Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Gov't Gives Big Bucks to Copyright Lobby

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the canada-v.-itself dept.

5degreez writes "The Toronto Star is reporting that the Canadian government is providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a copyright lobby group that claims that education groups are 'devoted to abolishing creators' rights on the Internet.' Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act by Prof Michael Geist reveal that government officials recognized that the funding established a bad precedent, yet they still plan to pay big bucks until 2008."

128 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a minute... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    they're using the taxpayers' money to provide the *AA money so they can lobby for parties following their lines?

    O.o This is sick, man! It's way more serious than the *AA. It's more like electoral fraud.

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Depends by what you mean by *AA.

      The money goes to the Creators' Rights Alliance. They include groups that represent poets, songwriters and composers. I do not believe that the CRIA (the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA) is part of this alliance.

      Here in the USA, there are groups that represent the media companies (the RIAA and the MPAA), and there are groups that represent artists (ASCAP and BMI). This distinction doesn't matter to many Slashdotters, but for background it's important to understand that the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI are often at odds with each other. Generally speaking, if you're a "little guy" composer or songwriter, ASCAP/BMI are your friends, and the RIAA is not.

      Many people reading this will fall into a couple of camps:

      If you are in the "hate the big record companies, respect the artists" camp (the "the artists are needy" group), then you might be okay with this.

      If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year -- is out of line, or if you believe that any organization made up of initials and which fights for copyright protection is evil (the "the artists are greedy" camp), then this news may upset you.

      I hope this answers your question.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Wait a minute... by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      This is no different than providing financing or charitable status to other groups (e.g. MADD, Coalition for Gun Control) of which the only purpose is to lobby government for legislation; presumably to provide a "groundswell of popular support" for what they (the government) want to do anyway.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    3. Re:Wait a minute... by stubear · · Score: 4, Informative

      bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI. The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations.

    4. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI."

      Correct. ASCAP and BMI collect on behalf of the artists. This is why I wrote that ASCAP and BMI represent artists (as separate and distinct from the RIAA, which represents record companies). When ASCAP or BMI comes a callin', the money goes to the artists, not the record companies.

      "The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations."

      The RIAA is a trade group that represents record companies, but it is the record companies that are responsible for calculating and distributing royalties based on CD sales. I know that many people like to use "RIAA" and "big record companies" interchangeably, but it's important to understand that for as much as the RIAA talks about how they are helping the artist, it is the record companies that they represent. Money goes to the RIAA to cover lobbying efforts, lawsuits, and so on, but you won't see the RIAA issuing checks to musicians. That is not their job.

      This is why I wrote that the RIAA represents record companies, while BMI and ASCAP represent artists.

      Let me know if I'm being unclear, or if you still believe that I'm incorrect.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    5. Re:Wait a minute... by koreth · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Nice generalization, but sadly not really true. From TFA:
      The CRA has eight objectives, which notably include "to ensure that government policy and legislation recognize that copyright is fundamentally about the rights of creators"

      In other words, this is a group that specifically says it's out to reduce the rights of the public, since the original conception of copyright is that it's a way to balance the rights of creators and the public for the greater good. This has its roots in English common law: the Statute of Anne in 1709 established the idea of limited terms for copyrights, the idea being that previously copyrighted material should become public material after a time.

      This group wants to go from "the point of copyright is to benefit society" to "the point of copyright is to benefit creators." Kind of a fundamental difference that one can in good conscience oppose without wanting to screw over any artists.

    6. Re:Wait a minute... by sasdrtx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe you should rethink your pigeonholing. The point of the article is the government paying lobbying organizations. I don't care what they're lobbying for, that is outrageous. It has nothing to do with one's position on copyright.

      --
      Most people don't even think inside the box.
    7. Re:Wait a minute... by bombadillo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Damn Canada has gone right wing all of the sudden. First they elect a Canadian version of Bush and now this...

    8. Re:Wait a minute... by alshithead · · Score: 1

      And how is this a surprise? It works the same way here in the US. Do you think the Bush government isn't giving millions of dollars to religious organizations that relflect the Republican party's goals? All governments in power give support to organizations they think will help promote their goals.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    9. Re:Wait a minute... by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      If it meant that less films like the last three Star Wars were made, I would argue the opposite.

      --
      My little site.
    10. Re:Wait a minute... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Downloading Star Wars before it even films doesn't benefit society.

      That's a neat trick. How do you download something before it's been created?

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    11. Re:Wait a minute... by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Downloading Star Wars before it even films doesn't benefit society. I find that most slashdotters are of the 'I am too cheap to pay the artists for their music' camp.

      If that was all this was about, then I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's about the copyright industry's repeated overreaching in their neverending quest to ensure that copyright lasts forever, and the public gets well and truly screwed out of what they are supposed to be getting out of the copyright bargain. They won't be satisfied until they've turned every media form into a DRM'd ad-fest. Now they even want us to pay for their efforts to screw us.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    12. Re:Wait a minute... by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      All but the most far-right politicians in Canada are slightly to the left of the Democrats, if anything. The spectrum here in Canada is very much shifted to the left, generally. Yes, I know this is a generalisation, but it *is* generally the case.

    13. Re:Wait a minute... by Headcase88 · · Score: 2, Informative
      First they elect a Canadian version of Bush and now this...
      Forgive me if I'm wrong, but to me the wording here implies that the two things aren't connected. That's like me saying (a few years ago) "First those yankees voted for the Amercian version of Bush (Bush), and now they're going to war with Iraq!"

      And for the record a lot of people voted for Harper because the Liberals were a horrible choice and God forbid they vote for a third party. After all, they have no chance of winning!

      So yeah, I agree with you, it's gone right wing. But we (the Canadian public) didn't make this lobbyist-funding decision in any more of a way than the American public "decided" to bomb Iraq.
      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    14. Re:Wait a minute... by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look, the guy clearly wrote "bzzzzttt...wrong," which means that you are wrong, whether or not what you wrote was factually correct. The simulated buzzer sound thingy in writing trumps all logic and automatically wins any dispute.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    15. Re:Wait a minute... by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      ...God forbid they vote for a third party. After all, they have no chance of winning!

      If Canada has a Plurality voting system similar to what we have down south, it isn't simply a self-fullfilling prophecy, it is an effect first observed by French sociologist Maurice Duverger. It works so reliably that political scientists have "promoted" it to being a "law". See my sig for more info.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    16. Re:Wait a minute... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      The simulated buzzer sound thingy in writing trumps all logic and automatically wins any dispute.
      Bzzzt. Wrong! Oh, wait...

    17. Re:Wait a minute... by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Funny
      That's a neat trick. How do you download something before it's been created?

      I don't know, but Mel Brooks figured it out. Go watch Spaceballs again -- Colonel Sanders pulls the Spaceballs tape off the shelf to fast forward and figure out where Lonestar crash landed. He explains to Dark Helmet that thanks to modern technology, they can have the VHS ready before the movie is done filming.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    18. Re:Wait a minute... by Footix · · Score: 1

      I know, I know, we goofy Canucks have the whole system backwards.

      --
      Footix - President, Society For Putting Things On Top Of Other Things
    19. Re:Wait a minute... by hearingaid · · Score: 4, Informative
      Sort of.

      Here in Canada, we actually have four parties currently represented in Parliament. This is down from the five that were there before (two parties merged; nobody got destroyed at the polls).

      However, since Confederation, the Prime Minister has been the leader of either the Conservative or Liberal/Whig party. There are other parties, and they do hold seats, but none of them have ever formed the federal government. However, some have won provincial elections.

      Handy links:

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    20. Re:Wait a minute... by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      Don't look at me, I voted for the New Democrats. If we had a proportional representation system like most of Europe, 20% of the house would be NDP. As long as we have a riding system (kinda like the US's, for those of you reading this), we are pretty much a 2 party country as well.

      I think Harper et al. are doing a terrible job, but polls seem to suggest people aren't too concerned. He actually RAISED taxes for the lowest tax bracket during his "big tax cuts", and no one noticed. What a dick.

      --
      Jeremy
    21. Re:Wait a minute... by AnyoneEB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, there is no logical reason for the original trilogy to still be protected under copyright. They are nearing 30 years of age. Should they not have fallen into public domain by now? It would certainly have made the whole original series not on DVD problem a moot point.

      There are certainly those who violate reasonable copyrights, and that will never be stopped, but not all copyrights are reasonable.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    22. Re:Wait a minute... by wharlie · · Score: 2, Funny

      "ding...correct", the bzzzzttt is final and makes that person the definitive source, no further arguments can be entered into.

    23. Re:Wait a minute... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      since the original conception of copyright is that it's a way to balance the rights of creators and the public for the greater good. This has its roots in English common law: the Statute of Anne in 1709 established the idea of limited terms for copyrights, the idea being that previously copyrighted material should become public material after a time.

      Canda's legal system is not as directly derived from english common law as is the US's. One factor in Canadian copyright law that has almost no representation in the US system is the concept of "Moral Rights" which derive from the continental (i.e. French) take on copyright.

      Moral Rights ("droits moraux" in french) are mostly about the author's right to maintain the integrity of the creation - to prevent it from being used in ways which (in the author's opinion) dilute or alter the intent of his work rather than being about making unaltered copies. It is my understanding that under French, and thus probably Canadian law, an author can not reassign his moral rights the way he may assign the right to distribute.

      Until a bill was passed settling it, the US had been headed for a decision regarding moral rights regarding the practice of some companies of making and selling "censorship tracks" for mainstream movies. There are a couple of different implementations, but the end result is the ability to see a movie edited by someone not approved by copyright holder. Usually all the good parts are taken out in order to pacify people like Ned Flanders living in Utah.

      Hollywood hated the idea and sued, claiming that the companies selling the dvds in conjunction with censorship tracks were misrepresenting the movies as the original works when they were not the creator's intended versions.

      It never got to court because congress passed a law that permitted even more draconian drm but also made such censorship tracks legal. But if it had, it would have been about an author's moral rights - although it is pretty certain Hollywood would have had to depend on somewhat creative interpretations of statutes written about things like trademarks in order to "create" moral rights.

      Anyway, the point of all that background and explication is that the line you quoted from the CRA's objectives sounds more like it is referring to Moral Rights as recognized by Canadian law than to proprietary rights like the public domain.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    24. Re:Wait a minute... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year -- is out of line, or if you believe that any organization made up of initials and which fights for copyright protection is evil (the "the artists are greedy" camp), then this news may upset you.

      Nice false choices there - how 'bout people who simply believe that free market economics should be allowed to have a chance, and that "IP" laws are socialistic and create false value which wouldn't otherwise exist?

    25. Re:Wait a minute... by Thangodin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the tip-off about these people is the part that says education was a "well heeled, publicly funded lobby . . . devoted to abolishing creators' rights on the Internet." He's talking about students and public libraries here; not exactly my idea of well heeled.

      When I hear spin like this, I smell bullshit.

    26. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      Well put. That's why I was careful to use words like "may." I, like you, take a pragmatic view, and fall through to "none of the above." However, I don't agree that IP is a socialist construct -- in fact, I think it's the epitomy of capitalism. I find that many Slashdotters' pro-piracy and/or anti-IP arguments -- "record companies have too much money," "artists are too greedy," "CDs are overpriced," and so on -- lean toward a socialist viewpoint.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    27. Re:Wait a minute... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      What part of IP is the epitomy of capitalism?

      1. It requires the use of an arbitrary legal definition (not related to the free market ideal of providing desired goods or services for acceptable compensation) to create a form of artificial scarcity.

      2. It requires the use of government power to enforce adherence to that arbitrary legal definition (since in a free market most people wouldn't see the point of giving up their rights over their own personal property without being compensated for it in some manner).

      3. The original motivation behind the mechanism was (supposedly) to encourage societal creativity.

      All of these characteristics scream socialism (e.g., trying to encourage certain kinds of social & economic behavior using govermental influence) no matter how you cut it.

    28. Re:Wait a minute... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't believe that is true. I think the far-right politicians in Canada could teach Bush a thing or two about being right wing (which is why Canadians have been rather fearful of electing them)... only they can't fully excercise their beliefs in government as they know they will be out of work (as politicians) at the next general election if they did (which is why Prime Minister Harper is keeping a tight reign on his core MPs and not allowing them to talk unscripted to the media). Many are very devout Christians, and many are very right wing, and there are several I would bet are almost Libertarian in view. Canada may have single payer health insurance, but we are a lot more capatilistic and market driven than most in the U.S. think... not as much as the U.S. but very close, and certainly much more so than Europe.

      Remember the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) who had the largest majority ever elected to Canadian parliment under Prime Minister Mulroney (1980s). He turned hard to the right and did as he pleased. The upshot was that he pissed the population off so bad that they were reduced to 2 seats in parliment after the next election. The PCs could not even be recognized as a political party in parliment (they have to sit as independents until they elected something over 10 MPs). The new Conservative Party of Canada (which is way further to the right than the old PCs) seem to have learned from that. They know they have to moderate themselves, especially at this time since they only have a minority government. However, I would bet that if they had a majority, they would drift pretty hard right closer to their roots. And personally, I think that might be good thing as Canada has drifted way too far to the left in my opinion. If they did get out of control, like before, the citizens would elect them out of existance the following election. But by that time, things might be more balanced to the middle for a few years before they go hard left again (and hopefully we would have a triple-e senate by that time!).

      What I find interesting is that even if Canadians were so sick of the Liberal Party after their ~14 year corruption riddled reign they actually elected any sort of right wing party. And what's more interesting is the Conservatives are gaining ground in Quebec (since they are supporting a more autonomous roll for that province... one thing I don't like about them... I like a strong central government), which would mean that they have a very good shot at getting a majority government next time. Finally as right wing as they are, I personally don't think the Conservatives are puppets of Bush. They may agree with him on quite a number of issues, but I think they understand that they represent Canada and its interests, not the U.S.A.'s. But at the same time, they understand that we have to work closely with the U.S. as friends since that is where most of our income comes from. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, unless you first find someone else to feed you. They are right next door and anyone else are many thousands of miles away. You do the math. ;-)

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    29. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "What part of IP is the epitomy of capitalism?"

      The fact that IP is capital.

      I get the choice of having my IP owned by me, not by the people. It's earned me some money, and money is good. How much money I can earn by my IP is only limited by my creativity and intelligence. With hard work and luck I can go as far as I want, without a government limiting my income.

      Now let's look at your points:

      "It requires the use of an arbitrary legal definition (not related to the free market ideal of providing desired goods or services for acceptable compensation) to create a form of artificial scarcity."

      I provide services. I receive compensation. Whether it's "acceptable" is entirely up to me and my customers. No problem, except for the whiners who'd like to have my stuff for free. Sorry, but scarcity, artificial or otherwise, is a fine part of a free market.

      "It requires the use of government power to enforce adherence to that arbitrary legal definition (since in a free market most people wouldn't see the point of giving up their rights over their own personal property without being compensated for it in some manner)."

      Giving up your rights? To what, my IP? Sorry -- you don't have the rights to my IP. The rights to my IP are not yours to give up. It's my server and my code, and your "rights" begin and end with your IP address and my .htaccess file. Perhaps one day I'll grant you some rights to my creative output by writing some open source code, but not today, thanks. The good news is that if you want some of your own IP, you can create it yourself. Maybe you'll be as succesful as me. Maybe even more successful. But that's up to you, and nobody will try to limit you.

      If you take the stance that you have the natural right to the creative output of the world, then I can see why you'd perceive somebody doing something with their IP as an infringement on "your" rights. But nonetheless, you'd be wrong.

      "The original motivation behind the mechanism was (supposedly) to encourage societal creativity."

      Define "original." The U.S. Constitution states that it is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's deliberately vague. Making money is a perfectly acceptable reason to promote the progress of science and useful arts. If you think that the creation of art is its own reward, that's fine, but lots of us will continue to make money off of our creative works.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    30. Re:Wait a minute... by gmack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) who had the largest majority ever elected to Canadian parliment under Prime Minister Mulroney (1980s). He turned hard to the right and did as he pleased. The upshot was that he pissed the population off so bad that they were reduced to 2 seats in parliment after the next election.

      It wasn't the shift to the right that did him in. It was the unpopular tax (GST) that he put into place followed by his first moves at cutting programs and moving towards getting the spiralling deficit under control. The two seats part was him chosing a hand picked sucessor (scapegoat) to take over the party. The problem was that she was politically inexperianced and should NEVER have been put in charge. Fun lines like "would you want something that ugly representing Canada internationally?" followed by ad campaigns making fun of Cretien's partially paralysed face finished the job. They would have lost for doing the right thing but putting someone in charge who just didn't know when to shut up caused a lindslide loss and pretty much finished off one of Canada's oldest political forces.

      The Liberal party kept their hold on power for 13 years by blatant FUD. The new (reform / alliance / Conservative) party was too new and while the Liberal party had ALL THE SAME THINGS being said by backbenchers they were able to scare people into thinking that the conservative party would actually do them. Personally I found the whole tactic sickening.

      I did however find the last election to be very entertaining.. it's a pity the next election won't be so fun to watch.

    31. Re:Wait a minute... by gmack · · Score: 3, Informative
      Damn Canada has gone right wing all of the sudden. First they elect a Canadian version of Bush and now this...

      The Conservatives weren't in power last fall when this was signed, the Liberals were. The change in power was in January. Also keep in mind that the Liberal party had been trying for awhile to implement a Canadian version of the DMCA

    32. Re:Wait a minute... by gmack · · Score: 1

      Having been in Ontario for one NDP term and BC for two. I'm rather glad they don't have much of a say at all. NDP policies of feed the unions and Tax the rich tend to drive the economy down rather than up. NDP platform last election was pretty much a joke as well.

      Your also playing with words when you say "lowest tax bracket" as if it means the poor will get taxed more. In Canada if your below a certain income level you don't pay income tax. The poorest are now getting a break on their sales tax while still not paying income tax. It's also important to note that the IMF was against the change because they worry we won't be able to tax old people enough since they make no income.

    33. Re:Wait a minute... by stinerman · · Score: 1
      This is either a well crafted troll (to which I salute you) or you simply don't understand the concept of copyright law.
      I get the choice of having my IP owned by me, not by the people.
      For the sole reason that the people decided that you should have a limited monopoly on its distribution. If we didn't, then I could copy any works you created for any reason I wanted and there would be nothing you could do about it.
      Sorry, but scarcity, artificial or otherwise, is a fine part of a free market.
      Actually, artificial scarcity isn't part of a free market. At least if you believe a free market is the natural order. In fact, copyright is the antithesis of a free market as it depends on government intervention in order to create the artifical scarcity. If you believe strongly in the idea of a free market, why would you want the government to intervene on your behalf? Is it because you want the government to increase your profitability? Is that the job of government in a free market, to pass laws to increase the profitablity of a private citizen's business?
      Sorry -- you don't have the rights to my IP.
      Again, you have it wrong. It is society's "IP" (hint: this is the reason why there is a public domain). The fact that you get a monopoly on its distribution is because we, as a society, decided that you might not release it unless you got such a monopoly. The idea of a natural right to control creative works was soundly rejected in 1774 (in common law jurisdictions) via Donaldson v. Beckett.
      If you take the stance that you have the natural right to the creative output of the world, then I can see why you'd perceive somebody doing something with their IP as an infringement on "your" rights. But nonetheless, you'd be wrong.
      Well, that is a matter of opinion, but all legal doctrine regarding copyright in commonwealth realms rests on this premise.
      Define "original." The U.S. Constitution states that it is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's deliberately vague. Making money is a perfectly acceptable reason to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
      May I suggest you read the framers' original (try "define:original" in google) remarks on the subject? I think you will see that it was a compromise to even get copyright into the Constitution. Jefferson, as I recall, was opposed to the idea. He would have had everything be public domain. The comprimise was struck because some people, like you, would simply not create any works if anyone could just up and copy them. Some still would, as is evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of copyrightable works were not copyrighted until 1989 when copyright was automatic. The fact that you get to make money off them is incidental.
    34. Re:Wait a minute... by 14CharUsername · · Score: 1

      Many current members of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party were around when the Reform party was a politcal wing of the Heritage Front, the Canadian version of the KKK. Do your research. Once a racist, always a racist.

      Right now they have a minority government, which means they are going to spend all their time on "think of the children" issues. Quite literally, lately. All to prove to the suckers that they aren't so bad, so maybe next time they can get a majority. If that happens... look out. This Conservative party could make the American Republican party look like hippies. Stephen Harper desperately wants to be George Bush, and he will be if we give him the chance.

      Maybe they've got you fooled, but I'm not going to trust a party that was originally formed by racists. Especially while those original members are the ones still running things.

    35. Re:Wait a minute... by gmack · · Score: 1

      Did my research and these are outright lies. There is never any evidence that the Heratige Front had any say at all in the old Reform party let alone have the Reform party as a wing.

    36. Re:Wait a minute... by Sepper · · Score: 1
      And what's more interesting is the Conservatives are gaining ground in Quebec (since they are supporting a more autonomous roll for that province... one thing I don't like about them... I like a strong central government)
      While, I too, think that a stronger central governement would be more efficient, it would never work. I live in Montreal, and I would say that you have to live here (or anywhere in Quebec) to really understand what the whole independance mouvement is all about. The core PQ and BQ voter will probably never trust the federal gouvernement because they feel it's "foreign" ...

      The Conservative gained ground in Quebec because people wanted change. The Liberals were seen as corrupted, and the BQ as a "back seat" party. The only alternative was the PC. And if the PC wants to keep thoses seats, they will have to please Quebec voters...
      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    37. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "This is either a well crafted troll (to which I salute you) or you simply don't understand the concept of copyright law."

      Yes, you have nailed it exactly. I simply don't understand the concept of copyright law. Sheesh.

      You can go on and continue to explain why my ability to own the code that I write is an affront to the natural universe, and I'll continue to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Thank you for, once again, bringing Thomas Jefferson's opinion into the picture, as his viewpoints on today's economy are hugely relevant. Next, let's talk about Sally Hemming.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    38. Re:Wait a minute... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1
      Many people reading this will fall into a couple of camps:

      If you are in the "hate the big record companies, respect the artists" camp (the "the artists are needy" group), then you might be okay with this.

      If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year -- is out of line, or if you believe that any organization made up of initials and which fights for copyright protection is evil (the "the artists are greedy" camp), then this news may upset you.
      Then there's the people who don't fall into either of these. I'm thoroughly pissed at this, not because anybody's fighting for any rights, but because a private lobby organization is using my own money to fight for their niche rights.

      I am a composer, and I didn't even know about this. Not only am I pissed that their using my money, they're also claiming to represent Canadian artists, and I've never heard of them.

      Although that's even irrelevant. My tax money should not go to any industry lobby group. Period.

      Fsck! Guy Fawkes was right!
      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    39. Re:Wait a minute... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      While, I too, think that a stronger central governement would be more efficient, it would never work. I live in Montreal, and I would say that you have to live here (or anywhere in Quebec) to really understand what the whole independance mouvement is all about. The core PQ and BQ voter will probably never trust the federal gouvernement because they feel it's "foreign" ...

      Heh, and what's funny is that the exact same sentiment is felt out here in western Canada. Perhaps Canada is more united than we think! United in our universal distrust of the feds... :)

    40. Re:Wait a minute... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I think "educational sector" means teachers, not students. heh.

      It also includes Museums... as recently several Museum groups have submitted positions supporting balanced copyright and supporting the public interest and opposing DRM/TPM legislation.

      So it's those eeeeevil librarians and teachers and museums in the educational sector conspiring to abolish copyright on the internet. Damn those Radical Militant Librarians! (Be sure to catch the third paragraph, where the origin of the term is explained.)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    41. Re:Wait a minute... by 14CharUsername · · Score: 1

      Its the Reform Party's dirty little secret, so its not easy to find records the relationship between reform and Heritage Front. Check the records on who handled security for the Reform Party in the early days, and go from there.

    42. Re:Wait a minute... by codemachine · · Score: 1

      Um, you have to make less than $10,000 per year to not pay income tax. If you're really making that little money, I doubt you have enough disposable income that the GST cut will help you at all.

      In fact, for those in the lowest tax bracket, they have to spend over half of their gross income on taxable consumables (ie. not rent or food) before the GST cut woud result in lower taxes for them. People with that little income cannot afford to spend so foolishly (though no doubt some do it anyhow).

      Heck, I'm not even in the lowest tax bracket, and this latest tax shift actually hurts me as well. Though that is mainly because I refuse to just consume like crazy. I know, I'm a horrible person for not having a savings level of -0.5% like the rest of our consumption mad society. I'm one of those darn hippies not contributing to the economy! But we'll see who's laughing when I can retire early while everyone else keeps working into their 80s to pay off their McMansion mortages and other debts.

    43. Re:Wait a minute... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      From the sounds of it he works on enterprise software so it'd be entirely feasible to put anyone who might be able to copy it under a contract that they won't do so and won't let anyone access it who hasn't signed that contract (and pay armed guards to shoot anyone trying to access the code without the contract?). In fact such contracts could be attached to anything that makes up the current IP market but it'd be one big hassle for everyone so the govt made a standardized law for it.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    44. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "From the sounds of it he works on enterprise software..."

      No, it's something truly evil: closed-source software. I run a web site that shares a lot of qualities with Slashdot (except that it's closed source): people visit my site. Some of them pay for the priveledge.

      "(and pay armed guards to shoot anyone trying to access the code without the contract?)"

      Huh? that's what security mechanisms are for. If you want to put armed guards at your data center, knock yourself out, but I think it's a wee bit much. If somebody manages to break in and get a copy of your code, you have that old nasty copyright law on your side. If "armed guards" is really the best solution you can come up with, maybe you should submit an "Ask Slashdot" asking for advice on securing your servers without the use of weapons.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    45. Re:Wait a minute... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      It _does_ sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding about (or are deliberately rejecting) the difference between real property, and intellectual "property".

      Some of that misunderstanding seems to be supported by your desire to maintain a business model that you are benefiting from, where you have rationalised that since that business model helps you, it is somehow magically a net benefit to society for such business models to exist.

    46. Re:Wait a minute... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Care to explain what's "right-wing" about the government funding a private policy initiative?

      It sounds to me like you decided that you are left-wing and universally correct, so everything you disapprove of must be right-wing, even though you have no idea what differentiates the two.

      Here's a hint though: If the governement is taking money from the citizens and spending it as they see fit on anything other than defence, that's left-wing, not right...

    47. Re:Wait a minute... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If somebody manages to break in and get a copy of your code, you have that old nasty copyright law on your side.

      I was talking about the parent poster's hypothetical "no copyright" situation.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    48. Re:Wait a minute... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      And for the record a lot of people voted for Harper because the Liberals were a horrible choice and God forbid they vote for a third party. After all, they have no chance of winning!

      well, the NDP (certainly a 3rd party) did gain quite a number of seats (11 more, 29 total, IIRC) in the last election. their chance of forming the government is somewhere between slim and nil, but in a close minority, they can be a force in the government.

      though oddly, none were elected in my provice, which has an NDP provincial government.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  2. No doubt! by jackhitrov · · Score: 1
    "...there is some doubt that CRA is a group that needs government funding for lobbying purposes."

    Ther is no doubt on such matter, really! It is always just a pain to see those ... governments. They really look like they are on a moon. Do not they see real people problems here on earth?

    http://www.worddisplay.com?government

  3. It's all about the marketing .. by Entropy · · Score: 4, Funny

    IMHO, the CRA should rename itself to truly reflect what it stands for. And we all know they will say they stand "against piracy". So they should name themselves the Creators Rights Alliance Againt Piracy.

    I think that then and only then will the right message get across ..

    --
    The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
    1. Re:It's all about the marketing .. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      In other words, "It's all about the Macdonalds, babee."

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    2. Re:It's all about the marketing .. by siriuskase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, they are doing it again - claiming to be all about creators' rights when they are really only concerned about owners' rights. We need a copyright systems that creates an incentive to create, not just to own.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    3. Re:It's all about the marketing .. by vaxt · · Score: 1

      This might be a problem, as a Canadian Political Party already has a similar name, the Canadian Reform Alliance Party.
      Actually, thats not funny, thats just old. Oh well.

    4. Re:It's all about the marketing .. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Last I checked the current system does. The only problem is, as I've overheard a musician put it, that many people want the label to do everything for them. Advertising, publishing, etc. You can save up money and do all that yourself, work yourself up to fame and don't have contracts that make your every word property of an international conglomerate. It's a bit harder but looking at the current system it's likely to give big rewards.

      Also the common complaint that IP rights encourage someone to create once and live off it forever are nonsense. Yesteryear's big seller won't fetch much coin today, you always need to create new material since the old stuff loses its value over time (unless you were simply so damn good that people still buy your work in large numbers twenty years later). Of course you can save up enough money to never need to work again but I wouldn't attribute that to copyright.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:It's all about the marketing .. by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      I suppose it's like venture capital, a creative someone without much money or business experience hooks up with someone who will provide the money and various services for some equity and control. In either case, it is a shame when the person(s) in control don't have the vision of the creator/founder.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  4. Public Interest by Morosoph · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have to say that it's a new line for Industry Lobbyists to be taking:

    "The public interest is getting too much representation! We need funding so that we can counter it!"

    You can be sure that other lobbies will soon be arguing the same thing. It's worked for the Creators' Rights Alliance, why not any other interest group?
    --
    Wikileaks, no DNS
  5. Repeat after me... by Audent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    copying copyright material is not theft. It is copying.

    Why should we be treating this as a criminal act when it's clearly a civil issue?

    Lobbying money, that's what.

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind
    1. Re:Repeat after me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is theft! It's immoral, an offense against God, an action against the holy laws, a terrorist act, an act that leads to killing of baby seals and global warming, an act that goes against everything that humanity stands for, a foul act of one undeserving any pity, an act of communist anarchist hippie facists, an act that goes against every single idea around which the modern democratic governments were built, an act that offends every single fiber of a human being, a foul act deserving the harshes treatment it can get, an act which should be completly eradicated from the entire universe, and left behind, as one of the past vices of our society!

      This post was paid for by the Recording Industry Association of America.

    2. Re:Repeat after me... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why should we be treating this as a criminal act when it's clearly a civil issue?

      Because when laws change, copyright infringement will become a criminal act.

      And speaking about lobbying, let me tell you about elections in my country.

      Here in Mexico, money for political campaigns is provided by taxes. It is scandalous because too much money is given to the parties - but in a way it's still healthier than lobbying. Because with lobbying, it's corporate interests which determine who gets advertised (and therefore, elected).

      A much better idea (IMHO) for an electoral process is to spend equal amount of money in propaganda for all parties involved, to promote their platforms and ideas. Then do obligatory (for the parties) debates and let the public decide.

    3. Re:Repeat after me... by gid13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are of course correct. It should be noted, though, that at least in the States the penalties for such copying are FAR worse than those for stealing. Despite being Canadian, I don't know too much about Canadian law on the subject except for the fact that there was a judge last year that said downloading and uploading music both qualified under personal use.

      More important than definitions of the word "theft", however, is the point that the government is funding a lobby group? How do I convince them to fund me to spread my message that infringing copyright is a good thing?

    4. Re:Repeat after me... by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      The Canadian government's funding the lobby group probably pales in comparison to the interested parties' donations to the political candidates that were responsible for this in the first place.

      You buy some candidates, then you use those candidates to get state funding for buying more candidates. When they're to that point, you might as well make the copyright industry a branch of the government in it's own right.

    5. Re:Repeat after me... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Actually, here is a better article that describes some of the problems in Mexican politics with vote buying. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    6. Re:Repeat after me... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Here's a better article about the current use of the time honored practice of vote buying in Mexican political campaigns.

      (Note: I'm not saying Mexico is better or worse than the U.S. or Canada in terms of political corruption.)

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    7. Re:Repeat after me... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      (Note: I'm not saying Mexico is better or worse than the U.S. or Canada in terms of political corruption.)

      Of course it's not. There are different flaws in both electoral systems, and they need different solutions. While in the US you need to go back to the popular vote, in here we need a 2nd pass election, so independent candidates and other parties can enjoy a greater quantity of votes, and at the same time, people can unite and vote against the "bad guy" if there is one.

    8. Re:Repeat after me... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think the problems are as simple to solve as that, but not doubt what you suggest would improve both systems.

      Please don't take this the wrong way, but I actually admire Mexican corruption (outside of the corruption due to drug trafficking). It seems so egalitarian compared to the corruption we see in the US (again, outside of drug trafficking). In the US, you have to already be extremely wealthy, powerful, or connected to participate in corruption, while in Mexico, corruption seems available to a much broader swath of society.

      Of course, once we look at the drug trade, we have to start looking at how demand and law enforcement policy in the US is creating the current environment of narco-terrorism and corruption in Mexico to a large degree. And that doesn't even begin to consider the role of US policy in Central America in the creation of groups like the Maras.

      I guess the point of this is that a lot of the fucked up things in our countries are inextricably bound, whether people admit it or not.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    9. Re:Repeat after me... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Here in Mexico, money for political campaigns is provided by taxes. It is scandalous because too much money is given to the parties - but in a way it's still healthier than lobbying.

      What you are describing is financing for election campaigning. The situation in Mexico is probably not much different from Canada, even if the details are different. The major exception when it comes to campaign finance is the USA.

      Because with lobbying, it's corporate interests which determine who gets advertised (and therefore, elected).

      Lobbying is ongoing attempting to persuade politicans to a certain point of view, both from regular corporates and political preassure groups (some of which are "corporate" even if they are not business based). If anything lobbying activities may reduce around a general election, because lobbiests wait until after the results to know who they need to bribe, blackmail, intimidate, etc.

  6. i thought canada by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful


    was a bastion of all that is fair and just in the world?

    or maybe what people traditionally associate with american versus european versus chinese versus (anywhere) behavior is actually a component of all human behavior?

    nah, that ruins all of my simplistic nationalism-based stereotypical ways i think about my world, where everyone is conveniently lumped into "good guys" versus "bad guys"

    heaven forbid i have to think critically about the world i live in and keep an open mind about all its peoples regardless of the issue at hand

    that what we consider "bad" (usa) might sometimes do good and what we consider "good" (canada) might sometimes do bad

    inconceivable!

    what is this world coming too if i can't prejudice based on nationality?

    </sarcasm>

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i thought canada by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      what is this world coming too if i can't prejudice based on nationality?
      Don't worry, I expected this to happen eventualy. Therefor I worked out a system to prejudice based on the size of people's noses. I agree, skin color is much less invasive to detect, but that's so old school.
    2. Re:i thought canada by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1
      was a bastion of all that is fair and just in the world?

      It was until January of this year, when Stephen Harper managed to weasel his way into the PM's office. Fortunately, it's just a minority government, so we should be able to get rid of him before he can do too much damage.
      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
  7. Re:Harper == Baby Bush by djmurdoch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This contract was awarded under the previous government, but it's for a 3 year term. So we'll see if there are any differences between the Liberals and Conservatives.

  8. All you Slashbots... by rewt66 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    who said, "The USA stinks! I'm going to move to Canada", well, now's the time to rethink your position.

    This is one of the craziest, most twisted, least democratic things I have ever heard of an allegedly democratic government doing.

    (Yeah, I know, the NSA. That's crazy. But at least I understand it. I understand why they want to do it, and why they want to keep it secret, and even if the effects are bad, and the precedent is horrible, at least the intent is not at the moment evil. But using government money to lobby the government? I just can't begin to get my brain around that one.)

    1. Re:All you Slashbots... by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1
      This is one of the craziest, most twisted, least democratic things I have ever heard of an allegedly democratic government doing.

      Never mind unlimited copyright, which is essentially what the US has, is a violation of the US Constitution, right? We're just ignoring that now?

      --
      Help us build a better map!
    2. Re:All you Slashbots... by ryusen · · Score: 1

      i'll grant you it's twisted, but seriously... i think deportng a Candian citizen to Syria to be tortured far outweighs this in terms of un-democratic...

      as for people who said they'd leave and people who said people who didn't like it should leave.. i think they kind of forgot that this country was founded on fighting for your rights... silly people...

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    3. Re:All you Slashbots... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      This is one of the craziest, most twisted, least democratic things I have ever heard of an allegedly democratic government doing.

      You're kidding, right? You actually think this is worse than, say, illicit, illegal domestic spying? Or lying to the American public in order to justify war?

      Jebus, forget about that, how about the run of the mill stuff that goes on in the US:

      * Institutionalized Bribary (aka "lobbying").
      * The whole concept of riders to bills.
      * Gerrymandering.

      The list goes on. And yet you think all these things are *less* twisted and *more* democratic? Honestly, I think you need to reevaluate your priorities.

  9. Canada vs. Itself by twicesliced · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, lemme get this straight... I'm paying taxes that fund copyright holders' (specifically, SOCAN) efforts to make more money while I'm still paying a blank media tax that already puts money directly into those same copyright holders' (SOCAN) pockets? Sweet deal ;)

    1. Re:Canada vs. Itself by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      Jest so you know, the creator does not necessarily = the copyright holder.

      Creator's rights (at least in the European tradition) are something entirely separate from Copy rights. The U.S. has creator's rights, but they are limited in comparison to what exists in Europe.

      You and many others are demonizing the CRA without truly understanding what they're about. If you look on their website, you can find their 8 objectives
      4. To ensure that the creation and/or implementation of any new rights do not prejudice the existing rights of creators.

      5. To work for the inclusion of the moral rights of creators in the TRIPs* agreement.

      6. To ensure that a rights regime protecting Traditional Knowledge is devised and implemented internationally.
      It'd be nice if /. knew WTF it was talking about
      The Canadian Creative Commons website has
      a nice writeup about Moral Rights
      http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=moralrights

      I'd encourage everyone posting in this thread to understand what it's about.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Canada vs. Itself by twicesliced · · Score: 1

      You are correct, sir. I apologize for typing only "copyright holders", as they are not always the direct beneficiaries of such taxes. Please note, however, that I did specify SOCAN as the main common beneficiary of the two uses of taxes mentioned in my post. Unfortunately, we're getting away from what I said initially. You are attacking semantics rather than the issue at hand in my particular post. I'm all for hearing every side of the argument, and government funding that levels that playing field is a good thing, but this particular deal has too many issues surrounding it (RTFA? ;) ), potentially setting a very bad precendent for this kind of thing in Canada. Even all of that is beside my initial point though... All I'm pointing-out is this: Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that Canadians are paying people for the right to make private copies of their work while at the same time paying representatives of those same people to potentially take that already paid-for right away from them?

  10. Creators' Rights ? by Groovus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems to me the only "right" that matters in these conversations is the "creators'" entitlement to being paid in perpetuity for any and all copies of the same work over and over, in any format it may appear.

    That shouldn't be a right, and it didn't used to be for nearly the entirety of human artistic existence. I'm all for abolishing it if it has become one too. The trick these lobbiests/cartels have pulled is establishing this "right" as a fact and basing all consequent discussions on this fact. Sorry guys I'm not on board - the very principles you're trying to have everyone take for granted are wrong and repugnant.

    Even if "creators" never receive a cent, dinar sheckle or chicken liver for selling a copy of their work there will still be plenty of art - good art, great art - just as there has always been. And in this day of advanced distribution technology we'll all have easy access to it as well. And just possibly, eliminating the artificial "entitlement" money attached to copies will return the economics of art to a sane level, bringing the "artists" and the would be bloodsuckers who infest them back into line with the rest of society in terms of monetary value in relation to actual utility value.

    Take back the terms of the discussion human beings - once you do that these cartels have no ground to stand on. Everything else is window dressing.

    1. Re:Creators' Rights ? by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Even if "creators" never receive a cent, dinar sheckle or chicken liver for selling a copy of their work there will still be plenty of art - good art, great art - just as there has always been."

      This is a tough one to prove. Although they lived in a time before copyright as we know it existed, Shakespeare, Mozart, Michaelangelo and the other great masters were in it for the money. They were paid, and often paid quite well. They were often the superstars of their era.

      "And just possibly, eliminating the artificial "entitlement" money attached to copies will return the economics of art to a sane level, bringing the "artists" and the would be bloodsuckers who infest them back into line with the rest of society in terms of monetary value in relation to actual utility value."

      This makes a lot of sense if you turn on "MTV Cribs" or read about Adam Sandler's salary and believe that they are representative of the typical person who makes a living with their creative output. It's roughly analagous to using Larry Ellison as an example of your average worker in the computer industry. The reality is that the professions of poet, musician and writer are among the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. While some people may argue that some professions are overpaid, graphing the average salary by profession would very quickly show you that poet/musician/writer sure ain't one of them.

      By the way, the "the producers will still keep producing even if we knock them down a few pegs" thesis was explored heavily in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. In that work, as in the discussions on Slashdot, "greed" and "fair play" were terms thrown about to describe the most successful people in their field, and actions were taken by the government to level the playing field and put the power in the hands of the consumers, rather than the producers. It's an interesting read for those who are concerned with copyright holders having too much power.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Creators' Rights ? by Groovus · · Score: 1

      See, you're doing the same thing as the cartels equating getting paid to create art with getting paid to create/distribute COPIES of art. The confusion of these two concepts, deliberate or otherwise, is at the root of these types of dicussions and the actions people take as result.

      So people were able to get "paid, and often paid quite well..." before there was copyright, and before there was any digital distribution of copies. Far from being evidence of how the point that great art will be created regardless of whether people are paid for production/distribution of copies is tough to prove, it actually proves it.

      For the rest, you've noted the discrepancy between the big stars and all the other artists. The thing you're not addressing is that that situation exists now anyway with the already established generous "creators' rights." Most poets, musicians and writers ARE at the bottom of the economic ladder while the select few and the parasites that feed off them make a mint from creation/distribution of copies. So your last couple of paragraphs are actually a non-sequitor.

      Put that in your Ayn Rand pipe and smoke it.

    3. Re:Creators' Rights ? by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      So people were able to get "paid, and often paid quite well..." before there was copyright, and before there was any digital distribution of copies. Far from being evidence of how the point that great art will be created regardless of whether people are paid for production/distribution of copies is tough to prove, it actually proves it.

      Indeed. It's funny how so many people who otherwise champion the free market's power (i.e. Ayn Rand types) suddenly think government intervention is necessary for the market to apply to information. It isn't; as long as you have people who value original works and other people who are able to produce original works, there will be a way for the former to give money to the latter. You don't need monopolies on copying for that to work - you just need to treat writing/performing like any other service.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    4. Re:Creators' Rights ? by shark72 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification. I contend that the parasites will always be there. As long as information "wants to be free," there will be people who'll try to make money by helping its freedom. I'm not just talking about outfits like the record companies that fund the creation and marketing of music. By many accounts the owners of TPB are doing quite well selling ad space, and as the Australia court documents showed us, the owners of Kazaa made millions.

      Many people are of the opinion that abolishing copyright will lead to a glorious age of freedom where it's less about money and more about the creative spirit, but I think it will simply transfer the power (and the money) from the people who are good at creating, to the people who are good at copying. Great news if you own a CD pressing or book printing plant in China, or if you run a torrent site.

      "So people were able to get "paid, and often paid quite well..." before there was copyright, and before there was any digital distribution of copies. Far from being evidence of how the point that great art will be created regardless of whether people are paid for production/distribution of copies is tough to prove, it actually proves it."

      I see your point, but the important difference between today and the days of Shakespeare et al. is that today you have millions of people who can copy something instantly. That dynamic simply did not exist then. Would people have gone to Shakespeare's plays, or would Michaelangelo et al. had their commissions and patronages if anybody could have their own Michaelangelo or their own copy of the Shakespeare folio instantly? We cannot know this. The notion that we don't need sophisticated IP laws because artists 500 or 1,000 years ago didn't need them is somewhat like saying that we don't need an inch-thick vehicle code because our ancestors who made us of horse-drawn carriages didn't need one. In countless areas of technology, technological advances drive the creation of new laws.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    5. Re:Creators' Rights ? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      Seems to me the only "right" that matters in these conversations is the "creators'" entitlement to being paid in perpetuity for any and all copies of the same work over and over, in any format it may appear.
      Actually, in copyright law, Creator's Rights* exist apart from economic rights.

      *aka Moral Rights

      A Creator's Moral Rights encompasses two things:
      1. The right to have your name associated with your work.
      2a. The right to prevent your work from being modified as to constitute a mutilation or distortion that would harm your honour or reputation.
      2b. The right to prevent your work from being associated with products, services, causes or institutions that would harm your honour or reputation.

      That is what the Canadian Government is paying the CRA to lobby for.
      It's a shame your ignorance got modded Insightful.
      Some people (including the Canadian Gov't) cares about more than money.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  11. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Why?

    Articles which guarantee good ad impression numbers:

      * Software "piracy"
      * **AA actions
      * Big evil corporation does anything at all
      * a linux project is incremented by 0.0.1
      * Microsoft introduces another point-release OS but increments a full version number and hails it as the best thing since the Trash 80.

    (I'm kidding, I'm kidding!)

    Seriously: If it's a slow news day here, why not post a related-but-not-quite-topical article which will attract a lot of eyes? Like it or not copyright law in other countries DOES (indirectly) affect us here in America. Look at the international "treaties" which are very quickly usurping our constitution. Look at the DMCA as the result of one of those treaties.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  12. The enemy of my enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This distinction doesn't matter to many Slashdotters, but for background it's important to understand that the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI are often at odds with each other. Generally speaking, if you're a "little guy" composer or songwriter, ASCAP/BMI are your friends, and the RIAA is not.

    The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

    If I am a composer whose works are performed or recorded by others, ASCAP protects my interests. If I am anybody else, then ASCAP protects the interests of composers from me. ASCAP is just as likely to be attacking me as they are to be attacking the RIAA. For example, let us say that I run a restaurant. In that case, ASCAP are the people who prevent me from allowing my employees to sing the "Happy Birthday" song, or virtually any other song for that matter. If I am a small-time composer or musician whose works are not performed by others, ASCAP are the people whom I live in fear of in case I have the temerity to perform a song I did not write under the very wide umbrella of what constitutes a "public performance".

    I am not familiar enough with Canadian CRIA to comment on them specifically.

    If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year

    Wait, stop right there. "Intellectual property" owners have no rights. They have privileges. Copyrights are granted by the government, which means they are not rights. Real rights cannot be granted by anyone, because something which can be granted can be taken away. Since copyrights are priviliges and not rights, the populace have the authority to direct the government they theoretically control to limit or remove the priviliges that those copyright holders enjoy.

    1. Re:The enemy of my enemy by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "If I am a composer whose works are performed or recorded by others, ASCAP protects my interests. If I am anybody else, then ASCAP protects the interests of composers from me."

      Yup. ASCAP and BMI are pretty narrow in their scope... they represent composers and lyricists. Not restaurant owners, and not performers. The trouble is, when you're chartered to represent group A, you're liable to piss off groups B and C if their interests collide with those of group A.

      "For example, let us say that I run a restaurant. In that case, ASCAP are the people who prevent me from allowing my employees to sing the "Happy Birthday" song, or virtually any other song for that matter."

      Exactly... that's in keeping with their charter... to look out for the rights of composers and lyricists. This is why it's not accurate to say that all Slashdotters are in the "artists are needy" camp. All it takes is one run-in with ASCAP or BMI and composers and lyricists are greedy bastards just like the record companies.

      "If I am a small-time composer or musician whose works are not performed by others, ASCAP are the people whom I live in fear of in case I have the temerity to perform a song I did not write under the very wide umbrella of what constitutes a "public performance".

      Well, here your issue with ASCAP is in the capacity as a performer, not a composer. It's the same as saying "If I'm a plumber, the ASCAP will get on my case if I performa song that I didn't write." The fact that a performer might happen to also have written their own songs isn't germaine here.

      However, I've lost you on the "public performance" part, so please educate me. I've been of the understanding that the ASCAP/BMI licensing is handled by the venue -- that is, if you have a gig in a bar, restaurant or theatre, it's they who pay up, and you can sing all all the songs you want, even "Happy Birthday." Can you give me some examples of a public performance where the performer is liable for the ASCAP/BMI licensing, and not the property owner?

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:The enemy of my enemy by hearingaid · · Score: 1
      I've been of the understanding that the ASCAP/BMI licensing is handled by the venue -- that is, if you have a gig in a bar, restaurant or theatre, it's they who pay up, and you can sing all all the songs you want, even "Happy Birthday." Can you give me some examples of a public performance where the performer is liable for the ASCAP/BMI licensing, and not the property owner?

      License fees are paid by the party who infringed, theoretically. The performer would always be the party infringing the performance right. However, normally the person paying the performer to perform would have a contract with the performer to pay any necessary license fees. So normally the bar owner pays ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN or whoever. But if the bar owner is a cheap bastard (which never happens), then the copyright collective's only target is the performer.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    3. Re:The enemy of my enemy by badfish99 · · Score: 1
      So how does preventing restaurant employees singing "happy birthday" help anyone?

      Without the ASCIP, the copyright holder would have received no income when it was sung. But now, no-one ever sings it, so the copyright holder still receives no income, but has to pay the ASCIP for the privilege.

    4. Re:The enemy of my enemy by dbc001 · · Score: 1

      In the 1980's, my mother taught an aerobics class for senior citizens. she would get 5-10 students in a class. she made her own tapes by copying the ones that she checked out at the library. after a few years of doing this, she finally got a cease & desist order from one of these songwriters groups. they ordered her to stop playing the songs in front in 10 senior citizens! what a bunch of douchebags. the songwriters groups, that is - not the senior citizens.

  13. Let's have a patriotic moment... by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1

    Since this is the best news in a long time to come out of the world fight for sane copyright law, it's time we stand up and sing a round of Oh, Canada in support of the Great White North, eh?

    --
    Help us build a better map!
  14. Pot Complains: Hey, Kettle Is Sort of Grayish Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So one incident of the canadian government giving money to a copyright lobby, is somehow greater and more negative than the between $75 billion and $125 billion, depending on who's counting, that the U.S. Federal government alone hands out per year in corporate welfare.

    Good to hear it.

  15. The thing that bothers me most.... by ezratrumpet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is that even though they recognize the danger of setting the precedent, the government refuses to do anything about it. Effective government must be able to correct its mistakes and inefficiencies, or it will cease being effective.

  16. In Soviet Canada by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    3.2.1.Joke

    In Soviet Canada the Government pays the lobbies to influence Law.

    Joking aside;

    Another thing happened just recently in my neck of the woods that I am really pissed about.
    I live in Windsor, Ontario (Across the river from Detroit, Michigan). This past week the 'Hell's Angels' motorcycle club/gang/mafia was in town. The police setup checkpoints on the roads (that they knew the bikers would be traveling along {ingress and egress fromthe club-house}) and took the drivers license + insurance documents of EVERYBODY that drove on these public roads.

    The reason: They HOPED to catch some of the bikers that had arrest warrents in other parts of the country!

    I was/am LIVID. I wrote the newspaper; called the local radio station, complained to the Local members of Parliment.
    We are 1 step away from East-Block communist oppression. I am surprised that they didn't just click thier Jack-Boots and say "Papers! Please!"

    **The Hells Angels are considered the largest (and now ONLY) organized crime syndicate in Canada.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:In Soviet Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      **The Hells Angels are considered the largest (and now ONLY) organized crime syndicate in Canada.

      At first I thought you'd left out the Liberal Party, but then I noticed you said organized...

    2. Re:In Soviet Canada by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 1

      They also do that when they do a checkstop. Did you complain to your MP the last time you went through a checkstop?

    3. Re:In Soviet Canada by solitas · · Score: 1
      **The Hells Angels are considered the largest (and now ONLY) organized crime syndicate in Canada.

      So, now, we've established that the Canadian government is apparently ignoring itself?

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    4. Re:In Soviet Canada by B5_geek · · Score: 1

      A checkstop?

      If by that you mean: "pulling me over for speeding" then yes of course.
      If you mean: RIDE programs at various times of the year to find/catch drunk-drivers; I have never had to provide any ID. The stop usually goes something like this: Me:"Hello officer." Them:"Have you been drinking tonight?" Me: "No." Them:"Have a nice night."
      If you mean anything else; it has never happened to me.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    5. Re:In Soviet Canada by mrbcs · · Score: 1
      Reminds me of one of my favourite jokes:

      What's 200 feet long, blue, with an asshole at each end.....

      An Alberta Checkstop

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    6. Re:In Soviet Canada by pete_norm · · Score: 3, Informative

      You must not be living in the province of Quebec. Around here, no one would concider the Hells Angels like good guys that like to ride motorcycles. From the early 1980's, when there was several members of the gang that were murdered by other members, to the mid 1990's gang war between the Hells Angels and the Banditos in Montreal (several shootings in bars, exploding cars that killed some civilians, etc), nobody around here conciders them like good guys.

    7. Re:In Soviet Canada by Geoff+St.+Germaine · · Score: 1

      I've done several checkstops as an Auxilliary and it is routine to check license, registration and insurance. It dependd how busy it id, but if there id time it's done.

  17. Take on education?!? by seriv · · Score: 1

    I may be unclear on exactly what this group is targeting in the educational sector, but there is something seriously messed up with the government funding it. If the group is targeting fair use, then that's just dumb. The Canadian government would be greatly damaging student's access to learning material. If it is about the culture of file sharing at universities, which I think it is, Canada would essentially be targeting itself. Most Universities are public in Canada, so there is no reason to fund a lobbying group to address the problem. It is an internal one. Overall, a government funding any lobbying group, much less a well off one is messed up.

    1. Re:Take on education?!? by Adrian1 · · Score: 1

      Well, they describe education as a "well heeled, publicly funded lobby . . . devoted to abolishing creators' rights on the Internet", and I wouldn't have thought not being bothered to police the use of university computing resources for file-sharing could be said to be all *that* devoted. Sounds like it might be fair use they're after to me.

  18. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, until we get a separate International Politics section, I think this is probably the best spot for it. Also, you may want to keep in mind that any success by Canadian pro-copyright groups will be held up as an example by the RIAA in their next court battle. If the RIAA can point north and say "Hey look, the Canadian music industry profits went up by 0.00000000001% last year! I bet it's because their pro-copyright groups get government support! *hinthint*", what are the odds that they won't take advantage of the situation?

  19. So that's the year... by Jugalator · · Score: 1
    Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act by Prof Michael Geist reveal that government officials recognized that the funding established a bad precedent, yet they still plan to pay big bucks until 2008.

    So that's the year when authorities will start suing Canadians for real. They got me wondering there when they'd start. :-p
    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  20. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

    Well, until we get a separate International Politics section, I think this is probably the best spot for it.

    I'd like to know why you seem to feel safe in assuming that the "Politics" section means American politics.

    I haven't seen any numbers (do they exist?) about the readership here, but I would be willing to bet a sizeable sum that half - if not more - of the regular readership is NOT from the USA.

  21. When fascism overtakes North America by deblau · · Score: 1
    We'll know what to do...

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  22. In Soviet Russia... by baKanale · · Score: 1

    In today's news, Government pays lobbyist group.
    In other news, man bites dog.
    Details at 10.

  23. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 1

    Dude, the Politics section is designated by an American flag at the top of the screen and FAQ specifically says "this section is for news relevant to United States government politics. It was created primarily to cover the 2004 US Presidential Election, but today exists for occasional stories that fit the bill." I don't see the point in making it American-only (I'm Canadian, by the way), but that's how it's designated for now.

    I would, however, prefer if it was explicitly for international politics. As I mentioned before, new copyright laws in any given country could easily affect the RIAA's tactics... and vise versa.

  24. I'd mod you up if I could. by Ahnteis · · Score: 2

    Government paying lobbyists? It's bad enough the other way, but paying someone to try to influence yourself? Utter insanity.

  25. A bad thing? by Aristocrat+George · · Score: 1

    Gahh, now I will never be able to complete my Céline Dion discography.

  26. Shocked. by nneonneo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm in Canada, and I'm surprised that this isn't all over OUR media by now...maybe they're being kept quiet. I'll keep watching though.

  27. What can we do? by crossmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We can write our member of parliament, and if that doesn't work, I can go pay him a little visit and explain my position as his constituent very well.

  28. Access to Information by The+Hobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a Canadian, I've seen a lot of good stories show up on CBC's website that they got from good, investigative journalism (kudos to the CBC). Yes, I realize the CBC is the state media (well, crown corporation), but I find they aren't bought by the government and they regularly air stories of interest to regular joe Canadians, and I'm also glad that the act lets them get to the important information without all the hiding and deceit I hear about in the US.

    Also, I find it a bit funny that the politics version of Slashdot shows an American flag at the top where it says Slashdot, as if there weren't politics anywhere else..

    --
    There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
  29. better history at QuestionCopyright.org by kfogel · · Score: 1

    The myth that copyright was created for the public's benefit is very persistent. See QuestionCopyright.org for a detailed explanation of the origin of this myth and its effects today.

    --
    http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel
  30. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
    Also, you may want to keep in mind that any success by Canadian pro-copyright groups will be held up as an example by the RIAA in their next court battle.
    The CRA is not a (pro) copyright group.

    They are pushing for the Moral Rights of Creators
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law# Moral_rights
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  31. it's been theft for some time now... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    When people were already stealing cable (the accepted term) back in the 70s and 80s, I doubt you were even old enough to discuss it. And the Russians "stole the secrets to the atomic bomb" from the US a long time before that.

    Stop trying to redefine the English language to fit your narrow definitions. Both the language and the law recognize more than just depriving someone of property as theft.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:it's been theft for some time now... by ryusen · · Score: 1

      actually, the courts were very clear on this issue. i beleive it was the Judge herself that, multiple times told the **AA Lawyer(s) to correct themselves, that copyright infringement was not theft. in this case it is the **AA that has tried to redefine the legal terms to their benifit. you might be able to get away with in when you're dealing with a vague vernacular, but not in a court, with a judge that knows the law.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
  32. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

    "Look at the international "treaties" which are very quickly usurping our constitution."
    Usurping your constitution? You have a lot more say in that than my country does. If you or Europe change your copyright laws, we either have to follow along or face legal/illegal sanctions. The American government hasn't forgiven us for not letting them enter our waters without declaring whether they were carrying nuclear material, and that was twenty years ago. We, more than likely, lost a free trade agreement with the U.S. because we didn't blindly join their coalition of the willing and invade Iraq. Our only saving grace is that we are so far away that the senate doesn't know where we are. I seriously doubt that you were dragged into the DMCA by international treaties considering you have more leverage than any other country in the world. It is far more likely that upholding international treaties was a nicer political line at the time. WIPO is, after all, part of the United Nations and thus subject to U.S. veto.


    (From the tone of my comment you might get the idea I dislike America. This is partially true. I think their constitution was a major step froward. I think their conduct during WWII was exemplary. I also think that almost everything America has done on the international stage since Eisenhower left has been for money, greed, and power.)


    (On a brighter note, wouldn't Superman be the ideal suicide bomber!)
    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
  33. Re:Fuck Cana-DUH by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1

    And here we have an example of the kind of person that the rest of the world views as American. If you want to know why terrorists kill Americans, just look at that asshole's attitude.

    --
    Help us build a better map!
  34. Re:Harper == Baby Bush by stinerman · · Score: 1

    Sir, Harper is to the left of quite a few Democrats. You act like you've got it bad up there. And even then, the Tories have a minority government. Its not like they can do all that much.

  35. Sidebar re Brian Molroney [offtopic] by davecb · · Score: 1

    You might consider a new tax and massively increasing the deficit a "hard turn to the right", but it's an unusual one, as it takes one well past the normal right ("conservatism") into the weird and wonderful world of the neo-conservatives and the "Reform" party.

    Alternatively it might be considered a strong turn to the left, as it goes right past the Liberals and NDP to the... weird and wonderful world of the neo-liberals and the Reform party.

    Whichever you way you consider this, though, it was immensely unpopular with Canadians, who tagged the PM Lyin' Brian and showed him the door, along with what had been a perfectly good political party (;-().

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  36. really big on judges... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    I see. This one happens to agree with you, and so she's aces.

    But if she were ruling that DRM were legal, I would expect she would be villified as knowing nothing.

    Plenty of people got in trouble with the law for stealing cable. It becomes a non-civil matter when it is criminalized. Which that was. And recording the screen in a movie theater.

    Speak of precise language?

    Here's a 2001 ruling from a US court where the court quotes Congress several times in calling stealing cable theft and the court also turns a phrase with it.

    http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/98 5341.txt

    Language games are pointless. "A rose by any other name"

    The key issue should be the actual act, punishment and hopefully future revisions to copyright law in the US. Not on redefining words so as to win semantic arguments.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:really big on judges... by ryusen · · Score: 1
      well, yes. untill she is over ruled by a higher body, i think that this sets the presedent for any legal definition of copyright infringement vs. stealing. just because another judge, in another case, ruled that another crime could be considered theft, doesn't make it apply to this one, especially when the judge on this case said, specifically, it is not.

      "But if she were ruling that DRM were legal, I would expect she would be villified as knowing nothing" i'm sure you'd love to believe that i feel that way... except:
      1. your logic is compelety off becase there was never a qestion if DRM was legal, which it is
      2. my citing her statement as a source for legal prescedent in this case has zero bearing on if i like the ruling or not. only that is what the courts have currently declared.


      yes, redefining words to win the semantic argument is bad, except it's the RIAA that's doing that, in ths case. yes, the key issue is the actual act and that copyright laws should be rewritten... so that they fall in line with what the constitution says, rather than the private interests of a few large marketing/distribution entities.
      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
  37. Re:Harper == Baby Bush by GnomeChompsky · · Score: 1

    ...well, except that Harper acts as though he has a majority (because apparently "Canadians don't want to go to the polls again so soon" and thus the other parties are afraid to do anything to upset the current parliamentary situation; also, the liberals' not having any leadership right now is something of a problem) and doesn't like to talk to the media about what he's doing.

    Just because he's farther left than some Democrats doesn't mean he's in line with many Canadians' values. I'm sorry that the American political system forces you to choose between a pot and a kettle, but that doesn't mean that a man who heads a party whose views are not in line with those of most urban Canadians should be free from criticism.

  38. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by kimvette · · Score: 1
    We, more than likely, lost a free trade agreement with the U.S. because we didn't blindly join their coalition of the willing and invade Iraq.


    You may be better off, quite actually. America is not the only market for your exports, and since we're going broke because we have very little manufacturing base anymore, we soon won't have the money to buy your goods anyhow.
    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  39. nope, it's you by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Again, the language included "stealing cable" long before the RIAA got involved.

    And legal precedent doesn't extend to choice of wording. It's about the interpretation of the law only.

    Since Congress (the ultimate maker of the laws) has passed laws covering "theft of service" and "identity theft", then it would appear that the law sees that there there are other definitions of theft than just what you would specify it to be.

    You're trying to twist language and then blaming it on someone else. I'm sure you have noticed you're going "against the flow" on this usage. Does that not indicate to you what the generally accepted definition of the word is and that perhaps you're on the minority side?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:nope, it's you by ryusen · · Score: 1

      No i'm NOT trying to twist it for my own purposes. I am pointing out that the legal definition of this crime is infringement, not theft. I have even said that in common vernacular theft could be used, just not if you are talking about legal definitions of this crime. The RIAA was not involved in "stealing of cable." It's this very specific case, where it was defined differently. No matter what else lawmakers have defined OTHER cases, they have not in this case.

      It's about the interpretation of the law only.

      and that's where the Judge's job comes in.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me