Canadian Copyright Group Seeks To License the Net

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Copyright Group Seeks To License the Net

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Monday September 4, 2006 @07:42PM from the everyone-wants-a-piece dept.

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."

115 of 149 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oh I get it... by Audent · 2006-09-04 19:56 · Score: 5, Funny

the interwebs are just a series of tubes, right...?

There should be a test for politicians about the internet. It should involve:

knowing the difference between the internet and the web;
being able to explain why censoring the web is difficult if not impossible;
why ISPs aren't liable for the content they host;
and some other stuff.

Actually, there should be an easier test - if you want to be a politician you should be BANNED FROM EVERY BECOMING ONE by law.

Yeah.

--
I am a leaf on the wind
1. Re:Oh I get it... by RAMMS+EIN · 2006-09-04 20:26 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  ``There should be a test for politicians about the internet. It should involve:
  
  knowing the difference between the internet and the web;
  being able to explain why censoring the web is difficult if not impossible;
  why ISPs aren't liable for the content they host;
  and some other stuff.''
  
  Right. The politicians have been brainwashing us long enough. It's time for us to start doing it to them!
  
  --
  Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
2. Re:Oh I get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-04 21:20 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The 'tube' mentionings are getting a bit tiresome..
  
  A series of tubes _is_ an acceptable analogy. No, it's not an _exceptionally good_ analogy (literally speaking), but it is certainly not below average. It illustrates a number of aspects about how the internet in practice functions. Yes, certainly, you can say that 'a network of tubes requires every bit of tubing to be physically connected to every other bit, but the internet can also be transmitted wirelessly!' - but that's stretching it.
  
  FYI:
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/electronicbrai ns.shtml
  Shortly after World War II, a New Zealand engineer started a sociology degree at the London School of Economics (..) He wrote an essay comparing the national economy to a machine pumping coloured water round clear plastic tubes. An older student persuaded him to build one, and it was an immediate success. More than a dozen were made eventually, with Ford buying one and another going to the Central Bank of Guatemala. Within a few years he was a professor and became one of the giants among post-war economists. He died young, but friends and colleagues recall this remarkable man. One "Phillips Machine" is still working at Cambridge University, where leading economist Brian Henry, who helped restore it, recalls seeing this "ingenious teaching device" for the first time. Although he had already studied economics for 3 years, that was the first time he actually understood what the "circular flow of money" was all about, because he could see it.
  
  If a national economy can be modelled using tubes, I can't really see why people fall over each other in laughter over referring to the internet by 'tubes'.
3. Re:Oh I get it... by VincenzoRomano · 2006-09-04 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  There's no chance.
  While stupidity is not mandatory to be a politician, it helps greatly.
  As we can see.
  
  --
  Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
  For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
4. Re:Oh I get it... by TheGhostOfDerrida · 2006-09-04 22:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "The politicians have been brainwashing us long enough. It's time for us to start doing it to them!"
  Are you wearing red tights? because you just became my hero...
  
  --
  Paul: If you're reading this, pick your shoes up out of the hallway. I keep tripping over them. Slob.
5. Re:Oh I get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-04 22:48 · 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.
6. Re:Oh I get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-04 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  Many others would say that if an ISP is hosting child porn, when asked to remove said child porn, they should.
  
  First they came for the child porn, and I said nothing, because my website didn't contain any child porn.
  Then they came for the unlicensed copyright content, and I said nothing, because my website didn't contain any unlicensed content.
  Then they came for the tutorials on how to circumvent DRM, and I said nothing, because my website was fully DMCA-compliant.
  Then they came for the tutorials on how to use a condom, and I said nothing, because my website did not promote contraception.
  Then they came for everyone who was criticisng the government, and there was nobody, etc.
  
  This slope is slippery. Abusing kids is one of the most evil things anyone can do, and the sickos who do it should be rounded up and publicly castrated before being tortured to death in the most painful way that can be devised. But the way to stamp out child abuse is to go after the pedophiles, not to turn ISPs into government censors that can easily be subverted to restrict forms of speech that are NOT representations of such stomach-churningly evil acts.
7. Re:Oh I get it... by oggiejnr · 2006-09-04 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, there should be an easier test - if you want to be a politician you should be BANNED FROM EVERY BECOMING ONE by law.
  
  Reminds of a quote from somewhere that he who has the ability to take power should in no way be allowed it.
8. Re:Oh I get it... by phulegart · 2006-09-05 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  ... especially when a great deal of those laughing at the useage of the word "tube" will themselves use the word "pipe" in the same context.
  
  --
  "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
9. Re:Oh I get it... by arose · 2006-09-05 01:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  A series of tubes _is_ an acceptable analogy. No, it's not an _exceptionally good_ analogy (literally speaking), but it is certainly not below average.
  Except that when you download a "WHOLE BOOK!" my tube doesn't get clogged because I'm on the other side of the planet--a network of tubes is very different from a series of tubes. Aside from that I'd like to think that /.ers use "tubes" as a reference to the general stupidity of the tubes speech, not just the tubes analogy.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
10. Re:Oh I get it... by arose · 2006-09-05 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  I have a fat pipe to the internet != Internet is a fat pipe.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
11. Re:Oh I get it... by Leon_Trotsky · 2006-09-05 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  My tube doesn't get clogged either - and I used it a LOT...
  
  --
  Ohhh! Pay Dirt! A pair of half-eaten choco-pants!
12. Re:Oh I get it... by mr_mischief · 2006-09-05 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Even the politician at which you people are poking fun called it a "a series of tubes".
  
  Seeing circuits as tubes, routers as pressure balance valves, firewalls as filters, certain types of DoS attacks as plugging a tube, and dropping packets as a leaky tube all are sensible enough extensions of a "fat pipe" metaphor.
  
  Just get over yourselves, people. Just because someone knows a better metaphor for something doesn't mean he knows any more how that thing actually works. It also doesn't make him any smarter or overall any more knowledgeable about the world as a whole than the guy who doesn't know the exact right metaphor to use.
  
  Knowing one thing more than one other person about one topic only proves that you know one more thing about one topic than one other person.
  
  If your biggest thrill in life is to one-up the technical knowledge (on one topic!) of a guy in a non-technical field who's thirty to sixty years older than you, then go ahead and feel superior. While you're at it, donate your sexual organs to science or medicine so someone gets some use out of them. Maybe that way you can brag about something more notable than, "3y3 NOS3 MOR3 THUN THA 0LD GUY B0wT THA INTARW3B! 3y3 AM A L33T!!!1"
13. Re:Oh I get it... by arose · 2006-09-05 08:05 · Score: 1
  Even the politician at which you people are poking fun called it a "a series of tubes".
  
  He did a lot more then that, if you haven't heard the speech you shouldn't comment
  
  When he said "a series of tubes" he meant it that way, literary a series of tubes connected to each other, not a network of tubes.
  
  The analogy breaks down in network anyway, that's why only the connection to ones ISP is refered to as pipe, beyond that there are nice things such as balancing and other magic that makes sure that when someone sends you "an internet" it does not get delayed for everal days because somone else on your ISP is streaming a movie.
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
14. Re:Oh I get it... by mr_mischief · 2006-09-06 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  1. I've read the transcript. The guy got it wrong. If you haven't read my post, you shouldn't comment. I never claimed he got it right.
  2. If you read my post and still feel superior because you can point out where one person was wrong about one thing, then reread the post.
  3. Obviously you don't understand plumbing as well as you claim to understand networking. You can balance flow of fluids through multiple paths, too. My house, for example, has a pressure equalization valve on the hot water line from two water heaters so they drain and refill at the same rate. You can also filter unwanted things out of your fluids, selectively accept fluids from one set of pipes (or "tubes") or not, and can, in fact, engineer the system for more volume (bigger pipe, like bandwidth) or higher speed (higher pressure, a bit similar to lower latency). As a matter of fact, some older electronics textbooks explain things in terms of plumbing for electrons. There should no doubt that network packets traversing a network are largely modeled on electrons traveling through circuits. Some parts of the plumbing/pneumatics/hydraulics metaphors in fact carry over well, while others don't carry over well at all. For that matter, several things in electronics itself don't necessarily carry over very well to networking. When was the last time you had to adjust the voltage/amperage of your HTTP traffic to make sure it didn't cause a fire while still getting the same throughput?
  
  Again, if you feel you are a superior human being because you know this one guy was wrong about one topic, go donate your naughty bits to someone who can get some use out of them. Hopefully people with a mindset that "oh, the old guy is wrong! I'm so cool to be the 8798th person to point it out on /. it hurts!" will never breed anyway, because the kids of those people will likely be just as fucked in the head if not moreso.
15. Re:Oh I get it... by arose · 2006-09-06 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  The guy got it wrong. If you haven't read my post, you shouldn't comment. I never claimed he got it right.
  You claimed he didn't get it wrong.
  If you read my post and still feel superior because you can point out where one person was wrong about one thing, then reread the post.
  Your suggestion to "donate your sexual organs to science or medicine" wasn't an convincing argument to stop feeling something I didn't feel. We aren't talking about "one person" we are talking about Theodore Fulton Stevens, United States Senator. We aren't talking about his opinion on life, the universe, and everything, we are talking aobut his performance in a job that directly influences all persons accessing the internet in the US and indirectly the rest of the wired world. I'm not feeling superior, sad if anything.
  Obviously you don't understand plumbing as well as you claim to understand networking.
  I understand that a data packet is more like a truck then a series of tubes is like a network.
  Again, if you feel you are a superior human being because you know this one guy was wrong about one topic, go donate your naughty bits to someone who can get some use out of them. Hopefully people with a mindset that "oh, the old guy is wrong! I'm so cool to be the 8798th person to point it out on /. it hurts!" will never breed anyway, because the kids of those people will likely be just as fucked in the head if not moreso.
  A firmly superior tone suggesting to not act so superior... Anyway this isn't about feeling superior, it's about people making laws about things they don't understand all that well or at all. Beeing the 8798th person to agresively defend (if you can call attacking people on slashdot a defense) a lawmaker who hasn't done his homework is nothing to be proud of either.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
16. Re:Oh I get it... by mr_mischief · 2006-09-06 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is how I referred to Senator Stevens at one point in my original post:
  
  the guy who doesn't know the exact right metaphor to use.
  If that's not saying he was wrong, I'm not sure what is. I was saying that the metaphor of a series of tubes for a series of network circuits itself is not unreasonable once you accept the metaphor of a single tube standing for a single circuit. I thought that was clear based on the context of the thread, but I may be mistaken about what's clear to other people since it's always going to be clear to me what I meant.
  
  Your suggestion to "donate your sexual organs to science or medicine" wasn't an convincing argument to stop feeling something I didn't feel.
  
  What in particular led you to believe I was addressing you singly and specifically when I was talking about the many people pounding the Senator's flub into the ground?
  
  We aren't talking about "one person"
  
  That's right, we're talking about a bunch of people feeling superior to a Senator of the United States. He should be better informed, and all those script kiddies and wannabees who have trashed him over and over on this one topic should be better equipped to mock him before doing so.
  
  I understand that a data packet is more like a truck then a series of tubes is like a network.
  
  That's another metaphor, and from a particular point of view does make more sense. I think you're putting more emphasis on the word "series" than it really deserves here. The Senator probably didn't mean "run all together, end to end, with no branches" when he used that word. He was probably using "series" to mean "group of similar things". He probably could have picked a better word, but then again we've already agreed he could have picked a better overall metaphor. This metaphor he used is still not the general problem people are making it out to be. It has flaws, but it's not the worst metaphor for a data network.
  
  Anyway this isn't about feeling superior, it's about people making laws about things they don't understand all that well or at all.
  
  That definitely should be what it's about. The people about which I'm complaining are those that have no goal in mind other than reminding people about the one blunder. If people want to discuss the implications of the general problem and how to fix it, that's a whole different level of discourse than, "First post OMFG! In Soviet Russia, you get delayed for days in the series of tubes while an internet waits for you!"
  
  Beeing the 8798th person to agresively defend (if you can call attacking people on slashdot a defense) a lawmaker who hasn't done his homework is nothing to be proud of either.
  
  I'm only defending him to a point. He should study more about a topic before he speaks about it in Congress. It's not this one screwy speech that's the problem, though. The metaphor in question isn't the problem. The problem is that senators and representatives regularly vote and even lobby each other on topics they don't understand. The use of the tubes metaphor isn't necessarily a sign that Ted Stevens doesn't understand the Internet. The facts that he mangled the metaphor internally and that he referred to an email message as "an internet" are signs that he doesn't understand it. There's a big difference. The fact that he started with a flawed but workable metaphor shows he had some inclination to have someone explain it to him beforehand. He should have picked a better person to explain it, spent more time asking them questions, or listened more carefully. At least he made some small effort, which is more than most of the Senate seems to be doing on most of the bills.
  In short, picking on Te
Re:Where's frist post by Savage-Rabbit · 2006-09-04 19:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

So now I scanned the text of the first link -- no second post! Is Slashdot empty?

Nah, its just that hell just froze over and pigs flew this morning. As a consequence the topic of copyrights wore thin and became boring so all the slasdotters went off to CowboyNeals place to oooh and aaaah over the Windows Vista Release candidate. Afterwards they plan to set up the worlds first Windows Vista user's fan club.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:Where's frist post by KDR_11k · 2006-09-04 20:00 · Score: 3, Informative

What do you expect, with that kind of confusing headline and summary you have to RTFA just to get WTF they're trying to say. I mean, "license everything"? What's that supposed to mean, they claim ownership of every random thing on the internet?

Turns out the article says the ministry of education wants to allow schools to use all material available on the internet and be exempt from copyright that way. Guess someone didn't think about warez there.

The copyright group in question wants to offer content providers the option to use some kind of license for their stuff. Strikes me as idiotic since you can attach any license you like to your content without their help...

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Where's frist post by anagama · 2006-09-04 20:03 · Score: 1

Dang -- I coulda gone for a record but I kept holding out for someone to post.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Where's frist post by revolu7ion · 2006-09-04 20:21 · Score: 1

Copywriting? Internet? Canadians? Whats this all aboot?

--
Jesus Saves
Mwaha! by omeg · 2006-09-04 20:27 · Score: 5, Funny

"Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"

"The same thing we do every night, Pinky: Try to license the internet!"
1. Re:Mwaha! by zoomshorts · 2006-09-04 20:31 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Right after we invade Canada to assure them the same freedoms we Americans 'enjoy'?
2. Re:Mwaha! by bky1701 · 2006-09-04 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, why not? Can't go worse then Iraq. At least the Canada doesn't know how to build donkey-bombs. So long as Bush is looking elsewhere, things are looking up at home. Excpet when it's him and only him. Gotta take the great white hunter (ie, Dicky boy) with him, too.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
3. Re:Mwaha! by S.O.B. · 2006-09-05 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  At least the Canada doesn't know how to build donkey-bombs.
  
  Yeah, but watch out for our beaver-bombs.
  Frank and Gordon are working on them as we speak (inside joke for the Canucks in the audience).
  
  --
  Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
4. Re:Mwaha! by eldepeche · 2006-09-05 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like freedom of speech?
5. Re:Mwaha! by grcumb · 2006-09-05 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  At least the Canada doesn't know how to build donkey-bombs.
  Yeah, but watch out for our beaver-bombs.
  
  Beaver bombs? Why bother, when we've got the chicken cannon. (Visual aid here.)
  
  We'll save the beaver for, uh, other uses. 8^)
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-04 20:32 · 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 Marcus+Green · 2006-09-04 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  Gosh, and I thought it was part of the mechanism that allows me to charge for the stuff I write (e.g. http://www.examulator.com/tamer/ ) Nice to know that I'm a member of the ruling classes though.
2. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by hotdiggity · 2006-09-04 21:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've read this comment four times and still can't decide whether the poster is being ironic. My guess is yes, but then why are people modding it as interesting as opposed to funny? For the record, forgetting about the issues of DRM and stupid software patents, copyright by and large is good for code protection, protecting textbooks which take serious effort to develop, and so on. We can't force everyone to give ideas away. Some people may actually want to negotiate the compensation for their efforts if they specify the right to do so at the time of publication. This silly push by the Canadian government, if true, clearly crosses that line.
  Having said that, I'm pretty sure the Marxist post was ironic. In which case: hilarious! Rise up, ye proleteriat, and seize your rightful means of production! With your help we will recreate the glorious days of the Soviet Union, which only needed a few more years to shake the bugs out and acheive political perfection.
3. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by bky1701 · 2006-09-04 22:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Just because something is meant to be ironic doesn't mean it can't end up being right. This is one of those cass irony backfired.
  
  --
  Great Intellect...
4. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by ElleyKitten · 2006-09-04 22:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Gosh, and I thought it was part of the mechanism that allows me to charge for the stuff I write (e.g. http://www.examulator.com/tamer/ ) Nice to know that I'm a member of the ruling classes though. No, you could still easily charge for stuff without copyright. Bookstores still charge for Shakespeare books, even though there's no copyright on that. What copyright does is prevent other publishers from taking your work and selling it without your permission or giving you any money. Shakespeare, being dead, doesn't mind, but you might.
  
  --
  "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
5. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by ElleyKitten · 2006-09-04 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Reposting with the tags correct:
  
  Gosh, and I thought it was part of the mechanism that allows me to charge for the stuff I write (e.g. http://www.examulator.com/tamer/ ) Nice to know that I'm a member of the ruling classes though.
  No, you could still easily charge for stuff without copyright. Bookstores still charge for Shakespeare books, even though there's no copyright on that. What copyright does is prevent other publishers from taking your work and selling it without your permission or giving you any money. Shakespeare, being dead, doesn't mind, but you might.
  
  --
  "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
6. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by MemoryDragon · 2006-09-04 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ahem sorry to say this your stalinistic rethoric does not help there... the worst freedom of speech oppressions have happened in the so called eastern block.
7. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by gbjbaanb · 2006-09-04 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Having said that, I'm pretty sure the Marxist post was ironic. In which case: hilarious! Rise up, ye proleteriat, and seize your rightful means of production! With your help we will recreate the glorious days of the Soviet Union
  
  In Soviet Russia, copy right is wrong?
8. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by drsmithy · 2006-09-04 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, you could still easily charge for stuff without copyright. Bookstores still charge for Shakespeare books, even though there's no copyright on that. What copyright does is prevent other publishers from taking your work and selling it without your permission or giving you any money. Shakespeare, being dead, doesn't mind, but you might.
  Much as I dislike copyright, your analogy is broken. Books are quite difficult to reproduce and distribute, whereas software is trivial.
9. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Watson+Ladd · 2006-09-05 00:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  For 200 years. Most works only last 10 years. So for 190 years no one is making money because no one can sell it. That's just wrong.
  
  --
  Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
10. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-05 00:04 · 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.
11. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by ElleyKitten · 2006-09-05 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Much as I dislike copyright, your analogy is broken. Books are quite difficult to reproduce and distribute, whereas software is trivial.
  It wasn't an analogy. The person I was responding to wrote a book, and I don't think anyone in this thread or even the original topic was talking specifically about software. Incidentally, since his book is in PDF, it would be just as easy to reproduce and distribute his book as it would be to reproduce and distribute software.
  
  --
  "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
12. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Marcus+Green · 2006-09-05 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  I used the term "allows" to mean "makes sense to", but you knew that. Copyright gives people like me an opportunity and motivation to be creative, because of a financial motivation. Of course some people have the intrinsic desire to be creative and would do so without financial motivation. But for me copyright law allows (makes sense for) me to charge for stuff I write.
13. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by orasio · 2006-09-05 01:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  We can't force everyone to give ideas away. Some people may actually want to negotiate the compensation for their efforts if they specify the right to do so at the time of publication.
  
  You have the wrong idea on the subject.
  Abolishing copyright would not be forcing anyone to do anything.
  Copyright has the intent of giving an incentive for people to give their works away (not their ideas, ideas are supposed to be free). When you release a copyrighted work, you are giving it to the public domain in that act. In exchange, you get a long monopoly on distribution from your government, but in the end, after you die, everyone should win, because the public domain will be one work wealthier.
  
  Copyright tries to incentivate people to share, and forces everyone else to respect an artifical monopoly, in an effort to expand the public domain, and improve the pool of works available to everyone. It's just not working ok right now. Copyrights are too extended in time, right now they are virtually endless, and the public doesn't actually benefit from them.
  
  I don't think we should be granting distribution privileges to authors anymore.
  
  This is not the same as forcing them to give their works away, they can keep them to themselves, or ask for money in advance to release them (like the Blender project GPL release), but I don't think the public is getting anything from paying for distribution privileges to authors that are actually not giving anything back anymore to the public for their efforts in protecting their monopolies.
14. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by 0racle · 2006-09-05 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Come and see the violence inherent in the system. HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
  
  --
  "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
15. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by ElleyKitten · 2006-09-05 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  For 200 years. Most works only last 10 years. So for 190 years no one is making money because no one can sell it. That's just wrong.
  You can sell it, you just don't have a monopoly on selling it (but you knew that)
  No, you're confused. Once the orginal copyright holder disapears or dies, it becomes pretty much impossible to distribute the work because it's so hard to figure out who has the rights to get permission from. So there's a lot of classic works that are just going to die because people don't have the rights to them anymore.
  
  What you're saying reflects how I think copyright should be. Copyright should last about 10 or 20 years or something (not 200 years), and then it's public domain. Then, if there's still a market and the creator still cares, s/he, or whoever, can still sell it, but not at a monopoly. And if the creator doesn't care, it can still be a part of culture and not be lost.
  
  --
  "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
16. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Marcus+Green · 2006-09-05 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  "Copyrights are too extended in time, right now they are virtually endless, and the public doesn't actually benefit from them."
  
  So extending copyrights excessively is not a good idea...
  
  "I don't think we should be granting distribution privileges to authors anymore."
  
  Perhaps a better suggestion is not to extend copyright time period? Or are you suggesting that copyright has not been an incentive to creativity in the past?
17. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by nacturation · 2006-09-05 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Only on slashdot can such a post get a +5 Insightful. I could extrapolate about the political leanings of the average moderator, which is really just a representative slice of slashdot itself, but... nah.
  
  --
  Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
18. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-09-05 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how this post got marked+4 Interesting, but it really smells of disillusioned communism.
  
  Dude, you owe me a new keyboard.
  
  If you upgrade to Nose 3.6 Ultimate Edition, you can pick up on scents that are even more subtle than this one!
  
  The GP was pretty-obviously sarcasm.
  
  --
  My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
19. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Generic+Guy · 2006-09-05 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  why are people modding it as interesting as opposed to funny?
  
  The moderators have begun to figure out that Funny doesn't generate karma points for the post, so a lot of otherwise silly or funny comments on slashdot get modded as a more generic interesting instead.
  
  --
  { - Generic Guy - }
20. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by RexRhino · 2006-09-05 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  I realize that you are being ironic and everything... But just in case some people don't pick up the sarcasm and agree with you:
  
  In every Marxist state, information is highly restricted. The last two remaining Marxist states, Cuba and North Korea, require licencing an approval to even browse the internet. And China, which is quasi-Marxist (they are capitalist, but still pretend to be Marxist and try to suppress "capitalist" ideas) is the most technologically advanced country when it comes to censoring the Internet.
  
  Socialism, where the state has a monopoly on all communication, is about the worst system you can device for free flow of information. The only way to protect free and open communication is to make sure it is entirely decentralized, which is impossible to do in a centrally planned society.
21. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by RexRhino · 2006-09-05 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Then why don't you move to Cuba or North Korea, to enjoy the unrestricted free-flow of information that the dictatorship of the proletariet provides?
  
  I mean, ideologically Marxist societies exist. Shouldn't Cuba and North Korea have the greatest free flow of information in the world?
  
  And if you don't believe that Cuba and North Korea have the most free-flow of information, why not? Clearly they are the closest thing to Marx inspired socialism on the planet right now.
22. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Skreems · 2006-09-05 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Neither of those countries are Marxist in the least.
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
23. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by westlake · 2006-09-05 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  I'll ask you to name one - just one - significant author of lower or middle class origins from the classical to the modern era.
  A man who could live and write with freedom without a substantial independent income. A man without the patronage of the the church, the state, the lord of the manor, or the merchant prince.
  I'll ask you next to name the authors in the Library of America.
  There are the aristocrats, of course. Men with names like Adams and Jefferson, Parkman and Roosevelt. But there is also Baldwin, Wright and Du Bois, Hammett and Chandler, Lovecraft and Poe, Kaufman and Thurber. London and Steinbeck.
  Twenty volumes dedicated to works by women, ten to American journalism, eight to the classics of American Noir, the hard-boiled crime novel with its roots in pulp fiction.
  Over sixty volumes of twentieth century fiction, plays and essays. This enormous and engaging body of work the product of a society that is elementally democratic and capitalist to the core. Copyright not copyleft.
24. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by RexRhino · 2006-09-05 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if Cuba is not Marxist, and North Korea is not Marxist... do you care to tell me what country, in all of history, was Marxist?
25. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Marcus+Green · 2006-09-05 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Could you give an example of such a work? If it has gone out of copyright why would you need permission? Can you give an example of a juristiction where copyright is valid for 200 years. I think you are commenting on something you have little knowledge of. If I am wrong could you give some URL's that back up your interpretations?
26. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by orasio · 2006-09-05 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  So extending copyrights excessively is not a good idea...
  
  I think that mostly everyone should agree on that. That is a view I share with most people.
  
  "I don't think we should be granting distribution privileges to authors anymore."
  
  Perhaps a better suggestion is not to extend copyright time period? Or are you suggesting that copyright has not been an incentive to creativity in the past?
  
  In _my_ particular opinion, more is lost by the public than is won with copyright laws, in _all_ cases, watching the whole picture.
  Of course, I don't want everyone to agree with me, or even to understand what copyright is, and why it is bad for everybody, so I would at least like better copyright terms. 20 years (not death + 20 years, just 20 years from release) sounds like a looong time, in a world where you can distribute and profit from your stuff globally in months, opposed to the times where copyright was created, that books needed years to be popular, and sold.
27. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by AgNO3 · 2006-09-05 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  No Copyright is how I keep big business from raping me blind. I the small photographer because of copyright can use licenses to insure that some big company does not come to me and tell me hey we want to use this picture to sell stuff at just one little trade show so we can only pay this much then going out and using my generosity and selling $100,000,000 with MY creativity. Copyright allows to be adjust my fees for different needs in a client. With out licensing it would cost about $25,000 to 6 figs for any creative photo shoot. (I am refering to the fee alone not the cost.)
  
  Why don't you just read something like this.
  http://www.apanational.com/files/public/APA__On_Or phan_Works.pdf
  
  --
  OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
28. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Marcus+Green · 2006-09-05 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Limiting the time of copyright seems reasonable to me, though I don't know what time period would be appropriate. One justification for copyright is to encourage (incentivize is such an awful word) people to be creative. Here in the UK therre was a recent debate about extending the period of copyright protection for works such as the songs sung by Elvis Presley. This lead many people to comment on how effective this would be in pursuading Elvis to continue being creative :)
29. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by ElleyKitten · 2006-09-05 07:05 · 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.
30. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Skreems · 2006-09-05 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  The USSR under Lenin was probably the closest. Thing is, any country that has a military dictatorship take over is not anywhere near a decent representative of Marxism. Hell, it wouldn't be a decent representative of capitalism either. Doesn't matter what the economic structure is, the repressive government is going to screw things up.
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
31. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by westlake · 2006-09-05 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Bookstores still charge for Shakespeare books, even though there's no copyright on that
  Shakespeare will be copyrighted.
  You can't simply reprint the first folio in facsimile and have an edition that will be suitable for casual reading or performance: anyone familiar with Project Gutenberg runs head-on into this wall all the time.
32. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Marcus+Green · 2006-09-05 09:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It seems you are not arguing against copyright per-se (which was the position of the original post) but against the length of copyright and possibly the extension of copyright after the death of the author. Seems like a very reasonable argument to me, and I agree. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage creativity by awarding a temporary monopoly on the control of reproduction, I cannot see how I will be encourage to be creative once I am dead.
33. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by drsmithy · 2006-09-05 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't an analogy. The person I was responding to wrote a book, and I don't think anyone in this thread or even the original topic was talking specifically about software. Incidentally, since his book is in PDF, it would be just as easy to reproduce and distribute his book as it would be to reproduce and distribute software.
  You said it wasn't copyright that allowed someone to "charge for stuff", and used the example of a bookshop selling books to support your argument. My point is this conclusion is wrong, because someone selling physical books is a vastly different prospect to someone trying to sell software, in a world without copyright.
34. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by rtb61 · 2006-09-05 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  200 years was not necessarily hyperbole, just wait for the next series of continuing extensions. Either we will succeed in knocking it back to a more reasonable 25 years or they will attempt to stretch it out to forever.
  Internet copyright is about extending copyright way beyond what it is now. You copyright a book and everybody can still legally copy any single page of that book. Copyright on the internet means copyright on individual pages and even paragraphs.
  The goal is to basically block anybody from publishing anything on the net, except if they are another major publisher with their own mutually destructive copyright library to counter attack with.
  Basically the creative commons is coming under attack. Consider this, what is the difference between the best professional photographer and rank amateurs - 10,000 photos - by luck the amateur will eventually produce a classic and memorable photo. Now consider the internet and digital photography. Millions of rank amateurs are producing and publishing thousands of classic and memorable photos everyday (there are already so many of them out there that it has become impossible for any individual to see them all).
  The threat of the creative commons choking out the publishers is very real, their only hope is to shut down every site by continually filing copyright court cases one after another, and current copyright laws does not provide sufficient opportunity.
  Don't forget the RIAA was attempting to copyright individual words on P2P networks, by getting the courts to enforce the use of word filters on file names based upon word lists provided by the RIAA, attempt to release a work on P2P with a word from that list and your work disappears, regardless of content.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
35. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by Marcus+Green · 2006-09-05 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  "200 years was not necessarily hyperbole, just wait for the next series of continuing extensions"
  
  So you can point to a juristiction that extends copyright to 200 years or you cannot? Could we have a URL.
36. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by rtb61 · 2006-09-06 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Just wait, be patient, and I will ;-).
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
37. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by ElleyKitten · 2006-09-06 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  You said it wasn't copyright that allowed someone to "charge for stuff", and used the example of a bookshop selling books to support your argument. My point is this conclusion is wrong, because someone selling physical books is a vastly different prospect to someone trying to sell software, in a world without copyright.
  You would still have the right to charge for software in a world without copyright. It wouldn't be as practical, which is one reason why we have copyrights, but copyright is certainly not what gives you the right to sell something. Copyright gives you exclusive distribution rights. There's a difference.
  
  --
  "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
38. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by drsmithy · 2006-09-06 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  You would still have the right to charge for software in a world without copyright.
  Of course you could. You have the "right"[0] to try and charge people for anything, if you want.
  It wouldn't be as practical, which is one reason why we have copyrights, but copyright is certainly not what gives you the right to sell something. Copyright gives you exclusive distribution rights. There's a difference.
  Copyright - more accurately the enforcement thereof - is what gives you the *ability* (ie: makes it "practical") to charge for things that could otherwise, easily, be obtained for free (or close enough to free). Again, my only major point is that trying to equate book and software sales is disingenuous, to say the least - both with or without the existence of copyright.
  [0] I really hate it when the word "right" is tossed around so casually like this, it devalues its importance.
39. Re:Copyright is a crime against humanity by ElleyKitten · 2006-09-07 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright - more accurately the enforcement thereof - is what gives you the *ability* (ie: makes it "practical") to charge for things that could otherwise, easily, be obtained for free (or close enough to free).
  If it *could* be obtained for free without copyright, then chances are it currently is obtainable for free with copyrights. Copyright doesn't enforce anything pricewise, and it's *really* not effective against stopping people from giving stuff away for free. Copyright is effective at stopping large companies and publishers from selling things they don't have the rights to, because that's what it was designed to do in the first place. I'm not supporting piracy here, I'm just saying that copyright has obviously not been very effective against it.
  
  Again, my only major point is that trying to equate book and software sales is disingenuous, to say the least - both with or without the existence of copyright.
  Guess what? I didn't. You brought up software sales while I was talking about books. Also, we were talking in specific about a PDF book. Tell me how exactly it's more difficult to copy and distribute a PDF than it is to copy and distribute a program?
  
  --
  "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
proof by macadamia_harold · 2006-09-04 20:34 · Score: 1, Troll

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.

...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.

--
Push Button, Receive Bacon
1. Re:proof by denim · 2006-09-04 20:40 · 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.
2. Re:proof by lupine_stalker · 2006-09-04 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, don't these people just give you that warm feeling inside when you consider the fate of humanity, free speech and teh intarwebs.
  
  --
  Ninjas use italics.
At last... by Godwin+O'Hitler · 2006-09-04 20:38 · 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.
Scoop is sort of confusing by RAMMS+EIN · 2006-09-04 20:39 · Score: 5, Informative

This didn't become clear to me from the title or the scoop, but according to TFA, there are _two_ proposals; one by the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada that argues for an exception to copyright law that would allow schools to use online materials, and one by Access Copyright that aims to introduce a new licensing scheme for online content; basically, anyone can register works with AC, and AC can then license these to everybody.

TFA then goes on to say that ACs proposal is definitely bad, but, contrary to what the scoop suggests, TFA is mainly about the CMEC proposal. What it says is that educational use of online materials is already permitted under current copyright law, and introducing an "exception" that specifically allows it is going to have the negative consequence of making it seem that other uses are not allowed (e.g. fair use at home).

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
1. Re:Scoop is sort of confusing by Alsee · 2006-09-04 23:05 · 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.
2. Re:Scoop is sort of confusing by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-04 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  home recording is clearly Fair Use and a "copyright exemption" "granting" something that is already Fair use is entirely redundant and worthless.
  
  Well, there's your problem. It wasn't clearly fair use. In fact, since no use is categorically fair, it was unlikely to always be. In some instances it might be fair, and in others it might not be. It would depend on the circumstances around every instance of copying. Someone who made a copy of a song to avoid buying one would likely not be engaging in a fair use, while someone who merely made a mix tape of songs they had lawfully made copies of already likely would be.
  
  An exception would be quite valuable, not just in covering people who were not engaged in fair use, but also in providing a clear exception so that they don't have to resort to fair use, which is never easy to use for protection.
  
  The AHRA is pretty bad for a number of reasons, and doesn't actually include any exceptions, but exceptions along the lines of what AHRA is generally thought to include aren't that bad.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
3. Re:Scoop is sort of confusing by Alsee · 2006-09-06 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  The AHRA [] doesn't actually include any exceptions
  
  I know you're a lawyer and I was about to take your word for it and assume that I just missremembered, but I just double checked and it is in there.
  1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
  The most of that covers the hardware/media business, and the end part covers the home user. I still think the clause had no practical value, and limited theoretical value.
  
  I'd be surprised if there was even a single infringment suit ever filed against any consumer for noncommercial home recordingg with ordinary audio cassettes. I don't see it being any more of a real practical threat for consumers using DAT or other AHRA covered devices.
  
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
4. Re:Scoop is sort of confusing by cpt+kangarooski · 2006-09-06 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I knew you were thinking of 1008. But it's not an exception.
  
  Exceptions generally read like this: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright...."
  
  But 1008 doesn't say that the actions it covers are not infringements of copyright. It says "[n]o action may be brought under this title" which is a different thing. Acts covered under 1008 are infringements, but the are not infringements for which you can be sued. The main outcome of this is that copies made pursuant to 1008, and which don't also fall under an actual exception, are not lawfully made copies. The First Sale exception at 109 says that it only applies to "a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title," meaning that you can't rely on that to distribute 1008 copies. Fair Use is also probably not available for distributing 1008 copies, since none of the four factors would be on your side.
  
  This is very clever and subtle wording, which I understand came from RIAA, as the original language in Congress would've been a normal exception.
  
  I'd be surprised if there was even a single infringment suit ever filed against any consumer for noncommercial home recordingg with ordinary audio cassettes. I don't see it being any more of a real practical threat for consumers using DAT or other AHRA covered devices.
  
  I agree, but we're stuck with it at the present time anyhow.
  
  --
  -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
5. Re:Scoop is sort of confusing by Alsee · 2006-09-07 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting point and analysis of the "non-exception" nature of 1008. And of course the RIAA's typical covert manuvering in crafting copyright language.
  
  For a moment I thought the RIAA might have have getten too clever in their games and how it might bite them in the ass.... it crossed my mind that the DMCA lies under "this title", and therefore 1008 might be cleverly hijacked as a means to bypass the DMCA. However then I rejected the language. "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright ". And of course the DMCA is not about infringment of copyright, and thus woulc not interact with 1008. Sigh. It was such a beautiful idea, while it lasted.
  
  -
  
  --
  - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Can you say RIAA? by RAMMS+EIN · 2006-09-04 20:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

FTFA:

``Moreover, it is far better than a counter-proposal from Access Copyright that seeks to develop a new licensing system for the use of Internet-based content. According to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the copyright collective has asked the Ministry of Canadian Heritage for funding to become the Canadian collective for a new international standard that can be used to register any "textual work" from books to blogs. Armed with a collection of "registered" online text, Access Copyright will be positioned to create a new license for the use of Internet content.''

So, AC wants you to register your work with them, so that they can then license it to everybody? That's what the record labels do, right?

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
1. Re:Can you say RIAA? by jackhererUK · 2006-09-04 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  No it's more like what music publishers and songwriters do through PRS/MCPS/ASCAP/BMI etc. Record labels don't really license their content much through collection agencies, you have to do a deal with each individual record label. Although the exception to this is people like PPL and SoundExchange but this is solely for public performace and broadcasting type stuff. I don't really see the problem with this, it would just make it easier to license textual information if you wanted to use someone elses stuff on your website. If the person owning the copyright is happy for the info to be public domain anyway, then they are not going to license it through AC.
Re:Where's frist post by ThePengwin · 2006-09-04 20:42 · Score: 1

Oh noes! the sarcasm meter just exploded!
Every story brings fresh doubt by Clueless+Nick · 2006-09-04 20:50 · Score: 1

Every time I read about freedoms being curtailed in Canada, I wonder if I should have applied for emigrating there. Australia also does not seem to be much better.

Is it worth the pain?

--
Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
1. Re:Every story brings fresh doubt by pnewhook · 2006-09-04 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how any freedoms are being curtailed in that article. And Canadians have far more rights that Americans.
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
2. Re:Every story brings fresh doubt by topham · 2006-09-05 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  Any where (general location) is the farm located?
3. Re:Every story brings fresh doubt by fishbowl · 2006-09-05 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  "maybe I can interest you in a 100 acre farm that's
  off the grid"
  
  Do you think your way of unplugging from society and civil infrastructure could be part of what's prevented
  you from gaining citizenship or permanent resident status?
  
  --
  -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
4. Re:Every story brings fresh doubt by freezin+fat+guy · 2006-09-05 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  That depends what you are moving for - what your goal is.
  
  One comment we often hear after an immigrant has been in the country a couple of years is that the media presents them with a broader view of what is going on. That is true but I also have to think there's nothing preventing an American from subscribing to a good news channel. CBC is good and BBC seems better, frankly.
  
  If you are looking for a more enlightened society Canada may have the highest rate of post secondary education of any nation but I can assure you we still manage to be immature at times. We need to grow up too.
  
  If you are looking for a government which incites less hostility abroad, well we certainly don't have the power to incite as much hostility. Our commitment to diplomacy may stem in part, large or small, from that fact and not just from some innate "moral superiority".
  
  If you are looking for a place you can put your canoe in the water and paddle a thousand miles of wilderness, you've found it. If you've never stood on a frozen lake on a winter's night, a bright frost halo encircling the moon, heard the thick ice groaning like a sleeping giant and felt it shudder beneath your feet, well you should.
  
  To sum it up: there are moments I am proud to be Canadian and other moments I am genuinely ashamed of something we've done. You will no doubt feel the same about your present home. Some people love moving here and some hate it. I suggest you weigh the pros and cons.
  
  Have you considered any of the Scandinavian nations? (also great hockey players)
5. Re:Every story brings fresh doubt by Guppy06 · 2006-09-05 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  "I've been back in NL (my country of origin)"
  
  Hate to break the news to you, but Newfoundland and Labrador has been a part of Canada for almost 60 years now.
  
  (Seriously, if you live in Canada, you should understand the reason to be less ambiguous than to try to use an ISO abbrevation that conflicts with Canada Post.)
  
  "maybe I can interest you in a 100 acre farm"
  
  Don't they measure things in hectares up there? Maybe your problem with establishing residency is that your farm is actually on the wrong side of the border.
6. Re:Every story brings fresh doubt by pnewhook · 2006-09-05 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  What rights are those? You have no right to bear arms, there is pretty severe restrictions on freedom of speech, and a provincial premeir or the prime minister can suspend the constitution up to 5 years... What are these right that Canadians enjoy that Americans don't?
  
  Ok AC troll - I'll play.
  You dont have a constitutional right to bear arms - you have a right to an armed militia (read what you're trying to argue sometime). And some redneck with a shotgun in his pickup is not the intent of a well armed militia. Canadians have the same right to own weapons, with the exception of fully automatics which no sane person needs for self defence anyway.
  There are no restrictions on freedom of speech - you can form any political party you like including marxist and communist which are illegal in the US (so much for your freedom of speech). What restrictions are you referring to?
  It's perfectly ok to show nudity and swear on TV, even broadcast TV. Apparently in the US thats highly illegal. The world was laughing at the (over)reaction to the Janet Jackson thing - who cares!
  It's legal for women (and men) to go topless in Canada. It's not immoral, illegal or dirty like it apparently is in the US. Gay marriage is also legal.
  Our government has not made it legal to electronically eavesdrop on private phone and electronic conversations. Our government does not run an illegal offshore prison that contravenes the Geneva convention.
  Shall I continue?
  
  --
  Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Re:Where's frist post by Andrew+Kismet · 2006-09-04 20:51 · Score: 2, Funny

I think most Slashdotters live, breathe, browse and sleep in the same place - one cannot "retire" to your mother's basement if you never leave it. :3
When will they learn... by Lord+Aurora · 2006-09-04 21:11 · Score: 1

...that people don't like the government fucking around with Internet access?
TFA can't even find a good reason for the copyright...in fact, it spends half the time telling us why it's a shitty idea. I knew American laws were stupid, but, damn, we overflowed into Canada. Leave them to their ice hockey, dammit!

--
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
Why by still_the_one · 2006-09-04 21:58 · Score: 1

Why limit our choices on the web??? why???
Re:Ashamed by Anonymous Coward · 2006-09-04 22:14 · Score: 2, Funny

I've never been more ashamed to be a Canadian right now.

Really? Two words for you: Celine Dion.
Wow - Canada Must Rock! by Petersko · 2006-09-04 23:01 · Score: 1

I've never been more ashamed to be a Canadian right now.

This is the worst thing Canada has ever done to earn your disgust? Wow. What a truly amazing country.

In the vast history of governmental screwups, this is hardly even a footnote. It's not like they've been tapping your phones without a warrant... Disclaimer: I'm Canadian.
Fearmongering by nuggz · 2006-09-04 23:04 · Score: 1

The article didn't really say much clearly.

There already is a limited education use exemption in Canadian Copyright law, saying it applies to blogs too sounds reasonable.
I think it is acceptable for a teacher to print out or save a copy of a blog that they are discussing in class.
Re:Where's frist post by hauntingthunder · 2006-09-04 23:11 · Score: 1

"Turns out the article says the ministry of education wants to allow schools to use all material available on the internet and be exempt from copyright that way. Guess someone didn't think about warez there."
What even the pron ;-)

--
You will never get to heaven with an Ak 47... But A Zu 30 is good for Low Flying Cherubim
First order of business... by Ratface · 2006-09-04 23:12 · Score: 1

... to reassign the top-level domains so that all web addresses end in .eh eh?

--

A little planning goes a long way...
Re:The problem with politicians... by zIRtrON · 2006-09-04 23:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

You bring up a very good point. The democratic process was "invented" before soul-less and perpetual entities like corporations existed. Whether you are aware or not, Syndicalism is something that could/should/would make things a little fairer if they could be worked into the current "democratic" process.

Perhaps something like a 2nd vote. One for your moral values and one for your social values (through your work). Of course this would give more power to the people. Something to do with balance yada yada...
Obligatory Adams quote by matt+me · 2006-09-04 23:18 · Score: 1

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
1. Re:Obligatory Adams quote by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2006-09-05 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Or, to paraphrase Clarke in Imperial Earth... The President should be dragged kicking and screaming into office.
  
  --
  Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Oh brother by AC5398 · 2006-09-04 23:30 · Score: 1

First the CRTC wanted to regulate the content on the web, now the Access Copyright folks want to licence the content on the web.

The brilliance of the civil service mindset continues to astound me. My tax dollars at work ...
licensing by ultracosm · 2006-09-04 23:33 · Score: 1

I think the issue is not whether something can be copyrighted (it already is) or licensed, but the best way to wring cash out of the licensee.

I personally don't mind the idea of reimbursing the author of content. I'd guess if we don't have some way to do that, the only content available will be from people who don't have anything better to do (and little to say), or poor passionate artists.

Perhaps there would be some benefit to a mechanism that allowed large numbers of Internet users (e.g. all the subscribers of an ISP service) to pay a small amount each to some outfit -- as long as most of the money paid ends up in the hands of the creators of the content. On the other hand, that looks very much like a tax...
1. Re:licensing by KDR_11k · 2006-09-05 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't like the idea of an automatic system, if you want the content on your site to cost money to see you're free to set up a payment system and maybe get together with others who want to sell their content like that to create a unified "premium content" network where the customer gives his billing information once and can easily pay for the sites he wants. If all content providers were to join such a system you'd effectively have an extra fee to use the internet but it'd really require the consent of the content providers rather than one group deciding "Oh, we'll take money from everyone and if you wanted your content to be paid for just ask us and sign this small contract here...".
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Non profits running things? by thorkyl · 2006-09-05 01:24 · Score: 1

Why is it every time we turn around some non-profit group has thier nose in what I am doing? RIAA, Access Copyright, the Church? Give it a rest people. I will enforce my own copyright thank you. -- this post is not copywriten you may use it, flame it, smoke it as you see fit here is my copyright infrindgment of the day used without permission "Access Copyright provides access to copyright protected works. Our licences provide users with immediate, legal and economic access to published works while ensuring that publishers and creators are fairly compensated" KMRWA Access Copyright

--
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Kansas City Shuffle Eh? by slashbob22 · 2006-09-05 01:26 · Score: 1

So this has been the plan all along?

Make the whole world watch somewhere else and then just invade Canada. We've got Oil, Snow (going to be rare when the World heats up), Fresh Water, and the Hacker Hellstorm. Just FYI, we don't have Mule Bombs -- but watch out for our Ski-doos (if you catch my snow-drift).

Fake Left, go Right. Kansas City Style. Gotcha.

--
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
1. Re:Kansas City Shuffle Eh? by aminorex · 2006-09-05 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  What really made me laugh out loud when reading the article was the concept of Canadians fighting back.
  
  --
  -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
2. Re:Kansas City Shuffle Eh? by ArsonSmith · 2006-09-05 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  All that and we still don't give a shit about Canada.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Ashamed by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-09-05 02:28 · Score: 1

I'd be ashamed to be Michael Geist. That's the dumbest lead paragraph I've seen in years.

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Missing information by rueger · 2006-09-05 03:07 · Score: 1

First, please stop referencing American law - Canada is still a foreign country.

Second, the function of Access Copyright is pretty simple: it licences content on behalf of the creators so that it can be freely used within shcools. The idea, a simple one, is that when some teacher photocopies dozens of copies of your short story instead of buying text books you will still get some payment.

Contary to common belief, especially among teachers, there no law natural or otherwise that allows them unfettered use of other people's work.

--
Three Squirrels
1. Re:Missing information by mark-t · 2006-09-05 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  "Contary to common belief, especially among teachers, there no law natural or otherwise that allows them unfettered use of other people's work."
  
  See here, under exceptions to Copyright infringement. That'd be enough to already do anything that anyone would reasonably want under the AC proposal.
  Access Copyright adds absolutely nothing to this except possibly wresting control of copyright from ACTUAL copyright holders.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Don't do it... by Morphine007 · 2006-09-05 03:56 · Score: 1
... because it might give the wrong idea to people.

This is the first I've heard of this. I'm sure someone in the crowd can correct me if I'm wrong, but my basic interpretation of this seems to be:
- it shouldn't be necessary
- it might go against international law
- it gives the impression that people who access this stuff already are doing so illegally
- it might cause people to stop putting information up freely
I'd kinda like to address each of these in turn:
- it shouldn't be necessary Then what's the big deal?
- it might go against international law I'd leave the interpretation of international law to the lawyers... I'm not one, I don't think the author is either.
- it gives the impression that people who access this stuff already are doing so illegally O RLY?!!11oneone... this one looks like a red herring to me... new educational act or not, this one probably wouldn't be able to touch previous court decisions regarding fair use, so again, what's the big deal?
- it might cause people to stop putting information up freely I'd like to call bullshit on this one as well. Put this into place and 99.99% of Canadians will never even hear about it.
All this really really makes me wonder why this guy is so against this... I can't find a SOLID reason amongst all of his hyperbole... could someone please tell me what I'm missing? Why is this a big deal?
--
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
1. Re:Don't do it... by Morphine007 · 2006-09-05 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  BAH!!! He is a lawyer... *sigh* ... at any rate, the potential violation of international law still doesn't explain what the big deal is? The potential violation of international law takes up one measly line in his entire article... so I'm still at a bit of a loss
  
  --
  Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
Re:Someone should copyright their arses by demo9orgon · 2006-09-05 04:34 · Score: 1

Hear! Hear!

And it sucks that some knee-jerk Canadian fool marked your post as a troll because in a nutshell,
"more laws == less justice" meets "kill the slavemasters & Don't tread on me", at least in the mind of anybody who values their liberty.

Laws that actually seek to control access to freely available information in what would seem to be a free country across a world-wide network should raise flags and people should shout them down.

Of course we're talking about a country which captiulated to media barons and the fawning toadies who saw the instruments of that surrender to fruition.

Perhaps this is a pre-emptive move to assauge the concerns of vocal ethnic and religious groups?
Canada has a couple of large immigrant populations, at least two which predate the United States Constitution.

Mind and movement control is a ratchet, we're just hearing things get tighter in Canada. Wait till something like this passes the House just before midnight sometime soon.

--
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Re:A lawyer's dream, a layman's nightmare by Marcus+Green · 2006-09-05 06:43 · Score: 1

Lets say your Moms favourite offspring wrote an awesome song and recorded it as a present Let's say she was so proud that she gave a copy to a friend, who gave it to a friend who was in a band that made a another recording of it and made a whole bunch of money from it. Lets say the members of the band said

"this copy of the song was given to us it's ours and I don't give a shit what your kid thinks"
Sure why not by nurb432 · 2006-09-05 09:17 · Score: 1

Piss off enough people with stupid stuff this and you get revolution.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:My interpretation by Morphine007 · 2006-09-05 10:37 · Score: 1

Point 5: Politics. This is the real crux of Geist's argument, although he doesn't put it as plainly as he might.

ahhh... finally something that makes sense. I didn't think of it that way, but that part is a fairly chilling possibility. Enough small changes and you can effect a large change that would have originally been shitcanned... the whole slowly increasing the temp of the water that a frog is in analogy.

I'm not sure where exactly I'd stand on that one... if it was a strong possibility than I'd agree with his sense of urgency in shitcanning this... if it was an incredibly remote possibility, then I'd stand by my opinion that he's making a big deal out of nothing....

thanks for the info AC ;-)

--
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
Changing Legislation Changes Court Interpretation by senatorhung · 2006-09-05 12:59 · Score: 1

you've already addressed pt.2 - yes michael geist is canada's closest equivalent to lawrence lessig in the u.s., even to the extent of aping lessig's powerpoint presentations with white buzzword text on black backgrounds.

once you've enshrined this in legislation as an 'exception', then everything else becomes a fair target. yes, the court decisions have provided for fair dealing for research purposes, but that was given the legislation at the time. if another court challenge arises, the court would have to consider the new case in light of the new version of the legislation and, seeing the exception, could rule in a different fashion than before. this is unlikely in this situation, given the unanimity of the CCH decision, but just like the RIAA lawsuits, media will attempt to provide 'balanced coverage', highlighting the illegality of what is actually legal just to make sure the corporate perspective is presented. that media kerfluffle will be enough to convince some in society that downloaded and printing from the internet might not be worth the potential legal trouble.

--
for the experienced librarian, google is merely one tool of many ...