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.'"

20 of 123 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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.
    3. 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.

  3. 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 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.

    4. 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!
  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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 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.
  7. 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)
  8. Damn Canadians by Bullfish · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Re:A billion-dollar cultural deficit? by ohearn · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  10. 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.
  11. 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