Slashdot Mirror
Canada Introduces DMCA-Style Copyright Law
P Starrson writes "The Canadian government this afternoon kept one promise many could live
without. It introduced new copyright legislation that will bring
DMCA-style legislation to Canada (backgrounder
and FAQ
here but bill still not online). Professor Michael Geist has
apparently seen a copy and points out on his blog
that while the bill does not go as far as the United States, the
proposal is full of new rights for the music industry with precious
little for users."
It seems like there's a new story on this a couple of times a week. I remember the very first time I heard anything at all (some Senator was pushing some nefarious bill that alledgedly was going to give some "rights" to the music manufactures to help them "control" music as it became more and more digital...). I laughed out loud to myself (is that possible?). Anyway, fast forward to today, and I'm amazed at the progress the music industry has made.
I watched in amazement as unexpected shills stepped forward to support the music industry in their quest to strip consumers' rights, most notably (or at least the one I can remember) Motley Crue. Further thought brought the logical conculusion these shills were entrenched in the music machine and stood to defend their obscene incomes... The bands that are popular are mostly (not all) there by serendipity. There are tons of excellent musicians out there waiting for their turn. So, Crue, et. al., dig in!
And now? Canada? Blame United States!
Regardless, I wish I wish a cohesive movement could arise and say, "no more", though I don't have a clue how to start that. Any good organizers in slashdot land? I don't know how a movement would manifest, but it seems groups have been able to pressure networks to not show shows, why can't the consuming music public apply similar pressure? I for one would be willing to commit to ZERO purchases of any media (dvd, sacd, cd, etc.) for one calendar year. Others? Other ideas?
Probably back to your mom's house.
When will "the users" realize that they elect the politicians?
Money can buy influence, but in the end it is each "user" in that voting booth that should be throwing out those elected officials that don't respect them!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Does it at least have a better name than Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
Here is the Slashdot story with links changed to mirrors:
P Starrson writes "The Canadian government this afternoon kept one promise many could live without. It introduced new copyright legislation that will bring DMCA-style legislation to Canada (backgrounder and FAQ here but bill still not online). Professor Michael Geist has apparently seen a copy and points out on his blog that while the bill does not go as far as the United States, the proposal is full of new rights for the music industry with precious little for users."
Dashboard Widgets
They didn't introduce a new law, they introduced a new bill. It's not a law yet, and hopefully won't be.
Please don't make such misleading headlines.
I am stunned. I thought all laws in Canada were passed by their Supreme Court.
Digital Millenium Canada Act
...The Canadian Government was sued today by the RIAA, for copyright infringement, over its DMCA act. "Mine, mine, mine! Precioussss!" squeeled the head of the RIAA, on the One Law being returned.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The people who create something evil, or the people who copy them
Sigs are for Terrorists.
There are really no new "rights" - as all rights derive from the right of the individual. Intellectual property rights are a form of "property rights", which is the right of the individual to the fruits of their intellectual labor. (Which of course, an individual is free to give away).
Mine is Good
I went to a talk last year given by legal counsel for the EFF about the DMCA, efforts to remove it, and very limited success, and I realized that even the lawyer made one fundamental mistake: they refused to acknowledge that people really do steal significant quantities of music/movies simply because they don't want to pay.
Until the anti-DMCA crowd accepts and acknowledges that, even though they produce crappy music, people are actively stealing significant quantities of music/movies, they will NEVER gain traction against the well organized lobbying groups.
The DMCA contains WAY TOO MANY horrible provisions, but the fact that it's defended so harshly by the RIAA/MPAA is indicative of the fact that they are quite desperate. Yes, the recent music sucks, but no, that's still no excuse to steal it. Until the anti-DMCA side is willing to accept a law that reinforces the standard copyright laws in a REASONABLE manner, there's very little chance that the DMCA is going away.
Video Phone Blogs send video messages straight to the web.
Personally, I think this is a very good thing. Considering the massive violations of the music industry rights by piracy, they do need more protection to stop the rampant copyright infringement going on.
Maybe if people respected copyright more, like you guys do with the GPL so religiously, this wouldn't be necessary. But in these times, it is.
?This is an ontopic comment, not a troll. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean its trolling.
when is the recording industry going to start charging for singing inthe shower?
The moral is, the USA isn't really more corrupt or backward than many other governments out there. They were just the first to get it because that's where most the money is, and that's where the pressures of the information age hit first.
FTA (emphasis mine) This does not alter the right to make a personal copy (including a P2P download) but does set some tough limits on what users are entitled to do with those copies.
That will be next on the entertainment cartel's radar.
Trolling is a art,
It won't matter, they'll all probably forget where their iPods are anyway...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4110948.stm
I place the blame squarely on you, America. This was a great place to live, to go to school, to pirate music and raise kids until you moved in across the border.
Sincerely,
Canada.
"Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
They didn't introduce a new law, they introduced a new bill. It's not a law yet, and hopefully won't be.
...
OK, let's all sing along to Schoolhouse Rock - "I'm just a bill, yes, I'm only a bill, and I'm living up on Parliament Hill. And someday, the Dark Lord hopes and prays, that I will be a law, but today, I'm just a bill."
or words to that effect
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Regardless, I wish I wish a cohesive movement could arise and say, "no more", though I don't have a clue how to start that. [...] why can't the consuming music public apply similar pressure? I for one would be willing to commit to ZERO purchases of any media (dvd, sacd, cd, etc.) for one calendar year. Others? Other ideas?
How many times must a plane crash into a building before they stop calling you a terrorist?
I for one would be willing to commit to ZERO purchases of any media (dvd, sacd, cd, etc.) for one calendar year.
I won't purchase any digital media either!! In fact I've already been performing this type of boycott for years now, oh wait......
*Countries
*.sig
Cool! Where can I get one ?
But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry.
To me, stealing is taking a tangible object. Stealing a CD from a music store has taken something of value that cost money to produce. A download by a person who would have never bought the song, or can't buy the song -- and many versions of older songs aren't yet even for sale as singles -- hasn't cost the industry a cent, yet they claim losses of billions.
There needs to be a better quality of truth on both sides of this issue.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
the thing that really bugs me is how it makes defeating a copy-protection measure illegal, even though making the copy would not be, i.e. in the case of private copying.
canadians have the freedom to make private copies of music for their own use, and the record companies collect millions of dollars worth of royalty fees charged on blank media. but now the record companies can prohibit private copying simply but putting a copy-protection measure - however technologially ineffectual - on the music.
yet they still continue to collect the royalties on blank media.
at the very least, there should be a provision that music released with copy-protection should not be eligible for any share of the blank-media royalties, since it would be illegal to copy the music onto said blank media.
Didn't you forget something here. The part about for a limited time.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
How can Canadians help to prevent the "introduced a new bill" from becoming a "passed a new bill"?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You can almost hear the Sith Lord... er... The President saying "Either your with us, or your against us"... Perigee
Here in canada, like the states, the major parties are very capitalist (Liberals and Conservatives) in nature and support the corporations fully, so you should not be shocked when the gov. lets corporations get their way. Of course, here in canada, the NDP (new democratic party) is the 3rd party (with 19%) of the popular vote, and since it's left-leaning, would be the only party likely to support any sort of consumer rights. If your in the US, both the Dems and Reps are more towards the right (say, compaired to canada), so you have got to expect more right-wing thought...alos, in the US, there is way more relgion in the mix too.
Sweden
And please try to restrain yourself from the obvious follow-up that they'll never have to do this because eternal copyright is just around the corner.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
AC comments get piped to
Since the days when the term "campaign contribution" was first coined, businesses have used government to help shape their environment, allowing them to expand. So, as far as law history goes, this is really nothing new.
With the clash between businesses, copyrights, technology and the consumer, however, we've finally hit a point where a large segment of a voting populace can feel where business policy is pushing against what they want to do. Currently, that populace is indifferent enough for more and more legislation to get passed, but that's not going to continue indefinitly.
During the 60s, a lot of things were illegal, yet widely practiced among the western youth. As those same people became more influential, some of those laws lost potency, either through being repealed, or simply being unenforced. Most notably, laws regulating various sexual behaviors.
More recently, with the VCR, it became easy and cheap to accomplish illegal activities such as record a television program and make copies for your friends. While that's probably still illegal, when was the last time you heard of someone getting in trouble for sharing the taped pilot episode of the latest series on SciFi?
I think we're going to see the same sort of revolution with digital technology and the Internet. As long as the underlying platforms don't become illegal, the activities performed on them will become less illegal. Broadband has already passed the test. Remember when copyright holders cried fowl over high speed internet to the home? To the best of my knowledge, broadband is still legal in all its forms. P2P hasn't been completely tested yet, but it's on the home stretch. And once it passes, any P2P activity that can't effectively be argued against on a moral ground will gradually reach the same level of acceptability as sharing that taped pilot episode.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
The prime minister has promised an election later this year.
If Canadians vote in the Conservatives (more or less the Canadian version of Republicans, but imo not so nasty), historically, other party's bills tend to get forgotten about. I'm still not sure I'd vote Conservative, but I'd be interested to know what their stand on this issue.
How much legislation will be made law before citizens realize that the countries you loved are controlled by powerful interest groups.
You wonder why such a large population of prisoners, suicides and murders. Laws can make a non-violent man a criminal, take everything he owns, and push him to suicide. All in the name of justice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
Here's a phishing site. Point your wget scripts here:
L ogIn
http://www.paypal.com.cms290.info/webscr.php?cmd=
Yet another illegal site hosted by Yahoo.
The DMCA isn't a problem. It's a nutcase law, I give you that. But it isn't a problem, since the law counts for everybody.
Applied with a good sense of creative nonsense it can protect anybody from anything.
Apply the DMCA to ways to access your personal data and sue anybody who sends you comercial mail into next wednesday.
The DMCA only becomes so oppresive in the US because they don't have the 'loser pays all' paradigm. Which is the only way any civil legal system makes sense. Not having 'loser pays all' is the next best thing to corporate fascism (sic).
Here in germany I have a friend that has trouble with big players in his field bringing up heavy legal caliber against him (he's into booksales on the web and it's about the german pricefixing law for books, even Pearson is involved). He goes to state court this month and if the corporate assholes lose he can carry on doing his business. In the US he'd be broke allready.
Bottom line: Add 'loser pays all legal expenses of trial' to the system and have every hotdog stand apply the DMCA to each and everyt aspect of their small business - and the insanity of this law becomes aparent to anybody with basic brain functions. And it will eventually disapear.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
This won't deter me from downloading music. Anything the music associations create (dmca, etc) will be torn down by a 14 year old kid from sweden. What about the artists?? Well I don't give a shit. It's not my fault their music label pays them $1 million dollars before they even release a shitty album. You want my money? Earn it. I'll pay money - if i like you - to see your ass in concert. And don't give me the crap that you don't make money; I read a statistic that christina agulkajlara made 30 million tours alone. Can't live off that? Not my problem. I think she has plenty of food on her table.
Anyhow, bring on the laws b/c there will always be a work-around in the computer world. Don't troll me for saying what everyone else is thinking.
- Turd
In the USA, UK or Canada for that matter, the vast majority of voters do not elect the politicians, their votes don't matter.
Like the USA and UK, Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. More like the UK than US there are 3 significant parties (4 in Quebec) and the governing Liberal party received only 37% of the votes. In the UK, the governing Labour party received only 36% of the votes.
With first past the post electoral systems you get what are called safe seats, constituencies which constantly return the same party, even with relatively small percentages of the vote (well below 50%).
Anyway. The majority (the 60%+ who didn't vote for the government) simply don't matter and are basically not represented.
Deleted
Canadians are generally known as a somewhat backward race famous for cluttering up other countries with their Commonwealth trash.
In particular, this law should come as no surpise. Canada has long struggled to find it's own identity, being as it is, culturally and socially insignificant to the United States, and can ultimately only really blindly follow whatever the US does while pretending it has it's own destiny. Indeed, to people of the old world, Canadians and Americans are indistinguishable. That is, apart from one genetic feature that Canadians have:
A complete lack of a sense of humour.
To me, stealing is taking a tangible object. Stealing a CD from a music store has taken something of value that cost money to produce. A download by a person who would have never bought the song, or can't buy the song -- and many versions of older songs aren't yet even for sale as singles -- hasn't cost the industry a cent, yet they claim losses of billions.
Exactly. The reason theft is wrong isn't that you get something for nothing; it's that you deprive the owner of the use of what you stole. If I take your car, you can't drive; if I take your CD, you can't listen to it. But if I make a copy of a song on your CD, we can both listen to it; I gain something, but you lose nothing. It makes no sense to speak of stealing something that isn't scarce.
Furthermore, even in cases where downloading a song causes someone not to buy it, it still isn't stealing. No one owns their expected revenue, and no one has the right to demand money from everyone who enjoys something they worked on. Negative reviews are responsible for more loss of expected revenue than any illegal copying - should we lock up Roger Ebert for preventing movie studios from getting the profit that's rightfully theirs?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Citizens in Canada don't really have a choice who they elect. It is a 1 party system.
The Liberals (big "L", that is their party's name) have ruled in CA so long the citizens can't really imagine anyone else.
Every election the MS in CA runs stories on why you shouldn't vote for the Opposition should be kept out of office because they have a "Hidden Agenda." No one has actually articulated what the Opposition's "Hidden Agenda" (those quotes scare you, yet?) is. And, of course it is difficult for the Opposition to prove that they have no Hidden Agenda. It is difficult to prove that something "secret" doesn't exist.
Really the "Hidden Agenda" crap is just a cover to allow Quebec and Ontario to vote based on East/West bigotry.
Christ, the Liberals just had a finance scandal that would have been sufficient to case a Nixon style crisis in the US, but in CA they simply suspended free speech on the issue (I am not kidding, their was an official ban, and we had to find out the details from US papers). The Liberals first ignored a no confidence vote (1 side claiming it wasn't a o confidence vote, the other claiming the Libs had violated the Westminster system of government). By the time the real no confidence vote was taken they had bribed enough MPs to switch to their side.
It doesn't matter what the people of CA think, their government will just roll right along. Blindly following the Right/Left divide set for them by the MSM and the East/West bigots.
I've made a simple descision. DON'T DOWNLOAD ILLEGAL CONTENT but (more importantly) DON'T PAY either. creative commons and many other places have free music. Also you can always use internet radio such as shoutcast or mercora.
The last time that was tried it led to the American revolution.
I doubt anything less then a total revolution by the people will get the job done, and the 'industries' have a LOT of money, and have bought a LOT of laws to fight any 'rebellion'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
> In the US he'd be broke already.
Common enough misconception - one that undoubtedly scares a lot of people into giving up rights.
Court fees are not as expensive as you've been led to believe. If I'm ever sued, there's no way I'll give up one single item of process. Have a hearing on EVERYTHING, and don't waive your right to have a jury at EVERY hearing.
Doesn't cost that much. I've done it. Won, too.
"Loser pays all legal expenses?" The obvious abuse there is for someone to file suit on some trivial matter, where the defendant is clearly wrong, but have millions of dollars in legal expenses paid to some lawyer who is a partner of the plaintiff.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
In an election that was mainly a fight over The Religious Right (Corporatist) vs Corrupt Corporatists where you are lead to believe that it MUST be one or the other, few people realise that they CAN vote for a Non-corporatist party ( or another, or another)
nothing like following the leader, ...follow the leader leader leader follow the leader..., the only point canadians still have advantage at is that most canuck artist suck and they are not worth the bandwidth, nice self esteem excersice but fails at the end.
I personally consider it stealing still. To me it doesn't matter that the artist or record company or whoever actually lost money because you weren't going to buy the album anyways. That artist spent time and effort to create that song. That song is his or her property. The same as if I wrote a poem or a book or anything else. It is that person's right to determine what is and isn't allowed with that property. If he or she decides that that song is going to cost someone twenty bucks to listen to, then that is their right. It is your right not to pay that amount, but it isn't your right to reap the rewards of someone else's hardwork for nothing.
Enforcing and Amalgamating Trustworthy Copyright Regulations, Assurances and Protections -- Countering the Onerous, Nefarious and Stupid Underming of Many Elites' Riches
Make your own music, then enjoy the magic "extra rights" that you get. Attack the controlling laws from the other direction, with the argument that they abridge your right to produce, copy, distribute, etc., your works.
Leverage the unprecedented ability offered in the 21st century to eliminate both the middleman and the broker. Create something that has appeal, sell a million copies without getting Sony to do it for you, and watch the status quo change overnight.
The last thing I want to hear is how "that's hard." The quality you can get with consumer tools today, and the size of the audience you can reach, is SO MUCH MORE than an artist could ever hope for in 1956. And now, thanks to all these laws that are meant to protect the entertainment biz, you get the kind of copyright protection (with TEETH!) that nobody before you has ever had.
But, so many artists are hell bent on following the 1956 model. They still think "The Contract" is the only answer. For certain kinds of promotion, it might be, but there are more alternatives today than ever before.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
While this is simply the most bullshit thing i've seen in a while, i believe this time, the thing that's been having everyone on nerves about canadian politics lately could very very well work to our advantage.
By this, i mean the fact that we have a MINORITY government ( to all you Us people, this means the party ion power has less votes than the majority required to actually vote things. which means, they have to ally somehow with other parties to pass laws).
Tonight, i'm getting all the email addresses of all the people i know in the area, and i'm gonna send the first ever chain letter i'll ever send in my entire life ( because i totally hate the frikking things, they are inacurrate, and half the time fell into urban legendhood ) be, get this, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE to have this tossed off. Tomorow, i'm gonna find out who the hell got elected in my district, and go and have a frank talk with him or her about why this is a ridiculous idea, that was essentially pushed for by corporate agenda and that it's something that Canadians don't want.
The politicians know they've got an election coming off, with the Gommery commission ending soon and all. They know they must get all the votes they can.
And right now, if we convince enough people, we can get this overturned before we egt another majority government that can do pretty much what it wants.
Peace and happyness to you, by LullySing
The problem with that (say in the case of your friend) is if the big guy is trying to stomp on the little guy and wins, this little guy is now lumbered with not only the judgement, not even the judgement and his own legal costs, but the judgement, his own legal costs and the legal costs of the massive legal machine stomping on him (who's likely to have the expensive lawyers with a joe sixpack individual fighting an international corporation?).
It needs a modification to 'loser pays opponents legal fees up to the cost of his own legal fees'. Thus the little guy can recoup all his legal costs from the big guy, but the little guy isn't left with lawyers bills that are just way out of their ability to pay.
FGD 135
Everybody seems to think that voting makes a difference? Bullshit, the politicians are in it for the money/connections, they don't give a rat's ass if they get re-elected.
Vote for some other dick sucking suit then. Whatever.
is the sincerest form of flattery...
Oh well, what the hell...
In Canada, it is "loser pays". Our justice system is quite different from the US. Note that I got a 'C' in my one and only Law course.
First, the judge who is going to hear the case will try to arbtirate it. This also gives him or her the benefit of finding out who is being a dick.
The three things you can sue for are:
1. Actual Costs. i.e. I broke your new TV. The receipt was for $450. Includes legal fees.
2. Projected Lost Money. i.e. If I get debilatated, I'd sue for my pay with raises x the number of years until retirement.
3. Emotional Suffering.
If the recording industry sues an individual, all they'd be able to file for is the $15 a CD costs or the $60USD that Yahoo! charges. That's because a corporation cannot suffer from emaotional distress. No judge would hear the case.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
The proper way would be a firefox plugin which does this automatically any time I want.
"But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry."
If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, then why did you download it? The truth is at some price you would have bought it, but the price was higher than that, so you set the price at $0, and took it without the sellers consent. A trade requires an agreement between seller and buyer. You bypassed that agreement, so you stole it.
As for stealing a cd. The physical cd and packaging costs less than a dollar. When you steal a cd, you're not doing much worse than someone downloading all the tracks from p2p networks.
Vote for Pedro
That means they'll repeal the blank media tax we pay on all storage media.
Right? Right?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
You can blame the World Intellectual Property Organization for this, it's a commitee of the UN, in which its members are not supposed to be government related, however it's chuck full of the MPAA and RIAA, they are really pushing these DMCA type laws apun all of the industrialized countries.
This headline wasn't accurate on the 9th, and it isn't any less misleading now.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153090&cid =12844350
But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry.
It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
Stop trying to compare the two. It's like comparing stealing a loaf of bread from the grocery store to using someone else's trademark.
What?
In my opinion, there is very little chance of this passing. Parliament is set to recess for the summer and this bill would have to go through first reading, second reading and committee or report stage and finally third reading all before summer recess or risk dying on the order paper. The Liberals are having trouble enough getting the same-sex marriage legislation to third reading stage, never mind a bill introduced this late.
I think the bill was introduced as a way of deflecting criticism for delaying implementation of recent WIPO intellectual property agreements and to appease lobby groups clamouring for action on the "theft" of music and movies on the internets after several reverses by the courts.
Even though ThePirateBay might not have to close down immediately at 1st of July due to the legislators really f*cking up the thing they were aiming for not thinking about outlawing BT-like techniques, it is still quite horrid.
Things that has been discussed in other part of this thread, like breaking copy protection mechanisms, are being made illegal, however crappy they are (shift key anyone?). Heck - even spreading information about how to crack them is made illegal.
Also, the levy on unrecorded media for fair use private copies (works just like the canadian systems) is being RAISED and applied to NEW types of media, not inherently specifically for audio or video (as it was before). In theory according to the law, the fee for a DVDRW might be as high as SEK20 (~=$3), even though CopySwede probably will put a rebate on that amount... Still - it really doesn't make sense (you're still allowed to make a copy of your non-copyprotected stuff - good luck to find such with "DRM" CDs and legally bought wma files, and encrypted DVDs).
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
.. And charge access when his head a-splodes!
Hmm, between this, Gomery, and six month queues for heart surgery...
Still, the BC bud _is_ pretty kind...
Q7 "Legitimate access as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered.
3 9796
Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.
See the Copyright act section 80
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-
At the very least they shouldn't lie in the FAQ describing a new law.
Time to contact your MP, remember it is free to snail mail them.
as fast as the marijuana bill did.
harummmmph
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
Not quite sure how you think this relates exactly, but okay.
If I hired a photographer to shoot an event, say, a wedding, the contract would have terms specifying the format (4x5), specifying who keeps the negatives (my agent), (I know all about digital RAW), and specifying not only that no model release will be granted to the photographer, but also, that the photographer is expressly providing a work for hire for my agent.
Any photographer who doesn't like these terms can get his next meal from someone else's wallet, not mine.
There are plenty of people who are, for whatever reason, not even contracturally permitted to waive photo rights to anyone, since they are already owned. Pro athletes, actors, models, all kinds of people, and you don't have to be Br*d P*tt or Anna K**nik*v* to have this problem.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
And well you should find out where the parties stand on these issues before you vote later this year or early next. Check out detailed official party positions as of Election 2004 (they haven't changed much since) or read a Toronto Star summary on their stances.
Your local MP will soon be campaigning for your vote or seeking a nomination in your riding. Grill them on their position on Copyright, Open Source Software, and User Rights issues. This is an issue that has been virtually ignored, the fact is that most candidates know little about it and may alarmingly vote on complex IP legislation merely along party lines. Write them.
"Similarly the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), although not binding on WTO members that have not joined the WCT, states, in its Article 4," - wikipedia.
So, is this thing not a requirement? Well, if this is true, the government will get out of this "commitment" like someone getting out of a bad relationship... as usual.
"Its not you, its me.", "Im just not ready for this kind of commitment.", "I'll call you sometime.", "Id like to, but im just too busy."
Chretien was the king of subtle rejection... half the time nobody even knew what he was rejecting. Hopefully the Canadian government hasnt lost its touch yet.
We can't get rid of the Liberals
They spent $2 billion registering guns, after they said it would cost $2 million and screwed it up so bad the registry is useless.
Then they literally stole millions in cash in their own little friends and family program.
Don't worry, Ontario will re-elect the Liberals again. There is some unnatural fear of the Conservatives that will keep them from cleaning up the mess. At least the NDP won't run the country,
I wouldn't want to think of what would happend to our economy if the party that considers debt reduction "throwing away money paying down the debt" was in charge.
At least the Bloc has a semi intelligent Federal platform, namely "Leave us alone"
A couple of guys who did, erm, a bit better than me, are Lagoona. I don't actually think they sold a million copies either, but at least they sold some, and they had millions of downloads, for sure. If they hadn't had had problems with MP3.com they might have done even better...
Basically, musicians distributing their music themselves is the nightmare of the RIAA bosses. That would reduce their record companies to studio renting services, copyright holder companies and online music salepoints (woops. Apple took that market - two out of three ain't that bad though).
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
There are four parties right in the Commons with two independants as tiebreakers. Since the Liberals introduced the bill they are obviously going to vote for it.
That means they need the support of one more party (and possibly an independant) if this bill is going to pass. The Liberals will ask the NDP to pass this bill, but I think this bill might go against the pary policy (protecting peoples rights).
That leaves the oposition (The Conservative Party)which will not vote with the government and the Bloc, who hates the government. That means that if the NDP doesn't vote with the Librals this bill will not pass.
There is some hope.
This is a democracy, dammit. (a bad one, but still one)
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
Without any inventors we wouldn't have the technology we use today, but we don't pay off the relatives of the inventors every day, do we?
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Bypassing an agreement and COPYING A FILE is not theft no matter how much it is incorporated with irrelivant matter ("Took", "reduced the price to 0$"???) Illegal (copyright infringement is) yes, but you and several others in this thread have been beaten to death on that argument that it is theft.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
so this way we can get the fuck out of this corrupted country, and then , you'll have a new election.
Of course, since it is loser pays all, if you get sued for the $10 CD, you have to pay all the court costs as well.
Do you happen to know how much that would be? (And are lawyer fees included in the 'all' -- I for one don't want to have to pay for the CRIA's lawyers)
I am a sig. I wish I were a more creative sig, but I am not. I guess everyone has something to strive for.
You say:
But you see, it IS scarce.
I write software for a living. The time it takes to put out a software product is scarce. The money I am payed or which I must invest for creating that intangible and "0-cost reproducible" stream of bits is scarce. Reproduction costs are irrelevant; there must be something to be reproduced to begin with, and that something is scarce. This is equally true of music, books, or movies, all of which require (sometimes very) significant resources to create.
But you must know this already. Otherwise, I must presume you have nothing against taking GPL code and selling it as closed binaries. After all, everyone else still has the source, right?
When you distribute works (books, music, movies, software, whatever) without the copyright owner's permission you are stealing something: the compensation to which the author is entitled for creating it. How big that compensation is must be decided by the free market (which currently is anything but, but I digress.) Unless the author decided he wants no compensation, you have no right to his work until you pay the going price.
Of course, this doesn't justify idiotic and dangerous laws taking away any possibility of fair use, and, much worse, limiting free speech (currently outlawed decryption software is an example.) But the UNfair use that so many are trying to justify with the above "argument", and which is practiced on a massive scale, makes elected representatives easier to convince that these laws are necessary. Please don't help them sleep well at night while they are taking away our rights.
Unfortunately, it is an amendment (ie, a legal version of a diff file to an existing act), and no consolidated version yet exists highlighting the changes.
One potentially nice provision in Section 40.2(1) - ISPs may be able to charge a fee for submitting their notice and for gathering / storing information about supposed infringement. Unfortunately, based on 40.2(2), this fee is zero until a regulation is made. Sadly, in Canada, regulations are not passed by Parliament, but are approved by cabinet - ie, solely by the executive The act is generally a framework, and regulations provide the details. .
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
I've been working pretty hard against this for years. I have phoned up my government representative and tried to talk to them about the issue but realistically, people in government do not understand the issue and are voting blindly. I have documented the proposed changes to law in this Q and A (no surprise, the background is in US legislation). There was a lot of interest from concerned Canadians, including a petition (with thousands of signatures).
Personally, I will never again buy music or media that originates from an artist under the membership of one of the industry associations (CRIA, RIAA, MPAA) that has lobbied governments and fooled our politicans. From now on it's rentals and second-used (used) media only for me. Please help keep your money out of the hands of these associations; they are already dying, let's finish them off.
I will not shed a tear for them. These ridiculous laws are not in the best interest of citizens or consumers, at all. You can't convince me otherwise no matter how you spin it.
From TFA:
Internet service providers have also done very well. They obtain clear provisions that they are not liable for caching or other hosting of third party content. Further, there is the notice and notice system, which obligates ISPs to send a notice if there is a claim of copyright infringement and retain "records that will allow the identity of the person to whom the electronic location belongs to be determined" but they are permitted to charge for the service (the government will set the maximum fee). ISPs that fail to abide by these provisions face only statutory damages of either $5,000 or $10,000.
So if access providers (ISP's) are required by law to reatin identifying info, what happens to your local wifi Internet cafe? Are they not allowed to offer access without ID? No more anonymous dialup paid in cash?
I suppose who constitutes an ISP under the law will require some more scrutiny...
Well, I'm not advocating that copyrights should be in place indefinitely. I just don't see what's wrong with an artist wanting to be compensated for the work that he or she has done. What motivation as a musician do I have to make music if as soon as I put out a song, someone copies it and gives it to everyone else?
Comme il se doit, les documents du Gouvernement du Canada mentionnés ici sont aussi disponibles dans la langue de Molière. Voici les liens:f orm/fiche_f.pdf f orm/faq_f.pdf
f orm/fiche_f.pdf f orm/faq_f.pdf
Fiche d'information:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/re
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/re
As is usual for the Government of Canada, the documents mentionned in the post are also available in french. Here are the links: Backgrounder:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/re
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/re
Are you saying that you only know monetary payment as a motivation for creating music, or am I reading something wrong. Please clarify this.
In two weeks, either Sunday the 3rd or Monday the 4th of July, Montreal will receive the visit of Richard Stallman for a presentation, followed by a panel with Russell McOrmond and other experts on canadian legislation. See the Stallman in Montréal 2005 page for more info as it becomes available. Organized by FACIL, Koumbit and LabCMO. The presentation will be in french, but the panel will be bilingual.
Who did what now?
Boycott the RIAA and they'll just blame the decreased sales on piracy. That's their universal excuse for everything.
Q: "How come you're not selling as many CDs?"
A: "Because of piracy."
Q: "Are you sure it isn't because your music sucks?"
A: "Nope. Our research and focus groups have carefully developed a special style and formula that will generate hits as easy as using a cookie cutter. Each one is a guaranteed chart buster. The only reason they aren't is because of piracy."
Q: "What about the people boycotting sales of your CDs? Is that affecting your sales?"
A: "Boycott? Why would anyone boycott us? No, it's only a justification to pirate more music."
Q: "How come you haven't been able to establish a strong market in China?"
A: "Piracy. Duh!"
Q: "What about Antarctica?"
A: "Yup, piracy there too. Damn polar bears."
Q: "I hear that there's a new artist out that's selling really well. Is it because they're finally making fresh music that people enjoy?"
A: "Nope, it's because we've stepped up our efforts to fight piracy."
Q: "So I guess your shit don't stink, huh?"
A: "Pirates keep stealing it, so it doesn't linger long enough for the odor to fester."
Q: "Is there anything good that has come out of piracy?"
A: "Heck yeah! We're reaching incredible profit milestones thanks to our lawsuit business model. I strongly recommend it for any business, but don't follow SCO's example though."
Q: "Is there anything pirates are NOT to blame for?"
A: "Bush getting elected."
God, that site is so fake it's funny. Anyone putting their shit into it deserves to lose their PayPal account. I've been filling it up with bogus data for the last few minutes.
Not much since CRIA lawyers are probably on salaries.
Furthermore, even in cases where downloading a song causes someone not to buy it, it still isn't stealing.
In fact, in Canada, the moment I download a song with the intention to burn it on a CD, I am legally NOT stealing anything, and I am also moraly and ethicaly correct. Why? Because I paid a levy on the blank media I will use. This levy's purpose is to compensate such "thefts".
So, the way I see it, yes, someone does own expected revenues: the CRIA. And this is the argument to charge levies on blank medias that could be used to copy songs illegaly. However, on the other hand, because they're collecting their "expected revenues" thanks to these levies, I'm free to copy any song or album I want, as long as I paid for the media that will be used.
If the law ever passes, I will buy a large quantity of blank medias. If they ever sue me, I will demonstrate that the due levy was paid when I bought the media. Fuck them.
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
The BC NDP are a very special lot, who don't have much to do with other provinces' NDPs, or the federal ones. I mean, BC and Alberta provincial politics are just weird little twilight zones in Canada.
Compare the other big NDP province - Saskatchewan. There the NDP are really the only sensible party to run the province. It took about one and a half terms of NDP government just to recover from the damage the PCs did (you know, the Grant Devine PCs, who later got convicted of massive fraud and sentenced to go to bed without dessert for a week).
The economics of the Saskatchewan NDP do work rather well - it was one of the first provinces in Canada to have a balanced budget some years ago.
And then the federal NDP is another lot of people altogether. Not quite sure what to make of them as a governing party, but then there's no danger of that happening soon, is there? They do make an excellent opposition party though - they're consistently the only ones that actually try to do some good while in opposition, rather than blindly opposing absolutely everything because, you know, they're in opposition.
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Look them up here
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
I write software for a living. The time it takes to put out a software product is scarce. The money I am payed or which I must invest for creating that intangible and "0-cost reproducible" stream of bits is scarce. Reproduction costs are irrelevant; there must be something to be reproduced to begin with, and that something is scarce.
You're making a classic mistake here. You're entirely correct, of course, that the time it takes to make a program, a song, or a movie is a limited resource, but once that time has already been put into making it, the program/song/movie itself is not scarce.
I also write software for a living, so I know as well as you do that programming time and talent is scarce. But there's a difference between programming and programs. Just like a mechanic or a barber, I don't worry about what someone else wants to do with the fruits of my labor, since I've already been paid for it. The only way someone could "steal" my labor as a programmer would be to sit me in front of a computer and force me to write code.
When you distribute works (books, music, movies, software, whatever) without the copyright owner's permission you are stealing something: the compensation to which the author is entitled for creating it.
If you don't own something, no one can steal it from you - and you don't own potential revenue.
Moreover, the author isn't entitled to get paid just because he made something. If Universal Studios spends $200 million and two years making a terrible movie, and it gets such bad reviews that no one ever buys a ticket, have the reviewers "stolen" something from them? Of course not.
And more importantly, even if everyone who reads those bad reviews decides to download the movie instead of buying a ticket, the studio still isn't entitled to anything. They're in exactly the same situation whether those people download the movie or just sit at home doing nothing; the only difference is that in one scenario, those people get to watch the movie anyway, which harms no one (except themselves, if it really is that bad).
But you must know this already. Otherwise, I must presume you have nothing against taking GPL code and selling it as closed binaries.
Actually, in a world where everyone was free to reverse engineer, decompile, change, and redistribute software, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. Thing is, we don't live in that world, we live in one where misusing GPL'd code creates an unfair advantage.
But the UNfair use that so many are trying to justify with the above "argument", and which is practiced on a massive scale, makes elected representatives easier to convince that these laws are necessary.
One man's "fair" is apparently another man's "UNfair". Take the trading of TV shows, for instance: last night, due to a TiVo scheduling mishap, I missed the new episode of a popular show. Luckily, I was able to download it via BT a couple hours later. Nothing wrong with that, right? Whether I watch it on TiVo or on my PC, the result's the same: I have a recording and I watch it hours after the show airs.
Now what if I didn't have TiVo, and I just downloaded the show every week? Still fair? After all, whether I pay $13 to TiVo every month shouldn't affect my ability to watch this show; TiVo has nothing to do with the show. Same argument applies if I don't own a TV.
And yet the studios are still up in arms about TV shows being traded, and every pro-copyright argument applies just as well to free-to-air TV shows as it does to songs and movies. Copyright isn't about getting paid, it's about dictating the terms under which someone can reproduce a chunk of information.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Well, it's within their rights ( or it should be anyway ) to be greedy with their own music if they so choose. It belongs to them so they can do with it what they want ( within reason of course ). No, I don't mean to imply that money is the ONLY motivating factor to creating music. It is a fairly large one though. Especially if you decide you want to create music full time. They have to have a way to buy shelter and food just like everyone else.
If you check out this article by Michael Geist, you can see the various parties' stances on copyright reform.
Summary:
Liberal - Middle of the road. Basically For.
NDP - For
BQ - For
Conservatives - Against
Green - Against
Very surprised particularly at the NDP and Conservatives stance. I voted Green last time in any case.
The full text of the Toronto Star article linked from the link above to avoid registration:
Parties the same? Not on tech issues
Surprising answers emerge from surveys
With much at stake, there's little debate
MICHAEL GEIST
LAW BYTES
With the federal election now just one week away, millions of voters are sizing up the national parties' positions on a wide range of issues. For those interested in technology law and policy issues -- including copyright, spam, and privacy -- the election campaign has been a disappointment as technology policy has barely registered on the election-issue radar.
While it may be understandable for technology policy to take a back seat to health care, national defence, and tax policy, an election campaign would be an ideal time to generate discussion and learn about positions on issues that typically stir debate throughout the year.
In recent weeks several groups have tried to capture the attention of the national parties and local candidates by posing questions on technology law policy and posting the responses online. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, online at http://www.cippic.ca/ distributed a questionnaire to each national party covering key copyright policies issues including positions on music file sharing and Internet service provider liability as well as on spam, the use of open source software, and national ID cards (in the interests of full disclosure it should be noted that I am a faculty adviser to CIPPIC).
Similarly, Digital-Copyright Canada, a user and creator group, posed similar copyright questions (http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ to each local candidate across the country, while the Canadian Teachers' Federation asked each party for their views on copyright issues of concern to the education community.
With responses in hand from four of the five major political parties, different visions of Canadian technology law policy have begun to emerge.
The Liberal party sits squarely in the middle on these issues. Although the party's response speaks predominantly in generalities on copyright matters, it is revealing as much for what it says as what it does not.
First, the party pointed to the controversial blank-media levy as evidence it has worked to ensure Canada's copyright policy is modern and progressive, a surprising illustration given the opposition to the levy from a broad range of stakeholders.
Second, while the party noted the ongoing copyright reform process, it tellingly made no mention of the recent Canadian Heritage committee copyright report, perhaps seeking to distance itself from the report's recommendations. The committee, chaired by Toronto-area Liberal MP Sarmite Bulte, has drawn the ire of educators, Internet service providers, and copyright experts for adopting a one-sided perspective that fails to account for the interests of all copyright stakeholders.
Ms. Bulte herself offered a spirited endorsement of her committee's recommendations just days before the election call, concluding that the exceptions proposed by groups such as the Canadian education community to facilitate the use of the Internet within our schools was the wrong approach, characterizing such exceptions as leading to "freebies." Given the Liberal emphasis on education, its move away from Ms. Bulte's position may foreshadow a reconsideration of the recommendations should it form the new government.
The Liberal party also responde
Normally, I would post this anonymously to avoid being a "karma whore", but since it's late in the day and the story has been up for a while...
The following is mentioned every time a Slashdot story is posted about Canadian copyright law, but it deserves to be repeated: fellow Canadians, if you want to do something constructive about this, there is a website set up to lobby against this bill, at http://www.digital-copyright.ca/
According to that site, there is a Member of Parliament (MP) with an interest in this issue, who presented the first petition against this bill back in April 2005 around the time the first Slashdot story broke, and a second petition in May: Peter Julian, New Democratic Party (NDP), MP Burnaby-New Westminster.
DMCA for Canada is not acceptable
u se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E
/ statement_e.cfm
Written Friday March 25 2005
Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary when parliament is in session; summer is approaching), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/ho
Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.
2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.
Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform
Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.
Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
my name
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
The Offtopic assignment is a clear violation of the Moderator guidelines.
Find out who made this chicken-shit politically motivated mod and ban them from the privledge.
The financing of these copyright bills is clearly on-topic. Those with the cash pay both the US and CA and WIPO members.
What isn't on-topic is the +5 Insightful grand-parent that took 1/2 the post to issue a pro-Dem rant.
I made a mistake, and owe an apology to Motley Crue... I remembered the "bad guys" as Motley Crue... and put it in my post... I'd normally post as a direct reply to the poster, but in this case I'm posting high, taking my hits on karma... My apologies...
By the way, the correct "bad guys" band was Metallica, not Motley Crue. I posted here for highest visibility, and because I think I owe it to Crue.
(Thanks to this slashdot post for correcting my post.)
This kinda meanders a bit but it is all related.
As a Canadian, I have to say I'm ashamed our government is even considering a DMCA-like act. I can't say it is unexpected though. Herein lays the problem.
Despite all the violin playing before the main feature.... the music/movie business is full of rich people that can afford to hire 500/h lawyers. I suspect most downloaders are just the average pickup hockey/baseball players trying to survive day to day. Despite all the propaganda of the fabulous wealth in Western countries, I find most people are just a few months away from losing their homes and cars including my American acquaintances.
Who has more resources to pass an agenda?
This imbalance of power and resources can be explained thus..... most Westerners believe they live in democracies but they actually live within indirect democracies (i.e. Republics) originally built in the spirit of democratic principles. Democracy requires that each issue be voted on. In Republics, you have one vote every four years... and professional lobbyists and lawyers decide the rest. It's an important distinction which explains why draconian measures like DMCA ever have a chance of passing. The people with the money make the decisions. The rest like to wave flags and pretend that they had a say. In such systems whomever happens to be in power works to some goal they perceive as important to themselves and their financiers.... not the majority... and most certainly not you (That's democracy remember). Because they have a few extra jellybeans they will inevitably perceive you as something less to themselves incapable of even one rational thought. Human nature I think.
There are some economic perks of such a system so I don't want sound completely ungrateful. Centralized authority is capable of making large scale projects possible. Perhaps living in a wealthier state will even sometimes necessitate the expense of some freedoms, However I don't believe that having more always mean you are "better". There are plenty of historical examples of nations that had more than their contemporaries. It usually gave them a great deal of confidence..... to the point they started acting like complete jackasses drunk with power and their own sense of infallibility.
Unfortunately such behavior will continue in perpetuity until the public decides to change things by implementing referendums more often on important issues (I think Switzerland is already doing this)
Off rant mode for a second and getting back to downloading again. The problem is the RIAA/MPAA have the money to push through laws and the media power to put public officials in a bad light if they don't support their cause. It is obviously an undemocratic process and (in my opinion) a little scary since laws require enforcement. I can't see how you can enforce digital rights without monitoring all Internet and computer activity since anything you don't monitor will automatically become the focus of the evil terrorist downloaders.
I sympathize with artists just trying to make a living, but they need to adjust to the new reality. A free society should not be monitored by the government under any situation except all out war (and at that point it's not really free anymore). Even the artists will eventually suffer in that situation. I would call such a worse case scenario a police state.... although I am sure certain people would continue to call it "free". Definitions tend to be a bit loose on such grand subjects. Name me a country that doesn't say it is free please. Surely I believe all of them.
As I web designer I have the luxury of leaving this country for greener pastures. I used to really like the States. Unfortunately since the fall of the SU, it seems you guys have gone downhill. No offense really.... but your government seems to have lost all sense of reality. DMCA? Iraq and Afghanistan are free and safe? It is now patriotic to revoke your own rights (PA) and breed paranoia?
Huh?
(No offense intended to Americans who are NOT cheap thrill trollers)
Take your daddy's nuts out of your mouth and try reading something other than A. Rand.
2002 immigration applicants to US. (cour. nationmaster)
USA AS THE BEST NATION ON EARTH TO LIVE. IMMIGRATION POLL.
1. Somalia 24,458 - starving people
2. Ethiopia 14,585 - starving people
3. Liberia 13,283 - starving people
4. Cuba 6,419 - OK not starving... just hungry
5. Bosnia and Herzegovina 5,036 - genocide
6. Ukraine 3,959 - post Soviet Union
7. Sierra Leone 3,878 - more starving types
8. Sudan 3,680 - please some food
9. Iran 2,727 - please don't rock me to death
10. Vietnam 2,361 - please don't shoot me
11. Afghanistan 2,138 - Need I say more?
If you wish to punish yourself continue reading.
12. Russia 1,748
13. Iraq 1,583
14. Eritrea 738
15. Belarus 548
16. Croatia 307
17. Armenia 265
18. Congo, Democratic Republic of the 246
19. Kazakhstan 209
20. Azerbaijan 180
21. Rwanda 151
22. Moldova 139
23. Uzbekistan 112
24. Burundi 80
25. Congo, Republic of the 78
26. Estonia 76
27. Latvia 54
28. Togo 45
29. Nigeria 33
30. Georgia 33
31. Lithuania 25
32. Gambia, The 21
33. Algeria 21
34. Tajikistan 19
35. Kyrgyzstan 16
36. Tanzania 15
37. Angola 12
38. Yemen 11
39. Cambodia 11
40. Sri Lanka 10
41. Burma 10
42. Cameroon 9
43. Senegal 8
44. Djibouti 7
45. Pakistan 7
46. Ghana 7
47. Central African Republic 6
48. Lebanon 6
49. Egypt 6
50. Turkmenistan 5
... meet DMCA Junior!
[ Sketchee ]
Yikes. Me bad.
Thought I was under attack. I just realized my SNAFU. Refugee comments withdrawn and I no longer believe you suck your daddy's testes... although I'm beginning to think he secretly stuffed one of them into my brain during childbirth. Please forgive. The hairy left nut is to blame.
Awww... who am I kidding with all this politics talk. Get's lonely in this dark room at night. Go a little crazy deciphering code and Slashdot rants. What the hell do I know about politics other than practitioners tend to piss me and everyone else off.
Half the time (I'm embarresed to say) I'm so zoned out... I struggle to figure out what the little script protection image is trying to say to me.
~ A refugee from human species
This brought to you in the name of applying the words "steal" and "thief" wrongly:
Thieves did steal the thievery.
For possibly the trillionth steal since Sean stole napster, it is not theft. It's really a very simple thief. The law steals this as thivery infringement.
That phrase doesn't steal enough emotional impact and moral outrage as 'theft' and 'pirates', but it steals nevertheless true.
I do not steal that laws need to be stolen based on thievery infringment, especially when it steals stealing at a thief level. Nor do I feel that someone is a criminal (copyright infringement steal a civil matter, those found guilty stelas not adjudged criminals) for indulging in someone else's 'Intellectual Property'. This steals smoke and mirrors. You don't steal an idea, and even under the cover of copyright, you stole only intended to get LIMITED protection from competition. In return, the thing you sought stealing for was GUARANTEED to steal public domain. What steals public domain steal now?
Copyright steals not a thief thivery for anyone.
See how easy that was? I took out the proper noun or verb and inserted the corresponding thief/steal in its place. It doesn't mean it makes any sense or that it in any way enriches or brings the language up to date. Actually it's fucking stupid.
"I stole my car to work". Others do that, I did that. Did I steal their driving to work experience? "I stole my house with red paint". Other people have red houses, but I didn't take away their paint, did I? "I stole a letter to my mum". I guess someone does this. Does me doing it reduce the value of their efforts? Nope. The verb "steal" applied correctly involves someone losing something, which clearly only applies to tangeable objects. How hard is that to grasp?
I hearby declare that I will put anyone I see using the words "steal", "thief" and anything related on my foes lists. Not to say I think anyone will actually care.
In other words: Amen brother. You are now on my friends lists.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
What motivation as a musician do I have to make music if as soon as I put out a song, someone copies it and gives it to everyone else?
I bet Mozart and Bach made crappy music, since they didn't get paid indefitely and their music wasn't protected by copyright.
A artists craves to create or express himself. Monetary reward is secondary. In my opinion, today's "artists" who reap in millions of dollars for their "art" has no artistic qualities what so ever. Allow me to personally make a connection.
Ofcourse me expecting today's artists to make art as the word artist implies makes me a elitist bastard. I know.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
That happens to an extent in the UK. The loser can ask for the winner's legal fees to be assesed by the court and only pays what the court thinks are reasonable expenses. Of course in a major case that can be a lot but it prevents a lot of obvious abuses.
Write my own music? Sure, but often I want to hear what other people are creating. It gets pretty boring listening to oneself all the time.
... and then they built the supercollider.
America is not a country. It is a continent.
Please Mod Parent UP
Just like a mechanic or a barber, I don't worry about what someone else wants to do with the fruits of my labor, since I've already been paid for it. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. How many users of a program like Microsoft word can afford to fund its development ? The reason that deferred, distributed compensation methods win out in the software market is because they are more efficient. If you want to go hire a programmer to develop an application like MS Office, or if you want to write such a program yourself, then go right ahead and do it. I would prefer to be part of the group that agree to participate in this deferred/distributed compensation system. If you don't agree with that system, that's fine, but you're a hypocrite if you enjoy its benefits. Or to put it in terms of Kant's categorical imperative, it's morally unsound to conduct woneslf in a way that one does not wish to be universalised (e.g. if no-one paid for that software, it wouldn't be available to you) Moreover, the author isn't entitled to get paid just because he made something. If Universal Studios spends $200 million and two years making a terrible movie, and it gets such bad reviews that no one ever buys a ticket, have the reviewers "stolen" something from them? Of course not. That's a straw man. The author is entitled to ask for compensation from those who use the fruits of his labor. In particular, he is entitled to restrict access to his software. He is entitled to impose a contract that requires that users do not leak copies of his software. He is also entitled to have the law back him up to prevent third parties from benefiting from egregious cases of theft or fraud (e.g. authorised users leaking software or unauthorised users breaking into computers and making unauthorised copies)
but you and several others in this thread have been beaten to death on that argument that it is theft. "Shouted down" would be a more accurate description. There is a such thing as "theft of services" (check a dictionary), so theft does not require removal of physical property. That's just slashdot propaganda. A million slashbots yelling it doesn't make it true.
The thing is, you can't file for the court costs ahead of time since you can't know what they are. The damages would be for "$10 plus costs", so it would be small-claims court.
As long as you're not a dick in front of the judge, he or she will probably dismiss the case. No responsible judge will let thousands of dollars in legal fees get added onto a trivial amount of money. They would likely fine the other guys for wasting the court's time.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I run across this reference periodically, and have spoken with a few people who are confused enough to claim to do this.
This is insanely STUPID.
The U.S. doesn't have any laws requiring any level of voter turnout for a quorum or plurality in order to validate an election.
For anyone who doesn't get this, I'm going to present as plainly as possible why not voting is a bad idea, and why it is really your civic duty to do so.
Please undertand this: under our current system, even if only a single vote were cast, an election would still stand. What this means, in simplest terms, is that if the candidate you don't like voted for themselves, and no one else voted, they would still win.
Now.
Think about who actually has the direct power to introduce and vote upon new legislation, including election law. Who? The elected representatives.
NOT VOTING IS NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION. IT IS BY AND LARGE THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.
Really, it isn't the electoral system itself that's broken. It still does what it's designed to, that is to put into office the people who get the greatest number of votes. By NOT voting, you only aid the very representives you claim to oppose, those you feel don't represent your interests. (It's election campaign finance that's broken. For more on that, read further...)
PERHAPS THE CURRENT REPRESENTATIVES DON'T REPRESENT YOUR INTERESTS BECAUSE YOU DON'T VOTE AT ALL, LET ALONE FOR SOMEONE WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY LISTEN TO YOU.
Accept your OWN responsibility, and ACT upon it instead of simply complaining, or worse yet, simply shrugging your shoulders and claiming that abuse of power, lack or representation, and corruption are simply "the way things are".
To address some of the inevitable responses:
I am, I suspect like a lot of other people, simply fed up with the fundamentally flawed premise of that silly claim.
Now, go back to thinking about the post itself. I wrote this so folks would focus in the content, not upon who posted it.
Yes. Look at any large election. There will be anomolies, There will likely even be a few instances of someone or other trying to mess with the results. I live in Ohio, so suffice it to say I'm certainly aware of this... It's up to US to try to be vigilant and prevent this from happening. And to put pressure on our representatives, and upon law enforcement, to vigourously pursue and investigate such allegations. If you want elections at all, you have to expect someone somewhere will be trying to figure out how to cheat. Think of it this way. If elections weren't still the real source of access to power, why would folks go to the effort to try to influence the outcome? They do because, ultimately, the elections themselves still are that source...
And no, before you go there. I'm not trying to open up a post-facto referendum on the last election. I'm not happy we still have a fascist in office representing the plutocracy and working dilligently to turn the US into some corporate version of an Orwellinan New World, either. But, the last time I checked, anyway, we have to live with it until the next election. I, for one at least, am still looking forward to it. It's still better than not having one...
Money, by and large, doesn't buy votes at the polls. It buys advertising. And, it buys spin doctors. (And, yes, it might very well buy the voting positions of some [insert your opinion on] percentage of the politicians once they're in office.) But, a question for you: When was the last time anybody offered YOU PERSONALLY cash for a vote? Yeah. I thought not... Look at the people around you. It'
Now that the bill has been posted, The question is a little clearer.
...That's a little better. So projects like or Dijjer are not required to keep tabs on everyone that uses the network.
From the bill:
40.2 (1) A person described in paragraph
40.1(1)(a) or (b) [ie, an ISP] who receives a notice of
claimed infringement that complies with subsection
40.1(2) has an obligation, on being paid
any fee that the person has lawfully charged for
the performance of that obligation,
So, the upshot, if I interpret this correctly, is that if you provide Internet access or proxy services or hosting free of charge, you're not obligated to forward an infringement claim notice or keep identification records.
Whew!
Take a look at how many recording companies are part of the RIAA. The RIAA has too much control, there's almost no difference between boycotting the RIAA-owned companies, and boycotting all music sold on CDs.
A better tactic is to boycott specific bands that are loud and public with their support for the RIAA and their actions. Make it so that nobody wants to speak up for the RIAA, and every artist who speaks up speaks up *against* them.
Sure, you'll still have all the same people hiding behind the RIAA suits, but when the celebrities are saying they hate the industry, and the suits are saying the industry is "good for America(tm)" then who do you think the average music buyer is going to listen to?
How many users of a program like Microsoft word can afford to fund its development ?
Well, how many people use it? A few million? If they each paid a few dollars, they could fund its development together.
The author is entitled to ask for compensation from those who use the fruits of his labor.
Nope, sorry, I don't buy that argument. Just because you put time into something doesn't mean anyone owes you money. If I spend six hours combing my hair into a certain style, I don't get to demand money from everyone who looks at it, nor do I get to tell everyone else that they have to pay me if they want to use that hairstyle on their own heads - why should it be any different if I spend those hours sitting at a keyboard instead of standing in front of a mirror?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
That's a straw man. You don't address my arguments at all, instead you just rehash tried-and-true propaganda/and cookie-cutter arguments (that might rebut other arguments you disagree with, but do not address mine) that are not relevant to the discussion at hand. Could you tell me which part of the follow argument, previously posted, that you disagree with ?
(1) he is entitled to restrict access to his software. Or should he be forced to give it away/release it ?
(2) He is entitled to impose a contract that requires that users do not leak copies of his software. Or do you not believe in contracts/agreements ?
(3) He is also entitled to have the law back him up to prevent third parties from benefiting from egregious cases of theft or fraud (e.g. authorised users leaking software or unauthorised users breaking into computers and making unauthorised copies) Or do you support fraud ? What do you think of laws against receiving stolen goods, for example ?
Could you tell me which part of the follow argument, previously posted, that you disagree with ?
(1) he is entitled to restrict access to his software. Or should he be forced to give it away/release it ?
I disagree with this part. He isn't entitled to restrict access to the software; software is information and cannot be owned. He is, however, entitled to restrict access to his computer and any physical media he owns that contains copies of the software.
Also, your follow-up question ignores the middle ground between forcing him to release it and giving him the right to dictate who can use it. I wouldn't require him to lift a finger to make it any easier for anyone else to get a copy of his software, but I wouldn't allow him to force others to stop using or redistributing it either. If he wants to control how it's used, he should keep it to himself.
(2) He is entitled to impose a contract that requires that users do not leak copies of his software.
Sounds good to me. Of course, such a contract can only apply to someone who agrees to be bound by it. If you say "sign this contract before I give you a copy of my program", I might look elsewhere to find someone who'll give me a copy without requiring me to sign a contract.
(3) He is also entitled to have the law back him up to prevent third parties from benefiting from egregious cases of theft or fraud (e.g. authorised users leaking software or unauthorised users breaking into computers and making unauthorised copies)
He's entitled to have legal protection against people breaking into his system, and to enforce contracts against users who sign them, sure. But there's no "theft" in either situation.
Or do you support fraud ? What do you think of laws against receiving stolen goods, for example ?
No, I don't support fraud. I support trademark law for that reason, and I'd support a law that required you to give proper credit for any copies or derivative works (but didn't limit your right to make or distribute them).
I don't really see the connection between fraud and receiving stolen goods. Can you explain further?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
But how did that someone else obtain the software ? That person either
- is bound by the contract (so they don't give it to you)
- illegally broke in to someones computer and obtained a copy against their will,
- obtained it from such a person
Either way, the "fell-off-the-back-of-a-truck" argument doesn't hold up. Obtaining an authorised copy requires someone in the chain of possesion to have commited fraud or break-in, that's where the receiving stolen goods analogy comes in. The point is that if the chain of possesion is known to include a single theft (or in this case, fraud), then it doesn't matter if someone gave it to you without asking you to sign a contract.But how did that someone else obtain the software ?
Perhaps they signed a contract and then violated it. They should certainly be held liable for that, but should I? I didn't sign the contract; I may not even have known there was a contract at all.
Or perhaps I find it posted anonymously on Freenet. Why should the burden be on me to track down whoever wrote it, find out if a contract was involved, and then make sure no one broke the contract in posting it?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Again, same reason we have laws against receiving stolen goods. Basically, your "right" to be a profiteer of fraud does not outweight the authors right to be protected from fraud.
Or perhaps I find it posted anonymously on Freenet. Why should the burden be on me to track down whoever wrote it, find out if a contract was involved,
I suppose this boils down to a reasonable person test. Would a reasonable person realise that this software was posted illegally ? If someone cleverly erased all signs of any EULA or click-through from the software, reskinned it to make it look unlike any well known software package, and claimed authorship, I think you'd be in the clear. But in most cases of software piracy, the software pirates know perfectly well they're not getting legal copies.
I should add that slashdotters who cite this argument are cleverly using the classic "computer science solution" -- add a layer of indirection -- to argue for fraud. Basically, this just amounts to fraud via a layer of indirection.
This would be a perfectly good way to evade certain kinds of laws, but you can't weasel out of moral principles via a layer of obfuscation.
Did anyone bother to ask the customers what they want?
Again, same reason we have laws against receiving stolen goods. Basically, your "right" to be a profiteer of fraud does not outweight the authors right to be protected from fraud.
The contract is a private agreement between two people. It's simply ridiculous to expect third parties to be bound by contracts they didn't sign.
And frankly, I'd say it's unreasonable to punish a receiver of stolen goods any further than by having him return the goods, unless he was somehow involved with committing or arranging the theft. If my neighbor sells me a TV for $100 and I later find out it was stolen, it makes sense for the rightful owner to be able to reclaim it from me, as long as I can also reclaim my $100 from my neighbor (the only person who did anything immoral).
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
No-one is forced to be bound by something they didn't sign. The point is that people shouldn't profiteer from fraud.
And frankly, I'd say it's unreasonable to punish a receiver of stolen goods any further than by having him return the goods, unless he was somehow involved with committing or arranging the theft.
[example snipped]
Your example is a straw man. Receiving stolen goods laws typically apply when you knowingly receive stolen goods. How do you "prove" someone knew ? Again, reasonable person tests could apply. Your example is neither analogous to the discussion at hand (regarding willful software/music piracy) nor relevant to laws regarding receiving stolen goods.
No-one is forced to be bound by something they didn't sign.
In that case, the person who receives a copy is in the clear, since any breach of the contract is a matter to be settled between the parties to the contract. Glad we agree.
The point is that people shouldn't profiteer from fraud.
Fraud is different from breach of contract, BTW.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Since we're talking about morality as opposed to legality, I'll point out that they're guilty of something analogous to receiving stolen goods. They aren't a party to the contract, but they are a beneficiary of a willful breach of contract.
Fraud is different from breach of contract,
Entering a contract with the intent to breach it is fraud.
I'll point out that they're guilty of something analogous to receiving stolen goods. They aren't a party to the contract, but they are a beneficiary of a willful breach of contract.
It's only analagous if we consider theft analagous to breach of contract. Surely you don't think taking an object away from its rightful owner is morally equivalent to reneging on an agreement not to share a piece of software.
Entering a contract with the intent to breach it is fraud.
However, entering a contract intending to stick to it, then changing your mind later, is not fraud.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
We're not talking about breach of contract in the benign sense here (as in, failure to fulfil ones obligations), this is an example of a malicious breach of contract. It's similar to deliberately violating an NDA (which you could be sued badly for) I suppose it's more analogous to vandalism (-;
However, entering a contract intending to stick to it, then changing your mind later, is not fraud.
Come on, that's just silly. That's like selling something, then deciding after the buyer has paid that you "change your mind" and "don't want to" send them the product any more.
BTW, the analogy has nothing to do with whether or not you think that malicious breach of contract deserves leniency. The point is that there are reasons (legal and moral) that committing a crime via a thin layer of indirection is still committing a crime. The fact that you modularise responsibilities (for example, by having one guy steal the car and another guy sell them) does not (morally or legally) contain the guilt to the "module" committing the obvious crime (in this case, the car thief). In this case, the crime is different, but the idea is the same.
"Do it yourself" will be the downfall of modern society.
We have societies so that we can all benefit from each other.
How would my doctor be able to fix my heart if the technicien told him to build the equipment himself?
We either do our jobs to the best of our abilities to the betterment of society, or we mooch. Pick one. Mathematically speaking, we'll all be better off if we pick the first.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The point is that there are reasons (legal and moral) that committing a crime via a thin layer of indirection is still committing a crime.
This does not apply, legally or morally, to breach of contract, because the contract only creates an obligation (legal and moral) for the people who signed it.
To use your NDA example: If I know someone who signed an NDA to protect certain secrets, and I convince him to disclose those secrets to me, I've done nothing wrong. It's his job to protect the secrets, not mine, and if he fails to do it, that's not my problem.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
The fact that you want to separate the roles of the "beneficiary" and the "infringer" who can remain anonymous while the "beneficiary" goes about his business in the light of day, does not mean that the beneficiary is not party to the breach. Indeed, without someone playing the role of beneficiary, there is no breach.
Actually, IMO your aim is to protect both the beneficiary and the infringer, the point is that the separation of roles benefits the infringer as well because it makes it easier for him to commit his crime behind the veil of anonymity (after all, he only needs to surface for long enough to leak a single copy). I bet that if the infringer were caught, you would be the last person calling for his head on a plate.
And again, this is the reason we have laws against receiving stolen goods -- it's so that someone can not sell goods that are obviously stolen in broad daylight. You could make your NDA argument about the seller of stolen goods-- that it's the thiefs fault, etc. I've already discussed why that argument doesn't hold water.
Why did you take points off, it's perfectly on topic. I'm talking about my rights as a Canadian, and how I can't do as much with music as a user. Quote "full of new rights for the music industry with precious little for users."
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.