Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Labour Congress Considers Reversal On IP Policy
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian Labour Congress is considering a dramatic reversal of its stance on copyright and IP policy. CLC is comparable to the US AFL-CIO, but Canada is over 30% unionized. The campaign 'we must change copyright and IP law to fight evil counterfeiters and copyright pirates' is actually succeeding in Canada. Quoting the CLC's new policy resolution: '... this critical issue requires a far-reaching response involving legislative and regulatory reform, policy change, and allocation of proper resources to combat the problems. The Canadian government must be given the structure and resources to mount a sustained attack on this pervasive problem, both within Canada and internationally. The criminal and civil laws in Canada must provide adequate deterrence. And consumers must be educated that counterfeiting and piracy are not victimless, nuisance crimes, but instead strike at the heart of our long term economic security.'"
Business unions are sellouts. We need democratic industrial unions.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Its good to see them backing sensible reforms to end needless piracy by shortening the copyright term to 18 years with a single 18 year extension while also reforming patent laws to outlaw software and buisiness model patents and change the review process for normal patents to make it easier for 3rd parties to file prior art.
Oh wait a minute, I think when they said "reform" they meant to say "ruin."
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
I'm running out of places to move to.
Anybody want to take over a small island with me, in the interests of (intellectual) freedom? Seriously, I feel as though the realm of ideas is my favourite playground, and with each extension & perversion of copyright law another bully shows up. Today I can't use the slide. Tomorrow, the swings. Content should be created to be used, not merely sold like some cheap toy. /bitter
The latest in a string of bad lawmaking in an attempt to solve the piracy problem with a bad solution.
Let's just take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment. Piracy is only a problem because some (not all!) information and media businesses depend on a consumer cost downloads business model, which is marginalized by mass consumer circumvention of piracy.
Our collective response (or rather the collective response of our lawmakers) has been to increase penalties and (attempt to) increase control and regulation of the internet. This, however, always fails to achieve the desired effect. The endgame to this trend is complete and total regulation of the internet.
What does that mean? The only way to logistically enforce noncommercial copyright infringement committed by ordinary internet users is to monitor absolutely everything and cripple everyone's ability to make encrypted transmissions. The very openness of the internet has to be totally and utterly obliterated before true enforcement of antipiracy laws can occur.
I submit that since this is an unattainable goal, that we should just say screw is and legalize noncommercial copyright infringement. An unenforceable law doesn't belong on the books. As soon as lawmakers and our economy stop subsidizing clearly obsolete business models, then we can truly move on and realize the full potential of what the internet offers our society: limitless copying of information at negligible costs to everyone. A truly amazing ability.
The only alternative is to destroy the openness of the internet, which won't happen, or the slow, painful, inevitable market failure of businesses which depend on consumer cost downloads. For better or worse, they'll die at the hands of piracy if they don't find a business model that's actually enforceable.
And for those of you who might counter with an argument about how prices are decided by what the market is willing to pay, I respectfully ask you to again look at the bigger picture. What the market is willing top pay is fluid and is on a downward trend. The mp3 is 99 cents now. In ten years it may be 50 cents. In twenty it may be 10 cents. In thirty it may be less than ten cents. In forty it may be fractions of a cent. In fifty it may be free.
Actual time lines may very, but the end will be the same, a race to the bottom. If consumers don't get what they want from the market, they will resort to piracy. Businesses impacted today and in the future will either have to adapt or die. Draconian laws will not save them, nor will misguided moralizing. It's not our moral responsibility to subsidize their obsolescence, nor is it our duty to invent replacement business models for them.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Michael Geist's comment is about the potential about face by the CLC to be announced this upcoming Monday Feb, 9th.
He referenced a 2007 CLC document to show that their latest positions on Copyright and IP are not in line with their previous positions.
It's a very timely comment by Prof Geist.
Counterfeiting is actually quite rare. It's difficult, costly, and dangerous. The vast majority of that crap occurs at swapmeets and shady street vendors. It makes up a very very small percentage of copyright infringement. It's also the easiest to stop, in Canada or the U.S at least. Forget about it in China, or some other country. Rule of thumb, is that once your copyrighted works leave the country, they are no longer your copyrighted works. Good luck with China and a myriad of other countries.
Piracy is far more prolific, since the supply is easier to attain. Just go to any number of public or private torrent trackers and you have huge amounts of content to infringe upon its copyrights.
Striking at the heart of the long term economic security of Canada or any other country? Pure, Unadulterated, and Absolute Fucking Nonsense.
Every Specific Action of Copyright Infringement != Loss of Sale
If the average person has 10 pieces of gold total to spend 1 piece of gold each on copyrighted works and instead pirates 1,000 different copyrighted works, you cannot say that the market lost 1,000 pieces of gold. That's just common sense.
If an entire country's "heart" of its economy is sales of copyrighted works, ITS FUCKED. It can never get above the 10 pieces of gold each in the first place, all the while pushing inaccurate data about losses that are at least 10 times the total amount of possible revenue.
Counterfeiting and Piracy are the smallest and most insignificant impact on the economy. What is dying is an outdated business model that cannot adapt to changes in society.
Trying to turn it into some national security issue is just a farce.
If I was a Canadian, I'd be pretty pissed.
expandfairuse.org
I never asked Colgate for toothpaste. Does mean I can go get a free tube whenever I want? Not unless Colgate decides to let me have it, which they could do.
That's because materials are limited and in this case owned by Colgate. You didn't ask them to invent toothpaste, but since they have a limited quantity and you can't make it yourself, you're damned right you have to hope Colgate decides to let you have some. Usually their answer is yes - for a price.
However, if replicators existed that could fabricate toothpaste, you bet you could get a free tube whenever you want - if not for the artificial IP laws designed to place a limit on things that are limitless.
For another example, If you wanted a Big Mac at Mcdonald's you could potentially have to pay them for their grease. But then if you could get the supplies to make your own and knew how to make a burger, you certainly don't have to pay them a penny and perhaps wind up with a Big Mac that tasted a heck of a lot better than the version they're trying to overcharge you for. You know, that derivative idea.
Uh huh. You mean like the War on Drugs?
The U.S prison system is the largest in the world, but it is also the fastest expanding system too. It serves private interests to the tune of billions to create policies that fill these prisons as fast as possible. Every single person is worth between 30K and 100K per year to the system.
Why would creating a whole new War be that far fetched? There are people in prison now simply for possessing a plant that kills nobody by itself, has proven medicinal values, and on it's own is harmless. These people do not represent a danger to society, and the only real danger is created by the illegal transactions through the policies themselves. They are however involved in a controversial argument which is used to turn them into highly profitable "cattle". The rest of society pays this bill in ever increasing amounts each year.
Your future may actually come to pass where I am in prison and your tax dollars are paying for me to be there, simply because I participated in an unregulated communications infrastructure that might possibly facilitate the infringement of copyrights.
In my case it's difficult to estimate, but it has never been above a few percent and I'm 52 years old. When I was young, we mostly listened to the radio, recorded a few songs on tape, and not very often bought a record.
These days, the radio is mostly shit, a consequence of a monopoly owning the radio stations, but we have the internet to get music without paying directly for it.
Not stealing, I've never stolen anybody's music, I have higher moral standards than some people who sell music.
That "enforcement getting serious" is just the media industry bosses realizing they fucked up, but not admitting it. They had a business model based on getting a very small return per item where the production of each item had a very small cost. When they tried to raise the return per item the market said "NO". That's how capitalism works.
BAM! That's a copyright dude and you just contradicted yourself.
A copyright is a legally binding contract between you, the government, and the artist. Among other things, it grants the artists the right to restrict duplication and distribution, both of which are alluded to in your reference to a non-disclosure agreement.
Your real issue, since you agree with the principle of a copyright (evidenced by your support of a NDA), is that government is getting involved in the enforcement of the legal contract, when it should not be doing so.
If the government can legally enforce copyrights, then why the hell don't they legally enforce judgments in a courtroom the moment they are made? Why should those judgments be the only ones in which the plaintiff is required to do all the work collecting?
So clearly you don't like copyrights the way they are, but support some rights for artists. Well which is it? How do you want it to work?
The U.S prison system is the largest in the world, but it is also the fastest expanding system too. It serves private interests to the tune of billions to create policies that fill these prisons as fast as possible. Every single person is worth between 30K and 100K per year to the system.
This is one of the main reasons why I suspect that our general slide towards either communism or fascism may be unstoppable. It's becoming more cost effective for the lower 25% or so of the demographic to be in prison than it is for them to be out of it.
This, of course, is not economically sustainable, but it is useful to create what amounts to a slave class to whom work is more important as a means of staying out of prison than making a living. All that's needed is a socially acceptable way to make prison worse than life in a slum.
We couldn't bring back debtor's prison so we're working on another way to achieve the same thing.