Slashdot Mirror


Captain Copyright Targets Kids

frank249 writes "The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency has set up a copyright education website called Captain Copyright. There is a section for kids with comic books and a section for teachers for grades 1-3, 3-6 and 6-8. An example of a grade 1 class activity: 'Present the following situation to students: Your friend is downloading a song off the Internet. In comes Captain Copyright. Ask: What do you think Captain Copyright will say? Encourage students to brainstorm. Then hand out (or read) Line Master: Some Copyright Laws.' In Canadian law it is incorrect to download a song unless you pay for it. They also neglect to mention that Canadians pay a tax on blank media that is meant to compensate artists for downloads."

430 comments

  1. For the kids. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    We have a daughter due in July (really! I'm reproducing now...) In a few years I imagine she'll ask "Daddy... who's Captain Copyright?" and I'll say "Sweetie, he's like God." She'll reply "What do you mean, Daddy, all knowing, all powerful and something to be in awe of?" "No dear," I'll reply, "a make-believe thing people in power use against the masses to keep them scared."

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:For the kids. by BronsCon · · Score: 1, Funny

      Amen!

      err... I mean... nevermind...

      oh, to hell with it...

      1) Sue 12 year olds
      2) Campaign to convince people they have no rights
      3) ...
      4) Profit!

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:For the kids. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > In a few years I imagine she'll ask "Daddy... who's Captain Copyright?" and I'll say "Sweetie, he's like God." She'll reply "What do you mean, Daddy, all knowing, all powerful and something to be in awe of?" "No dear," I'll reply, "a make-believe thing people in power use against the masses to keep them scared."

      Close, but no cigar.

      "Captain Copyright? I remember that site! It was where a bunch of Farkers and SA Forum Goons downloaded a huge library of source images for the funniest set Photoshop parodies ever!"

    3. Re:For the kids. by grammar+fascist · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'll say "Sweetie, he's like God." She'll reply "What do you mean, Daddy, all knowing, all powerful and something to be in awe of?" "No dear," I'll reply, "a make-believe thing people in power use against the masses to keep them scared."

      Being a religious person, I usually take some kind of offense at things like this, but these Canadians have somehow made your comment palatable.

      In comes Captain Copyright. Ask: What do you think Captain Copyright will say?

      Yikes. "What would Jesus do?" came to mind when I read that.

      Yet another reason to keep your kids out of the public schools.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    4. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is, by far, the most intelligent and creative thing I've ever read on Slashdot.

    5. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really! I'm reproducing now...

      Did you get the proper license from the rights holder?

      I'm calling Captain Copyright!

      Incidentally, I sequenced your genome. I'll let you know when the patent clears.

    6. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "INTOLERANCE is something up with which we WILL NOT PUT!" -Persons much smarter than I

      You, sir are BORING.

      I find it interesting and apropos that my anti-script CAPTCHA word is "SLUMMING"

      OMG ! I'm feeding the TROLL!

    7. Re:For the kids. by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      Cue marvel lawsuit in three, two....
      Ironic tag.... /Sometimes I read Fark //Got a problem with that? ///Slashy slash

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    8. Re:For the kids. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet another reason to keep your kids out of the public schools.

      I think you've misunderstood. "Captain Copyright" is a character on a CRIA website. He has nothing to do with public schools. Actually, I think it's pretty unlikely he'd show up in a public school. We try to leave the special interests and religious education in the private and separate schools.

    9. Re:For the kids. by geekoid · · Score: 1, Troll

      look at how people use god and religeon. If you do not see how it is used for control, from countries to families, you are blind, deaf and in denial.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:For the kids. by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know how to deal with this. We need to get the feminists on board.

      First, we explain how the internet makes culture and information plentiful goods, and how if the government didn't criminalize sharing it, market forces would in short order make them freely available to everyone in as much abundance as they wished.

      Then we explain how the whole copyright thing is a conspiracy by a bunch of Rich White Men to tie access to culture, education and information to earning power as a covert way of keeping it away from women, who have less earning power. (Don't worry if that last bit is true or not, they'll accept it.)

      Then we can just sit back, watch the fireworks, and in no time copyright will be toast.

      (Just don't let the chinese hear this logic, or they might start enforcing copyright over there)

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    11. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Story has the wrong link... http://register.imdb.com/title/tt0687761/ here ya go.

    12. Re:For the kids. by pnatural · · Score: 2, Insightful

      look at how people use god and religeon. If you do not see how it is used for control, from countries to families, you are blind, deaf and in denial.

      and you should look at how other people, not under the influences you cite, experience God and religion. if you do see how it enriches, sustains, and gives hope, you're just stereotyping, which is merely intellectual laziness.

    13. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did THIS get: (Score:3, Insightful)????

    14. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To truly keep in the spirit of the SP gnomes:

      1) Convince everyone they have no rights by suing 12 year olds and grandmothers
      2) ...
      3) Profit!

    15. Re:For the kids. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If people put as much energy into reaching their goals as they put into religion, perhaps the reality of their lives would be good enough that they don't need fantasy.

      Of course, I don't mean to call your religion fantasy. Yours is the right one, and everyone else in the world worships a fantasy. We both agree on that.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    16. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, better yet, you can tell her that "Captain Copyright" was a shortlived gay pornographic comic strip, sponsored by the CCLA.

      Go here, click a link, and change the subject and body of the email to "Invite Captain Copyright to a gay 3 way."

    17. Re:For the kids. by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      No, I'm calling Captain Copyright! I own the copyright to that genome! I'll sue you for every gene you've got!

    18. Re:For the kids. by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to said "funniest...Photoshop parodies ever"?

    19. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much water can kill you, so can a lack of it.
      Prescription medication also kills you if applied wrong. Want to say its good for nothing?

    20. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ask the Goons and the Farkers. Give 'em a few days. When enough people ask, it'll happen. Zero82z has just gotten the ball rolling.

      Seriously, one glance at Stallman's "The Right to Read". The story dovetails perfectly with the Captain Cockface artwork.

      And if they don't -- it's just a matter of a comic-book font and some Gimp.

    21. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From gentoo: I'm still compiling limewire you insesitive clod!

      I don't know about your' kids. The only one I have to look after asks such wonderfull questions as: "Who's that scary man?" (Pointing at GW) "NO! I want make me one-Help me!" (Refering to a copy of his favourite CD). "Why not?" and his favourite statement when talking about things that don't make sense is "That's stupid, lets go/do !". So let me ask you this: Does the MPAA have any kids? How many guesses they don't get to play with original DVD? So in a few years when asked: "What's Copyright?" I might be tempted say: "A figment of your imagination, a scary monster to kill" So does that mean if the bible is trademarked and copywrighted the Pope has a duty to throw all cathlics in jail? I can guess how popular that'll be. On second thought-----

    22. Re:For the kids. by vought · · Score: 1
    23. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a religious person myself, I pray daily that God will strike clueless people such as you dead, if only in the hope that Intelligent Design might be reactive as well as proactive, because when idiots such as you slip through the cracks, it ony bolsters the idea that evolution is real, and is too slow to prevent it.

      Sweet Christ, but you're stupid.

    24. Re:For the kids. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      "We try to leave the special interests and religious education in the private and separate schools."

      I'm not disagreeing, but we also seem to leave the actual education to those same schools.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    25. Re:For the kids. by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      Anything people want or need can be used to control them. In that sence, relegion is no different from anything else, and therefore can't be used to claim it is invalid, evil, or wrong.

      Presumably, you believe in the scientific method/rationality. Others prefer to believe in a higher being.

      Neither can be proven to be correct. Both require faith. And neither is inherently better, worse, "gooder", or more evil than the other.

      Don't confuse the tool with the idiot that weilds it.

    26. Re:For the kids. by macadamia_harold · · Score: 1

      you should look at how other people, not under the influences you cite, experience God and religion. if you do see how it enriches, sustains, and gives hope, you're just stereotyping, which is merely intellectual laziness.

      True intellectual laziness is confusing "religion" with "spirituality". (or is that intellectual dishonesty?)

    27. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are smoking crack. Show me how religion gives anyone hope. When was the last time you went to church? The messages are always about things that should not be done and that people that do those things are the devil. That is influence. Hope from a church? Maybe in the 60's but not in the 21st century. And what is this God thing you mention? Has anyone EVER seen God? How do you even know such a thing exists? How is it any different from Santa Clause? Are you going to tell me Santa Clause exists too? Oh but that is childish! Pull your head out of your ass. The only thing a church is good for anymore is organizing people and resources. If you are looking for hope you are better off looking within yourself. If you are looking for connections, go to church.

      Grow up.

    28. Re:For the kids. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In Canada?

    29. Re:For the kids. by The_Quinn · · Score: 1
      Cpt Copyright: "a make-believe thing people in power use against the masses to keep them scared."
      Kinda like the police. Except the police are real. Oh yeah, Stealing is illegal.

      Come to think of it - stealing music is real as well.

    30. Re:For the kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...downloaded a huge library of source images [captaincopyright.ca] for the funniest set Photoshop parodies ever!"" ... and showed how "fair dealing" applies to situations where works are used for the purposes of satire and political commentary :-) (A permitted use left out of the lessons, for some reason)

    31. Re:For the kids. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      "What do you think Captain Copyright will say?"

      I imagine he'd say something along the lines of "STOP!!! By creating your own content on the internet, you're undercutting us! Since you're a captive audience and we are under no legal obligation to tell the truth, undercutting us is illegal and immoral! You're STEALING eyetime! And if you steal eyetime, THE TERRORISTS WIN."

      --
      It's been a long time.
    32. Re:For the kids. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Other than showing that you're a very smug person, how does saying this advance any of your objectives? By seeking a battle before seeking victory, you're always going to lose, and you're always going to look like an intollerant dick.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    33. Re:For the kids. by Sj0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Have you ever had to come to terms with true equality which comes about due to the nihilistic implications of atheism? Without an ultimate arbiter of values in the form of God, all value systems have to be re-worked from the ground up to be intellectually honest.

      For example, you might help little old ladies cross the street, give money to charity, and fight for a future in which it is possible to live. If there's a God, then all these things are automatically good, because the ultimate arbiter of value declared them to be good. However, without one, you have to define "good", find a reason why these things are "good", and dictate a reason why one ought to do "good" things. In the end, you might find that you're actually an egocentric immoralist who commits to moral actions as a means of self-gratification, because doing good things makes you feel good.

      Then you have to deal with the fact that even if you find a "good" value and manage to justify doing "good" things, you're no different from the murderers, thieves and drug dealers at the bottom of the morality food chain. Your ethics don't set you apart in any way, especially since any rational definition of "good" places you in a position where you are less moral than you could be, and likely are a party to unspeakable acts of "bad" simply by living in a modern society.

      This is probably why the religious meme is so strong: Not everyone can do the ethical calculus neccessary to live an honest life without God. In a very real sense, by giving people concrete, dogmatic answers, even misguided ones, you give people hope and even a sense of meaning.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    34. Re:For the kids. by grub · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I've been a hard atheist my whole life and don't buy that we get morals only from religion. We're social animals, it's in our best interests to help other members of our 'tribe'. This is seen in virtually every type of primate.

      We're "good" to others because it what works best for helping our species advance.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    35. Re:For the kids. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      In the end, you might find that you're actually an egocentric immoralist who commits to moral actions as a means of self-gratification,

      In other words, mankind is inherantly good. I'm fine with that. In your model, I'd consider the "religiously" moral akin to nightschool web-monkeys who churn out websites with MS Frontpage and lack any understanding of XHTML. Those capable of ethical calculus (nice phrase) understand the XHTML and CSS. Anyone who uses Firefox should therefore understand the importance of deriving a moral code from first principles.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    36. Re:For the kids. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the cliche. Too bad you were so mixed up in "Not buying" something I'm not selling that you missed the point entirely. In order to honestly continue to live under islamic-judeo-christian values after rejecting the underlying rationale for these values, you have to basically start from scratch. You don't have to do it because God is the source of the morals, but because God was the given justification for them, and the final arbiter of those values.

      A scientific example: Let's say you assume phlogestin theory is correct, and fire is caused by a fluid inside all burnable materials. From there, you can determine many things, such as the fact that a burnable thing will not burn forever. You could derive a whole book of "facts" about fire using this theory. Now, if you decide that that theory of combustion is incorrect, you may still have many facts within your assertions based on the phlogestin model, but neither the facts nor the fallacies have any grounding anymore. After you decide upon modern combustion theory, you more or less have to start from scratch, because the phlogestin theories have nothing to do with the modern combustion model theories.

      Similarly, you're free to follow the dogmatic morality left by religion, but in doing so, you don't have an honest ethical base. In effect, you're being moral because it makes you feel good to be moral, not for any reason. Aside from that, your morals, because they aren't based upon anything any longer, don't have a mechanism through which to evolve, except through the same "Doing it this way makes me feel good".

      That said, I think it is possible, but not easy, to try to derive a value system on your own. I think I've done so for myself, for example.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    37. Re:For the kids. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      In other words, mankind is inherantly good.

      Far from it. By acting "good" as a means of self-gratification, the base upon which "good" is derived becomes nihilistic and hedonistic. From this base, further ethical thought can't be logically reached, because morality becomes a search to "feel good" rather than "do what ought to be done".

      One example of this would be soldiers in totalitarian regimes. The security of their position within the state will entice the 'feeling moralist' to think it is best to follow your duty with conviction, but a 'thinking moralist' will realize that no matter how good the security of their position is, by supporting a regime with incompotent leadership which bullies it's citizens, a larger number of people will be unhappy or dead, and by most ethical systems, this is unethical.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    38. Re:For the kids. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You forgot the last part. That's where you explain that the loss of copyright brought about the demise of any new efforts at creativity because no one would get friggin' paid.

    39. Re:For the kids. by advs89 · · Score: 0

      Umm... +5 Funny?? How about troll.

      --
      Rirelobql xabjf gung EBG-13 vf gur yrnfg frpher rapelcgvba rire, ohg jbhyq lbh jnfgr lbhe gvzr npghnyyl qrpelcgvat vg???
    40. Re:For the kids. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      By acting "good" as a means of self-gratification, the base upon which "good" is derived becomes nihilistic and hedonistic.

      I understand what you're saying. I was observing that good behaviour (e.g. helping others, sharing and being honest) being a means of self-gratfication says something very positive about human nature. What you are saying and what I am saying are, if I do understand you, not exclusive. My point is simply a consequence of your point. It's an absurdity really. The way you have framed things, the only way to be good would be to do good whilst wishing you weren't. Which, I suppose would imply coercian of some sort and therefore negate the fact that you were good anyway.

      Now the above depends on someone's means of self-gratification deriving from good behaviour. That's also fine because my point was not that this is universal, but simply that it is the common case, which I believe to be the case. Where it all breaks down is arbitrary boundaries about who we extend our "goodness" too. In your example of the soldiers in the regime, I actually consider the reverse to be the case. It is the "feeling" moralist that would be inclined to doubt the state because he would feel empathy for the oppressed. Essentially, his definition of good encompasses extending that behaviour to others than his state. In contrast, the "thinking moralist" is much more able to justify mistreatment of others on the orders of the state because "good" behaviour is normally defined as "beneficial to the community" and he has a fixed definition of his community, i.e. the totalitarian state. As we see time and again, once you define someone as 'not one of us,' then it's hard to find reasons for good behaviour towards them on purely rational grounds (the only one being to avoid reprisal which isn't motivated by "good"). I'd challenge you to come up with one actually. We see this exploited again and again in order to justify horrors against others. But those who listen to the feeling that tells them this 'other' is just like them, quickly extends good behaviour to those outside his community / ethnic group / whatever.

      So really, you could define "good" as extending your self-gratification outwards to others. This in fact shows how we can escape your trap of it being impossible to do good, because good means, not self-gratification, but group-gratification. Really good people, like Ghandi are after people-gratification and Jesuses are really humanity-gratifying. The 'self' has been disolved. Try the definition out for a little while and you'll see that it fits our instinct of what is good very well so I'd offer this up as a clearer explanation of what "good" is. Once we understand this, then we suddenly find the issue has resolved itself and "good" can be logically derived.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    41. Re:For the kids. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Simply stating "ok, so our ethics are based around utilitariansim now" doesn't seem to be a very strong arguement to me, especially since I maintain that you can't choose an ethical system without first finding a base upon which you can lay ethical foundations. There is no reason to prefer the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

      "The way you have framed things, the only way to be good would be to do good whilst wishing you weren't."

      The only time a will to ethical behaviour is meaningful is when it's not the easy choice. It's easy to decide not to rape the little old lady walking to her bridge club. It's easy to decide to throw the change from paying for your Big Mac in the donation box. It's difficult to decide to make a real sacrifice with only your ethical principles as justification. When you do such a thing, and ironically, transcend mere utilitarianism by breaking the equation and doing something you don't want to do for very little reward, That's the moment that such principles actually mean something. I definitely argue that a meta-ethic is just as important as the ethic itself.

      From the immediate point of view, it may seem that I'm being overly deontological, but the reason for this is that the ethical system itself determines the 'correct' moral decisions within its framework.

      Anyway, the major problem with "feeling" morality is that there is no real line. Even a murderer can feel smugly moral, but analyzing the persons actions, you can immediately (under most ethical systems) go "wait! This guy feels all smug because he pays his bills and doesn't beat his wife and this and that, but the fact of the matter is, he killed an old lady because he wanted to know what it would feel like to rape a knifewound! He's not moral at all!".

      This actually leads into my own ethical system: The primary premise of it being that our minds and emotions are inherently untrustworthy. Everything we "know" is just a model based on abstracted senses. There is actually no such thing as "red" or "blue" or "sweet tasting" or "high pitched noises" outside in the world. Our perception of these things is a result of the approximations required to send data to our brains, and each approximation is a fiction created because the process signal cannot be processed by the brain otherwise. The things we think we know are simply models of the real world we build to try to predict how things will run, based upon the only thing we can more or less objectively prove to exist consistently: The physical world. Just like a PC running Doom, the world inside our minds are built to emulate the world, and those emulations are irrelevant if the physical world turns out to be different. From this realization, I've built a system of things which can be said to have some measure of value, and from there, I've taken those values and translated them into ways I "ought" to behave. From there, morality follows. Because there is a framework in place, it is easy to question moral beliefs and check to see if they really are reasonable.

      Without that framework, if you're just asking your gut if something ought to be done, your gut can tell you something wrong (because it's not actually an oracle), and you'd never know any better.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    42. Re:For the kids. by jythie · · Score: 1
      There is no reason to prefer the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
      Actually, there is a very good reason to have an ethical system optimize for the greatest happiness. Civilizations that don't, do not last very long.
    43. Re:For the kids. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      So? For that to have relevance relies on a notion that one ought to behave in a way that extends the longevity of their civilization. Most people when prodded, will admit that no part of their ethical or moral system demands this.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    44. Re:For the kids. by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      Because we all know that society and culture did not exist before copyright.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    45. Re:For the kids. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "a make-believe thing people in power use against the masses to keep them scared"

      Weird because God says don't worry about the people in power, obey his commandments and instruction above all else.

  2. Orwell Anyone? by Greased+Monkey · · Score: 1

    *over_the_top reactionary comment follows...* hitler also knew that the best way to change a national mind was to start with the children...

    --
    Kadko- *sigh* 156hrs and it looks like the work of a 12yr old
    1. Re:Orwell Anyone? by Ithika · · Score: 1

      Or, to echo the FP's sentiments, the Jesuit saying:

      Give me the child for his first seven years, and I'll give you the man.

      "The tobacco industry. Oh, if only we had their numbers..."

  3. Because there's nothing better they can be doing by C0R1D4N · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see that copyright law is clearly a priority for early education. Not grammar, or mathematics, but intellectual property and coporate interests. I guess all the top execs of the tobacco companies jumped ship to the recording industry so they can keep practicing their "hook 'em while they're young" campaigns.

  4. OK ... reproducing? by gummyb34r · · Score: 1

    What Captain Copyright will tell?

    1. Re:OK ... reproducing? by vought · · Score: 3, Funny

      Captain Copyright

      PADUCAH, KY, AP Wire -

      Captain Copyright was arrested today but Federal Authorities on counterfeiting charges. In an ironic turn of events, the former crusader for corporate intellectual property rights was caught red-handed making counterfeit $20.00 bills with a laser printer, an iron, and a hair dryer.

      When asked, friends were solemn about Copyright's descent into ruin. "He was such a nice guy until the RIAA stopped sending checks", notes once close friend Hayla Bullets. "Then, he just started drinking, grumbling a lot, and working in his machine shop.

      Attorneys for Mr. Copyright could not be reached for comment.

  5. Not gonna fly by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Must. Restrain. Laughter. I think even small children are smart enough to realize that "Captain Copyright" is an idiotic idea. Kids don't respect educational cartoon role models in general; I see no reason why "Captain Copyright" will be any different. A generic super-hero with boring powers whose opponents are ordinary people instead of super-villains ... no one is going to find that interesting.

    1. Re:Not gonna fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of crap bites them in the ass every time. In the 80's they tried "McGruff the crime fighting dog." The characters are so lame that no child gives a rats about it. Hell they still try to trot out that tired old mess today on kids. They have tried everything, Power Rangers tried to teach the difference between doing good and doing bad, Kids get the message that kicking the crap out of things karate style is cool!

      Peers teach the kids their morals and the PArents only can do damage control (it's the truth anyone says otherwise has their head in the sand. A kids friends carry more weight with the child than all the parents combined. If a kids hears all his life that smoking is bad and one kid at school tells him it's cool, the kid will light up right away.)

      Personally I encourage copyright violation and piracy. Every CD she get's off bittorrent I make sure she makes at least 5 copies and gives them to friends that she knows will share it with others.

      Punishing artists is the right thing to do!

    2. Re:Not gonna fly by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      As if "Captain Copyright" wasn't funny enough, what really got me laughing was the fact that enough people actually thought it was a good idea to go ahead and make a few of the comics. How can anyone be so out of touch? Could this be the real reason music sales are decreasing?

    3. Re:Not gonna fly by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think kids will see this the same as they saw Captain Planet: lame. This won't even have the TV show going for it, AND the fact that anything being pushed to them by teachers is automatically uncool.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:Not gonna fly by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      Hey, just be glad their not out trying to 'reach kids through their hip-hop music' for once!

    5. Re:Not gonna fly by pete-classic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Excuse me, but the term "Super-hero" is jointly trademarked by Marvel and DC.

      I only wish I were kidding. According to Wikipedia they are U.S. Trademark Serial Nos. 72243225 and 73222079. (And believe me when I tell you I scoured the site for any use of the term. No dice. They may be dead-ass wrong, but I admire their consistency.)

      -Peter

    6. Re:Not gonna fly by schon · · Score: 1

      Power Rangers tried to teach the difference between doing good and doing bad

      Huh? I thought Power Rangers tried to teach kids to buy cheap plastic "swords" made in Chinese sweatshops.

    7. Re:Not gonna fly by AEton · · Score: 1

      This is why Captain Planet always fought supervillains and not generic evildoers: the show's executives were afraid they would turn children against their parents who worked in environmentally unsound factories, agriculture, etc.

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    8. Re:Not gonna fly by idonthack · · Score: 1

      Don't say that! Captain Planet is awesome. He's gonna take pollution down to zero!

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    9. Re:Not gonna fly by RocketRainbow · · Score: 1

      Dude, my brother and I had HOURS of fun, running around playing Captain Planet and Gaia. I still (at 22) like to put on my fur hat, resurrect my "Linka" accent and play superhero.

      Why?

      Cos saving our planet is the thing to do!

      --
      *#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
    10. Re:Not gonna fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Amen

      Anyone want to make "Captain RMS" who preaches about sharing?

    11. Re:Not gonna fly by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Could this be the real reason music sales are decreasing?

      I expect the mere existance of this comic to take down CD sales by another 2% or so. Seriously. This stuff has "lame" written all over it.

      Who are they targetting anyway? Seven year olds wouldn't take the time to abstract from the comics to the real world - and they are usually smart enough to know that copying a book or plagiarising someones work is not stealing (they don't know what copyright infringement is, but they do know what stealing is and isn't). Teenagers don't give a shit about generic superheroes anymore - they're too busy discussing some of the more esoteric points of Mortal Kombat lore.
      Seriously, whoever came up with this is even more disconnected from reality than an RIAA exec or a marketing droid.


      They should make some Captain Obvious comics instead. That's one superhero I'd actually pay for.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    12. Re:Not gonna fly by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Huh? I thought Power Rangers tried to teach kids to buy cheap plastic "swords" made in Chinese sweatshops.

      Good = giving your money to $SOULLESS_CORPORATION, even if it means stealing from mom and dad
      Bad = selfishly keeping your money from $SOULLESS_CORPORATION

      Penny Arcade isn't exactly one of the places to find biting social commentary, but they really hit the mark on this one.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    13. Re:Not gonna fly by deacon · · Score: 1
      Perhaps. Mabe it's just another harmless indoctrination on school time, at the expense of less critical lessons, like math and spelling.

      On the other hand, it seems to fit the model of "Youth" organizations of the 1930s where the children ended up spying on and reporting "others" who did not conform to the Party^H^H^H^H^H MPAA ideal.

      Those oranizations actually worked quite well. Children see everything, and can be induced to report it in exchange for shiny rewards, such as the examples below:

      http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=a ll&q=soviet+pioneers+pin&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wi

      http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr= &as_qdr=all&q=hitler+youth+pin&btnG=Search

    14. Re:Not gonna fly by SamSim · · Score: 1

      You say that now, but I heard they're getting Grant Morrison to write him.

  6. archive.org and bt.etree.org are FREE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legal music baby.. And other cool stuff.

    http://archive.org/

    http://bt.etree.org/

    RIAA sux. Have fun.

  7. Good lord, it's Captain Corporation! by Jim+in+Buffalo · · Score: 1

    Years ago, Phil Foglio did a strip about superhero RPGs in Dragon Magazine, and finished up with "Captain Corporation," a superhero whose powers revolve around product endorsements. Now it looks like they're really bringing that idea around to the real world. Of course, "Captain Copyright" has a sidekick, "Lawsuit Man." They're headquartered in FUD City.

    --
    This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
    1. Re:Good lord, it's Captain Corporation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of "Commander Ca$H" from the Robo-Cop Movie/TV Show...

  8. The answer is obviously by phorm · · Score: 2

    d) Report your friend to the police, collect a bonus check from the RIAA, and watch him spend the rest of his life paying off $1,000,000 in RIAA lawsuits.


    OK, so maybe it won't quite be worded that way, but probably something along those lines. Do we really need the RIAA et al creating comic books that encourage kids to report on their friends? What's next, reporting that your neighbour is possibly harbouring an arabic man in his attic (substitute arabic for jewish and step back about half a century, you'll see my point)?

    This type of 'education' has no place with our youth. Shame!

  9. requesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    requesting full scans of comics

  10. Infringement... by talkingpaperclip · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are these guys sure that "Captain Copyright" doesn't infringe on the "Captain Planet" copyright?

    1. Re:Infringement... by delirium+of+disorder · · Score: 1

      Are these guys sure that "Captain Copyright" doesn't infringe on the "Captain Planet" copyright?

      You can't hold a copyright on a two word phrase. This would fall under trademark law, not copyright law.

      --
      ------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
    2. Re:Infringement... by biglig2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Over on Boing Boing, they've noticed that the Captain Copyright web page has stolen a couple of sections from Wikipedia without including the required attributions. http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/02/captain_copyr ight_wi.html

      But never mind the hypocracy - what kind of teacher uses materials in class that did not come from an independant source? Don't they have pride in their profession? Ahem - won't somebody think of the children?

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    3. Re:Infringement... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Funny

      With the five rings, we can now summon....Captaaaaainnnn Cooooopppyyyyrrriiiiiggghhtt *lots of flashing lights.

      1. Greed
      2. Deceit
      3. Patent
      4. Legal
      5. Enslavement

      Please, please save the corporate world Cpt Copyright. We know you can do it!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Infringement... by Captain+Jack+Taylor · · Score: 1

      I have an answer - Flash Artists, unite, and show this guy getting his ass kicked all over Newgrounds by Captain Planet! Cap wouldn't let this shit fly, NO SIR! Intellectual property laws and corporate interests have been holding back green technology for too damn long.

    5. Re:Infringement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lighten up man, it's called a joke.

    6. Re:Infringement... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      It would be pretty embareassing for Captain Copyright to be sued for copyright infringement. I think we should have an email campaign to whatever identifiable email address is available pointing out some of these issues.

    7. Re:Infringement... by bersl2 · · Score: 1
      Well, it doesn't all quite fit the theme of copyright. But it's something.

      If it were "Captain IP", then you'd have
      • Copyright
      • Patent
      • Trademark
      • Industrial Design
      • Trade Secret

      Go IP!
    8. Re:Infringement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Access Copyright ("The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency") who is responsible for Captain Copyright has a complaint form http://www.accesscopyright.ca/compliance.asp?a=32/ to "report a possible infringement of copyright involving digital rights".

    9. Re:Infringement... by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
      Over on Boing Boing, they've noticed that the Captain Copyright web page has stolen a couple of sections from Wikipedia without including the required attributions.

      But that is not copyright theft. It is more of a job for Private Plagiarism.

    10. Re:Infringement... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Over on Boing Boing, they've noticed that the Captain Copyright web page has stolen a couple of sections from Wikipedia without including the required attributions. http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/02/captain_copyr ight_wi.html

      If I look on Wikipedia and notice that a certain event occurred in 1905, I can state that the event occurred in 1905 and cite Wikipedia as my source. Only if you are directly quoting a section out of Wikipedia and not paraphrasing do you need proper attribution. Wishful thinking and a great source of ad revenue for Boing^2, but likely wishful thinking on their part.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    11. Re:Infringement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually...you are incorrect sir.

      You must cite all sources however small in reworded they might be. When writting a paper, I only need in text citation if I take a direct quote. if I paraphrase your work, I simply need to include your work on my work cited list.

      For example...
      on your post...you should have directly cited the author of the post you quoted.

      How ever, when I write that you tried to point out to incorrectness of another author's post, I do not need to directly quote you since I paraphrased.

      In short, take a basic course on writting a research paper...

  11. Re:Because there's nothing better they can be doin by Roody+Blashes · · Score: 2, Funny
    Not grammar, or mathematics, but intellectual property and coporate interests.

    I concur with your post.
    --
    If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
  12. Sign it by It's+a+thing · · Score: 1

    The kid's problem wouldn't have happened if he just put "By: Me".

    --
    Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
  13. This guy's pre-superhero name wouldn't be by jthill · · Score: 1

    Lei Feng, would it?

    --
    As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
  14. Copyright may be an important principle.... by fussili · · Score: 1

    but that's no excuse for creating a comic that [i]blows[/i] so profoundly.

    Seriously, read "the story of Captain Copyright" in the "for kids" section of the website.

    What kind of kid is going to enjoy that pile of crap?

    1. Re:Copyright may be an important principle.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tags for creating italics are listed in the comment posting page it is quite obvious that <i>italics</i> should be done as shown.

  15. "Education!=indoctrination" by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    This, if anything, is all that "Captain Copyright" ought to say in a place called school (digne de ce nom).

    1. Re:"Education!=indoctrination" by carpevita · · Score: 1

      Indoctrination is exactly what the early advocates of public education intended-- explicitly-- at least here in the US. Public education was conceived largely as a means of social control. Works pretty well too, up to a point.

      Obviously we've come a long way since then, but perhaps not as far as you think. I think most people today would say, if you asked them the right question, that education is/can/should enable social class mobility, but that's certainly not was originally intended... and I don't know about Canada, but in the US our desire for freedom (class mobility, etc) is coupled-- in a foot-ass sort of way-- with our desire for authority (those who follow the rules will be rewarded).

  16. Re:Because there's nothing better they can be doin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ofcourse, they don't have "No Child Left Behind." Teachers can also teach enrichment instead of simply math and reading. I cherish the local history and debates in high school. Canadiens can even if they choose *gasp*, have gym.

  17. i wonder what the copyright is on the character? someone should create a site called "Cpt. Copyright" where Captain becomes Cpt. and see if they get in trouble.

    1. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Trademark, not Copyright.

  18. Great - now I'm hooked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hey Kids! Now it's your turn - use the buttons below to vote for what happens next, then check back here in September to read the continuing adventures of Captain Copyright!
    ...September?! Oh, man, I'm jonesin' here - what's Sarah going to suggest?

    Now I'm at a moral quandry... shall I respect the rights of the copyright holders of this work, and wait for an official response, or do I take the story into my own hands, and offer my own idea, and thus take over their precious copywritten characters and story in my own mind?

    Damn - I can't help myself...

    Sarah: I've got an idea[wink]... ...

    Sarah: Let's pray to Jesus, our Lord and Savior to bring his only begotten Son, Captain Copyright, down upon our enemies, so that they may taste the wrath of holy justice, forever and ever, amen.

    Damn... I just broke the spirit of the law... and that's the most important part. Better post anonymously in shame of my actions.

  19. All Your Kids Belong to Us! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Funny

    The propaganda is getting blatant. It least this one is not my tax dollars at work. Maybe there's a reason the almighty Canadian dollar coin is referred to as the loonie.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:All Your Kids Belong to Us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is, it's because there is a loon on the front of it.

    2. Re:All Your Kids Belong to Us! by Hillbert · · Score: 1

      Maybe there's a reason the almighty Canadian dollar coin is referred to as the loonie.

      There already is a reason - it's got a loon on it. :P

    3. Re:All Your Kids Belong to Us! by rakslice · · Score: 1

      Er... Neither are mine. From their web site: "Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, is a not-for-profit agency established in 1988 by Canadian publishers and creators to license public access to copyright works."

    4. Re:All Your Kids Belong to Us! by MrNougat · · Score: 1

      Maybe there's a reason the almighty Canadian dollar coin is referred to as the loonie.

      And curiously enough, there's also the twoonie ("tune-y"). Maybe iTunes could do a promotion in Canada: "A tune-y for a twoonie."

      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    5. Re:All Your Kids Belong to Us! by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      That would put it at roughly double the price that they are in the States (give or take 20 cents).

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    6. Re:All Your Kids Belong to Us! by rakslice · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be much of a promotion... Most of iTMS' pre-existing competition in Canada charges 99 cents Canadian for singles (currently around 90 cents US), so they do the same.

  20. I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by linguae · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but this comic is lame. Look at this page and the previous one. Somebody gets an A just because they didn't use a bootleg version of the textbook? Give me a break.

    There is also another page in the copyright comic that seems to confuse one issue (collaborate research and somebody trying to take all of the credit) with copyright law. The comic ended in a cliffhanger after a few pages, but I don't think this comic book is effective at all (not to mention lame), and the comic confuses issues, too.

    1. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Word got around that the copied textbooks weren't such a great deal after all and by the end of the semester the store that sold them was out of business."

      Where's the little picture of Captain Copyright standing outside the burnt-out building with a gas can?

    2. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by kfg · · Score: 1

      Look at this page . . .

      The scary part is that that one is aimed at college students.

      The scariest part is that it was probably written by a committie of college graduates.

      KFG

    3. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by NOLAChief · · Score: 1

      Gotta love the "hero shot." Captain Copyright dedicates his life to defending the rights of artists and everyone in between. Hey, at least he's honest.

    4. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by ElNonoMasa · · Score: 1

      Did you also notice how the guy selling the copies of the book has long hair and a beard... Talk about stereotyping, uh?

    5. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by Rob_Warwick · · Score: 1

      My favorite part was where the guy suggests calling a lawyer about what's happened, and they decide to go the Copyright Vigilante root instead.

    6. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by wkitchen · · Score: 1
      ... and the comic confuses issues, too.
      I think that's the primary purpose of it.
    7. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...but this comic is lame. Look at this page and the previous one. Somebody gets an A just because they didn't use a bootleg version of the textbook? Give me a break.

      I dunno. It kind of left me with the impression that she blew Captain Copyright to get her A. Sounds reasonable.

    8. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I dunno. It kind of left me with the impression that she blew Captain Copyright to get her A. Sounds reasonable.

      I'd hit it... you know.. if she wasn't a cartoon.
    9. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by rmerry72 · · Score: 1
      everyone in between

      [Clap] [Clap]. Love this. That's the whole smegging point of the deigital age. We need nobody in between!

      Universal's music and movie distribution division should give up and become an ISP. Then at least that could provide some value-add services to their artists content.

      --
      We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
    10. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention C.C's brilliant marketing strategy:

      1) sell slightly cheaper, but incomplete copied books to students
      2) wait till they need those copied pages
      3) show up in the ladies dorm late at night wearing spandex and a cape
      4) to tell them to buy books at the bookstore
      5) rush to open the store to sell the real books
      6) profit!

      Ok, there's no (?) step, but surely I wasn't the only one to jump to the conclusion that the missing pages were directly due to something CC did..

    11. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by archen · · Score: 1

      Yeah if it were captain copyright meets reallity it wouldn't be a happy picture. That chick would be handing over assloads of cash for a book, not a single bill. She'd be required to get a new edition from the professor because the old book "wasn't good enough". You'd then hardly ever use the book, and get $2 back for it when you wanted to sell it back so somone else could perhaps use it or just to get enough money to eat.

      Thanks captain copyright, I'll take my used/copy books. Actually, fuck captain copyright, I'll just SHARE them =P I'm burning in copyright hell as we speak!

    12. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by Krakhan · · Score: 1

      I agree that the whole textbook issue is just a load of bollocks. It's highly unlikely the whole deciding factor is based on having a 'real' copy of it. Wasn't there a Nobel prize winner that once said, "There are two kinds of math text books: Those you can't read past the first page, and those you can't read past the first sentence."?

    13. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's GOT to work for Verizon Wireless.

    14. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by akorvemaker · · Score: 1
      ... seems to confuse one issue (collaborate research and somebody trying to take all of the credit) with copyright law ...

      Not exactly. Read it again. "The years of resrearch [sic], the writing..." (emphasis added). They claim to have wrote it together as well. That part would be copyright infringement and plaigarism. The spelling mistake is pretty funny though.

    15. Re:I don't condone or support piracy at all.... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the writers were trapped by not being able to write what they really wanted to write.

      The comic was actually about how Captain Copyright used to be called Kaptain Kommnism, who warned kids that the mighty Stalin knew all, and would eventually find and destroy all traitors.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  21. Private corporations dictating what's taught. by Bamafan77 · · Score: 1

    Since it seems private corporations are now controlling school curriculums, why can't we get some cooler corporate interests involved? Where's Seargent Funbags from Playboy and Corporal Barley from Coors? Let's at least create some drones who know how to have a good time! Is that too much to ask? :)

    1. Re:Private corporations dictating what's taught. by Blue6 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget DUFFMAN

      --
      EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
    2. Re:Private corporations dictating what's taught. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coors?

      I think you meant Cpl. Rice, and General Subsidized Corn.

    3. Re:Private corporations dictating what's taught. by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Oh Yeah!!!!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  22. Logo faux-pas by Beniamino · · Score: 4, Funny

    Boing Boing helpfully points out (SFW) the similarity between the Captain Copyright logo and Slashdot regular goatse.cx (which I will not link).

    1. Re:Logo faux-pas by thelost · · Score: 1

      does anyone else think that the logo similarity to the gaper is not accidental? I know if I was a bored illustrator/designer sitting around having to do asinine sites like captain copyright I would be tempted to add little extras like that.

      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    2. Re:Logo faux-pas by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      Maybe someone ought to start a google bomb for Captain Copyright then ;->

      It looks like there has been a weird time distortion, in which Goatse is showing his response to Captain Copyright.

      I'd like to see the end battle between these two "superheroes" ---- NOT !

  23. It's in the National Interest by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 0
    What the **AA is right about is that "intellectual property" is a critical industry to the US economy (Yes, I know captain C is canadian but anyway...) I don't have numbers, but it is probably the most profitable sector as America continues to fall behind making quality electronics, cars, etc.

    It is unfortunate for America that history is marching (pretty quickly) away from the foundation of this sector.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:It's in the National Interest by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "intellectual property" is a critical industry to the US economy

      It's only critical in that its current form & implementation will ensure that the U.S. is unable to compete technologically & economically with other countries that have "looser" IP protection.

    2. Re:It's in the National Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't be ridiculous.

      In 2005, the movie industry's total domestic revenue was a bit shy of $9 billion.

      Intel Corporation's revenue in the same period was almost $39 billion.

      So that's one company in one sector of the economy (albeit a big one) makes, all by itself, over four times what the entire movie industry makes.

      While we're here, let's toss off some other revenue figures: IBM earned over $91 billion, Microsoft nearly $40 billion, General Motors almost two hundred billion dollars. GM lost more money last year than the movie industry earned in total (not counting expenses), and barely noticed.

      The Copyright Cartel has done an excellent job as portraying itself as a critical industry, but don't be fooled. They are, at best, a miniscule piece of the American economy.

      Software is somewhat of a different story, but they have their own ridiculousness (BSA), and you'll notice that of the companies cited, only one of them makes most of their money because of software copyrights.

    3. Re:It's in the National Interest by sn00ker · · Score: 3, Informative
      What the **AA is right about is that "intellectual property" is a critical industry to the US economy... I don't have numbers, but it is probably the most profitable sector as America continues to fall behind making quality electronics, cars, etc.
      You really should've checked up on the numbers, before you looked like a total idiot.
      Microsoft is the largest "soft" IP company (that is, they aren't known for making tangibles), and it's half the size of IBM. Microsoft is also roughly four times the size of the entire Hollywood movie industry. It's half the size of IBM, which in turn is: half the size of General Motors; a third the size of WalMart; a quarter the size of ExxonMobil.

      The xxAA side of the entertainment industry could curl up and die tomorrow and the US economy would barely notice. The music and movie industries combined (roughly USD21b in 2004) don't equate to Sun and Apple together, never mind the dozens of individual companies that turn over many multiples of that figure.

      --
      "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
    4. Re:It's in the National Interest by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, that's the point! We're trying to bully the entire world into respecting our "IP" so that it won't matter that we have no technology and economy, because we're skimming all our money off the top through royalties. That's what the whole "post-industrial economy" horseshit is about: supporting ourselves through extortion so that we don't have to go to the trouble of actually producing any real objects of value.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:It's in the National Interest by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      In 2005, the movie industry's total domestic revenue [boxofficemojo.com] was a bit shy of $9 billion.

      Intel Corporation's revenue in the same period [google.com] was almost $39 billion.


      Holy crap! You mean to tell me that the thing that makes most computers go is somehow more valuable than Hollywood movies? That's insane!

    6. Re:It's in the National Interest by mkw87 · · Score: 1
      Holy crap! You mean to tell me that the thing that makes most computers go is somehow more valuable than Hollywood movies? That's insane!

      No, AMD is not worth that much *yet*.

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
    7. Re:It's in the National Interest by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Don't worry.. a few more years of them crushing tech under the jackboots of the DMCA and they will be the the largest sector of the us economy Oo

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    8. Re:It's in the National Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Slashdot, where a post that claims "[Intellectual property] is probably the most profitable sector as America continues to fall behind making quality electronics, cars, etc." gets not a second glance (except for grandparent +5 post, whose moderation is quite surprising), but the post which refutes such idiocy gets criticized as being too obvious.

      Fuck you very much. Maybe next time I should fit in with the crowd and make nothing but unsubstantiated and idiotic remarks.

  24. not to compensate for downloads by nlago · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I definitely may be wrong here (never been even close to Canada), but I believe the tax on blank media came out long before music downloads appeared in the radar. Sure, the tax is supposed to compensate for informal, personal copying, by providing some extra revenue to the artists (yeah, right, to the artists... mostly... somewhat... err...). However, I doubt the letter of the law mentions "downloading", which (in this "interesting" world we live in) may make quite a difference.

    1. Re:not to compensate for downloads by cnettel · · Score: 1

      If it's anything like the tax in most European countries, it goes hand in hand with the regulation to allow personal copying (including sharing with friends) of songs (note: not software) you have a valid copy of yourself. A result of this is that this copying should at least approximately correspond to the actual sales, while it's quite obvious that downloads can vary far more, and it would therefore be far harder to create a distribution plan that would be "fair".

    2. Re:not to compensate for downloads by Steve+Newall · · Score: 1

      Well, as a Canadian, I'm interested in the tax on blank media. So after a couple of minutes on the Copyright Board of Canada's web site at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33760 I've found:-

      Copying for Private Use

      80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

      (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

      (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

      (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

      onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

      So copying for private use (no selling or re-broadcasting) is not a copyright infringement in Canada. So I'll keep paying the tax on the blank media and downloading music (for personal use) onto that media.

      Take that, Captain Copyright.

    3. Re:not to compensate for downloads by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      The tax was originally levied on blank cassette/VCR tapes, but for the same reason.

      THe rationalle was that people were makign copies of music and the artists were loosing money in sales, so the tax was instituted and collected for distribution to the artists.

      I have no idea if it's ever been distributed, and if so, how.

    4. Re:not to compensate for downloads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the artists were loosing money in sales

      The word is losing. One "o". Loose rhymes with Goose. Lose is the opposite of win. Got it through your thick skull already?!?!?

    5. Re:not to compensate for downloads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose one intents to listen a CD only alone at the time of making a copy of it, but rethinks one's intentions when a friend comes by the next day and asks to borrow the copy.
      Can this copy be legally lent to the friend?

      If giving away the copy makes only the act of copying illegal, let suppose that someone makes a bunch of copies of some record, stores them long enough for the copyright infringement to expire, and then starts selling them publicly in front of the RIAA office. Would the copyright holders be able to that kind of action?

  25. Funny. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On their website, under "kids" I looked up the meanings of some words and phrases related to copyright. Guess what's missing from the list. I'll give you a hint, it starts with "Fair" and ends with "use"

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    1. Re:Funny. by DeeKayWon · · Score: 4, Informative
      What with this being Canada and all, there's no reason for any two word phrase matching that description to show up. There is reason for one that starts with "Fair" and ends with "dealing", though.

      Canadian law and American law are not the same? Shocker!

    2. Re:Funny. by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Apparently you didn't notice it's a CANADIAN site.

      The terminology is different from the US.

    3. Re:Funny. by ms1234 · · Score: 1

      Must be the same guy who in Finland said that if the online shop where you buy music is too cheap, then you are dealing with pirated material. Only expensive downloading sites are authorised.

    4. Re:Funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadian law and American law are not the same? Shocker!

      Feh. If that were true, Canadia would be some sort of nation, and not a remote county in Maine. Get your facts straight.

  26. Re:Orwell Anyone? Or Godwin??? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Funny
    hitler also knew that the best way to change a national mind was to start with the children...

    My God! Second post, and by Godwin's Law this discussion is already over!

    Of course this begs the question of will the record companies last until these kids grow up into nice, well-controlled, consumers.

    And when did 'hitler' become a lower-case adjective?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  27. Obligatory "second opinion" ;-) by D4C5CE · · Score: 2, Informative
  28. I thought it was legal in Canada? by pruss · · Score: 1
    1. Re:I thought it was legal in Canada? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      No, as far as I know, the CRIA is still completely powerless in Canada. That's why they feel they have to resort to lying to the children. ;)

    2. Re:I thought it was legal in Canada? by RsG · · Score: 1

      It's a gray area. Uploading isn't legal, but the courts won't let the CRIA go to town on the downloaders.

      The thing to remember is that corporations don't have quite as much power in Canada as they do in the US. And this particular bit of propaganda is the result of said corporations trying to go the other route - they can't pursue massive lawsuits (thank god), so they're trying to "educate" children about copyright, which is somewhat like letting Molson educate kids about safe drinking habits...

      Anyway, I say let them spread their propaganda. All it goes to show is that record company execs are completely ignorant about their audiences - this crap looks like it was cobbled together by some marketing blockhead at the behest of his boss. Trying to tell kids that X law should be respected by giving the comic books, or TV shows, or whatever is a sure way to get said law viewed as lame.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  29. Next : Canadian Govt. & RIAA publish new movie by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Captain Copyright vs Captain Caveman

  30. Much Better Answer by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    Captain Copyright will say 'Creative Commons? Wow! I have the same initials as those guys. Have fun downloading, listening to, burning, sharing, and basically doing whatever you want with that music.'

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  31. I've only one thing to say to that. by AWhiteFlame · · Score: 1

    Colonel Critical says that Captian Copyright is a stupid idea.

    --
    "Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
  32. aye aye captain by hasrat · · Score: 1

    Will Captain Copyright ever conquer the high seas or will the Pirates loot and sink his ship?

  33. heh by sardonic2 · · Score: 1

    I remember Smokey the Bear and that fire hydrant, telling us not to set fires that made sense even to me at that age. Copyright laws? make them fear young maybe they will like your outdated business model... how about Yummy the Cigarette is he at school again?

  34. Infringing? by lexDysic · · Score: 5, Funny

    As pointed out on Boing Boing, Captain Copyright is apparently blessed with the power of copyright immunity. Text on his website appears to be directly lifted from Wikipedia, and of course much of the iconography has been around since before the Captain himself. Maybe the Captain's alter ego is a pirate? Arrrrrr...

    --
    Think! It ain't illegal yet!
    George Clinton

    --
    Think! It ain't illegal yet!
    George Clinton
    1. Re:Infringing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, Techdirt are carrying the same line with some interesting comments pointing out the text that is ** LIFTED VERBATIM ** from Wiki in violation of the Gnu document license. Way to go Captain Copyright. Tards.

    2. Re:Infringing? by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      As pointed out on Boing [boingboing.net] Boing [boingboing.net], Captain Copyright is apparently blessed with the power of copyright immunity. Text on his website appears to be directly lifted from Wikipedia, and of course much of the iconography has been around since before the Captain himself. Maybe the Captain's alter ego is a pirate? Arrrrrr...

      --
      Think! It ain't illegal yet!
      George Clinton


      Put your signature into context. ;)

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    3. Re:Infringing? by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      That would explain why none of the pictures in the "coloring book" include a "permission is granted to reproduce this image for personal use" anywhere on it.

    4. Re:Infringing? by ggambett · · Score: 1

      No, he fights pirates, so his alter ego should be a ninja.

    5. Re:Infringing? by olego · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't get something. From http://www.captaincopyright.ca/Ipnotice.aspx:
      permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright
      Since when must I ask other websites if I may or may not link to them? Is there actually a law against hotlinking images and/or content, in the US or in Canada?

      In a broader question, I believe that I can't hotlink a photographer's images and claim that they are my own (even though many people can view source and see that I'm not hosting them) [am I right?], but what about dropping a href to that image?
    6. Re:Infringing? by chrispl · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to mention the goatse.

      --
      What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
    7. Re:Infringing? by chrispl · · Score: 1

      Although on closer inspection you linked to it in your second link. Well mod me +5 foot in mouth.

      But seriously, I almost think the artist that created it was making a joke of the whole thing.

      --
      What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
    8. Re:Infringing? by Tack · · Score: 1

      It's been two minutes since I clicked this and I'm still laughing.

    9. Re:Infringing? by jgrahn · · Score: 1
      But seriously, I almost think the artist that created it was making a joke of the whole thing.

      No, using both hands to reveal the logo on your chest is a standard super-hero gesture.

      ... which opens up even scarier lines of thought. What if Mr Goatse was (perhaps unconciously) emulating the super-hero gesture? Is that why we all find his picture so ... memorable?

    10. Re:Infringing? by RsG · · Score: 1

      I'd say the difference is that Captain Propaganda here has a chest that looks suspiciously cheeky, and there is that streaching around the logo... plus other well known superheros don't have circular logos, they have animals, or shield shapes or whatever.

      The proportions, angles, shapes and general appearance are all disturbingly similar to goatse. Wanna bet that the artist hated his job and wanted to hide something obscene in there for the hell of it?

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  35. Blank Media Levy by 0xA · · Score: 3, Informative
    They also neglect to mention that Canadians pay a tax on blank media that is meant to compensate artists for downloads.

    This is incorrect, the blank media levy was designed to compensate artists for people copying CDs and other recordings. The "Download Question" was not seriously considered at the time the levy was introduced and it is a matter of opinion if it applies to downloads.

    1. Re:Blank Media Levy by mark-t · · Score: 1
      While correct, your phraseology could be misleading.

      By claiming it exists for the purpose of people copying CD's, etc, it can appear that this payment is justifying people making copies for purposes other than personal use. It is not.

      That is not to say that the levy's purpose is to cover personal use copying either, however... since that was already granted under Canadian copyright law.

      While indeed the levy exists to cover copying outside of personal use, it is NOT a justification of that action any more than a store increasing its prices to cover reduced profits on account of shoplifters entitles more people to go and shoplift there without consequence.

      (I'm not trying to say copyright infringement is the same as shoplifting, though... it's just an analogy).

    2. Re:Blank Media Levy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was at the hearings a few years ago. The media levies absolutely are intended to cover "personal use" copying, there is no concept of "fair use" in Canada. They were intended to be a payment for making backups and mix tapes of your music collection, prior to their introduction absolutely any copying for any purpose whatsoever was technically illegal. For the sake of haggling over what the values should be, they don't "care" whether the music being copied was obtained legally or not, simply how much is going on.

    3. Re:Blank Media Levy by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It makes no sense that the levies exist for personal use copying because personal use copying was already explicitly exempt from copyright infringement before the levies existed. Copying for purposes outside of personal use was always copyright infringement in Canada, even before the levies came to be.

  36. Captain Copyright to sue slashdot . . . by jgaynor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Captain Copyright has heroically announced he's suing /. for copyright violation, after the vicious plagiarizers failed to read his site's asinine legal disclaimer and reproduced his valuable intellectual property. Additionally, poster jgaynor will also be sued for talking shit about captain copyright AND linking to his site in the same paragraph. Think that last sentance was hyperbole? Think again:

    "permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright."

    Holy Nutsack Cap'n Copyright!

    More making fun of this ridiculous attempt at a valid legal statement here (disclaimer: not affiliated).

    1. Re:Captain Copyright to sue slashdot . . . by Scarletdown · · Score: 1
      Additionally...

      Specifically, permission to link is explicitly withheld from sites featuring pornographic, racist or homophobic content.


      Oops. Guess that means they can't legally be indexed by Google or any other search engine then.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Captain Copyright to sue slashdot . . . by Fishead · · Score: 1

      I hope you manually typed that...

      iv. You are not permitted to copy or cut from any page or its HTML source code to the Windows(TM) clipboard (or equivalent on other platforms) onto any other website.

      Um... Doh...

    3. Re:Captain Copyright to sue slashdot . . . by qzulla · · Score: 1
      OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS
      The copyright in all materials displayed on or contained within this website, including without limitation, the underlying HTML,

      Well, at least they didn't use the blink tag.

      qz

    4. Re:Captain Copyright to sue slashdot . . . by qzulla · · Score: 1
      iv. You are not permitted to copy or cut from any page or its HTML source code to the Windows(TM) clipboard (or equivalent on other platforms) onto any other website.

      Shit! I did this before I got this far.

      qz

    5. Re:Captain Copyright to sue slashdot . . . by elyk · · Score: 1

      Hmm...I can't copy and paste html code...so it'd still be able to paste this, right: #container { background-color:#9E98D8; } #banner { background-image: url(images/banner2.jpg); } #footer { background-image: url(images/footer2.gif); } Technically, that's not html. It's css code embedded in a html document. And their copyright notice specifically mentions html. Too bad their site isn't mainly done in javascript; I could paste some of that too. Let's get everyone to link to them in their posts now (as an added bonus it'll boost their page rank, making sure they get in that index right next to all those pornographic, racist or homophobic sites. stupid copyright site

      --
      MS-DOS: Most Severe Denial of Service
      Free Online Backup
    6. Re:Captain Copyright to sue slashdot . . . by owlstead · · Score: 1

      More fun here: "Please read our PRIVACY POLICY, and these TERMS OF USE carefully BEFORE using this website. "

      So schools and parent should be wise and let their kids read the Intellectual Property Notice and Disclaimer from the site before starting with the comics. Lets see how much interest they get from the kids after that. I'll start with my 3 year old nephew tomorrow, lets see what he thinks of it.

    7. Re:Captain Copyright to sue slashdot . . . by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      That's just LIKE those gay jew-blacks.

      (I'm such a nice guy...)

      --
      It's been a long time.
  37. I'm just waiting... by martinultima · · Score: 1

    ...until someone starts illegally copying this Web site, maybe putting a mirror up on BitTorrent. In fact, I think I'll fire up wget and do it myself right now!

    --
    Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
  38. Everyone relax ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Any minor steps Capt. Copywrong makes will be wiped out when "Cars" hits the net next week. =)

    Meanwhile the Captian got an email saying "Read and heed: resistance is futile."

  39. They avoided the actual issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a propaganda cartoon, albeit a poor one.

    They obviously are trying to get kids when they are young and stop them from downloading ("stealing") copyrighted music when they are older. Except that unlike all of the examples in the cartoons, no one actually looses anything from that and personal profit is not the motivation.

    I hope that the kids it is targeted at have enough sense to see through this filth.

  40. It's been done before: Don't Copy That Floppy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:It's been done before: Don't Copy That Floppy by fyrie · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it you fraud!

  41. Ooh! Maybe the mgt. could write that! (n/t) by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    hehehe. i'm clever.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  42. From the "Intellectual Property..." link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Permission is expressly granted to any person who wishes to place a link in his or her own website to www.accesscopyright.ca or any of its pages with the following exception: in order to protect the moral rights associated with this site, permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright. Specifically, permission to link is explicitly withheld from sites featuring pornographic, racist or homophobic content. If you link to or otherwise include www.captaincopyright.ca on your website, please let us know.

    Termination

    Access Copyright may terminate this agreement, including any licenses contained herein, at any time and further may terminate your access to any and all portions of our website if, we determine, in our sole discretion, that you failed to comply with any term of these Terms of Use. Upon termination, you must cease use of our website and destroy all Materials obtained from our website, and all related documentation and all copies thereof, whether made under these Terms or otherwise, and/or take any additional or alternative reasonable steps that Access Copyright may direct in respect of the termination of your use.

  43. Captain? by prockcore · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is he a real captain? Can Captain Copyright conduct my wedding if I were on his boat?

  44. Obligatory VGCATS reference by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    It's not captain planet but...

    http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=164

  45. metainfo by 42Penguins · · Score: 1

    Link goes to a 5.05MB PDF. Sitting there downloading, I thought it must be pretty spiffy.
    Nope: 1 page black and white with about 8 lines of typing.
    Maybe the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency needs a bandwidth tax, too.

  46. Re:Orwell Anyone? Or Godwin??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe I speak for a lot of people here when I say this:

    Fuck Godwin.

  47. Misleading... (Elvis belongs to all of us) by EMB+Numbers · · Score: 1

    From TFA, "A person can download a song off the Internet when they pay for it or get permission."

    The statement is true, but if they had said "A person can ONLY download a song off the Internet when they pay for it or get permission," they would of course be wrong. I have to think the first statement has an implied "ONLY"...

    TFA: "A person cannot copy a song that they have legally downloaded (by paying a fee or obtaining permission) for someone else."

    Even in a backwards nation like Canada ;), it is NOT illegal to make a copy of music you have downloaded. Quite apart for music that is not copyrighted, even copyrighted music can be shared under fail use restrictions.

    There is plenty of music in the world that is no longer copyrighted. By international treaty, copyrights expire!

    By August 16, 2047, all of Elvis Presley's published works will be in the public domain. Many early recordings from the Jazz era are already in the public domain.

    HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES

    From http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

    Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

    A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

    Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date

    These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

    Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978

    Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.

    Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

    Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer req

  48. For Kids? by BAILOPAN · · Score: 1

    ABC's of copyright

    Err... that's a bit too wordy for kids, who probably wouldn't be reading about copyright law in that detail anyway. Also, I cannot help but notice that there are no A's or B's.

    Maybe it should have a section on how they can pirate stuff, that'd be more useful.

    --
    If you say "here goes my karma" I will bite you!!!
  49. You know by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    This might not be cool but that doesn't mean that stealing is.

    1. Re:You know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who, anywhere in this article or followon discussion, is talking about stealing?

      What I see is discussion about copyright and what constitutes it's violation, not stealing.

      TFOAE

  50. Ironic. by AWhiteFlame · · Score: 1

    Captain Copyright and all related media are Copyright ©2006 Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, All rights reserved.

    --
    "Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
  51. Re:Orwell Anyone? Or Godwin??? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny
    "And when did 'hitler' become a lower-case adjective?"

    When he failed to defend his trademark and it became generic. "Escalator", "Yo-yo", "Shredded Wheat", and now "Hitler" are prime examples of trademarks which have fallen into the public domain through abandonment or poor defense.

    Where Hitler went wrong was not through lack of defense (you should have seen his army of lawyers), but through misuse of the Hitler trademark. Where Third Reich productions threw around the name Hitler as though it were a noun they should have used it as an adjective from the start and emphasized it to set it apart from the surrounding text. Using phrases like "Hitler conquered half of Europe" is just asking for trouble. "Hitler® brand World Domination conquered half of Europe" makes it clear what the brand name is and that it is a registered trademark.

  52. and now the circle is complete by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Q. What do you think Captain Copyright will say?
    A: "You can't draw a pony! It was my idea to draw a pony!"

    Copyright jackasses are marketting their kindergarten-level understanding of intellectual property to actual kindergarteners.

    Fuck you. My pony is better than your stupid pony.
    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    1. Re:and now the circle is complete by Immercenary_2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      OMG PONIES!!!!111one!!!
      Sorry, couldn't resist

  53. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that website is the lamest, funniest thing I've seen in years!
    I've printed out some images from the coloring book, and I've going to bring them to work so that my workers can learn that stealing isn't nice and if they don't stop captain copyright won't be proud of them!!!!

    freeballer

  54. Send the Captian a nastygram ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  55. They went where they shouldn't have gone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The organization in question has a membership which is almost entirely print media and authors. They have nothing to do with the RIAA or its Canadian equivalent. Given the complexity of the music copyright issue, they should avoid any mention of it. They'll just end up looking stupid and it will hurt their credibility with the kids they're trying to educate.

    Actually, if you want a comic book on copyright that is actually good: http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/
    It is a comic book put together by a couple of law profs and deals with what artists can and can't get away with. It manages to be educational and entertaining. Of course, it's pitched more at university students and not elementary school kids.

  56. Incorrect to download for free? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1, Troll
    In Canadian law it is incorrect to download a song unless you pay for it.
    Really? Its illegal to distribute songs online for free in Canada? What a sucky country.
    1. Re:Incorrect to download for free? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He said "incorrect." As in, the CRIA thinks it's incorrect and would like you to as well.

  57. Re:Orwell Anyone? Or Godwin??? by pluther · · Score: 2, Funny
    And when did 'hitler' become a lower-case adjective?

    god only knows.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  58. Just for fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Just for fun, try the following link.

    It will fill up their "hack attempt" logs with silly messages :-) And maybe it will encourage them to find a more useful and less stupid way to detect "hack attempts" than whether or not there happens to be a question mark somewhere in the URL.

    That or call them up and ask why they're giving out all their copyrighted materials for free. Aren't they compensating the artists per copy!? Why, that's ***STEALING***! And don't anyone try to rationalize it away by pointing out that they got paid *once* for their work--all IP holders deserve compensation any time someone so much as *thinks* about their work, you communist bastards, anything else is rationalizing away a serious felony! :-)

    1. Re:Just for fun... by swattz101 · · Score: 1
      LOL I hit refresh a couple dozen times and got a different reference number each time.

      In other news, thier little kids test asks if it is ok to use Curious George (TM) in a mural without permission. I wonder if that had permission to use Curious George (TM) as an example, or are they infringing on copyright by using Curious George (TM). Just a thought.

    2. Re:Just for fun... by pegr · · Score: 1

      In other news, thier little kids test asks if it is ok to use Curious George (TM) in a mural without permission. I wonder if that had permission to use Curious George (TM) as an example, or are they infringing on copyright by using Curious George (TM). Just a thought.
       
      Fair use, fair use! :)
       
      Curious George's authors have been dead for almost ten years. The likeness and copyrights to the works no doubt are in the hands publishers, the same folks who fund the comic in the first place.

    3. Re:Just for fun... by Fishead · · Score: 1

      Put me down for about 70 or 80 "hack attempts"

      Gotta love the center click "open in new tab" features of Firefox!

      Now I gotta go close all those dang tabs...

    4. Re:Just for fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just close the whole window, and hit yes when asked to confirm if you want to kill all the tabs at once :-)

      The sad thing is, I'm tempted to script something with LWP + Perl to automate this for me...

    5. Re:Just for fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right click the current tab and hit "close other tabs".

      I know it's a joke but I had to slide that in there.

    6. Re:Just for fun... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Except they don't talk about using Curious George(TM), they talk about Curious George, then refer to them as "two characters".

      So while the image of Curious George(TM) may be copyrighted, the images of Curious and George may well be public domain.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  59. Contact the Canadian Copyright... by SauroNlord · · Score: 0

    By Email: privacy@accesscopyright.ca
    By telephone: (416) 868-1620 or toll-free at 1 (800) 893-5777
    By mail: Access Copyright
    1 Yonge Street, Suite 1900
    Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1E5
    Attention: Privacy Manager

    Please call the toll free number, and select the option to "Report copyright infringement" and leave a message about Captain Copyright using an ISBN definition from Wikipedia without leaving a link back to the GNU Public License.

    I know I did

  60. OMG OMG QUIZ ANSWERS HERE1!!1!! READ INSIDE1!!!!1! by abscissa · · Score: 1

    Here are the answers to the Kids Quiz!!

    1. You wrote a poem for class. Do you have to register it with the Copyright Board of Canada for your poem to be protected by copyright law? NO!!

    2. Each province is covered by the same copyright law. True or false? TRUE!!

    3. Your friend got a computer game and you want to download it to your computer. Is this something you may do? NO!! (even if it's freeware or shareware!!)

    4. You framily has 3 computers in the house. When you get new software are you allowed to install it onto all of the family's computers? NO!! Unless you have volume licensing with MS, or it's OSS

    5. What does "public domain" mean? a) it refers to the items found on the Internet b) it refers to a book found in your local public library c) it means the term of copyright in the work has ended C

    6. Can a book title be copyrighted? NO!!

    7. Your art teacher asks you to create a drawing and then wants to post your drawing on the school's Intranet. Does the teacher need your permission to do this? YES!! omg he will love you for stirring up shit too

    8. In order to have copyright on the short story you just wrote for class, you must be 18 years old and a legal adult. True or False FALSE!!

    9. Your school wants to do a mural in teh entry hall to the school and they want to use Curious George. Is it okay to project these two cartoon characters on to the wall to enlarge them and trace around them? NO!!

    10. When you buy a book, you own the copyright to that book, and you can loan it out or copy it as you wish. True or false FALSE!!

  61. Re:Next : Canadian Govt. & RIAA publish new mo by Cylix · · Score: 2, Funny

    My favorite...

    I am.... Captain Condom!

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  62. Interesting Angle by malus · · Score: 1

    Why is it that Captain Copyright is looking off to the left in so many of these headshots?

    http://www.captaincopyright.ca/Kids/ColouringBook. aspx

    Hmmmm.

    1. Re:Interesting Angle by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      Because that's where the copyright-breakers come from.

    2. Re:Interesting Angle by malus · · Score: 1

      leftist pigs. they all must die (along with the css master behind this new /.) .... gah.

  63. DARE all over again by ScottyH · · Score: 1

    If only Officer Gold could see me now.

  64. Excerpt from the quiz for kids by binkzz · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Yes - Once your poem is in a fixed and tangible form, you have copyright in your poem. You do not have to register your creation with the Copyright Board to have copyright."

    I'm sure kids will learn tons with these fun quizes and games.

    --
    'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
  65. what we need is a CAPTAIN COPYLEFT !!11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what we need is a CAPTAIN COPYLEFT who goes after greedy major labels and stuff. he should protect those who are nearly innocent against the Music And Film Industry Assholes (MAFIA). and he should take those piratebay serverz back...

    would be nice if some pirate party started to do this to promote their stuff.

    a yeah:
    97986 75848
    32453 43546
    HELLO WORLD
    32553 32435 32432 76789 62864 etc. etc.

  66. Captain Planet or Captain Copyright by jameskojiro · · Score: 0

    Captain Planet: Protect the Environment or I will [bleep]ing kill you!!!! Captain Planet!!!!

    Captain Copyright: Protect the DMCA or I will [bleep]ing kill you!!!! Captain Copyright!!!!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  67. Torrent? by Mooga · · Score: 2, Funny

    So who is going to pre-release a torrent of all the Captain Copyright Comics?

    --
    ~ Mooga
  68. Re:Orwell Anyone? Or Godwin??? by masterzora · · Score: 1

    This does not beg the question. It may raise the question, but it does not beg the question.

    --
    Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
  69. frank249 I hope you typed that quote out longhand. by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 3, Funny
    " iv. You are not permitted to copy or cut from any page or its HTML source code to the Windows(TM) clipboard (or equivalent on other platforms) onto any other website. " Intellectual Property Notice and Disclaimer

    Captain C/The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency,: Please do not sue me, but I copied and pasted the URL into the link above. If this is a violation, have the Swedish police sieze Slashdot's servers.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  70. Copyrights Do Expire, Don't They by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 4, Funny
    The copyright on a number of songs first graders might still find entertaining have expired. Things like:
    • Old McDonald
    • I've Been Working on the Railroad
    • 99 Bottles of Beverage on the Wall
    • Ring Around the Rosie
    • She'll Be Coming Round the Mountain
    • and many, many more

    Yes, the performances of the songs may be copyrighted, but even that isn't a certainty. There is a Public Domain into which the performing artist may release their performance.

    If the tune, lyrics, and performance aren't protected intellectual property then the first grader should call the police and have Captain Copyright arrested for child molestation. Okay, there wasn't any sexual molestation involved, but a man in a skin tight costume who constantly barges in on first graders in their homes will have a very difficult time convincing a jury of that fact.

    1. Re:Copyrights Do Expire, Don't They by owlnation · · Score: 1
      If the tune, lyrics, and performance aren't protected intellectual property then the first grader should call the police and have Captain Copyright arrested for child molestation.


      Absolutely, and lets start with the song "Happy Birthday". That's copyright protected. So Canadians better stop singing that in school or Captain Copyright will come in the night..."
  71. But is it going to be more effective than by Goonie · · Score: 4, Funny
    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:But is it going to be more effective than by Inquisitor911 · · Score: 1

      The Don't Copy that Floppy video can be found at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9045861006 530293045 It's quite amusing.

    2. Re:But is it going to be more effective than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did that really need a spoiler warning? Honestly. Oh well, at least they didn't bother clearly marking every "portmanteau" in the article.

  72. As someone who actually has registered Canadian by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    copyrights, as well as a trademark, I think this is a bad thing.

    Look, why won't Captain Copyright teach them about Fair Use, or the fact that colleges, schools, and universities are exempt from many copyright restrictions, or about public copyrights?

    Now, having actually travelled across Canada on a Canada Council Grant, as a playwright and author, I know where some of the money paid by the library system goes. I'm not against copyrights, but let's tell the truth, not a distorted pro-corporate version ...

    [fyi, if you try to look me up in the online database, my legal name is much much longer in Canada and has two hyphens]

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  73. Captian Copyright looks like a rip off by wubboy · · Score: 1

    Captian Copyright looks like a rip off Captain America, wonder if the CA Copyright holder will sue the CC copyright holder? Who would win in a fight? Maybe CC is a parody? /br /br
    http://images.google.com/images?q=captain+america& hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

    --
    Sit... Speak.... Shake.... Good Dog!
    1. Re:Captian Copyright looks like a rip off by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      no, Captain Copyright isn't a ripoff of Captain America, he's based on Captain Canuck, a comic book a friend of mine used to write. I have a few of the early issues in a box somewhere in my attic.

      And, actually, Captain America was based on a German soldier hero, originally. Some people claim it was a French soldier, but most people agree it was a German archetype.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Captian Copyright looks like a rip off by wubboy · · Score: 1

      WOW
      Learn something new every day.

      http://www.captaincanuck.com/

      --
      Sit... Speak.... Shake.... Good Dog!
  74. Compensation - not for downloads really by FooBarBlatDing · · Score: 2, Informative
    They also neglect to mention that Canadians pay a tax on blank media that is meant to compensate artists for downloads.

    Not really. The tax is meant to cover copies made from legitimately obtained originals, as in when your friend loans you his CD or you borrow it from the library. In Canada it has been ruled that the blank media tax covers this and it's legal to copy the CD, whatever the RIAA or whomever may think. I don't think that the download case has been tested.

    I agree with the previous poster who pointed out that there is no reason for this to appear in curriculum except private interests. Having them drive curriculum is dangerous and inappropriate.

    Foo

  75. Captain Copyright previous used name?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot | BSA Asks Kids to Name Copyright Weasel
    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/11/22 0233

    How about "Captain Copyright"(Score:5, Insightful)
    by CharonX (522492) on Wednesday August 11, @07:26PM (#9943735)
    (Last Journal: Friday February 18, @10:17PM)
    How about Captain Copyright?
    See how the dauntless Captain Copyright sells out its friend to the BSA for talking about copying software.
    Laught when Captain Copyright battles with the fearsom Product Pirates (and see how they get locked up for 30 years for running an illegal copy of Windows XP).
    Be fascinated how Captian Copyright bribes and lobbies the Congress to introduce capital punishment for product theft.

  76. Talk about stupid superheroes! by Pollux · · Score: 1

    What's next? The "Condom Crusader?" ...

    Oh. On second notice, I guess "Condom Crusader" came first.

  77. In all fairness by geekoid · · Score: 1

    They are giving people the FU...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  78. Oh dear god. by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 3, Funny

    Great. Now I've got this going through my head:

    "RIAA!"

    "MPAA!"

    "Fear!"

    "Uncertainty!"

    "Doubt!"

    "GO COPYRIGHT!"

    "By your powers combined,
    I AM CAPTAIN COPYRIGHT!"

  79. Crap, it's worse!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this post on Slashdot, I totally ignored their idiotic disclaimer--I can't even link to their site--they withold permission! Oh crap, I'm in for it now! The Canadians are coming! The Canadians are coming!

    Speaking of which, anyone up for a Google-bomb? But what to call them? How about, I dunno... copyright bastards? Or does that infringe on some of SCO's IP? :-)

    1. Re:Crap, it's worse!!! by Fishead · · Score: 1

      I was going to copy/paste a line from their website, strictly forbidding copy/paste, but it would have resulted in a copyright violation... so... I borked the text, then copy/pasted.

      What is the copyright law on that?

      if. Yuoo ere-a nut permeetted tu cupy oor coot frum uny pege-a oor its HTML suoorce-a cude-a tu zee Veendoos(TM) cleepboerd (oor iqooeefelent oon oozeer pletffurms) oontu uny oozeer vebseete-a

    2. Re:Crap, it's worse!!! by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      "Permission is expressly granted to any person who wishes to place a link in his or her own website to www.accesscopyright.ca or any of its pages with the following exception: in order to protect the moral rights associated with this site, permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright. Specifically, permission to link is explicitly withheld from sites featuring pornographic, racist or homophobic content. "

      _joke_ Does that mean Slashdot violated their policy? _joke_

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    3. Re:Crap, it's worse!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      permission to link is explicitly withheld from sites featuring pornographic, racist or homophobic content.

      Wtf? That is so gay. Those dirty Quebs should go f*ck each other gently in the ass!

  80. Re:Because there's nothing better they can be doin by jmulvey · · Score: 1

    I can see that copyright law is clearly a priority for early education. Not grammar, or mathematics, but intellectual property and coporate interests. And apparently not even spelling. Check out the last box of this cartoon. What, exactly, is "resrearch"?

  81. Go Captain Copyright! by Xymor · · Score: 1

    I'm anxious for chapter 10 when CC founds the Fascist League Unlimited.

  82. Captain Copyright says: by geekoid · · Score: 1

    00112 00456 06340 04056 00714
    00945 00223 07450 00645 41700
    00043 00019 00431 00077 38473
    89 89

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  83. Vote early, vote often! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You get to vote on the best way to contact Captain Copyright. I voted to:
    From: root@localhost
    Subject: CC Vote - Post A Torrent And Follow The RIAA

    I vote to post a torrent of the paper, wait for the thugs at the RIAA to find it, then follow the hit van to their house.

    A few million similar votes should get the point across.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Vote early, vote often! by Twiceblessedman · · Score: 1

      Consider it done.

  84. What a waste of time... by cleverhandle · · Score: 1

    It's a waste of time not only for the obvious reason that kids would see right through this sort of crap as yet another wholly un-fun attempt at wrapping adult prohibitions in a cartoon package, but also for a less obvious reason. Teachers would never use it. I teach older kids myself, but I know quite a few elementary teachers and they're busy, busy people. These copyright goons seem to think that teachers have gaping holes in their classroom schedules that they're dying to fill. Hello? Accountability? High-stakes testing? NCLB? Yes, I know this particular example is Canadian, not US, but the idea is the same. If the industry wants teachers to shill for them, at the very least they need to package their propaganda in a way that won't appear to be a waste of time to teachers, parents, and administrators. Hook it up to reading, math, or some other core subject or else a teacher won't even look at it. I suppose I should shut up now before I give them ideas...

  85. hmm... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I would still vote for chopping the hands off, but let us how well this will work out...

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  86. Re:Misleading... CAN... CANNOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CAN versus MAY

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=can
    Scroll down to USAGE

    $PERSON is almost certainly physically capable of any acts described above, without regard for the legal or ethical* considerations that might pertain to such acts.

    * "Legal" and "ethically acceptable/required" have no well defined mapping..

  87. We must create Captain Copyleft /The Infoanarchist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Captain Copyleft...

    An evil creature with superpowers (one of them tons of lawyers appearing by instantaneus creation) named "Captain inc" that seems good to the masses by powerful marketing practices is washing brains of zillions of people, a homebrew experiment by a some millions of creative code hacers and artists created his good alter-ego: Captain Copyleft!

    Captain Copyleft fights against monopolizer corporations and the effort of a culture equally for all people without worry how much money they can but how many they want to learn. He appears when a group of highly self-motivated people needs urgently his help, converting this group on the hero, having each apparition different appearing and superpowers.

    ____________________________

    The Infoanarchist

    In 2012, Sharing non-commercial information is prohibited. All information is created and manipulated by the only worldwide corporation that owns EVERYTHING (even life and the planet), even the voice calls and minds of people, by a giant computer system called WCTAIAS (Worldwide Copyright and Trustly Information Awareness System). Rebelds created a superintelligent computer program being with self-conscience.

    The self-conscience entity entered into WCTAIAS and analized all date on it. After millions of calculations of all kind, it became to the conclusion to the evil nature of corporations and the manner this kind of organizations corrupt humans to acting worse to the rest of the world against common sense. After this conclussion, he said it to the worldwide humans before exiting from the WCTAIAS the reasons of why corporations must no exist. This entity named itself as: The Infoanarchist...

  88. blank media levy and Canadian artists by shark72 · · Score: 1

    "They also neglect to mention that Canadians pay a tax on blank media that is meant to compensate artists for downloads."

    The inaccuracy of the "...for downloads" portion has already been addressed, so I'll just point out that Slashdotters always neglect to mention that the levy goes only to Canadian artists. If you're Canadian and you're downloading music from US, Europe or elsewhere in the world, it's a misguided approach to assume that the blank media levy is compensating these artists whose work you're helping yourself to for free.

    It's a nice panacea; a placebo. If you're Canadian and the existence of the blank media levy makes you feel better about getting your music via P2P, then great -- more power to you. But please do not claim that the non-Canadian artists in your music collections have somehow been compensated by the levy.

    --
    Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  89. Let's Slashdot 'em! by n0alpha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am in awe that they have a 1 page PDF that takes up 5 megs, and despite it's title that would lead you to believe it contains Canadian Copyright laws, it actually doesn't reference any laws at all! If everyone downloads the PDF even once, we can Slashdot 'em pretty quickly! http://www.captaincopyright.ca/Teachers/Docs/LMCop yrightLaws.pdf

    1. Re:Let's Slashdot 'em! by shish · · Score: 1
      I've seen some pretty oversized PDFs in my time, but this has got to be a record -- one image and under 10 sentances, 5MB. Truly a sight to behold! (Not that I'm encouraging everyone to download it at once or anything...)

      On that note, anyone know of any good PDF analysers / compressors? I've been sent some PDFs to upload to a website, and the most recent revision is more than ten times the size of the previous, despite only a few words of small print being different; I'd be interested to know what all that extra space is being filled with...

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    2. Re:Let's Slashdot 'em! by Drinking+Bleach · · Score: 1

      What are you using the create the PDF? Unless a "few words of small print" = 500KB of text, that's not right.

    3. Re:Let's Slashdot 'em! by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

      The 5MB PDF in question was created with QuarkXPress 5.0 and Adobe Distiller for the Macintosh. There must be vastly more information in there than just that page; maybe someone with a full copy of Acrobat could have a look.

      By the way,

      $ pdf2ps captainkissmyass.pdf - | ps2pdf - test.pdf
      $ ls -l test.pdf
      -rw-r--r-- 1 joel joel 176924 2006-06-02 21:20 test.pdf

      --
      * And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
  90. It's worse than you think by gillbates · · Score: 1

    From their Terms of Use page:

    What you can do with the Materials: Authorization and Limited Licence Access Copyright grants you a limited, royalty-free, non-exclusive and non-transferable right and licence to view and display the Materials on your computer or network of computers within a single entity, and download and print the Materials for your own personal internal use or educational use in educational institutions located in Canada, subject to the following conditions

    i. You are not permitted to modify the Materials; ii. You must include and display on each copy of the Materials the associated Copyright Notice set out below, at the end of this Notice; iii. Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein, you are not permitted to make any commercial use of the Materials; and iv. You are not permitted to copy or cut from any page or its HTML source code to the Windows(TM) clipboard (or equivalent on other platforms) onto any other website.

    To obtain access to the Captain Copyright website you must first register on-line with Access Copyright , the Captain Copyright website is available for the use of those who agree to all the terms contained in these Terms of Use[emphasis mine]

    IANAL, but I'm not sure if most of these are even legally enforceable, even in Canada. I'm not quite sure where to begin:

    • I have to register to view a publicly available website?!
    • I'm not allowed to copy and paste?
    • I'm not allowed to modify the files on my own PC? As if they have any right!
    • The whole internet isn't governed by Canadian law, nor US law for that matter...

    Seems like Captain Copyright lost his Magic Cluestick(TM).

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  91. Uhh, curriculum? by Doytch · · Score: 1

    Are these guys fucking retarded or what? If this is meant for teachers, then it's meant for schools. In case they haven't noticed, the curriculums are already full, and teachers drop topics that are important themselves.

    Not to mention that the curriculums are standardised already, meaning that for Captain Copyright to get his ass into schools, the entire provincial board would have to OK it. Ya, gl with that.

  92. Re:Orwell Anyone? Or Godwin??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really, you want to Fuck Godwin that seems kinda odd. But what do I care you can fuck whomever you want.

  93. Richard Stallman knows the future! by Drinking+Bleach · · Score: 1

    Well not quite, but quoting The Right To Read under fair use terms: "This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do."

    This is exactly what society is moving towards. We need to stop it before it's too late.

  94. Uhhh... by TenLow · · Score: 1

    Why do you need permission to sell/copy your own creation under those rules?

  95. What about GNU man? FairUse man? by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    Seriously guys, someone out there has to be arty enough to create GNUman, with all the powers and bodily odour of....... a GNU. He'd show kids how great it is to publish their work under the GPL, and to practice fair use, and to contribute to OS projects that make the world a better, fluffier (and cheaper) place to live in.

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    1. Re:What about GNU man? FairUse man? by Drinking+Bleach · · Score: 1

      Great idea. http://gnu.org/ is a good resource, but having one oriented towards kids is better, we could target all ages!

    2. Re:What about GNU man? FairUse man? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      GNUman depends on copyright law to ensure his software stays free. If Captain Copyright were ever defeated, then it would be Captain BSD who would rule the day, not GNUman.

    3. Re:What about GNU man? FairUse man? by babbling · · Score: 1

      Surely it would be Captain Copyleft.

      There should be an episode where a nasty old man is selling cake. After he sells it to one person, they try to share it with their friend, but the old man intervenes. Then Captain Copyleft comes along and saves the day - he makes cake for everyone to share.

    4. Re:What about GNU man? FairUse man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ !

    5. Re:What about GNU man? FairUse man? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken. Captain Copyright obviously doesn't use copyright LAW as the source of his powers, but copyright self righteous fiction. Since Gnu doesn't rely on the fictional parts of copyright, Gnuman would be in great shape as long as there is evil in the hearts of men.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  96. Captain Cockface by Zero82z · · Score: 1
    "Captain Copyright? I remember that site! It was where a bunch of Farkers and SA Forum Goons downloaded a huge library of source images [captaincopyright.ca] for the funniest set Photoshop parodies ever!"
    Here you go...
  97. I for one fully support this campaign by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Funny

    as a kid, the best sure-fire way to get me interested in doing something was to make an 'edutainment' comic book against it. I mean, jesus, this crap's down there with Johnny Turbo!

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  98. You know in hindsight by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I take my comment back. This is brilliant. Sure, it makes kids want to violate copyright, but it makes it seem like an incontrovertible law. Like Jaywalking or something. I say bravo to Canada's version of the RIAA. I wish I could be that spineless and evil, I'd be rich and powerful already.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  99. Awesome link! I am sure it has been around a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while, but that was suPer!

  100. No I am NOT sterotyping by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am pointing out a simple fact:
    religeon is use to control people.

    you ever tell your child not to do something because it is againsts gods will?
    Every threaten to punish a child if the question a belief?

    I see people afraid to question the writing of their religeon out of fear.
    I see hypocrasy committed by almost every person at church
    I see church groups get together onnhow to get them
    I see leader of countries demanding people kill themselvs in the name of religeon.

    Enlightenment does not come from religeon. It comes from with in. Saying 'it's gods will' is NOT elightenment.

    I have no problem with religeon, just don't blind yourself that people will use it to control you. Mostly into giving them money, but sometimes to get votes.

    Hope for what?

    I fink hope iwth the race when I see people help each other out, rescue a stranger, send machine outside out solar system. You know, actions people do that rise above the noise. Yeah smoetimes people do bad things, but other people bring it to an end.

    I have never seen anyone who wasn't manipulated by there 'belief'. No one.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any you are manipulated every day by your beliefs too. Even if they are not religious, you are manipulated into not stealing, murdering, etc. by your belief they are wrong.

      All many relions do is say our personal and societal values were given to us by a higher power.

      I would tell my children, not to steal, rape, murder, lie, etc. because it hurts us and our fellow men, and show how it does. Then tell them how God says the same thing and that we got this knowledge from Him.

      I would never threaten to punish my child for not believing. It is their choice, just as it is was my choice to believe when I was 14. I would encourage them to believe, yes, and show how belief has helped me in my life.

      As to your four points, I don't question my Bible, because after 10 years of studying it and following it I have never been let down by it.

      I know there are hypocrites in every church, in every religion, and I am one too. I never follow what I believe is right or wrong 100% of the time. this is because, and yes the bible is right again, we are all sinners. The Bible doesn't automatically condemn me to misery because of it, now that I am a born-again Christian. I know its wrong, and I know I suffer for it, but God is not going to strike me down right now for it (nor any one else).

      I have never seen my church get together on how to get someone or punish them, usually someone who is in the wrong knows it, and when confronted either deals with it or runs from it.

      There is one religion which has never had a leader call for killing people in the name of it: non-Catholic, non-Protestant Christianity. This is the same Christianity that spawned Amish, Hudderites, Mennonites, Ana-Baptists, and modern day Baptists. None of these groups were ever part of the catholic church, or any of it's offspring (the protestant churches). I also am not aware of Jews ever attacking and killing in the name of their religion, although being the only ethnic group that is identified solely with its religious heritage it becomes difficult sometimes. I don't think the current conflict in Israel has anything to do with trying to force Judaism on the Palestinian people - quite the opposite.

      Considering in my viewpoint, the non-Catholic lineage Christians, are the true successors of Judaism this shows quite a track record. One string of religious beliefs which has never started a war for the purpose of "converting" a people to its religion. The Jews may have conquered a land in the Old Testament, however there was never a requirement the conquered peoples must worship Jehovah God. Ironically, without pressure, a number of the peoples in that region chose to follow Him anyway. The king of Babylon at one point even bowed his head to this God, and proclaimed him the one true God.

      I am done rambling now, but the point being, your views on religion especially true judeo-christianity are sorely misguided.

    2. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      you ever tell your child not to do something because it is againsts gods will?

      Yes.

      Every threaten to punish a child if the question a belief?

      No.

      I stopped reading your post after this.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    3. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Jarn_Firebrand · · Score: 1

      Jewish person who killed 29 Muslims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
      Here is also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_vio lence
      And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League
      And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach

      I am amazed you have never heard of Fred Phelps (a Baptist), but here he is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
      While he has never been convicted of killing people (there is much suspicion), he shot a dog and is rumored to have beaten his wife, and is happy that U.S. soldiers die in Iraq because "god hates faggots" and America is apparently a nation of "faggots".

      I am done rambling now, but the point being, your views on religion are extremely biased and bigoted, and you should actually do research before you post something as idiotic and full of errors as this post was.

    4. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by diablomonic · · Score: 2, Interesting
      First off, I would like to say that I respect Jesus Christ the man, because as far as we can tell, he said some very intelligent and kind things and taught a tolerance and wisdom I would have thought very out of place in the times (could be wrong, I dont live then.), and was willing to risk everything to do so, without hurting other people in the process

      with that in mind, I am not at all religeous, but still have strong moral values, obtained as follows:

      - there is no god, natural rights or universal truths, only the physical world we live in (*)
      - therefore the only thing that matters is what we think matters, and by we, I mean any sentient being. The only tangible good is that which makes beings happy, and perhaps the increase in knowledge although thats more based on the first, and the only bad is that which makes us unhappy/causes pain.
      - from this I get a personal moral code based on individual freedom, not hurting others (unless they want it: sm etc) except in self defence, not killing others except as a last resort in self defence. Environmentalism comes into it because of the enjoyment people get from nature, but there is no such thing as un-natural in the end, unless we can step outside this universe to alter things against the laws of physics etc.

      The purpose of the above is to show that having a "god" define our morality is not neccessary, and I would argue that in general, most religeous people dont follow your logic of

      "I would tell my children, not to steal, rape, murder, lie, etc. because it hurts us and our fellow men, and show how it does. Then tell them how God says the same thing and that we got this knowledge from Him"

      but rather "dont do bad things or you'll go to hell" or even worse "dont do anything the church (any church) tells you not to, whether you think its right or wrong, and if you do something wrong, you must confess or repent or whatever, usually involving donations to said church." How can doing "good" out of fear of your god be better than simply doing "good"? Why would any reasonably decent person have to fear a perfect god? why would a perfect god design us to be lustful and then punish us for doing as our "design" tells us to?. Faith in the bible is a bad thing in my opinion (as opposed to seeking wisdom in the words of jesus, which may be quite sensible, so long as you make your own mind up about which parts are wise), its just a book! its missing large portions of jesus' intended wisdom (look up the council of nicea, gospel of mary, gospel of judas, gnosticism, trinitarianism versus jesus as a created being, and the way the christian church has consistantly twisted symbols of other faiths and beliefs into devil worship symbols, and the centuries long killing and destruction of wise/free thinking women (and men outside the church)and so on) , and is twisted into a guilt producing document, and then used incorrectly to justify wars for money and oil. By promoting blind faith in god/bible/church, discouraging free thinking, people become sheeple, and follow the (supposedly religeous) leader, even when he is "evil".

      Im rambling now. Basically, the bible is NOT jesus's complete and unmodified word, the catholic church and many other religeous groups have committed unbelievably "evil" acts according to my own personal code (and most other peoples), and the teachings of the church dont match up with what we can see jesus teaching: namely peace, love for fellow humans, forgiveness, not worshiping idols or money or gold, that sort of thing, not "X is sinful, Y is sinful, you are all sinners, confess (without righting the wrongs you have done) and give us money and you will be forgiven". From this we can see that blind faith in the church is stupid to say the least, and blind faith in the bible is also not a good thing (although I admit there is more wisdom in it than given by the church). your non catholic/protestant faith makes more sense to me than average christian "faith", and yet, you still say you dont question the bibl

      --
      watch "the money masters" on google video
    5. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by popeguilty · · Score: 1

      All many relions do is say our personal and societal values were given to us by a higher power.

      Which makes them unquestionable. Sure, my beliefs and ideas "control" me, but organised religion is to proprietary software as my discordianism is to free software: you're not allowed to tamper with yours, but rewriting mine from the ground up is rather the point.

    6. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

      After all, having to listen to anything that challenges your world view might actually force you to think and try to understand the other person's point of view. This is called a "discussion." And if every person took the time to really think about how we got here and examined all the evidence they'd come to the inescapeable truth that there is no pattern behind it, no driving force and for a time the thought of death would paralyse you.

    7. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      I am done rambling now, but the point being, your views on religion are extremely biased and bigoted, and you should actually do research before you post something as idiotic and full of errors as this post was.

      Speaking of intellectual rigor .... I think I missed the class where we were taught that anecdotal evidance constitutes proof.

      For every muderder who was baptised/circumcised/whatever in the name of God, I will give you a million examples of somebody helping somebody else.

      You don't even want to *think* about accusing the relgious of hypocracy with the rant you just gave.

      Churches are institutions of man. Governments are institutions of man. Both are flawed.

      If you want to stick to the rational & scientific .... how about what BF Skinner did to his daughter? The Nazi scientists experimenting on the jews? STD experiments on blacks in the united states? Should I keep going?

      You might want to make sure you do YOUR research before you you decide to dump on something.

      No, I'm not relegious
      No, I'm not spiritual

      What I am, however, is somebody who has a brain and refuses to accept dogma from ANYBODY - relegious, *or* rationalist.

    8. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by AusIV · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, you are definitely stereotyping. I'm an agnostic. I don't go to church anymore, but I went when I was growing up and almost nothing you mention appeared in my church.

      I was never told not to do something simply because it was against god's will. During my confirmation, I asked my preacher why the church had a problem with pornography (in context with the lesson) and he gave me a very logical answer. He didn't punish me for questioning the beliefs of the church, and he didn't answer with "Because god says so." He was trying to help me understand with hopes that I might be a more considerate, caring person when I entered adulthood.

      And what hipocrasy do you speak of? I really didn't see much at my church. People interpreted what the bible said into logical advice. It gives perspective to issues people might otherwise struggle with.

      I'm not sure what you're next point is supposed to mean.

      Yes, their are leaders who use religion to brainwash their followers. There are also leaders who wrap themselves in the American flag and call anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic. This doesn't mean anyone who considers themself to be patriotic agrees with those leaders. Just because some leaders abuse religion does not mean religion exists solely to control people.

      The church I grew up in asks only for enough to keep the church going. The minister leads a very modest lifestyle, and while I saw political discussion at my church, I never saw anyone be told who to vote for.

      And my church is not alone. I've known Christians, Jews and Muslims who take advice from their religion, and I mean logical advice, not manipulative propaganda. This can help lead to enlightment, and it's certainly not just saying "it's god's will."

      The blatant stereotypes you're spreading are propogated because of what I believe is a loud minority. People like Fred Phelps lead others to believe that all Christians hate homosexuals and non-christians, but this is simply not the case. People like Osama Bin Laden make muslims appear to be bloodthirsty and anti-american. Again, this is generally not the case.

      I think religion has a lot to offer the world, and I think it's a pity that it gets abused as often as it does. Personally, I don't go to church because I find it boring. I don't necessarily believe one faith is any more "correct" than another, but I do think religion can be a valuable asset to a person as they mature and grow, and as a result, it can help make the world a better place.

      And to think, I read into the comments on this article because I was intrigued by the fact Canadians pay a tax on blank media to help compensate artists.

    9. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If somebody tries to claim that groups of people never kill for their religion (which happened), you only need one example to prove them wrong.

      This is basic logic. Take a break from sunday school and learn some.

      p.s. Thanks for bringing up the Nazis. They were also strongly supported by non-catholic religious groups such as the ones that have been claimed to have "never" killed people based on religion. Sure, there may have been religious groups that opposed them (especially ones they attacked), but once again, you only need one example to break a "never".

    10. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      You're absolutly right. Unfortunatly for you, even scanning back, I don't see a single instance of anybody claiming nobody has ever killed for their relegion.

      p.s. Thanks for bringing up the Nazis. They were also strongly supported by non-catholic religious groups such as the ones that have been claimed to have "never" killed people based on religion. Sure, there may have been religious groups that opposed them (especially ones they attacked), but once again, you only need one example to break a "never".

      Straw-man arguement. Whether relegious groups supported them or not, THe Nazi scientists in question did what they did in the name of SCIENCE, not RELEGION.

    11. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      how about what BF Skinner did to his daughter?

      Do you mean this:
      http://www.snopes.com/science/skinner.asp?

    12. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      Mea Culpa, I believe, is the phrase.

    13. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      I stopped reading your post after this.

      That's a shame. I could quite easily believe you were a motivated anti-religious type being sneaky by making religious people look like bigots, because that is what you have done. Saying 'I already know the answer and I don't have to listen to your argument' is the attitude that alienates people.

      You say that you've never threatened to punish a child if they question a belief, but that doesn't obviate the posters argument in the slightest... because many many religious people do exactly that. He's not talking about 'grammar_fascist' in particular (nice nick, btw), but of religious types in general.

      That said, I question whether your denial of threating of punishment is compatible with you telling a child not to do things that are against God's will. After all, whether you threaten someone directly or by telling them "God" will punish them, it is still a threat. And questioning a belief wont necessary take the form of an idle thought, but of experimentation... does gay sex really feel like a sin, did fiddling my taxes really result in retribution, etc. When you say you allow beliefs to be questioned without threat, you mean to say that you allow beliefs to be questioned on the understanding that the conclusion is that the belief is right.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    14. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      I replied to a poster above who was the exact opposite of you. I'd just like to say that where he made religious people sound very bad, you've presented a much better (and I believe more accurate) picture of those with religious beliefs. I agree that religion has a lot to offer the world, though I'm not part of any organised religion.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    15. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      I stopped reading your post after this.
      And that illustrates exactly the problem with religion! "Faith" and "beliefs" serve only to blind people to new ideas -- both by avoiding them as you just did, and by rejecting them without consideration when confronted.

      The central theme of all religions is "this is how it is, these are all the answers, there is no reason for you ever to seek anything on your own, and anyone that says differently is Evil."

      The way religion "sustains hope" is by convincing people that some "higher power" will come along and help them, implicitly reinforcing the notion that they are incapable of helping themselves. In reality, this is the opposite of hope. This is despair! Real hope is the notion that you can improve your own situation. Real faith is faith in yourself.

      Religion fosters helplessness. Religion is divisive. Religion causes supression of new ideas.

      Religion, above all, is an excuse. It's an excuse for any personal shortcomings. It's an excuse for bad decisions. It's an excuse for control, because it provides a cop-out when subordinates question orders.
      you ever tell your child not to do something because it is againsts gods will?
      Yes.
      ...And here's an example of that. Why didn't you give your child a real reason? You had an opportunity to teach him to think critically about the world around him, so that he could analyse future situations and figure out for himself what the moral and ethical course of action is. Instead, you've merely "taught" him to obey rules, learned by rote with no understanding, out of fear of punishment. You've harmed him.

      But congratulations! -- you're well on your way to raising a model citizen and worker who will never think of questioning authority. Or, in other words, a lobotomized sheep. Just be glad you've averted the danger that he might otherwise have come up with new ideas that would fundamentally improve the human condition, but that would also challenge your precious worldview.

      And that's what religion is all about: teaching impressionable minds never to ask that most evil question of all: WHY?
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Its not surprising that religious adults frequently set out rules without justification. Afterall it's how they imagine the world to work. There being a being more powerful than them that will punish and/or reward according to if they follow arbitrary rules with no justification to his liking. Why would they treat their kids any different ?

    17. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by vertinox · · Score: 1

      You'd make a good Buddhist... Of course so would Jesus.

      But you are correct... The Bible is quite mistrued and we selectivily pick and choose which books (I've read over the Gnostic bibles and they are really interesting about the demons and angels) and then we have the translation problem.

      IMO Islam at least has this issue taken care of because their books are kept in the original language of Arabic and were only written after Mohammed's death by people who had been with him and memorized his verses. Not only that, but the required two or more persons to have remembered it before they would include it in the Quaran.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    18. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by mkw87 · · Score: 1

      Funny about the DRM thing in your sig, your post outlines DRM of the mind (from my POV).

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
    19. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I agree.

      Spirituality is wonderful, and gets you closer to God/creator/yourself.

      Religion separates the masses from their money. Tax free!

      The First Church of Appliantology was invented for this reason...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    20. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Jarn_Firebrand · · Score: 1

      "There is one religion which has never had a leader call for killing people in the name of it: non-Catholic, non-Protestant Christianity. This is the same Christianity that spawned Amish, Hudderites, Mennonites, Ana-Baptists, and modern day Baptists. None of these groups were ever part of the catholic church, or any of it's offspring (the protestant churches). I also am not aware of Jews ever attacking and killing in the name of their religion, although being the only ethnic group that is identified solely with its religious heritage it becomes difficult sometimes. I don't think the current conflict in Israel has anything to do with trying to force Judaism on the Palestinian people - quite the opposite."

      That certainly sounds like someone "claiming nobody has ever killed for their relegion."

    21. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Jarn_Firebrand · · Score: 1

      You should actually probably READ the threads you reply to. It might help.

      Never once did I say that every person in those religion kills people. I was specifically referencing where the parent of my reply said that those religions has never killed anybody in the name of religion. Then maybe you would not make such a fool of yourself.

    22. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      Claiming that nobody has ever killed for CERTAIN relegions is not the same as claiming that nobody has ever killed for ANY relegion.

    23. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      except none of the examples you cited were members of the relegions he referred to.

    24. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Jarn_Firebrand · · Score: 1

      Well, you never said anything about any religion. Nor did I. Nor did anyone else.

      You said: "Unfortunatly for you, even scanning back, I don't see a single instance of anybody claiming nobody has ever killed for their relegion."

    25. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Jarn_Firebrand · · Score: 1

      He said, and I quote, this: "There is one religion which has never had a leader call for killing people in the name of it: non-Catholic, non-Protestant Christianity. This is the same Christianity that spawned Amish, Hudderites, Mennonites, Ana-Baptists, and modern day Baptists. None of these groups were ever part of the catholic church, or any of it's offspring (the protestant churches). I also am not aware of Jews ever attacking and killing in the name of their religion, although being the only ethnic group that is identified solely with its religious heritage it becomes difficult sometimes. I don't think the current conflict in Israel has anything to do with trying to force Judaism on the Palestinian people - quite the opposite."

      I listed Baptists and Jews. Now, I will repost what he said, and bold Baptists and Jews for you, so you don't have to read it (which you obviously never did to begin with).

      "There is one religion which has never had a leader call for killing people in the name of it: non-Catholic, non-Protestant Christianity. This is the same Christianity that spawned Amish, Hudderites, Mennonites, Ana-Baptists, and modern day Baptists. None of these groups were ever part of the catholic church, or any of it's offspring (the protestant churches). I also am not aware of Jews ever attacking and killing in the name of their religion, although being the only ethnic group that is identified solely with its religious heritage it becomes difficult sometimes. I don't think the current conflict in Israel has anything to do with trying to force Judaism on the Palestinian people - quite the opposite."

    26. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Your post is too damned long. Here, I'll summarize it for you:

      "You don't necessarily need to be religious to have a morality, as long as you can accept that any morality is essentially arbitrary when you get right down to it.

      Blah blah stuff stuff

      In conclusion, I have not yet realized that Christianity has moved on since the middle ages, like every other human institution. I also seem to think that non-christians are somehow less a pack of murdering scum than christians, despite all historical evidence to the contrary. Sincerely, diablomonic"


      I'll actually agree with you on the first part, with the addendum "therefore, god is a crutch for people so insecure that they can't maintain a moral code while accepting that it comes from themselves. But, humans being fallible, such insecurity is not necessarily a bad thing, and if you need the crutch, you should use it, not try to walk without one and fall flat on your face." The second part is, of course, complete silliness.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    27. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean, but it sounds interesting. Care to explain?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    28. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by mkw87 · · Score: 1

      Just as I read your post, then saw DRM in your sig, it made me connect your accurate description to some sort of 'DRM of the mind', ie: control the mind to only think what you allow it to.

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
    29. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Sure, my beliefs and ideas "control" me, but organised religion is to proprietary software as my discordianism is to free software: you're not allowed to tamper with yours, but rewriting mine from the ground up is rather the point.

      Um, if you're going to write something from the ground up, why do you care if someone else has released something similar beforehand as open source ? After all, the whole point of open source is that you're allowed to change it without having to rewrite it from the ground up...

      Given this, I'm a bit uncertain of what you were trying to say with your analogue. Or was that the whole point ?-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by popeguilty · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you babbling about?

    31. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by diablomonic · · Score: 1
      sorry, i like to discuss things a bit, and since Im actually used to reading books, I find all(most) all posts on slashdot to be short. I also admitted I was rambling so what your problem is I dont know. anyway, as to your(my?) second point, firstly, a true christian would probably never murder or deliberately hurt anyone (except perhaps in self defence, but I dont even think that would work), so your point is technically correct however firstly I group most religeons together under "twisted bullshit people use to justify other twisted bullshit" so christians, muslims, any other people killing others for so called "religous" reasons, its all the same lies and "evil" in as much as there is any such thing. Christians invented many of the tortures and torturous interrogation techniques in use today, back when they where wiping whole segments of the map (ie the cathars) and trying to eradicate free thinking people (inquisition) in a burning torturing orgy of self righteousness.

      You say they have moved on, yet wars are still being justified "in the name of god", free thinkers are still being told (forced) to consider inteligent design in science classes, where it DOES NOT belong, gays and other groups are discriminated against and hated at the say so of the church (ok there are other ingrained reasons as well but it's nice when your "moral" authority lets you hate the people you want to hate)

      the church still covers up massive child sexual abuse problems (I personally know half a dozen people who have admitted to sexual abuse by priests. I know of no other abuses by anyone else. and thats just the ones that admitted it), still makes a large portion of the world fell guilty about the most rediculous things (moved on... hahahaha... what?), and forgive me if I'm wrong, but have they ever actually apologised for their organisations previous (and continuing) actions (ie inquisition, witch burnings, pedo, all the rest).

      I hope this comment is not too long for you. perhaps Ill summarise it for you:

      Your wrong. And a doofus. nah nah na nah nah

      There, thats more like the "hop on spot" books you are more used to reading. (oh and by the way, where is this historical evidence of the christian churches as organisations, not a few good people suckered in, acting as a good thing?)

      --
      watch "the money masters" on google video
    32. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      You said:
      "The central theme of all religions is "this is how it is, these are all the answers, there is no reason for you ever to seek anything on your own, and anyone that says differently is Evil."

      Um, no, it is "This is how it is, these are all the answers, feel free to seek out your own way as you will see the folly of it and return to me" (e.g. the parable of the prodigal son).

      Then you said:
      "The way religion "sustains hope" is by convincing people that some "higher power" will come along and help them, implicitly reinforcing the notion that they are incapable of helping themselves. In reality, this is the opposite of hope. This is despair! Real hope is the notion that you can improve your own situation. Real faith is faith in yourself."

      Actually the way religion "sustains hope" is by explaining how the world works in relation to God's laws (since he is the one who created it he should know how it "works" right?) and how by following God's instructions you can improve your own life. God is there to help you in some instances, but it is really up to you to make the decision and the effort once you have all of the "facts".

    33. Re:No I am NOT sterotyping by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "I also am not aware of Jews ever attacking and killing in the name of their religion"

      Does God commanding them to wipe off of the earth every man women and child in a town they were to take over, count?

  101. Summary 'Incorrect' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under Canadian Copyright Law, it's perfectly legal to download music without paying for it.

    See?

    Actively uploading, however, does violate our Copyright Law. This has been brought up here so many times, I'm not going to bother posting links to previous /. articles.

  102. I am a Canadian high school student... by lkypnk · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've not had the displeasure of sitting through this; they aim it at the younger grades (14, 15 years old). While the website for "Captain Copyright" emphasizes intellectual property rights, the in-class indoctrination mostly talks about not plagarizing, so at least at my school, I think fairly little harm is being done.

    Even better, I have heard many of my peers mocking "Captain Copyright" and many seemed quite well informed about the law concerning fair dealing and had strong opinions on why the current copyright system is wrong or broken (at least according to them, who seem to want to justify the downloading of music.)

    As to aiming copyright law indoctrination at young children, well, thats just plain wrong. Private industry should not attempt to sugar-coat something like this as an educational aid and offer free material to teachers; nor should those teachers fall for such easy tricks! In a world where from every angle comes marketing ploy for corporations, is there nothing left sacred? Even a child's education? We should teach our children to be critical of everything they receive, I hope this material is being portrayed in such a light at school, instead of being force-fed to the students.

  103. I thought that.... by n8k99 · · Score: 1

    ....Jeff from the BBC show Coupling had something to do with this.
    Oh well, I'll just go back to my shell.

    --
    For some reason my fountain pen doesn't work here.
  104. Okay, wish me luck by Kandei-chan · · Score: 1

    I just squealed to DC Comics. Although I don't expect anything to come of it, it will be hugely entertaining if something does.

  105. Canadian copyright law is fraked up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Note: IANAL, but IAACLS (I Am a Canadian Law Student).
    This is incorrect, the blank media levy was designed to compensate artists for people copying CDs and other recordings. The "Download Question" was not seriously considered at the time the levy was introduced and it is a matter of opinion if it applies to downloads.
    Close, but not quite. It is true that the levy is there to compensate authors for the fact that you can copy music CDs for your personal use. However, it is 100% illegal in Canada to do the following without the written consent of the copyright holder:
    • download music/video/text from the Internet
    • encode a music cd you legally own in mp3/ogg/... to play in your computer/iPod/Muvo/...
    • make a backup copy of a movie you legally own
    • record a TV show
    • etc., etc., etc.

    I'm sure this will come as a suprise to many canadians, but copyright law is seriously screwed up here. We can often pride ourselves with the facts that our laws make much more sense that those of our neighbours to the south (which is true), but copyright law is a notable exception. There is no such thing as "fair use" in Canada.
    1. Re:Canadian copyright law is fraked up by rakslice · · Score: 1

      How is downloading of music personal use not "private copying" under the law? Does the recent case law have something to do with this?

    2. Re:Canadian copyright law is fraked up by rakslice · · Score: 1

      downloading music _for_ personal use, I should say

    3. Re:Canadian copyright law is fraked up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that there's no fair use in Canada. When you get right down to it (and to oversimplify the complexity of the situation), the Copyright Act is very simple. Any unautorized copying (as in "making copies of the original" - not "distributing", which, by the way, is why downloading is just as illegal as uploading, even if you may have heard otherwise in the past in the media (and here on /.) due to a famous case that was later overturned on appeal) is a violation. (Narrow) Exceptions exist, in which case it's not a violation. The exception of private copying allows you to make a copy on a CD or a tape. When downloading music, you're going to make a copy on your HD (even if you later burn it on a CD and then delete the first copy). But it's that first step that's illegal.

      Although CCH can give us hope for the future, we're not there yet. And there's always the threat of a revival of C-60, particularly under a conservative government.

      - Same IANAL, but IAACLA as above.

  106. Character names by shish · · Score: 2, Interesting
    An odd thing to spot, but I find it distracting that the bully is called Haskell (an alledgedly awesome programming language, that I've not had time to learn myself), and CC's scientist friend is called yuri (japanese for female / female reationships, often used online to mean "anime lesbian porn").

    Aside from that, the comic is rather lame -- it's so overdone, even a child should be able to detect the smell of propoganda...

    --
    I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    1. Re:Character names by Gwwfps · · Score: 1

      Um.. I think Yuri is a perfectly valid Russian name. At least the first man in space has it.

    2. Re:Character names by j35ter · · Score: 1

      Sure, the bad guys are Haskell, Python-man and Mono-framer, leaves the good guys to be the C-sharper,VB-boy and WINner-man! But seriously, CC targets students copying books, offering them to buy books at a bookstore he owns! I dont think you can get much dirtier than that, without becoming too graphic! When voting on how the story should continue, you get to send an email containing your vote!!! This website gives me the creeps, thinking of how the actually target children with their corporate-nazi propaganda

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
  107. Re:Because there's nothing better they can be doin by Firehed · · Score: 1

    I suppose the difference here is that cigarettes cause cancer, while the recording industry's actions are a cancer.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  108. placenta by PromANJ · · Score: 1

    and you should look at how other people, not under the influences you cite, experience God and religion. if you do see how it enriches, sustains, and gives hope, you're just stereotyping, which is merely intellectual laziness.

    Yeah, just look at Tom jumping there in Operah's sofa! Now there's a happy man! So what if it costs him a little money and he must eat some placentas...

    1. Re:placenta by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      Scientology is not in any way, shape or form a relgeion - just look at the name

      It is, at best, a cult for those who have an inherently inflated ego and sence of self-worth that makes them superiour to the rest of the "Great Unwashed".

      If relegion is the opiate of the masses, Scientology is the drug for intellectual snobs

    2. Re:placenta by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      The Church of Scientology is definitely a religion. The evil Lord Xenu commands it!

      --
      It's been a long time.
    3. Re:placenta by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      It's not a religion? Other than popularity what is the difference between a religion and a cult?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    4. Re:placenta by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      uh-uoh .... believe me, THAT discussion is a whole thread in and of itself.

      But popularity isn't one of the measures. Do you mind if we leave it at that, so we don't get TOO sidetracked?

    5. Re:placenta by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Up to you, but this thread's a day old and dissapearing into history as we speak. I can't see the harm in tangents now and I'd be interested in what you see as the difference between 'religion' and 'cult.' I have popularity and how long its been around. I see no qualitative difference between the two. A religion perhaps being less likely to have a single authority controlling it, but that's just a variation of the size issue and even Catholicism has the pope.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  109. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly. What can I say? My kid is 11 months old. In 5 years he'll be going to school. Here in Canada. And he will be learning about Captain Copyright? Jesus.
    I hope they all burn in hell.

  110. CAPTAIN COPYLEFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    call him captain copyleft. pleeeeeeaaaaase.

  111. Captain Copyleft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm all for kids having an understanding of the law, but Captain Copyright seemed rather one sided to me. (That's putting it politely, some might suggest it is deliberately trying to distort children's views of what is copyright infringement).

    To balance things a bit maybe we need our own superhero to put across the story about fair use, balancing rights of the copyright holder against those of the public, and that it's fun and good to carry on sharing your toys with your friends - we need Captain Copyleft.

    captaincopyleft.com is bought (I can't get captaincopyleft.ca as I'm not a canadian citizen), and I can provide hosting, but I have no artistic talent and can't write. Any slashdotters out there willing to step forward and provide content?

  112. Re:Oh dear god. - MOD UP PARENT - FUNNY! by Mooga · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Captain Copyright! He's our hero! Going to bring all our money down to ZERO..."

    --
    ~ Mooga
  113. captain copyright goes after creative commons by adpowers · · Score: 1

    I enjoyed Philipp Lenssen's parody of Captain Copyright over at Google Blogoscoped.

  114. NO, it is not a "matter of opinion", by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Informative

    It has been deemed legal by their lawmakers and courts and since the laws and court decisions have not changed/been overturned to make them illegal, this is simply false.

    screw these liars trying to pervert and poison the minds of impressionable youth! get it through your heads you greedy corps, it's not illegal in canada!, and the majority of the public doesn't consider it wrong where you've bought the laws making it illegal in other nations!

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  115. Government Funded by SamNmaX · · Score: 1

    The bottom of the "Access Copyright" webpage contains the message "We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canadian Culture Online Program." So I guess it's okay for a government funded organization representing the publishing industry to spread propaganda directed towards children.

    1. Re:Government Funded by Verminator · · Score: 1
      So I guess it's okay for a government funded organization representing the publishing industry to spread propaganda directed towards children.

      Sort of like what public (government) schools do, huh?

      --
      "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
  116. And, they are harvesting email addresses by IronChef · · Score: 1

    I held my nose and went through the comics. At the end, readers have a chance to vote for the outcome.

    "Hey Kids! Now it's your turn - use the buttons below to vote for what happens next, then check back here in September to read the continuing adventures of Captain Copyright!"

    The "buttons" are actually text mailto links. OK, bad design, but it also kind of seems sneaky. Well, who knows what else will show up in the captain@captaincopyright.ca mailbox... not that I would advocate anything like that. Oh no. I'm an old man now and very responsible.

    Lastly: allow me to present my reply to the BSA Copyright Weasel and this Capt. Copyright fellow:

    Cracker, the Fair Use Ferret

  117. Can you say, PEADOPHILE, children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought you could.

  118. Captain Libel saves the day! by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

    Once, back in the days when America was politically stable and Washington was free from scandals and the Democrats that come with them, a young man set out with the simple noble goal of creating the world's computer operating system. That man was William Henry Gates III, fresh out of college, full of ideas, hope, honesty, charm, and good looks.

    Little did he know what the evil Kernel Linux had in store. Stealing all Gates's ideas using his army of brainwashed penguins, Kernel Linux created a cheap knock-off of Gates's nigh-on-perfect Operating System, Bob. Adding insult to injury, the Kernel began distributing it using Gates's own invention, The Internet.

    "Guahaha!" Cried Kernel Linux, biting into a human baby sandwich, "I am evil! More evil than FreeBSD could ever be! And FreeBSD has Satan for a freaking mascot! AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE A START BUTTON! NO ONE WILL CARE! I'M FREE!"

    Swearing to exact his revenge on Linux, William Henry Gates III assumed is top secret alter-ego:

    Captain Libel!

    From his base of operations, the FAT32cave, Captain Libel fights back against Linux and his army of evil. From the Free Software Foundation to GPLed products, Captain Libel is always there, on the watch, ready to spring in with warnings and labels and error messages and his super-powered libel-ray.

    "Kids!" He cries, "When you use Open Source Software, you use an inferior product!"

    "Watch out!" He cries, "Installing a third party operating system could void your warranty!"

    "No!" He cries, "Open Document Format isn't just illegal - it's slower than the superior Gatescorp format!"

    Swooping in on Linux, he fires! Blat, blat, blat!

    "Ha!" Says Captain Libel, "Now I've added DRM to every piece of media to protect The Good Gatescorp Users of Earth! No one will want to use your evil product now, Linux! Not now that they can't listen to the latest pop musicians!"

    But, oh no! Kernel Linux has something up his sleeve! "Wrong, Captain Libel!" Bif, kapow, zang! Linux is using Obviously Got Guilt media system! It's only used by pirates! "Ha! I will make the kids want to listen to crappy and evil indie bands instead of your superior pop music!"

    "No, kids!" Screams Captain Libel! "Stay back! It's a trap! You can't play OGG files on your favorite media player without installing Evil Firmware! Please, listen to me!"

    Kapang, zow, swinyagalaga! Hooray! Captain Libel is releasing websites explaining that Linux is bad because he says so! What a righteous guy!

    "No, Captain Libel! Noooo!" Ha! Kernel Linux is on the run now, with his tail between his legs. Yes, penguins have tails. Ask Encarta The Infallible. No, kids, don't turn to the evil wiccapedia! It's pagan and innacurate! Did you know pedophiles use it? It's true.

    Phew, another crisis averted, thanks to:

    CAPTAIN LIBEL!

    "The world is safe again," he says to his trusty mascot, Clippy. "But for how long?"

    "It looks like you're writing a letter", replies Clippy in his chirpy, adolescent tone, "Let me delete it for you."

    "Ho, ho, ho, Clippy," laughs Captain Libel, "One of these days, I'm going to have to correct your bugs. Not now, though, I'm too busy fighting evil."

    THE END

    Next episode: Captain Libel fights Arvin Sloane, evil CEO of Rotten Apple - but how will he react when Sloane beats Clippy to death with an iPod? All this and more in the thrilling, action-packed, fact-based adventure: CAPTAIN LIBEL AND THE CURSED APPLE!

    Remember kids, Captain Libel says, "When you use Linux, you enable communism!"

    Copyright (c) 2006 Canada
    All Rights Reserved

  119. seconded, hilarious! by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    he's our oppressors.. multiplied..and he's fighting on the elitists' side!

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  120. Obligitory Simpson' s Reference by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    > According to Oscar Mayer's promotional periodic table of elements in The Simpsons, the atomic weight of bolonium is "delicious" or "snacktacular",

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_element

  121. Blatant? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is quality work compared to Christian cartoons.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  122. CC's archenemy by Footix · · Score: 1

    Captain Copyright may be quite the superhero (villain?) but even he bows down before (dramatic chord) SOFTWARE PATENT MAN!!

    --
    Footix - President, Society For Putting Things On Top Of Other Things
  123. It never hurts to try! by smchris · · Score: 1

    They also neglect to mention that Canadians pay a tax on blank media that is meant to compensate artists for downloads."

    Where's Ralph Nader when you need him? Wasn't one of his first cases Prell Shampoo because their directions said, "Apply, lather, rinse. Repeat." Repeat was unnecessary because the oils were invariably removed with the first application.

    But, hey. Twice as much income from one word.

  124. Captain Copy... by Mofassa · · Score: 1

    he's our hero gonna take B.T. down to zero. Earth...err... Music Video Print Art we are the 4 sides to copywrite, and together - we can change the world

  125. Based on a Fallacy by czarangelus · · Score: 4, Funny

    The best part is it's based on a fallacy to begin with. In the comic, the school bully comes, steals his artwork, and begins selling copies for a quarter in front of the teacher's lounge. In the case of file sharing, no money changes hands! What a bunch of horse crap.

    --
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    1. Re:Based on a Fallacy by swordgeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you could get your head out of your ass long enough to see something beyond file sharing, you'll discover that the site is about copyright infringement!

      It's shitty, deceitful, and amoral, but it's not exclusively obsessed with file sharing. Unlike you, apparently.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    2. Re:Based on a Fallacy by czarangelus · · Score: 1

      Because I'm sure bullies stealing kids' comics and selling them outside the teacher's lounge is a big problem in Canada.

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    3. Re:Based on a Fallacy by Lovemoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right - it is a fallacy. To be factual, the bully should sell the copies at 25 cents a time, then give the kid back 0.12 cents for each copy sold, retaining all rights over the work for fify years, then after the kid dies, try to alter the law to allow the bully to retain all rights to the work, instead of the work passing to public domain.

      That's the way it really works.

    4. Re:Based on a Fallacy by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I think it's more based on a phallicy.

    5. Re:Based on a Fallacy by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      In the case of file sharing, no money changes hands!

      Not only that, but the original is never deprived of use from the original owner. If the bully instead was said to have made "perfect copies" of the original owners art, and sold that for a quarter, that would be a more accurate comic. The original artist could easily start selling his work for ten cents, undercutting the guy who copied his work.

      Ultimately, this leads to a "race to the bottom", because in a world of data which can be perfectly copied, potential revenue and/or profits become zero. Today it is music and video, but increasingly it is becoming real-world items. You are beginning to see this most effectively in the cheap goods coming from overseas. All of those goods rely on data that backs them up. A run of 10,000 "legal" copies from the plant, then at night run another 2,000 "grey market" copies to be sold elsewhere.

      Someday, sooner than you think, such fabrication ability will be available on the desktop. For many simpler items, it already is (you can buy desktop fabrication and rapid prototyping systems for under $10,000 (US) today - simpler fabrication systems can be home built for under $1000.00, and the software to drive them is GPL'd).

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  126. Arch Nemesis? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

    So, anyone up for creating an arch nemesis for Captain Copyright?

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    1. Re:Arch Nemesis? by AndreiK · · Score: 1

      Arr! Bluetooth the Pirate! (Some of their older podcasts)

  127. The Scariest Part is the Questionable Accuracy by celest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Going through the "True or False", section myself, I was quite annoyed at the absolute assumption that all "software" was illegal to copy, and this being beaten into children's minds, amongst other falacies.

    Michael Geist (www.michaelgeist.ca) has a great commentary on his legal impressions of the whole thing:

    http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_conten t/task,view/id,1275/Itemid,85/nsub,/

  128. You can copy these: by peterfa · · Score: 0

    I know how much we all love Captain Copyright, so here are some pictures you can legally download, print, and color: http://www.captaincopyright.ca/Kids/ColouringBook. aspx

  129. Profitable, I said by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    It was just a guess, but to clarify I should say I meant that the content industry probably has some of the highest profit margins. And, yes, I could be dead wrong about all of it. In which case it's the copyright cartel's fault for brainwashing me.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Profitable, I said by arose · · Score: 1

      Since when are high profit margins good for the economy? High profit margins imply lack of competition and ineficiency. There is also the little problem of shifting around money vs. producing usefull things...

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  130. My religion by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My religion is a work in progress, ever proceeding onward towards the truth. I believe that this process includes debate. Currently I believe something about Jesus dying on account of sin. This sort of makes me Christian, but all the other "Christians" don't believe in the whole debate thing. I also believe that the English translations are all corrupt. I've made some progress learning Greek and Hebrew. Conversely most of those calling themselves Christians consider themselves either too busy or too dumb, or too.. something, to bother learning to read the Bible in the languages the English versions were written from. I find the fact that they haven't been so empowered by their religion a pretty strong indicator that their's isn't the right one. This does not, however mean that no religion drawn in part on the basis of the Bible can't be true. However, if one were to depend on this basis alone, most "Christians" aren't the greatest witnesses, nor are they on much of any factor. I testify to the unsuitability of most "Christians" I have encountered as witnesses despite finding myself clinging to the message of the Bible, and seeking to become the witness that I have found others not to be. Oddly enough, such "Christians" have done nothing to counteract me.

    1. Re:My religion by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Right. And like I said, your religion (where your interpretation of the Abrahamic god is the One True God) is the correct religioin. Every other god or goddess worshiped by every other civilization throughout the history of mankind is a silly fantasy. Your god said so himself. (Except for that god of the egyptians who could turn wood into snakes, of course. He was just a wimpy god.)

      Oh, and the god of all the christians who think the King James bible is a perfect bible, blessed by god himself... He is not the same god you worship. So you don't have the same god as a large percentage of christians because your god didn't bless the KJV as perfect.

      I think you will find that as you study the bible in Greek or Hebrew, some of the contradictions and absurdities found in the english translations will clear up, being replaced by ambiguities. The ancient languages just didn't have enough words in them.

      It is funny how vague some of it is. It's as if Abraham's god didn't want us to know his will, and preferred to have a billion contradictory interpretations. Seems silly.

      But while you learn these ancient languages and spend the rest of your life trying to sort out the contradictions and justify the reprehensible acts of the bible, think about where your life would be if you put that energy into improving your physical body, your mind and skillset, or your financial situation back here in reality.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:My religion by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      No. The Abrahamic God is a distortion of the one true God. My current model of God is less of a distortion of God, but still a distortion, but from what I can tell the Abrahamic God was a more complete less distorted model of God than other models in the region at that time. Also what are called "Eastern religions" have been more complete in some areas than Abraham was, but the overall completeness/distortion factor is hard for me to gauge, but I'm learning from that area. I find the Islamic writings to be rather scattershot.

    3. Re:My religion by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you are a skeptic toward the teachings of every church. In my opinion, that's a good start toward enlightenment. Though you would never be allowed in a catholic church with that kind of thinking.

      I doubt you will be successful in defining a "theory of the monothiestic god" by combining every different religion. How do you know which writings were done by those who had special knowledge of this god, and which were just completely fabricated?

      It seems very strange that such a god would allow his message to be so distored. If he has the power to communicate with us, he could tell us directly in our own languages. The fact that he does not proves that he either does not want us fully understand his message, or he does not exist.

      So either way, by trying to understand his message, you lose. You are either doesn't something he doesn't want you to do, or you are wasting your time entirely.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad to hear that you're open to discussion. I hope it isn't too much to ask that you could give me your argument for Jesus dying on the cross being account of sin so that I may understand it.

    5. Re:My religion by hackwrench · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How do you know which writings were done by those who had special knowledge of this god, and which were just completely fabricated?
      Signal analysis.
      One of my tenets is that "special knowledge" isn't needed.

      It seems very strange that such a god would allow his message to be so distored.
      I start with the first principle that God's message has been distorted. Then the question becomes what God's motivation of letting his message out for it to become distorted.
      I posit that there is something that God didn't create and that his purpose is to drive it out. Now if that "other" had any intelligence to it, then God could not rightly be called God. God's goal is to put intelligence into that fabric, but the limitations on the system results in what we experience as time.
      All that is good in us is God's message. To understand God's message is to become God's message. In the Bible, the general idea is expressed by Paul when he says: "I am crucified in Christ, therefore I no longer live. Jesus Christ now lives in me."

    6. Re:My religion by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      If you put enough energy in to that, and write it down, then you might have your own religion some day. I doubt it would be accepted as a "Christian" religion if you put those limitations on god.

      As interesting as new theory on the supernatural is, I still the it is most likely that you will eventually come to the conclusions that religion is probably all in people's heads and does not exist at all in the physical (real) world.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    7. Re:My religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you describe your signal analysis algorithm? Or do you just favor "The Holy Bible" over the Bhagavad Vita and others because your father is a strong Christian, and your mother went along with it before she passed away?

    8. Re:My religion by hackwrench · · Score: 0, Troll

      Part of it is letting a section feel wrong to me, then breaking that section down, and letting certain parts feel wrong, then asking what would feel right, checking that feeling of right with all the other occurrences. It is important to go to the original texts, for one, but looking at translations in other languages is beneficial too.

      Also, while the Bible is the base of my investigations, I read materials from other religions. I've glanced at the Book of Mormon and have serious issues with the fact that the "source text" has gone missing. I look at apocryphal works. Of the materials from other religions, the one most curious to me currently are the http://www.falundafa.org/ documents.

      What differentiates a true signal from noise is that in signal there isn't an equal probability that a cancelling pulse exists.

    9. Re:My religion by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Every other god or goddess worshiped by every other civilization throughout the history of mankind is a silly fantasy. Your god said so himself. (Except for that god of the egyptians who could turn wood into snakes, of course. He was just a wimpy god.)"

      My God didn't say that, he said he is the one True God, and the other powers that be are not Gods but purport themselves to be. He went on to prove this by Turning Moses' Wood staff into a snake also and then that snake eating the Eqyptian sorcerer's snakes.

      Every "miracle" that the eqyptian sorcerers could produce was then outshone by God's "miracles".

      In every instance where God was pitted against the God's of other religions (notice this is the correct spelling) he completey decimated the competition and created followers out of those who would worship "false" Gods. (like the story of God vs the followers of baal)

    10. Re:My religion by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "It seems very strange that such a god would allow his message to be so distored. If he has the power to communicate with us, he could tell us directly in our own languages. The fact that he does not proves that he either does not want us fully understand his message, or he does not exist."

      He has allowed translations of his text into pretty much every known tongue, the message is there for those who would seek it out, if there is a "mistake" in the translation God will provide the direction to those who would seek it out (e.g. the original greek or hebrew).

      If he came out of the clouds and started talking to everyone who would still sin? Who would NOT believe? Would there exist any need for faith? Of course not, he wants to know how you would act if there was a true choice, by allowing his existance to remain a mystery he gives us this opportunity.

  131. Mascot by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I was going to make a joke about being arrested for trying to spread the word about Captain Copyright, now I see it's no laughing matter! Sounds like a great ironic mascot for the Pirate Party.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  132. correctness vs. the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >In Canadian law it is incorrect to download a song unless you pay for it.

    The "correctness" can be debated, but it is perfectly legal in Canada to download songs. Maybe not to upload them, but downloading for personal use is just fine under the law.

    Cheers

  133. Re:Because there's nothing better they can be doin by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    Everyone who went to kindergarten or grade one remembers extensive lessons on "sharing"... now we've found a way to really share.

    I'm not a big fan of debated subjects being taught in school, I think that we'll see greater and greater divergence on copywrite law in the near future.

    Canada is quite liberal and would likely have quite liberal copywrite enforcement and IP laws except we are fprced to compete with American research and in fact a large number of U.S. companies have their research labs up here because of the huge number of university grads... (We have so many Grads hired south that the term "Brain Drain" is in common usage.)

  134. WTF by Gno · · Score: 0

    This is bullshit. Brainwashing kids i nthe 3rd grade and tageting the music downloaders? This is another cheap shot.

    --
    It's not -1 Flamebait! It's +5 Funny. You just didn't get the joke...
  135. Kids learn about God and science in different ways by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Every threaten to punish a child if the question a belief?

    It turns out kids notice that nobody says "I believe germs exist" or "I believe in gravity", but people do say "I believe in God". And so kids are much less sure about God existing. (Nobody gets punished for not believing in atoms.)

    I only wish more parents would realize that about their "beliefs", and think about it.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  136. Copyright Captain Copyright... by riot666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No where on the page does it say that the information on it is copyrighted.... You are now entering... The Twilight Zone.. *music ensues*

  137. I DO support copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I completely support copyright infringement, as long as it's for private use.

    What I want to see though is a comic of Captain Copyright sodomizing himself with a retractable baton.

  138. Re:OMG OMG QUIZ ANSWERS HERE1!!1!! READ INSIDE1!!! by chrispl · · Score: 1
    9. Your school wants to do a mural in teh entry hall to the school and they want to use Curious George. Is it okay to project these two cartoon characters on to the wall to enlarge them and trace around them? NO!!


    Hey they forget the TM for "Curious George"!

    Bust 'em Captain Copyright!
    --
    What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
  139. Re:OMG OMG QUIZ ANSWERS HERE1!!1!! READ INSIDE1!!! by MrChipset · · Score: 1

    >>10. When you buy a book, you own the copyright to that book, and you >>can loan it out or copy it as you wish. FALSE. God, where is this world heading...

  140. Mhmm by Ne-fishy · · Score: 1

    Because that will quite obviously change everything and stop downloads. Who on earth thought of "Captain Copyright" in the first place? Besides that, isn't it legal to download, just not to share?

    --
    How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A fish.
  141. Counter-Education? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    Does anybody have any links to good sources of counter-educational materials that discuss the evils of the recording industry, the unfair and illegal tactics they use and what the rights are of the Canadian people for Fair Dealing? People should educate children and prepare them for the classroom so they can respond in an educated fashion to unfair and morally wrong brainwashing.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Counter-Education? by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Does anybody have any links to good sources of counter-educational materials that discuss the evils of the recording industry, the unfair and illegal tactics they use and what the rights are of the Canadian people for Fair Dealing? People should educate children and prepare them for the classroom so they can respond in an educated fashion to unfair and morally wrong brainwashing."

      "Two wrongs make a right" is a touchy concept to try to explain to kids. While many people here would heartily agree that an artist not being paid as much as they like, or a CD costing more than they would like, is ample justification for piracy, it's can be tough to explain that this sort of rationale doesn't necessarily work everywhere -- ie. just because it is okay (in the opinion of many Slashdotters, at least) to pirate music if you think it's too expensive, it's not okay to take a candy bar without paying because you think it's too expensive. Pirating music can be a civil protest, if you convince yourself hard enough. Taking that candy bar is not.

      Agreed wholeheartedly with you that more education is sorely needed on fair use / fair dealing. Every time I see somebody write something to the effect of "fair use lets me make copies of CDs and give them to my friends," I cringe.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Counter-Education? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      I agree it is a touchy concept to explain to kids. I mean, I personally don't give a rats ass about downloading things myself, but I know full well what I'm doing and accept the risks and responsibilities. What pisses me off is that these kids are being taught one side of the story in class and not the other, and that the side they're being taught is sponsored by an industry with a profit motive.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  142. Re:OMG OMG QUIZ ANSWERS HERE1!!1!! READ INSIDE1!!! by abscissa · · Score: 1

    You see, they were sneaky enough to use a book title... because of course as we all know... YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT A BOOK TITLE!

  143. Hauptsturmführer Copyright by S3D · · Score: 1

    Just call him Hauptsturmführer Copyright to keep the tradition.

  144. Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So where's Fair Dealing on their list?

    They're the same idea, although the parts that aren't quite the same would drive your lawyer nuts.

    1. Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair dealing is 11th on their list, between "Economic rights" and "Moral rights". In the future, you may want to memorize the alphabet, a thorough knowledge of which will allow you to look up these things quickly and easily by yourself.

  145. Re:OMG OMG QUIZ ANSWERS HERE1!!1!! READ INSIDE1!!! by Shemmie · · Score: 1

    0 out of 10

    :o(

    I suck at copyright.
    Anyways, better check my Da Vinci Code torrent.

  146. It's Adolf Hitler! by zx-15 · · Score: 1

    Is it my eyes or Captain Copyright wears Adolf Hitler-style mustache.

  147. Re:Orwell Anyone? Or Godwin??? by Isotopian · · Score: 1
    "And when did 'hitler' become a lower-case adjective?"

    Around the same time nouns became adjectives!

    --

    It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.

  148. Silly webserver tricks by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    Bah, if we're going to have a link that sends stupid messages to the admin, let's at least make it something a bit more fun, like http://www.captaincopyright.ca/clueless_admins?you r_mother=a+hampster&your_father=smelt+of+elderberr ies

    Obviously, you should NOT set up a cron job to constantly run cURL and request that URL over and over or their logs might fill up...

    As for a Google-bomb, I can't think of anything very good, although propaganda whores has a nice ring to it and I finally have a use for this karma, because posting this with the +1 will give Slashdot's pagerank to them for that term :] I'm sure they're thrilled... Please copy & redistribute this information as much as possible :]

  149. Captain Copyright doesn't know his own laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me crazy... but firstly, the kid in the flashback never published his comic or did anything else to grant him copyright.... so as far as copyright law is concerned, what the bully did was fully legal.

    And the scientists, who all worked on the discovery together, but one was taking sole credit.... since the bad one published it first HE technically has copyright. From, yet again, a copyright standpoint, the scientests can't do a thing to him.

    In both cases, the offending party could get sued, because what they did was wrong, and ethics, at least for the scientists, would grant them all the due credit, but still.

    I'll give them the cheap textbook one, that is true copyright right there, but still... anyway, that's where I stopped reading... WAY too stupid.

    The fact is this ISN'T copyright law they're talking about, so Captain Copyright is even more of a flop than he sounds.... great job knowing the very laws your trying to "uphold".

    1. Re:Captain Copyright doesn't know his own laws by LocalH · · Score: 1

      Creation of anything that is legally considere copyrightable is automatically copyrighted, even if the creator then chucks it away in a drawer for eternity. You don't have to publish to receive copyright status. You have to register to be eligible for statutory damages in court, but not to take action against copyright infringement.

      --
      FC Closer
  150. A copyright is NOT a trademark! by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    > You see, they were sneaky enough to use a book title... because of course as we all know... YOU CAN'T COPYRIGHT A BOOK TITLE!

    You *can* trademark the name Curious George [TM], however. Copyright != trademark != patent != trade secret (although a single work may still be protected by more than one of those things). You'd think they'd make sure they were slightly more scrupulous if they're trying to sell Imaginary Property (I can't rightfully call most of it "intellectual") as anything but a tool of corporate oppression.

    Anyhow, Curious George is trademarked by the Houghton Mifflin Company. Not that I give a rat's ass about that, but it is. Someone should tell those propaganda whores to mark it properly :]

  151. So what does the comic teach us? by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
    I read the two comics available on the page.

    The first teaches us that it is mean to be a bully. You should not kick a weaker kid, steal his stuff, and sell copies of it. Captain Copyright is there to protect you against bullies. This leaves the impression that if you are NOT a bully, it is no problem to copy stuff.

    The second teaches us that the reason that you should not buy cheap copies, is that some of the pages might be missing. This actually is the argument you hear a lot: don't copy, because your rip might not be of the high quality of the original work. This leaves the impression that if you ensure that the copies are of the same quality as the original, it is no problem to copy stuff.

    I understand where this is coming from. They want to teach kids that they hurt themselves if they violate copyrights. Unfortunately, that is never going to work; in practice, the kids only enrich themselves by violating copyrights. Of course, for kids the message "this work is OWNED by someone else who does not want you to copy it, and you must respect his will" is not really convincing. But it is the only message that holds truth.

  152. Women's liberation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I know how to deal with this. We need to get the feminists on board. [...] we explain how the whole copyright thing is a conspiracy by a bunch of Rich White Men to tie access to culture, education and information to earning power as a covert way of keeping it away from women, who have less earning power.
    ... and how it curtails the "huwoman" right of free speech, sanctified on the 6th day by the Lord himself (or would that be "herself" already in feminist Newspeak?) when s/he "created the woman and gave her the telephone". BTW, notice how even in The Right to Read (and that's by an author deemed liberal) the poor oppressed woman is portrayed as utterly dependent upon men?
  153. I suggest another character . . . by edward.virtually@pob · · Score: 1

    Admiral Antifraud. He could have young adults watch Repo Man and listen to the intro music, then listen to the "soundtrack" cd and witness that the intro music does not in fact appear on it. Then he could ask "What is that?" and they could all yell "FRAUD". The moralizing of the media corps about how bad copyright violation is reeks of hypocrisy given their own propensity to commit crimes -- which they being corporations are never punished for (anyone else remember that lame "settlement" where they got to dump garbage cds on the public and call it restitution for price fixing of non-garbage cds?). Especially when they want to abuse the innocence and trust of children with their one-sided and self-serving indoctrination to ip law issues. Grr.

  154. Captain Nobeard the pirate by StoatBringer · · Score: 1

    A while ago I was talking to my friend's step-son, who's about 11, and he was impressed by the amount of music I had on my iPod. He was surprised when I said I'd paid for it all as well.

    The conversation went a bit like this:
    "Why did you pay for it? Why not just download it?"
    "Well, because that's stealing. I'd rather pay so that the artists I like get some money for the work they do, and stealing is wrong."
    "But it's not stealing, because it's free. How can you steal something that's free?"
    "It's only free because people illegally copied it and put on the net. You still end up with a product you should have paid for."
    "But it's FREE!"

    As far as a lot of kids are concerned, if you can download it for free, what's the problem?

    --
    Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
    1. Re:Captain Nobeard the pirate by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      "Well, because that's stealing. I'd rather pay so that the artists I like get some money for the work they do, and stealing is wrong."

      If anything is being stolen, it's potential revenue. The only thing being violated by copying bits is copyright - which once used to be a civil matter.

      Stealing something (theft), implies that when one person takes another person's stuff, that the second person is deprived of the use and ownership of that stuff. Copying bits is intrinsically different, as no one is deprived of anything other than potential revenue or profit - the original owner still has his "thing", and the other person has a "copy".

      Let's take a potential real world example - something that someone could actually do themselves, today, if they wanted to.

      I go to the local Ikea, and I purchase a "dresser", and bring it home. I take the pieces out of the box, I measure them fully and accurately - all measurements, including locations of holes, etc. I then return the dresser back to Ikea, and they refund me my money. I then go to Lowe's or Home Depot, or my other big box lumberyard, and I purchase everything needed on the list I made from my measurements. I take it all home, and I build the exact same dresser that I saw at Ikea. Now the question is, have I stolen anything from Ikea?

      The measuring of the Ikea product is analogous to the copying of the bits. The purchasing of the materials to make the item is analogous to the cost of the storage medium used to copy the bits onto. The effort I put into building the item is analogous to the effort to move those bits from one area onto the storage media.

      Please note, that today it is almost possible (maybe not at home unless you are one hell of a CAD/CAM enthusiast) to take the Ikea parts, scan everything into a computer, then have the computer cut those same parts out using a computer controlled 3D router. Look up "homebrew rapid prototyping" if you don't believe me. For most things at Ikea, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to build a laser scanning system to take the measurements, then have a computer plot the lines onto wood (you would later cut out) using a "turtle" line-drawing robot. Over, and over, and over again.

      Once again, what has been stolen from Ikea? One thing, and one thing only: loss of potential revenue. As far as I am aware, businesses are NOT GUARANTEED REVENUE throughout their lives, but they sure want it to turn out that way, it seems...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  155. Don't Copy That Floppy! by linhux · · Score: 1

    Every time something like this pops up, I can't help but remember Don't Copy That Floppy.

  156. Digital Pirate? by HeX314 · · Score: 1

    I am honestly going to laugh so farking hard if the next episode includes a character dressed like a digital pirate. Oh my God. That would be so funny. That's going to be my halloween costume.

  157. Can you spell paedophile? by edf825 · · Score: 1

    Evidently not.

  158. Captain Copyleft... by mikael · · Score: 1

    And in other news, Richard Stallman has announced that the FSF will be bringing out their own superhero Captain Copyleft. Featuring a goatee beard, horns, and a reverse C with a green circle and bar.
    Cartoon magazines featuring this character will be given away for free.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  159. Re:Kids learn about God and science in different w by Eivind · · Score: 1
    Sure. Even most religious people, exclusing a few total nutcases, knows the difference between fantasy and reality when it comes down to it.

    They may, in principle, disbelieve evolution, consider God omnipotent, believe in the "healing power" of prayer and so on.

    But the day they have a serious infection, their first choise tends to be antibiotics like the rest of us.

    The study says kids notice that people talk differently about say germs, and god. This has a reason; even religious people "believe" that god exists -- to a point. They are *certain* that bacteria exists. Yes, they'll claim to be certain about God too. But literally -- even 5 year olds can tell they're not really.

  160. Must. XXX. YYY. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry this is a bit off topic, but... where do all the "Must. XXX. YYY." style of statements come from? This seems to be a meme of some sort but given that XXX and YYY are always different, it's a bit hard to ask Google...

    1. Re:Must. XXX. YYY. WTF? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Probably a modification of the infamous phrase from Comic Book Guy, 'Worst. Episode. Ever.', with the full stops there to add dramatic pause between each word. Personally I'd have used semicolons.

    2. Re:Must. XXX. YYY. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. I figured it was from The Simpson's and even looked at Wikipedia's list of Simpsons' neologisms but came up empty. Now. I. Know.

  161. Re:Depends on which church by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Yes, you are definitely stereotyping. I'm an agnostic. I don't go to church anymore, but I went when I was growing up and almost nothing you mention appeared in my church.

    Personally, I was raised Catholic in the "deep south" where all my friends were raised in fire and brimstone Baptist churches while we had to travel 45 minutes to go to our Church.

    My Catholic church wasn't much to sneeze at... The sermons were bland and generally just telling you verbatim of things from the Bible without much interpetation.

    However... When I went to my friends Baptist church groups and services they would talk about fire and brimstone and damnation. I remember they would have kids group where some guy would dress up as satan and the try to run up and down the isles and the kids would boo and hiss at him. They would pass out Jack Chick tracts and so on...

    Pretty much all the rhetoric scared the shit out of me and I thought I was going to hell as a child for being a Catholic. (however MTV, NIN, early 90's and teen angst cured that)

    However there was a lot of hypocryisy involved in the local church seen. Affairs... Theivery of church donations... And even murder... Yes... In my small town of 3,000 a pastor was murdered by a mother of a daughter he was sleeping with at a local grocery store in front of tons of witnesses. I kid you not...

    However, my Catholic church really didn't have all that and was rather bland and I never really felt they were pushing anything on me other saying stuff I didn't really understand.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  162. Re:Only if you don't get extradited... by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Canadian law and American law are not the same? Shocker!

    Only if you don't get extradited to the US for violating copyright law on Canadian soil.

    The US has a bad habbit of that...

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  163. Yaaaaaaay! by Sj0 · · Score: 1

    Indoctrination is the BEST! Especially since it almost universally backfires, leading to an entire generation of useless pothead misanthropes who are proud to be able to hold minimum wage jobs, and spend their days downloading terrabytes of music, movies and games for free!

    You know, I think someone should remind these useless pieces of trash exactly what their role is, because they seem to think they've got far more intrinsic worth and power than they really do.

    --
    It's been a long time.
  164. Woohoo by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    "Then hand out (or read) Line Master: Some Copyright Laws."

    Gosh, the only thing more exciting for those kids would be if Certified Public AccountantMan came in and read them some of the Canadian tax code. Lucky tykes.

  165. Not that bad actually, for kids by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    I'd like to point out that the quiz for kids was very accurate. They don't ever talk about "downloading music" but they do point out that students have rights vis-a-vis teachers when it comes to their own written works and such.

    Personally, I'd let my kid take the quiz and then help them understand the nuances of the levy and personal copies of music, photocopying of pages of books for research, etc.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  166. See parent for good version of what I was saying by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    There's a reason mrchaotica was the first person on my friend list.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  167. Great! by mkw87 · · Score: 1

    This will work out great, just like it does for drug abuse and drunk driving!

    --
    Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
  168. Re:Orwell Anyone? Or Godwin??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the Reich 3.0 controversy...

  169. Oddly Enough by TheReverandND · · Score: 1

    ASCAP and other performing rights groups collect the same "blank tax" here in the USA. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

    1. Re:Oddly Enough by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      I am not Canadian, but here is how I understand the differences between the "tax" on media for copyright issues, and how it differs between Canada and America:

      In Canada, all media has the tax on it - hard drives, floppies, CD-Rs, DVD-Rs - I think there was even a thing about the ipod as well not too long ago.

      In the United States, however, the tax is only levied on media meant to be used for music. This is why, when you drop in at Fry's Electronics or whatnot, there are "Music CD-Rs", and then just "CD-Rs". See if you can find two different packs (same brand and number) - compare the price. The ones sold for "Music" will be higher in cost than the standard "data" CD-Rs. The difference is the tax.

      Now, I am sure that the consumer public in the US probably does buy those "music" CD-Rs to store their MP3s (otherwise, they would have stopped making them a long time ago). However, most people buy the cheapest brand they can find, which are most often the "data" CD-Rs. From what I remember, this split occurred because of an uproar when the tax was being passed that people storing just regular non-music data on CD-Rs were going to be unfairly taxed when nothing that went on the disc was music...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    2. Re:Oddly Enough by nsayer · · Score: 1
      Now, I am sure that the consumer public in the US probably does buy those "music" CD-Rs to store their MP3s (otherwise, they would have stopped making them a long time ago).

      The requirement for two types of CD-R media stems from the American Home Recording Act - the DMCA's grandfather.

      The AHRA requires a tax on media for standalone devices capable of recording digital audio. Computer peripherals were exempted, which is why there are "data" CD-Rs and "music" CD-Rs. The former will NOT work in a CD recorder that's a standalone unit that's part of your stereo. That's why they're still for sale. The fact that the uninformed or gullible buy them to burn MP3s from their computer is collateral damage.

    3. Re:Oddly Enough by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      Thank you for clearing that up - it makes sense.


      I know that there are standalone cd recorders, yet at the same time, they seem like something "useless". It seems like every time I see something in consumer electronics that makes me go "neat!", at the same time I think "but I could my PC to do that"...

      For instance (not a very good example), I have often thought that if I had a CD-ROM (or DVD-ROM) jukebox device, it would be great. Current ones are expensive (niche product), and I have given a lot of thought on building one. However, I always come back to an inevitable conclusion: It would be simpler to just have a PC with a set of large hard drives and a CD/DVD-RW drive, with a few back-end ripping scripts working to take whatever disc I stick in, and make an ISO of it. Tack on Samba and/or a web-based front end, and there you go.

      Consumer cd recorders strike the same note with me - if I need to record or copy a CD, I can do it with my computer. Just about everything can be done with a computer, so why bother with other devices? Of course, Joe Consumer doesn't know this, which is why such devices exist, I suppose...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  170. Tan Shirts by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    Captain Copyright should encourage all the children to spy on their friends and family just to make sure they are not doing something wrong. Maybe the good spies will get a free uniform, a nice tan shirt and black pants with a black, white and red arm band.

  171. Not Captain Copyright.... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1
    Q. What do you think Captain Copyright will say?
    A: "You can't draw a pony! It was my idea to draw a pony!"

    Sorry that's Private Patent's area of expertise, not Captain Copyright's.

    1. Re:Not Captain Copyright.... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      I know, but it boils down to the same thing. It's the same concept of posessing ideas that you originated.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  172. Downloading STILL legal in Canada. by sudog · · Score: 1

    The Federal Court decision has NOT been overturned yet, and now we have a large chunk of time to gather statistics which can prove one way or another whether legal downloading is hurting the music industry or not.

    Meanwhile, I'm downloading all the music I damn well please. After all, I'm already paying for the right to copy it for personal use.

  173. Oh Captain, my Captain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And the villains are the evil Professor RIAA and his sidekick, deranged Doctor MPAA? On the first issue they had tried to control all computers in the world by installing an evil rootkit software distributed along with common music CDs. Now they are developing a massive suing plan, to ruin the lives of everyone that doesn't follow Captain Copyright's advice. Could the world ever be a peaceful place once again?

    That's actually a good way of teaching children about Copyright law. If only we have thought of it before we could have Captain Advanced Quantum Mechanics, Captain C++, Captain Brain Surgery, Captain World Economics and all sorts of characters teaching children about difficult issues that they would encounter later on their lives.

  174. Re:Kids learn about God and science in different w by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

    I have never in my life said "I believe in god". Thank you now for giving me a concise way to explain this to people when they bug me about it.

    "Well, you wouldn't say 'I believe in gravity', would you?"

    (I realize that it's unlikely that this was what you were going for with your post, but it's what I got out of it, so thanks anyhow.)

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  175. Re:Depends on which church by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

    So you're saying that the church is designed to focus the community and inspire thought about moral issues, but it doesn't magically transform the usual fallible human specimens into superhuman paragons of the christian ideal?

    Imagine that. Welcome to 35 AD, when everyone else discovered this.

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  176. Re:But Captain Planet.... by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

    Is our hero!
    (he's) gonna take pollution down to zero!

    Seriously, though, that show served a valuable purpose, in that it had villains who cackled evilly as they dumped shit in the drinking water just for the hell of it. This caused kids to realize the obvious "no one is actually like that, that's fucking stupid", and resulted in later generations of environmental activists realizing that polluters are really normal people who aren't necessarily doing it from the sheer evil of their hearts. I actually think that this is the reason why environmentalism has actually made great strides recently: people are much more likely to cooperate with you when you acknowledge that they are a human being.

    I see the pendulum swinging back the other way these days, where demonizing people just because they work in a corporation is no longer seen as, well, riciculously fucking cheesy and unrealistic. I'm hoping this is just because of my involvement with the local college, though, since uneducated random bigotry (albeit in leftist directions instead of the rightish ones) is more the norm.

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  177. Kid's hate public service announcements by pestilence669 · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the awful "Don't copy that floppy" campaign in the 80's. It flopped... big surprise. Video is available for download on archive.org.

    You CANNOT make copyright law interesting to kids... not with Captain Copyright, Bill O'Reilly, or even Geraldo Rivera as your mascott. You might as well be trying to teach kids about tax law with Captain Taxes! People should rise up whenever government tries to fill their kids' heads with garbage. They might need that space for things like... math and reading.

  178. Plagiarism by brokenarmsgordon · · Score: 1
    http://www.captaincopyright.ca/Kids/Comics.aspx

    Since when is plagiarism the same as copyright infringement?

  179. Captain Parody by qeorqe · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Captain Copyright is tolerant of parodies?

  180. Re:Kids learn about God and science in different w by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
    I realize that it's unlikely that this was what you were going for with your post, but it's what I got out of it, so thanks anyhow.

    While I disagree with your apparent conclusions, I respect someone who doesn't engage in the doublethink most theists seem to. Glad you got something out of it.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  181. Check YOUR facts too. by jythie · · Score: 1

    BF Skinner did nothing to his daughter. The entire legend about him sticking his kid in a Skinner box for years was just a misreading of an article that was written about a tempature controlled crib he designed.

  182. I'm not canadian but... by nsayer · · Score: 1
    They also neglect to mention that Canadians pay a tax on blank media that is meant to compensate artists for downloads.

    Huh?

    I thought the tax was intended to compensate artists for people who did the rip, mix, burn thing.

  183. MOD PARENT UP! by nsayer · · Score: 1

    Spread that link far and wide. It's a great response.