this to make money? I doubt it, but there lies the heart of this: Once you break even, It is extremely profitable to just duplicate as many copies as you need for fixed cost and sell each copy for scarce good prices. Example: COD MW2: As of January 18, 2010, it has taken over $1 billion in sales. Now subtract the cost of production (a _lot_ less than 1billion even you would have to admit) - now each "unit" sold going forward is all gravy: it has a fixed cost approaching zero to copy/produce.

It is much less profitable to have to run game servers to make a living, with all the overhead they bring. However this is how services in the real world operate: you actually have to have a value added service to make money, _not_ have a legislated and privilidged position to be the only one able to make a digital copy. Relying on legislation to enforce artificial scarcity into the digital medium in order to support your business model built upon the exclusive right to make copies for sale, is highly morally questionable to say the least. Further, COD MW2 managed to pull off 1 billion sales despite what pundits claim to be an internet rife with piracy/No ACTA to control the masses copying digital information!

Most likely COD MW2 benefited from the Internets natural ability to copy and propagate information, exactly the same as the Novalist reference I provided at the beginning.

Discussion about copyright is usually only around music and forgets that some of the other industries have a much harder time to come up with alternative solutions, so I'd like to hear a good solution on how would gaming industry work.

You have heard it, I have even given you real world examples - but I bet you'll reject it for one simple reason. Actually having to provide a value added service is of course not nearly as profitable as legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium for your exclusive "right" to make unlimited copies and sell each one as if it was scarce commodity. For this reason (not as profitable) every major large game studio, music and movie producer in the world is going to fight tooth and nail, pay off any politician necessary to have legislation enacted to force artificial scarcity ASAP. As Micheal Geist put it in a recent presentation to Washington college of law: ACTA is an underhanded (immoral) way to bypass democratic processes built into other treaties like WIPO.

The "Pirate" in The Pirate Party's name implies the duplication of digital information. One side of the "Pirate" argument, mostly being represented by large digital distributors such as the Music Industry and Motion Picture Associations, believe that our society needs strong legislation enforcing Artificial Scarcity into the digital medium via treaties such as ACTA. In other words, they appear to hold the view that only certain rights holders should have exclusive legal right to make and sell unlimited digital copies for fixed cost, just like any physical good for sale. On the other side of the debate we have the "Pirates" who appear to hold the view that digital information should not be treated as a scarce good, that digital distribution is just a natural property of any digital medium and should be available to everyone.

How does the Pirate Party intend to allow those wishing to distribute original creative digital works to make a profit without legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium?

Michael Geists recent 20min presentation to American Uni, Washington College of Law was very interesting, he basically says that ACTA is a sly underhanded run-around of existing treaty. If I understood correctly, big media/content producers did not like having to negotiate using open democratic processes built into existing agreements - so they sponsored ACTA to subvert the democratic process. Worth watching to understand where ACTA is coming from.

Seeing zero reporting on this in the media (apart from the excellent interviews professor Geist linked on his blog). Big media all for this. The majority of "big media" business models are based on artificial scarcity. That is, big media charge for the packaging and distribution of bits and bytes as a if these things are scarce commodity. Note that I am not talking about the actual artistic content creation, but only the packaging and distribution. Packaging and distribution are certainly value adding exercises, but when talking about digital media, the cost to reproduce and distribute is a fixed cost or as close to fixed as you can get (see wikipedia article reference - "duplicated billions of times over for a relatively cheap production price (an initial investment in a computer, an internet connection, and any power consumption costs; and these are already fixed costs in most environments)").

It is physically impossible to maintain the current (substantial) profit differential between charging for the packaging and distribution of each digital item as if it is a scarce commodity, while running that part of their operation at or very close to fixed cost (The most profitable and central part of big media). Any other business model that embraces the digital medium for what it is (a fixed cost medium for duplication/distribution), and not based on artificial scarcity simply could never maintain the same levels of profitability they currently enjoy.

They only have one choice if they wish to maintain their currently profit levels: Legislate scarcity into the digital medium (hence we see secret ACTA treaties and other morally questionable political clout being thrown about in favor of this goal)

If we actually talk about the artistic content creation part of the business model, that could be considered and entirely different issue. Big media obviously pay artists to produce content. The interesting "moral high ground" issue that both sides of the debate are claiming revolves around the question of if Big Media should also be allowed by society to charge for artificial scarcity well into the future (even well beyond the original artists death!) because they also happened to contract the artists to create the work to begin with. Big Medias defense so far seems to me to be a "muddy the debate" tactic, ignoring the artificial scarcity issue entirely and just shouting "your damaging the artists" in an effort to maintain the moral high ground.

As an American, I feel it's quite certain that USA politicians are against transparency; a lot of their funding comes from the people that want it passed. However, trying to reach that conclusion from the article is moronic.

I agree that the article itself is short on details, but luckily we don't have to look very far at the "official" evidence we are permitted to see to find their priorities and aims that paint a pretty damning picture that US lobby groups (i.e. the IIPA - International Intellectual Property Alliance) and their bought and paid for US politicians are the main instigators behind ACTA. Given the official data we do have, It would be very naive indeed to start give them any benefit of the doubt on the secret speculative ACTA treaty, especially since they are making every effort to keep it out of the public eye.

If France and Italy haven't actually stated that they fear U.S. retaliation, then that's just speculation.

Yeah, just like everything else we know about ACTA - it is ALL speculation and no "official" information. However we don't have to look very far at the "official" evidence we are permitted to see to find their priorities and aims that paint a pretty damning picture that US lobby groups (i.e. the IIPA - International Intellectual Property Alliance) and their bought and paid for US politicians are the main instigators behind ACTA. Given the official data we do have, It would be very naive indeed to start give them any benefit of the doubt on the secret speculative ACTA treaty, especially since they are making every effort to keep it out of the public eye.

Here's an important block of text... Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue.

This is a more telling block of text :

IDG covers the latest Dutch leak that reveals the transparency position of many ACTA participants. Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.

IDG covers the latest Dutch leak that reveals the transparency position of many ACTA participants. Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.

Outside of the Europe, the memo identifies three problem countries. While Japan is apparently supportive, both South Korea and Singapore oppose ACTA transparency. Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.

The U.S. Representatives may be against transparency, but they aren't stupid enough to say so.

Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>

Michael Geist's Blog - Dr. Geist is a law professor who takes a rather dim view of the constant calls to make copyright law more strict.

The Pirate Party of Canada - a small concern now, only about 100 card-carrying members, but it's not going to get any bigger (or reach the point where it's officially a party) if people don't get involved and at least send a bit of money their way to get over the legal hurdles. ($10 membership fee).

The fallacy here is that this measure will do nothing.
I wish I could say otherwise, but you're wrong about that. It will do nothing to stop the production or spread of child pornography, but it will constitute another erosion of freedom of speech or information.

I wish I could say otherwise, but even this is not entirely correct. The measure will actually HELP the spread of child pornography.
It's pretty simple really:
1) Net censorship will eventually of course mean less access to "illegal" information. For example access to information deemed illegal at sites like Wikileaks.
2) Without widespread access to "illegal" information such as the illegal ACTA leaks, there will be little to no organized resistance to the ever-tightening Copyright and IP laws and treaties being signed (ACTA, GATS, TRIPS etc)
3) Strict IP and copyright laws keep third world countries poor [1]. The majority of Child Pornography stems from human trafficking from third world countries, an unfortunate risk of growing up in a third world country [2].
...

If the French Government really cared about Child Pornography, it would be taking studies like [1] below seriously and not playing cloak and dagger with treaties like ACTA.

[1]

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs, such as higher priced medicines or seeds. This makes poverty reduction more difficult. The intensively researched, 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops, 17 working papers, an exhaustive literature review of the field, visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference. The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations. Topics include IP and health; agriculture; traditional knowledge; copyrights, software and the Internet; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests. The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science, law, ethics and economics. The Commissioners come from industry, government and academia* (see list of Commissioners below). "Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries," said Professor John Barton, Commission Chair and George E. Osborne Professor of Law, Stanford University. "But, in the case of developing countries, more and stronger protection is not necessarily better. Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people. They should be allowed to adopt appropriate rights regimes, not necessarily the most protective ones."

http://www.biotech-info.net/independent_commission.html

[2] Third world are the major "Source Countries" of child pornography and other human trafficking related crimes.

And we've given you concrete examples of things that did happen, and your answer has always been "oh well people will use dialup if their high-speed internet sucks because it's totally an equivalent good, just like a tricycle can replace a Porsche". Assuming, of course, that the phone company didn't decide to just hang-up on everyone every now and then just to make sure everyone who doesn't use their DSL is as miserable as they are.

There's been plenty of cases out there where even the ISPs you deal with don't get a say in the matter, after all they have to buy their bandwidth from somewhere. In the US, after the FCC "deregulated" the regulation requiring telcos to share their lines, most of them kicked companies like speakeasy out of their markets, regardless of what those ISPs' customers wanted. Then there's the Canadian case of Bell Canada throttling other ISPs' connections (again, without telling anyone, because companies don't want an informed marketplace).

The GATS and TRIPS are both examples of rich countries investing their most vigorous negotiating efforts on agendas where the gains will accrue overwhelmingly to companies located in rich countries. They are examples of a one-size-fits-all approach being imposed and, most strikingly, of rich countries now pulling up the ladder, trying to deny developing countries the very policy options that rich countries used to manage their own economic development.

http://www.cid.org.nz/advocacy/Phil_Twyford_-_CID_Trade_Forum.pdf

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs, such as higher priced medicines or seeds. This makes poverty reduction more difficult. The intensively researched, 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops, 17 working papers, an exhaustive literature review of the field, visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference. The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations. Topics include IP and health; agriculture; traditional knowledge; copyrights, software and the Internet; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests. The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science, law, ethics and economics. The Commissioners come from industry, government and academia* (see list of Commissioners below). "Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for develo

You seriously want to put people in jail for copyright infringement? So, someone downloads a 0.99$USD song illegally and you make a government waste thousands of dollars for this person?

Not him, but ACTA will do this. Interesting thing about ACTA is that the Kopyright Kartel Kompanies blame the secrecy on govermnents, and they blame one another. When kids start drawing prison terms for downloading 99-cent songs, the Kartel will claim they didn't want it and governments will claim they didn't want it, either. So kids will go to jail for 99-cent downloads ... because nobody wants it. From Michael Geist's summary of the October 2008 negotiations here

Day one focuses on criminal enforcement. The U.S. and Japan supply draft text of the criminal enforcement provisions. The proposal would extend criminal enforcement to both (1) cases of a commercial nature; and (2) cases involving significant willful copyright and trademark infringement even where there is no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain. The treaty would require each country to establish a laundry list of penalties - including imprisonment - sufficient to deter future acts of infringement (specific language is "include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines ..."

Ain't that grand? Nobody wants it, but it's coming. But its all a secret because nobody wants it to be secret either. Liars.

Ahaha. Oh, you. So naïve!

Funny how all the Europeans denouncing the USA are ignorant of the dirty arm twisting their governments are attempting to apply to Canada. Note that I live in europe & vote against this crap but too many here are just to ignorant to care.

While Michael Geist states that they are and that the US is deliberately blocking exports

The response from the U.S. is important as well. It is delaying market access to sugar from the developing country until the copyright reforms are in place. Until that time, Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S.

a technollama article that Geist cited does not seem to have the same opinion. They were not able to confirm a connection between the issues and in fact found information to the contrary.

I was able to track down some more information about this other than the poorly-reference Tico Times article. La Nación reported that the problem was first highlighted by sugar cane exporters in Costa Rica earlier this week. The exporters complained that they have 11.880 metric tonnes of sugar in storage, which has already been sold to American importers, but that cannot be sent because of CAFTA restrictions. The American embassy is quoted in that same article as stating that this has nothing to do with CAFTA, and that it is simply a matter of the country having reached its allocated sugar export quotas. This seems like an accurate appraisal of the situations, as I was unable to find a single reference outside of the Tico Times stating that the United States had threatened Costa Rica at all. In fact, raw cane sugar quotas for 2010 were announced by the U.S. Trade Representative back in September 2009, and are "based on the countries' historical shipments to the United States".

For reference, the ticotimes.net article simply stated

Yet, until the final piece is approved, the United States is delaying market access to sugar. Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S. unless legislators approve the last part, known as the 14th amendment.

but as the technollama article indicates, no one else has said this and it could not be confirmed.