Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Copyright Report More Rhetoric Than Reality

CanuckGamer writes "Michael Geist has up a great article debunking the U.S. 'Special 301' report that is set to be released this week. The annual copyright report criticizes dozens of countries on their copyright practices, yet Geist notes that the policies are subject to growing criticism within the U.S. and that few countries are actually listening since most ignore the recommendations. 'While the report will generate media headlines and cries for immediate action from Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda, the reality is that Canada's record on intellectual property protection meets international standards. Moreover, differences between the U.S. and Canadian economies - the U.S. is a major exporter of cultural products and has therefore unsurprisingly made stronger copyright protection a core element of its trade strategy while Canada is a net importer of cultural products with a billion dollar annual culture deficit - means that U.S.-backed reforms may do more harm than good.'"

123 comments

  1. Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Debunking" means that you've demonstrated that something is false, not that you think it should be disregarded.

    1. Re:Ummm.... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we are trading a billion dollars worth of minerals, water, energy, lumber and manufactured goods out for a billion dollars worth of permission to something that would be free for the taking if we changed our laws, it makes it pretty fucking clear what we should do.

      We should dump the laws entirely. If that means trade drops such that we keep our billion dollars worth of stuff for ourselves and don't receive a billion dollars worth of empty "permission to copy" notes, we are much better off.

      The fact that it isn't happenening speaks to the motives of our elected officials.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    2. Re:Ummm.... by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Debunking" means that you've demonstrated that something is false, not that you think it should be disregarded.

      Why would you care about something that has been shown to be false, though?
  2. A billion-dollar cultural deficit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But they have Celine Dion!

    1. Re:A billion-dollar cultural deficit? by Lockejaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Using the term "cultural deficit" doesn't seem quite right -- it implies that the USA has a cultural surplus.

      --
      (IANAL)
    2. Re:A billion-dollar cultural deficit? by omeomi · · Score: 1

      Using the term "cultural deficit" doesn't seem quite right -- it implies that the USA has a cultural surplus.

      From an economics perspective, we do...

    3. Re:A billion-dollar cultural deficit? by FlyByPC · · Score: 1

      Yeah -- isn't that a bit like Hawai'i exporting ice?

      --
      Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    4. Re:A billion-dollar cultural deficit? by ohearn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Heck it assumes the US has a culture. //takes toungue out of cheek

    5. Re:A billion-dollar cultural deficit? by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Using the term "cultural deficit" doesn't seem quite right -- it implies that the USA has a cultural surplus.

      What's funny is that Canada actually buys this so called cultural surplus!

    6. Re:A billion-dollar cultural deficit? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course not anymore since they gotta export every bit of it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:A billion-dollar cultural deficit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got some moldy pork chops in the fridge, probably some bacteria growing in there. Does that count?

  3. The Shat you say? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Canada is a net importer of cultural products with a billion dollar annual culture deficit...


    Is that with or without William Shatner?
    1. Re:The Shat you say? by Bearpaw · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think William Shatner was born in Canada but lives in California. If true, I believe that would mean he's part of the US cultural deficit.

    2. Re:The Shat you say? by Egonis · · Score: 1

      He was born and raised in Montreal, Quebec

    3. Re:The Shat you say? by PFI_Optix · · Score: 3, Funny

      Once you export something, it stays exported. You don't get to count it every year just because it was made in your country.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    4. Re:The Shat you say? by Znork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless it's protected by intellectual monopoly legislation. Then you get to count it until the monopoly expires.

      Really tho, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda should take a good hard look at how multiple hundreds of millions of dollars transferred out of the Canadian economy, and consequently the loss of a fair number of jobs, would serve Canadian industry or Canadian cultural workers.

    5. Re:The Shat you say? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Shatner is a cultural deficit all by himself.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:The Shat you say? by Pollardito · · Score: 2, Funny

      Once you export something, it stays exported. You don't get to count it every year just because it was made in your country. maybe we only have a William Shatner license, did anyone read the EULA?
    7. Re:The Shat you say? by Battle_Ratt · · Score: 2, Funny

      You've had Celine Dion in Vegas for a couple of years. Is she yours now? If so good, you can keep her.

    8. Re:The Shat you say? by Egonis · · Score: 1

      I never said 'William Shatner was born and raised in Montreal, Quebec and therefore is the sole property of the Dominion of Canada'

      Someone had said 'he's from Canada, isn't he?'

      So using your logic, Colonel Sanders lived out his retirement in Canada, does that mean Kentucky Fried Chicken should be renamed to Canadian Fried Chicken because he 'exported'?

      Just food for thought.

  4. Canada should thank Bush by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Without him American forces would be having an easy time of it in Iraq, and we would prepare to invade Canada. But of course the United States has never invaded a nation to install a pro-American dictator because they don't like the democratically elected government's policies.

    --
    Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    1. Re:Canada should thank Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Watson Ladd is still an idiot.

  5. What Canada should say to the US by kilgortrout · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. Re:What Canada should say to the US by ahsile · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh crap... they're going to invade us next!

      I guess we should hide because that's what we do best. So, uh... let's see. Roughly 10 million square kilometers and about 30 million people. I don't want to see anyone else within 300 square meters of me!

    2. Re:What Canada should say to the US by dykofone · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm an American, but it's this oil thing that has made me actually consider moving to Canada:

      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

      Canada has the world's second largest oil reserve after Saudi Arabia. Why are they importing instead of exporting right now? Because oil is currently dirt cheap, compared to what it will be in 20 years. Canada is just sitting back, watching the world tear itself apart over oil, all the while not sharing what they have.

      Watch it, Canada will be the new superpower in a couple decades. That, or we'll just invade them.

    3. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Cauchy · · Score: 1

      You need our oil more than we need your movies

      Canada also has more standing timber than the US. Canada also has more available fresh water than the US. All we seem to have in the US is a military, but guess what's going to happen when we get thirsty.

      It should go without saying, but to those who are offended---it's a joke.

    4. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not worried. We have war canoes!

    5. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm... you quench that thirst with blood?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:What Canada should say to the US by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      That, or we'll just invade them.


      Interesting scenario - I think we'll do just that - I doubt they'll even put up a defense.
    7. Re:What Canada should say to the US by hkmarks · · Score: 1

      It actually does worry me a bit. Not yet, obviously, but where will Canada stand in a century or so when China, Russia, and the US notice the big, resource-laden country with a suddenly hospitable climate..?

    8. Re:What Canada should say to the US by EgoWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It may not be a superpower, but given that it has a tenth of the population of the U.S. it's in a very good position to leverage strategic oil reserves to concessions by America. We can't invade them; the U.S. populace would never stand for a war on their own territory. We can bring a staggering amount of economic pain down on them, though, and by stockpiling oil, they're in a very good position to tell us to get lost even in the face of that threat. I think it's wise of Canada to hold onto the one thing their huge neighbor is addicted to; it will allow them to maintain autonomy from us should things turn seriously bad in the world.

      --

      [Ego]out

    9. Re:What Canada should say to the US by voislav98 · · Score: 1

      The Canadian government has already appologized for Celine Dion, just let it go.

    10. Re:What Canada should say to the US by brianosaurus · · Score: 1

      I think "annex" might be more appropriate than invade.

      Maybe we can work a deal where we'll throw out Texas and Florida, then make Canada and Quebec our 49th and 50th states.

      --
      blog
    11. Re:What Canada should say to the US by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      My original post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek as half my family lives in Canada -- I'm just wondering about the implications of such a scenario. Would they fight back? It's not a question of courage, it would just be a futile fight IMO.

      The reason Canada would not want to be take over, amoung all other things, is that, going by present numbers, that oil would have to support 330 million people instead of just 30 million.... but with that idea about Quebec, it even wants to seperate from Canada itself from time to time, with some referendums for secession being extremely close.... so, I don't think statehood would be in order for them.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sovereignty_mo vement

    12. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Bullfish · · Score: 4, Funny

      The republicans wouldn't stand for invading and annexing Canada. If you consider that the Canadian conservatives are to the left of the US democratic party, in the long run, it would lead to the addition of about 30 million democrat voters. Better to buy them out.

    13. Re:What Canada should say to the US by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why are they importing instead of exporting right now? Because oil is currently dirt cheap, compared to what it will be in 20 years. Canada is just sitting back, watching the world tear itself apart over oil, all the while not sharing what they have.
      If you knew anything about the oil business, you'd know that Canada's oil reserves are locked up in tar sands and under peat bogs. Oil prices have to stay over $60/barrel for Canada to remain a viable source of oil.

      Watch it, Canada will be the new superpower in a couple decades. That, or we'll just invade them.
      http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1614 000,00.html
      Estimates of Iraq's oil reserves have recently been doubled.
      The US already invaded them, so I think Canada is safe for a while yet.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    14. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      reserves have recently been doubled.

      Believing that there will always be more oil somewhere, and as technology advances, there will always be more is like believing that there is pirate treasure in your front yard, and someday someone will invent a metal detector advanced enough for you to discover it.

      Peak oil is a reality, the best we can do is continue to push it off while oil gets more and more expensive. You can bet that if oil had remained mere dollars a barrel, we'd be done by now. When oil gets to be $120 a barrel, it'll still be "farther off".

    15. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why are they importing instead of exporting right now? Because oil is currently dirt cheap, compared to what it will be in 20 years. Canada is just sitting back, watching the world tear itself apart over oil, all the while not sharing what they have."

      Those smug Canadians, floating on their pools of black gold.

      It's a load of nonsense. Firstly, you're wrong. Canada is a net exporter of oil (read the section titled "Consumption and Trade"). Canada exports all it can, the vast majority to the U.S., and it is developing pretty much everything that is currently economic. And oil is only part of the equation: Canada also exports vast amounts of natural gas and hydroelectric power to the U.S. We provide energy on the cheap, and from a strategically and politicaly secure location. We keep your lights on, and you pay us in hard currency (which helps to explain the relative erosion of the US dollar versus Canadian dollar in the last several years, but I digress). Anyway, it is a good deal for both parties. It sure as hell is cheaper for the U.S. than getting energy from, say, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the Middle East. Arguably it is also better than depending on Venezuela (also a big U.S. source).

      While it is a net exporter, Canada does import oil. Why? The main reason is simple: it's cheaper to import it by sea from elsewhere than to ship it cross-country by pipeline, pipelines which, in some cases, don't exist to the relevant areas (e.g., to Atlantic Canada -- the pipelines leading from the main production in western Canada stop in Quebec). Sometimes it is also a matter of supply bottlenecks in the pipeline system and the type of crude oil that is needed at a given refinery (e.g., the "light" stuff, which is better for gasoline). There's nothing nefarious or stingy about it. And if you look at the huge reserves and figure we're hoarding it, no, the Tar Sands, while vast, are extraordinarily expensive to produce. That's the real problem: getting it extracted. If you look at what's called "conventional" oil (the type that is easy to pump out of the ground), Canada is quite far down the list on the global scale (though still the biggest supplier to the U.S.).

      If you want the cynical view, the U.S. is sucking Canada dry like some kind of oil vampire, paying us money for the service, and we accept the fact that, down the line, as indigenous resources dwindle, we may wish we didn't sell it off so early and cheaply. A good example of the real dynamic with the U.S. is the development of a big natural gas project offshore Nova Scotia. Probably 90% of the natural gas is shipped to Boston, not Canada, and the project probably would have never happened were it not for the US market. So, we're getting paid, and the U.S. is getting a stable resource. That's fair.

      Anyway, I take some offense at the idea that we're holding something back. As a Canadian, and thinking longer-term, I kind of wish we were, but we're clearly not.

    16. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil is imported on tubes! Just like movies these days!

    17. Re:What Canada should say to the US by jcgf · · Score: 1

      It's not a question of courage, it would just be a futile fight IMO.

      I don't think it would ever happen, and if it did America would find that its allies from the gulf wars were all of the sudden on the other side. I really don't think Great Britain would be to pleased, Blair or not. Russia has also shown that they have no problem providing weapons and intelligence to the USA's enemies, so I think they would help us out. Anyways, the point is that the combined might of the above would be a threat to the US and would have to be considered.

      There's also the fact that most american wars did not affect the general populace. A war with Canada would mean that the war is in your own backyard and you see all the details. There's a difference between knowing someone got blown to pieces and actually seeing it. Plus I would imagine it would be harder to convince a soldier to kill someone who looks and acts like him rather than some "raghead" in a desert.

    18. Re:What Canada should say to the US by dami99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure the oil companies are making a profit in the tar sands at $30+ /barrel. You may call it "locked up", but as someone who lives in Alberta I can tell you there is a lot of work happening right now to get that oil out of the tar sands.

      You also imply that all of the oil in Canada is in the tar sands... That is completely untrue.

    19. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Znork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's not a question of courage, it would just be a futile fight IMO."

      For which side? Take a look at current state of the art assymetric warfare and then imagine sharing a border the length of Canadas with 3 million insurgents. Not to mention the number of disenfranchised Americans that would probably want to play their own game in the chaos.

      Large parts of both countries would be reduced to 2 hours electricity per day, bottled water from the red cross and foodpacks before such a conflict was over. Not to mention checkpoints at every block, questioning _everyone_ as ethnic discrimination would get quite a lot harder. And of course, people with family on both sides of the border would probably soon get detained and put in internment camps as a precaution.

      I mean really. Ick.

      On the bright side, the oil would last longer as there'd barely be a road you could drive on, nor any jobs or shops to drive to anyway.

    20. Re:What Canada should say to the US by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well, that kinda depends on whether we can convince Russia to help us build the Invade-US tube in Alaska, and whether we can convince them to look at our missile defense plans.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    21. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no you got it wrong, Americans drink timber......

    22. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, we can't even beat them at hockey.

    23. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Dielectric · · Score: 1

      Duh, the Canadians have flappy heads. Easy to spot, no worries here. Or you could ask them where they've been, and when they say "oot and aboot" you just throw the dirty bacon eaters in the brig.

    24. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      We can't even properly occupy Iraq, let alone Canada.

    25. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      That, or we'll just invade them.

      There are a few major reasons that first-world democracies don't invade each other and one of them is free trade. It would be senseless for America to invade Canada in order to acquire Canada's oil reserves, because Canadians are willing extract this oil from the ground and ship to the Americans' doorsteps for about the same price as it would take for Americans to do it themselves.

    26. Re:What Canada should say to the US by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Considering the climate change projections, we should expect the southern US to be an unbearable hellhole, while Canada becomes more moderate.

      With that in mind, I propose we build the Great Wall of Canada, to keep all the refugees out.

      The best way would probably be to suggest the idea to the Americans now while they're paranoid, then they can build it for us. Once they get it finished, we just nail all the doors shut from the northern side.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    27. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fallout (as in the PC game) hear we come. All we need now is for the U.S. and China to declare war, leading to the U.S. annexing Canada for the aforementioned natural resources.

    28. Re:What Canada should say to the US by init100 · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering about the implications of such a scenario. Would they fight back? It's not a question of courage, it would just be a futile fight IMO.

      If the US shows that it is willing to invade a friendly country, I suggest that the EU and Russia help Canada, since otherwise we (the EU) could be next. I wonder how the US would react to such a development. Also note that everyone that sees the US as a threat might also help out, such as China, and possibly even arab states providing support in the form of suicide bombers. :)

    29. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should take Alaska and encourage the Russians to build that bridge they've been talking about.

    30. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Sydney+Weidman · · Score: 1

      No, you've been misspelling lager

    31. Re:What Canada should say to the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's invade a modern 1st world western nation and see if we can invade them in the 6 weeks max it was gonna take us to invade a poor, destroyed by a decade of sanctions, 3rd world nation. I mean, we wiped them out in a heartbeat, right? The past 4 years in Iraq have been nothing but a big victory dance.

      How about some of you big bad Americans who think that your army can roll over any country on a whim get a sense of reality for a second and consider that if we invaded Canada we'd just lose the UP of Michigan, most of the pacific northwest and maybe even North Dakota and Montana. You've broken your armed forces by letting heavy handed chimps play with them like their personal hitsquads.

      Let me put it like this, you lost in Iraq, Canada would crush you down like the hallucinating children you are.

    32. Re:What Canada should say to the US by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      If you knew anything about the oil business, you'd know that Canada's oil reserves are locked up in tar sands and under peat bogs. Oil prices have to stay over $60/barrel for Canada to remain a viable source of oil.

      Yeah, so once the world is "tearing itself apart" over the lack of oil, what do you think the price per barrel will be at that point?
  6. Cultural? by ingo23 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "the U.S. is a major exporter of cultural products"

    I think the word you are looking for is "entertainment". Unless you forgot the quotes.

  7. I agree by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    Canadians should be allowed to steal as much IP as anyone else..

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  8. Boo! by Itninja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good thing the headline isn't slanted or editorialized. Oh wait....

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Boo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just happens that the entire internet in general, and slashdot in particular is more rhetoric than reality. Isn't it ironic, or what?

  9. Extending copyright is important by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Informative

    Life of the author plus 70 years. For corporate works, 95 years from date of publication or 120 tears from date of creation, whichever is shorter. Of course, most authors are incorporated and the corporation holds the copyright. The whole world needs to use this formula - because Sony and Disney and George Lucas aren't making enough money.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Extending copyright is important by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Life of the author plus 70 years.

      What happens when technology improves to the point where authors do not die? I know this is far thinking, but there will come a day in the next few centuries where people live for thousands of years.

      Do you account for people who own copyrights that will never become public domain because of life extension? I would just say 100 years tops for any authored copyrights and the same for corporate.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    2. Re:Extending copyright is important by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, what determines the term length is the nature of the author. Terms run for the life of the author plus 70 years, except for anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire, which run either 95 or 120 as you describe. Who holds the copyright has nothing to do with the term length. An author can assign his copyright to a corporation, but the term is still measured based on his life.

      --
      -- 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:Extending copyright is important by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Plus, what do you do when the copyright holder seems insistent on destroying his own work. For instance, Lucas' treatment of the OT on last years DVD release: "We had to use the Laserdisk version because the original no longer exists after the remastering."

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Extending copyright is important by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      In Disney's case it is 70 yrs + as long as Walt's head stays frozen.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    5. Re:Extending copyright is important by PPH · · Score: 1

      because Sony and Disney and George Lucas aren't making enough money.

      It appears that you forgot the <sarcasm> tag.

      Certainly, money is the motivation. Corporations are seeking to extend the current value of IP that is nearing its expiration date. I don't think George Lucas really cares very much about this, since he will be long dead before his works go into the public domain.

      It all comes down to the present value of the expected income flow over time. For Lucas, the present value of that income flow will not differ significantly for income 100 years in the future. This means that extending copyright life is of no value to him.

      On the other hand, for a company like Disney who has a portfolio of works, some of which are approaching their 'use by' date, the present value is affected significantly by lengthening the time horizon.

      Since copyrights are (supposed to be) for the benefit of the creator and encouragement of further creativity, its clear that further extensions of copyright terms are no longer in keeping with the principles set forth in the US Constitution.

      As far as Canada (and other countries) are concerned, granting greater property rights to foreign countries has an aditional effect. They may desire shorter copyright terms and weaker property rights for existing creations because stronger rights no longer encourage creativity. But our (USA) imports depress the value of their domestic product by inflating the supply in their market which depresses the prices and diverts some of the demand towards non productive IP.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Extending copyright is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For corporate works, 95 years from date of publication or 120 tears from date of creation, whichever is shorter.

      So... whoever invented the phrase "I could cry a river" didn't have a copyright on it for long, did he?

      *takes cover*

  10. the U.S. is a major exporter of cultural products by laejoh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the U.S. is a major exporter of cultural crap.

    There, fixed it for you!

  11. Information Feudalism by cursorx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Geist raises interesting points, as always. But for a more in-depth look into the sordid history of the Special 301 report, please read Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite's Information Feudalism, if you haven't yet. It's kinda like The Empire Strikes Back, with intellectual property lawyers and the content industry as the Empire, and not only one, but 50+ Darth Vaders.

    1. Re:Information Feudalism by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      That book sounds interesting. Anyone have a torrent?

    2. Re:Information Feudalism by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      If we're the Empire, then why don't I have a big starship and cool theme music?

      --
      -- 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:Information Feudalism by cursorx · · Score: 1

      As for the starship, I don't know. But if you want to use the Empire's cool theme song, you still have to write a check for the ISCA (Intergalactical Sith Collection Agency). Or make your own damn theme song!

  12. Damn Canadians by Bullfish · · Score: 5, Funny

    They just keep acting like they are a whole other country!

  13. Copyright isn't enough to satisfy their greed by Burz · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...so they attempting to turn categories like copyright and patents into property. Politicians jump on this bandwagon because of 1) corporate patronage, and 2) its one of the few remaining large exports for the USA and more important as a trade negotiating tool as a result.

    Glyn Moody from Linux Journal:

    Intellectual Property does not exist

    If people became aware of this simple fact - that intellectual property does not exist - I think it might be easier to persuade even politicians to do something about this crazy state of affairs.

    The term "IP" is a very clever trick played by those who indeed want to own ideas. I always use the phrase "intellectual monopoly" instead, because that's what copyright and patents are: they are monopolies granted by the government for a limited time to encourage innovation and creativity. If, instead of talking about extending "property" rights for "IP", you phrase it as extending a monopoly right, that doesn't sound so good, because it's clear that something is being taken away from everyone.

    I think we must work hard to roll back this term "IP", because every time we use it we reinforce the misconception that ideas can be owned. As soon as you get people to think in terms of monopolies, they become far less impressed by big business's demands for more "IP" protection, and the case for copyright and patents is correspondingly weaker.

    1. Re:Copyright isn't enough to satisfy their greed by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From The Tao of Programming

        There once was a man who went to a computer trade show. Each day as he entered, the man told the guard at the door:

              ``I am a great thief, renowned for my feats of shoplifting. Be forewarned, for this trade show shall not escape unplundered.''

      This speech disturbed the guard greatly, because there were millions of dollars of computer equipment inside, so he watched the man carefully. But the man merely wandered from booth to booth, humming quietly to himself.

      When the man left, the guard took him aside and searched his clothes, but nothing was to be found.

      On the next day of the trade show, the man returned and chided the guard saying: ``I escaped with a vast booty yesterday, but today will be even better.'' So the guard watched him ever more closely, but to no avail.

      On the final day of the trade show, the guard could restrain his curiosity no longer. ``Sir Thief,'' he said, ``I am so perplexed, I cannot live in peace. Please enlighten me. What is it that you are stealing?''

      The man smiled. ``I am stealing ideas,'' he said.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  14. Re:the U.S. is a major exporter of cultural produc by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 4, Funny

    the U.S. is a major exporter of cultural crap.

    the U.S. is a major exporter of crap.

    there, i fixed it for you :-)

    --
    sarcasm:
    -noun
    1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
  15. it's quite shocking... by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...that US policymakers don't listen to some guy who serves as an advisor to the Canadian government.

    Oh, never mind. We don't even listen to our own scientists who repeatedly tell us about global warming.

    --
    blah blah blah
    1. Re:it's quite shocking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be precise, the holders of Canada Research Chairs aren't government employed; they're tenured university professors whose work is funded by the (independent) CRC program.

      The current Conservative government seems to actually be afraid of Prof. Geist, as they never respond directly to his criticisms (which they're earning by the ream). Given the cogency and reason of his arguments, they surely wish they could fire, censor or otherwise silence him - just as climate scientists are muzzled in the U.S.

      Of course, if they're still in power when the 2000 CRCs run out (~1700 issued so far), they'll simply decline the option to renew the program's funding.

  16. That's true for most countries by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Most countries aside of the US and possibly UK, India and Japan, are net importers of content. So I kinda wonder why the heck they all jump that bandwaggon so readily. Stronger IP laws actually hurt most countries' economies.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:That's true for most countries by linhux · · Score: 1

      When it comes to music, the third largest exporter (after US and the UK) in the world is actually Sweden. I doubt that there is any measurable movie export, though, so it may very well be that the net result still is negative.

    2. Re:That's true for most countries by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Most countries aside of the US and possibly UK, India and Japan, are net importers of content.

      Canada is a net exporter. In fact, if it wasn't for music exports, Canada would have to rely on it's primary cash crop (which is green and leafy).

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:That's true for most countries by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Really? Never would've thought that Mary Jane grows that well in the cold climate. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:That's true for most countries by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Sure, in fact, when I was a kid in 6th grade we had the country's biggest pot bust when they arrested someone with a backpack full of BC Bud in Kaslo, BC (population 1000).

      Actually, though, I believe the US produces almost as much, but we're slackers here in America.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  17. The USA... of course. by asninn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just out of curiosity, what business do the USA have criticising other country's copyright laws, anyway? If Canada - for example - told the USA that their copyright laws are inadequate and need to be overhauled, they'd quickly be told to mind their own damn business and not meddle in other countries' internal affairs - and rightfully so, too. Why do the USA think that they have the right to do the same thing?

    Or, more specifically: why don't the PEOPLE see anything wrong with it when the administration(s) (both past and present) think they have the right to meddle in the affairs of other countries?

    --
    butter the donkey
    1. Re:The USA... of course. by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      For the same reason that if a river runs through my property onto yours, I can't damn up the river on my property. Actions I take on my land may directly affect yours and so we have a vested interest in negotiation use of that river so I don't starve you and you don't come to my home and shoot me.

    2. Re:The USA... of course. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Or, more specifically: why don't the PEOPLE see anything wrong with it when the administration(s) (both past and present) think they have the right to meddle in the affairs of other countries?

      Why would the people get angry that their government is so powerful, it's able to meddle in the affairs of other countries? It's only the people being meddled with that get angry, and the most they manage to do is swap their own politicans for someone else and tell them to grow a backbone, something they'll fail to do because the power relationship is the same. Take my own country, Norway. We're in Europe but not in the EU and get EU directives passed down to us by decree through the EEA agreement. Sure in theory we have veto power and all that, but when practicly the whole continent (100:1 size difference between us and EU) with nearly all our trade partners would be able to make sanctions against you, it just doesn't happen.

      The "MP3 law" as the EUCD was dubbed here made a huge splash in the middle of an election year, it would never have been passed on its own. But the government had to put it before the legislature, and even though it was attacked from almost every law scholar, the police, political left and right, the law had to be passed and it was. At least we managed to write in some creative exceptions, hopefully big enough for another DVD-Jon. There have been others and there will be others, but those that have a national say have given up before they've even begun. Like the EU data retention act recently, the directorate that is trying to protect our rights are saying "we hope for a minimal implementation of this directive" but beyond that nothing. Even it was an election year which it isn't, they'd still end up passing it no matter how many protest it. A sad truth.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:The USA... of course. by Silentknyght · · Score: 1

      what business do the USA ... the USA... Why do the USA ...

      In your repetitious use of "the USA," it sounds like you are suggesting that all American individuals follow such behaviors. I believe this particular attack would be better directed at multinational media corporations. If I may make an assumption, I'm sure they don't care about the country of origin for a particular law, as long it is the law that benefits them most; I believe it just so happens that the USA currently has such laws.

      Perhaps someone could prove me wrong? What are the Japanese IP / copyright laws? If they are stricter than the US's and Sony (or other Japanese-based media company) still pushes for US standards, then my argument is debunked.

      ~SK

    4. Re:The USA... of course. by multisync · · Score: 1

      In your repetitious use of "the USA," it sounds like you are suggesting that all American individuals follow such behaviors. I believe this particular attack would be better directed at multinational media corporations


      You have a point, but I think the "repetitious use of 'the USA'" is a result of politicians and their representatives from "the USA" repeatedly and vocally criticizing Canadian law. From the article we're discussing:

      In recent months, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins has publicly called on Canada to introduce copyright reform, characterizing our laws as the weakest in the G7 (conveniently overlooking the fact that the G7 no longer exists and references to the G8, which includes Russia, would not be accurate), while U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn have written a public letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper demanding anti-camcording legislation.


      I don't know what the "Japanese IP / copyright laws" are. I certainly don't hear their politicians commenting on ours, or saying our laws should fall in line with theirs.
      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    5. Re:The USA... of course. by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Or, more specifically: why don't the SHEEPLE see anything wrong with it when the administration(s) (both past and present) think they have the right to meddle in the affairs of other countries?

      There I fixed that for you. I could go into depth about the stupidity, arrogance, and laziness of my fellow countrymen, however I don't think /. has enough space for it. That'll have to do I guess.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  18. Once you export something ... by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

    Once you export something, it stays exported.

    I'm guessing that Canada hopes so.

  19. kultur by rodentia · · Score: 2, Interesting


    If one regards the word in its general sense, without connotative value, cultural is just what is required here. In particular, US cultural production is rarely entertaining, but the Knight Rider is a *cultural* product. If it were identified as such more often, the market for it might shrink a bit. Certainly, fewer people would be inclined to allow their professional association with it. As it is, the work is written off as product analogous to the way current political discourse is written off as spin.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
    1. Re:kultur by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Wait. Are you talking about Knight Rider (the talking car show) or Knight Ridder (the newspaper/internet media company that was recently bought out by McClatchy)?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  20. be honest by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    who else stopped reading the summary out of disinterest upon reaching the first instance of "Canada"?

  21. The US does export a lot of culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    the trouble is nobody thinks its worth paying for

    what is it that marketing says? oh yeah
    "something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it"
    in the case of US media thats zilch

    remember everyday thousands of ordinary (not geeks) people discover P2P so its not going to get better
    , i even know quite a few large company directors (and old ladies) that dont bat an eyelid at Bittorrent and its cousins (amusing to see their bookmark collection where they can get all that culture for $0)

    1. Re:The US does export a lot of culture by Travelsonic · · Score: 1
      [blockquote]Anonomous Coward Wrote:[/blockquote]

      A group of people != nobody, TPB != the onlty source one should use for your clame.
      Has the term, gross generalization missed yur brain?

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
  22. the reasons why by rodentia · · Score: 1


    [W]hy don't the PEOPLE see anything wrong with it when the administration(s) (both past and present) think they have the right to meddle in the affairs of other countries?

    Um. The very idea of *other countries* finds itself through the work of socio-political discourse. If there were not other countries, our actions would not be meddling but interaction. The power grants your borders in order to arrogate the right to broach them.

    But the question is moot. Lenin's anticipated withering of the state has already begun, but without the crypto-Marxist coloring. It is not recognized yet for what it is. We see the technology enabling the same but moreso, but the comms has already unleashed the forces that lie in wait for the nation state, the multinational corporation and the global hegemony of American bad taste.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
    1. Re:the reasons why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true tin-foil hat posessor.

  23. but we won't by rodentia · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I think we must work hard to roll back this term "IP". . .

    But we won't. We each want a chance to cash in before the tragedy. Particularly if it is down to geeks to intervene in the use of these terms, we will resist. Every programmer has a *big idea* and the desire to capitalize is not regarded as crass or dishonest, but a civic duty. If ideas aren't property, how can knowledge be valuable?

    Seductive, easy and wrong answers to that question abound.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
    1. Re:but we won't by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      If ideas aren't property, how can knowledge be valuable?

      In order for something to be property, the owner must be able to use and enjoy it, let others use or not use it as he sees fit, and dispose of it as he sees fit. Knowledge is non-rivalrous, however. You can let others use knowledge you have gained, but you cannot get it back from them, nor can you really get rid of it yourself. Further, knowledge is often more valuable the more it is shared, due to network effects. Consider knowledge related to hygiene and disease prevention. If you kept it to yourself, your risk of disease would be greater than if you shared that knowledge. Your risk would be further reduced if you shared that knowledge as widely as possible, which precludes exploiting it for mere financial gain.

      --
      -- 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.
    2. Re:but we won't by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      If ideas aren't property, how can knowledge be valuable?
      Love isn't either, so how can sex be owned?
      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    3. Re:but we won't by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      You can monetize your ideas without using the term "Intellectual Property". Ideas aren't property, and knowledge is only as valuable as your marketing department.

      I'd like to know what you think a seductive, easy and wrong answer to your question is, and what the difficult right answer is. Only because by asking it you imply that you know the answers. Why not tell the rest of us?

    4. Re:but we won't by Znork · · Score: 1

      "If ideas aren't property, how can knowledge be valuable?"

      Wealth in a society as a whole is the lack of scarcity. 'IP' is monpoly rights; the artificial restriction of duplication, which creates artificial scarcity; ie, the fundamental essense of IP is diametrically opposite to the idea of economic growth.

      "If ideas aren't property, how can knowledge be valuable?"

      If air isnt property, how can air be valuable?

      Non-scarce items have no (as in approaching zero) cost, but they can still be valuable. The problem with adding a monopoly right on them is that the cost of transaction management quickly becomes the highest cost involved. We could put rights on the oxygen produced by plants you own, then add accountants, breath measuring devices on every person, etc, employ hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in the 'air industry'.

      Do you truly think that the wealth of the nation would increase from that(even though the GDP might show an increase)? Instead of having people productively involved in creating scarce items, thus decreasing total scarcity, ie, increasing total wealth, we'd waste all those resources trying to account for a fundamentally non-scarce resource.

      Intellectual 'property' is no less insane.

      The fundamental problem isnt solved by creating monopolies; that merely compounds it and wastes far more resources than it dedicates to the stated goal. The end result is a society far poorer than it would be, if it used a more optimized system.

    5. Re:but we won't by knarf · · Score: 1

      If ideas aren't property, how can knowledge be valuable?

      If I give you the cookbook used by the most famous cook in the world, does that make you as 'valuable' an asset to a restaurant as that cook would be?

      The answer to that question is most likely a resounding 'no'. You lack something the cook has, namely skill and experience.

      Like fire, it takes three components to pull off a successful project: an idea, knowledge and skill. Take one away and the chance of success diminishes greatly.

      Your ideas, once expressed, become common knowledge. Any construct which turns ideas into property has to battle against some of the most basic human (and other species') traits such as curiosity, inquisitiveness and the will to learn. Your skill and experience are your own to rent out or sell. If you want your ideas to be your property, keep them to yourself. Anything else would run afoul of the often misused proverb as you cannot eat your cake and have it too...

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    6. Re:but we won't by Burz · · Score: 1

      I think in this case, knowledge is to property what time is to space:

      Knowledge and Time are both one-way propositions, and just as you cannot go back in time the way you can return to a point in space, you cannot take back a datum from someone's head as you could take back an object.

      So although information and time are both valuable, they are fundamentally unlike other valuable things that can be correctly understood as property (objects and space).

    7. Re:but we won't by Sique · · Score: 1

      Name the price for "English". And now argue that knowing the English language is not valuable.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  24. Neither by rodentia · · Score: 2, Insightful


    The headline is a statement of fact. Unless one regards rhetoric as inherently perjorative ( a pernicious contemporary usage, mind) to say that the USTR report on IP is language intended to pursuade is hardly slant or editorializing. The Bush political appointee is merely doing his job.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
  25. and they say capitalism is not theft by rodentia · · Score: 2


    Capitalism posits one form of value: perceived value.

    Marxism posits two forms of value: exchange value and use value.

    The human organism exists in a matrix of overlapping values that, by the tacit statement of their poets, cannot be reduced to a unary or binary formalism.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
  26. indeed by rodentia · · Score: 1


    It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of TJ Hooker to this issue. Close analysis will reveal that most of American cultural export is the functional equivalent of pornography: intended neither to advance an idea nor stimulate an affect, but to satisfy an appetite.

    Sane valuation would reveal that after Gordon Lightfoot, Canada banked a net surplus with America which would stand it in good stead for years to come.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
  27. the past reports by joe_plastic · · Score: 1

    Intellectual Property trade sector has links to the past 301 special reports. Like 2006 Special 301, 2005 Special 301, 2004 Special 301, 2003 Special 301, and 2002 Special 301 .
    The 2007 report is not out yet.

  28. HTTP Status 301 - http://copyright.ca by javaxjb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Moved Permanently Use http://copyright.us/

    --
    Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
  29. There are no conspiracies by rodentia · · Score: 1


    . . . but conspiracies of interest.

    And it's *possessive*.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
  30. quite by rodentia · · Score: 1


    . . . knowledge is often more valuable the more it is shared . . .

    If it's not monetized, its not value; not in the liberal capitalist democracies. They'll be crying all the way to the bank.

    Values (as opposed to value) are the prerogative of those who can afford to exercise them.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
  31. Re:the U.S. is a major exporter of cultural produc by MonolithicX · · Score: 1

    Does this make the U.S the ass and Canada the toilet?

  32. It is not theft and it is not property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking physical objects from you is theft. Duplicating data to which I have already been granted access is not theft.

    The US Supreme court agrees with me on that one, incidentally.

    Dirt is property. Information is not. Unfortunately getting any institution (courts, businesses, or whatever) to agree on that one has been difficult. It is still true though.

  33. Re:the U.S. is a major exporter of cultural produc by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Stop shitting in our brains!

    Actually one of the top TV shows for me is ReGenesis. It gets silly with the fake science almost every time, but it is not as silly as XFiles with fake science (oh, no, Scully put science on a religious pedestal yet one more time with her "You don't question the science, goddammit!")

    But really, the best shows that I know are ReGenesis, Dexter, Futurama, Fraser, Family Guy, Married with Children, XFiles, Seinfeld, Simpsons, Home Improvement and The Outer Limits not necessarily in that order. Of-course all of them, except ReGenesis are US shows. But then again, we have 1/10 of the population.

  34. you are a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see anti-Canadianism is alive and well in the US of A.

    1. Re:you are a retard by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      If being bored by Canadian copyright stories is anti-Canadianism, then I guess you've got me pegged.

  35. Copyright is imoral by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Time they wake up to that. One job, one salery.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating