Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Copyright Group Seeks To License the Net

An anonymous reader writes "A new Toronto Star article from Michael Geist not only describes why Canadian Ministers of Education are pushing a copyright proposal that will harm Internet access, but also reveals how a copyright group is seeking to create a new license for Internet content. Access Copyright, a copyright collective, wants to use a new international text standard to license everything from books to blogs. Geist outlines in his blog how Canadians can fight back against these bonehead proposals."

7 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Copyright laws are nothing more than a tool of the ruling class to keep freedom and autonomy away from the people. The stifling blockade of draconian laws behind which which the free transmission of ideas is presently locked down is one of the more noxious devices by which the capitalist system perverts human society.

    It is only the alienatied status of the modern worker that perpetuates the oppressive regime of copyright. The oppression of the ruling class that keeps workers in a constant state of anxiety, always burdened by financial worries, like Dickensian children chained to their machines, is what prevents creative workers from sharing their ideas freely, for the benefit of all.

    For society to be free from the constricting bonds of copyright, it will be necessary to strike at the heart of the capitalist system itself. Only when the lies and distortions of the ruling class are confronted and rejected, only when workers are in control of the means of production, their efforts at last engaged, harmonious, and justly compensated, only then will we see a world where all people are free to share, copy, and most of all create those products of the marvellous human imagination that promote, in that golden phrase, "promote the progress of science and useful arts."

    Until then, there's always usenet.

    1. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Copyright laws are nothing more than a tool of the ruling class to keep freedom and autonomy away from the people.

      [...]

      For society to be free from the constricting bonds of copyright, it will be necessary to strike at the heart of the capitalist system itself.

      Help! Help! I'm being repressed! See the violence inherit in the system! See the violence inherit in the system!

      I'm not sure how this post got marked+4 Interesting, but it really smells of disillusioned communism. Copyright (and patents) were invented so that creators could have a period of time where their creations would be protected so that they get a monetary return on their creativity. The fact that they've been high-jacked by certain institutions is a side issue to their original intent.

    2. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by ElleyKitten · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Could you give an example of such a work? If it has gone out of copyright why would you need permission?
      We're talking about things that haven't gone out of copyright.
      Can you give an example of a juristiction where copyright is valid for 200 years.
      200 years was a little bit of hyperbole, but in the United States, copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death (and possibly indefinately if the author is Walt Disney). So, in 150 years, if someone finds your book and wishes to distribute it (as part of something on historical computing? I don't know.), they would need to figure out when you died (which might be a problem - how many Marcus Greens are there?) and if it was less than 70 years ago, they will need to track down your decedents and ask them who has the copyright. Maybe you have no decendents, maybe they can't be found, maybe they just don't know who has the copyright. Then your book is not allowed to be copied, by anyone. By the time it is out of copyright, all copies could be gone. Maybe that's not so important for a Java book, but it's kinda said that's happening to all of the movies made in the first decades of the media. We're losing a lot of culture to excessive copyright terms, and that's not a good thing.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
  2. At last... by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...a good example of the exception that proves the rule!

    "Second, the implication of the exception is that using publicly available Internet materials is not permitted unless one has prior authorization or qualifies for the exception. This suggests that millions of Canadians outside the education system who use Internet-based materials are somehow violating the law."

    --
    No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  3. Re:proof by denim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...Proving yet again, that this battle over "copyright" is nothing of the sort. It's a battle over control, and a losing battle at that.

    Isn't that much of what politics is about?

    I really think this is likely to disappear again without a trace once people explain to the supporters of this measure just what the effect will be. The article seems to do a very good job of that.

    --
    Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.
  4. Re:Oh I get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I read a book on those lines. (sci-fi - I admit)

    For a literary equivalent, try Chesterton's "The Napoleon of Notting Hill". The premise is that the hereditary monarchy has been abolished in Britain, and instead the king is chosen completely at random from the general population.

    I guess it's still kind of sci-fi, but it was written way back before the genre was ossified.

  5. Re:Scoop is sort of confusing by Alsee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yep. Even the "better" of the two legislative proposals is a politics-style fair and balanced compromise. A compromise deal that recognizes both sides in the issue, and gives something to each side in the issue. Specifically:
    "Your half of the law will officially granting you part of what the courts have stated you already have, and in exchange our half of the law will grant us a half the stuff we want and can't get because legislators are listening to your complaints."

    A fair and balanced compromise. Both sides get something. And it makes it ok to ignore complaints against it because in a compromise both sides are supposed to be unhappy and complain. Anyone still complaining about it is being unreasonable and greedy and unwilling to compromise.

    This is exactly how the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) and the DMCA got passed in the US. Most people here are at least basically familiar with the DMCA, but few people have ever heard of the AHRA. One side of the AHRA granted the public a copyright exemption and protection for home recording and granted manufacturers a copyright exemption and protection against being sued for contributory infringment. Of course no one in the public had ever been sued for infringment for home recording and had no need of protection and home recording is clearly Fair Use and a "copyright exemption" "granting" something that is already Fair use is entirely redundant and worthless. And the Betamax ruling had just come out explicitly stated ing that manufacturers needed no exemption from contributory infringment simply for manufacturing a product that can record. And as a compromise for granting all of that, the RIAA got their half of the law imposing a specific DRM scheme (Serial copy management system - SCMS) in all new home digital audio recording devices. Oh wait, I almost forgot... the AHRA also imposses a signifigant TAX on all covered audio devices and all covered recording media (50% to be distributed to writers and 50% to be distributed to publishers), and this tax is imposed "in exchange" for "granting" the public home recording rights that they already had. Based on a quick Amazon.com search, this AHRA imposed media tax changes the price of a Memorex 52x Data CD-R Media 50-Pack Spindle from $6.40 into $16.45 for a Memorex 40x Music CD-R Media (50-Pack Spindle). AHRA "aduio" CDRs are taxed to be more than 2.5 times the price of a normal CDR. And "data" CDRs are forbidden to work in AHRA covered devices, devices with their own AHRA hardware tax.

    And what was the effect of the Audio Home Recording Act? It EXTERMINATED all new products and all new technology and all innovation in consumer audio for a decade.

    The new product and technology that prompted the AHRA was Digital Audio Tap (DAT). Most of you have probably never heard of DAT. DAT was basically an ordinary audio cassette tape with all of the quality and benefits of digital CDs. Back in 1992 DAT was hot new technology. The audiophile community was eager to get their hands on this new product and it was anticipated to become a mass market hit. But then the audiophile community started baying a few of these DRM crippled devices. They started recording themselves and their own bands. And then they discoved that the devices would not let them copy their own tapes. That they were in fact the copyright holder on these band recordings, and these crippled devices would not allow them to copy their own work - all in the name of preventing "copyright infringment". So the audiophile community was furious and despised the products. And the general consumer market rejected the products as well, and they totally flopped. Which is why most of you never heard of DAT.

    And then the recordable minidisk was developed. A fully recordable CD, and a perfect pocket size 2.5 inches in size. Again, an amazing new technology and product that should have been a HUGE market success. And again, a technology and product that was DRM crippled by the AHRA and thus exterminated by the AHRA. A

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.