Slashdot Mirror
Documentary Released On Canadian Fight Against DMCA
An anonymous reader writes "The ongoing fight against the Canadian DMCA is the focus of a new documentary film called Why Copyright? Produced by Michael Geist and available as a streamed version, OGG download version, or a torrent, the film features Red Hat founder Bob Young, sci-fi writer Karl Schroeder, the owner of Skylink Technologies (which fought the DMCA garage door opener case) and many other voices from across Canada."
bitches
While our voices and people of reasoning will make a good case for not extending the powers of copyright, beyond what they are now, I have to ask will it be enough to make a difference. We just need to look at the UK where proper reasoning was overridden by political and financial gain. Once again its a question of whether it is the governance for the few or the governance for the many.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Does anyone have a torrent of this?
His site is so screwed up with a million Javascript sources that it just refuses to cast.
Just wait till this gets hit with a DMCA takedown notice.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
I wasn't able to find a smaller version than the 2,92 gigs one (the .torrent on Mininova).
Since I indirectly use Bell Canada's network, I'm throttled to a max of 30k/s even if this is a legal download. 2,92 gigs feels too much to me when that documentary could probably be nice enough to watch at about 700 megs... If anyone finds or publishes a smaller version, please let me/us know! :-)
Animoog.org
we don't really need the gigants standing on our shoulders.
we need to be standing on the shoulders of gigants
I really liked the end. +5 Insightful to the vid ;)
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -- Mark Twain
Massive download. Check. OGG. Check. Torrent. Check. Christmas release. Check. All the geek's bases are covered. His sense of timing perfected. But does he have a movie that anyone else will be watching?
.OGG is only 424 mb . Just right ogg link and save .
Wow. Good topic, bad choice of medium. An essay would have been a much better choice.
This reminds me of the Garfield comics where he would watch a 7hr documentary about the Q-tip, or a 13h documentary about aluminum foil.
Gone!
is here
DRM = Digital restricive mischief
This is when you know that government is broken. This isn't about compromise or mob rule or sticking up for the rights of minority groups. This is about a select few trampling on the interests of the masses and the erosion of the long-standing deal between creators and their audience that says "we the people will respect your copyright for a fixed term and you will release your work to the public domain when that term has completed." In all our living years, how much of these respected copyrighted works have actually become part of the public domain? Some, but far from a lot. And that bit about "This land is your land" song having already been in the public domain being claimed otherwise only goes to show how broken the abused copyright system actually is.
A deal related to copyright was made long before we were born and that deal has been held up on one end and altered at the other with NO benefit compensating the people for any changes made.
Apropos of this documentary (which I just finished watching) and Lawrence Lessig's free eBook, "Free Culture", (mentioned here recently,) which I finished reading a few days ago, I wrote a short story about how more law schools could get into the fight against the content behemoths' flood of legal action against so-called IP pirates. Because we're talking about IP, a lot of people just don't get a visceral connection to what is at stake. Hollywood certainly won't dramatize this issue, but what if some indy filmmakers took a shot at it? In any case, the story, which is called "Intended Consequence", starts like this...
Mitchell Robieri, one of the more senior faculty members at the financially strapped Riverside High, stared at the unfinished sentence on his screen. He'd blasted through the bulk of his presentation speech for tomorrow's meeting on the force of the adrenalin raised from the prospect of confronting State Senator Dubinsky with the results of his tie-breaking vote, and now he was stalled.
"And in conclusion, Senator," he read the paragraph back for the umpteenth time, "I urge you to reconsider the curriculum directives you have mandated for the State Board of Education. Focusing exclusively on the material covered in the federal government's faulty tests serves neither the students, nor the future of this country. Instead, what we need is..."
He leaned back, crossed his arms, and sighed. Something was wrong, but what? Could there be flaw in his logic... a mistake in his research?
Robieri's train of thought was broken abruptly by a dull knocking at the door. He glanced at the laptop's clock: a quarter to one. He wasn't expecting any late visitors, and since he was the only night owl on the floor, it wasn't likely to be a neighbor, either. Frowning at the interruption, he hit save, and set the open laptop on the coffee table.
As he approached the door, he slowed and glanced back over his shoulder. He'd gotten into serious trouble from instigating his students into mounting a protest, and there was ample evidence for conspiracy charges on his laptop. Police sometimes made late-night busts. So did the Feds. It wouldn't be the first time that he'd stuck his neck out to make a political point, but it was the first time his actions could cost him his teaching job. Eight years of the lesser Bush had gotten under his skin, and spawned a healthy crop of paranoia. ... To read the whole thing, set your browser to this:
http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/short-story-intended-consequence/
P. Orin Zack
P.S.: There's over 70 short stories out there, so poke around, and spread the word if you like what you see.
In all our living years, how much of these respected copyrighted works have actually become part of the public domain?
Far fewer than the number that disappeared into some out of print catalog until no remaining copy could be found.
Vearing a bit off topic, the purpose of copyright is *supposed* to be making more works available. So why is it that Disney is allowed to create pent-up demand by putting a work back 'in the Disney vault' as their commercials say, using copyright as a bludgeon to remove works from availability?
I watched this documentary from the torrent d/l several days ago. While technically proficient (and for a 47 min doc curiously large as far as files go) I couldn't help thinking it wasn't going to change many of the minds of the very people it seems to be aimed at: those who hold the future of Canada's copyright laws in their pens. Yes, it reaffirms to some small extent what we in the (legally marginalized) P2P community have been writing for a decade and it certainly amplifies many of the warnings raised by opponents of D igitally R estricted M edia schemes, and I suppose if one was fascinated enough about this topic to actually take the time to download, burn and watch it - and yet had somehow never heard nor seen anything beyond the bankrupt corporate-media party line - it could be thought provoking...but ultimately it simply doesn't make for effective advocacy, not the kind measured in how many politicians move from one column to another, nor for that matter how many voters.
A major problem with many of the lawyer/professor/advocates in this copyright revolution is their own apparent self censorship, stemming perhaps from years of legal training and background. They're really more lawyer than revolutionary, more staid officer of the court than fiery leader of guerillas. It's hard to advocate effectively for activities that are at present assumed by many to be illegal if one spends so much time dryly repeating bromides against violating the laws...i.e. "While I can't condone illegal file-sharing..." Their very arguments tend to become unfocused and diluted, and horror, not-so-subtly affirm the status quo. Thankfully this production spares us that particular embarrassment but if there are measured rehashes of long-term grievances here there are ultimately no shots against parliament's bow, no cries de cour, no up against the wall...no passion in this documentary. And if anything is going to get parliament, or congress, or voters for that matter off their comfy chairs and onto an edgy new paradigm it's going to take something truly galvanizing. Delivering agit-prop electronically is a good start, but the amperage needs to be ramped up. Way up.
- js.
Please don't TP the board--that's so juvenile.
Crap. What did the new CSS do with the "Post anonymously" option??
Do you really want us to bomb the Baldwins?
this video is great and, as a side note, ogg theora produces beautiful video!
Keep the faith, share the code
So why is it that Disney is allowed to create pent-up demand by putting a work back 'in the Disney vault' as their commercials say, using copyright as a bludgeon to remove works from availability?
To allow a copyright holder the opportunity to profit from their intangible works, copyright law correctly gives the holder the sole right to determine how to distribute said work. This includes the right to *not* distribute it.
However, as a society, we agreed that in order to prevent the culture derived from these works from being locked up indefinitely, these granted rights would be mitigated by relatively short term limits allowing for their use in creating new culture. Unfortunately due to the creation of "corporate citizens", and their ability to lobby with more money than any one citizen could possibly hope to amass, term lengths have now increased to a point beyond any normal person's lifetime.
It has now become legally, although not morally, correct to control culture and prevent those who aren't authorized from creating it.
Actually, the purpose of copyright has nothing to do with profit. Aiding a publisher to profit is merely a means to the end of encouraging MORE publication. Using copyright to un-publish something is entirely against the spirit of copyright even where it is within the letter of the law.
The Constitution explicitly grants the congress the power to impose copyright "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Since any power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the states or the people, that implies that Congress has no power to implement copyright for any other purpose. Thus, the legitimacy of copyright law is directly reduced to the extent that it may hinder progress of science and useful arts.
In light of that, the legality remains in question though that'd be really hard to get before the Supreme Court.
No, the Liberal Party may campaign on the Left but when they get into power they are very much a lot of Right wingers. They are the "natural governing party" so the power mongers (who are on the right, the one exceptions being unions, but a very big union usually means centrists have sold out the left values to get it that big)
For example, the only real lefty thing from the Liberals recently was to expand maternity leave to 12 months. This is a real progressive policy. However, it's about babies and the "deserving poor" and they made zero effort on the daycare front. Thus, their most left achievement was only made real because it is a fairly centrist (appealing to the right) issue. They promise all sorts of more lefty things like daycares but that doesn't amount to much.
Now that the Reform Party (so called conservatives) is in power the mass media is on their side. They paint the Liberals as lefty. One could argue that in the recent election the Liberals and Dion was more left than predecessors. But that may have been talk. He was willing to form an NDP coalition recently and he did campaign on carbon taxes so I do think he was more left than normal for the Liberals. But again, that's campaigning not governing. The Liberals cut many social programs and use the spurious logic of government being a free-market business quite often. Also, they mostly cuddle up to the USA. The Bush regime was an exceptional because he is so extreme but other than that.
The terms come to be meaningless in the current media environment where any sense of history is never going back more than 15 years. People could define the Liberals as "Left" but only in the context of Bush being a centrist and - well, if you believe that then you can make up any labels you want.
Stupidity is its own reward.