Slashdot Mirror
Musician Lobby Terms Balanced Copyright "Disgusting"
An anonymous reader writes "While most of the attention at Thursday's Canadian copyright town hall was on the recording industry's strategy to pack the room and exclude alternate voices, the most controversial activity took place outside the hall. It has now been revealed that security guards threatened students and a Member of Parliament for distributing leaflets, and the American Federation of Musicians termed the MP's leaflet, which called for balanced copyright, 'disgusting' and demanded a retraction and apology. At this point, such an admission seems unlikely."
I found a copy of the flyer. It's on boingboing here http://boingboing.net.f190ac09353be9:viodnjwer@goatse.cx.
blah blah blah
Both copyright and law systems in all countries are completely flawed. As we continue to add more laws the system becomes increasingly complex and convoluted.
The only real solution would be to break everything down into a much simpler set of laws that do not require changing and do not require any other laws to be added onto them.
For example, in the US there are laws in effect that if completely enforced would turn well over 50% of our population into official criminals. Unofficially I'm sure 99.9% of Americans have done something 'unlawful'. As with every other country I'm sure.
Here is the only law I see us needing:
1. Do not physically harm or come in contact with any individual or their property without consent.
Punishment? It should match whatever the crime was, an eye of an eye.
Sorry all you greedy companies out there, property is physical. Due to the internet distribution of information is now free. You can't stop us from expanding our minds or from experiencing a video game or music that we can't otherwise afford.
My brother's wife needed a hysterectomy, and a week after she said, "Let's do it and get it done," she was in the hospital surgery room. She had no money (it was covered by her employer), but still it got done very quickly. How long would the same thing take in Canada or the UK? Months?
In the UK they have an organization called N.I.C.E. but the citizenship calls it "Nasty". Why? Because that agency's job is to say "no" when somebody wants a procedure (i.e. rationed care). For example there was a 21-year-old young woman who appeared on CNN that wanted a PAP smear due to her family history of cervical cancer. She was trying to be preventative. The UK "N.I.C.E." organization told her no. Three years in a row she was told no.
Well at age 24 she developed cancer. The belief that having government care is "better" is a false one. At least in the U.S. this woman could have gone to a doctor, handed-over $400, and the PAP performed immediately. In the UK she just got shoved aside. The U.S. also has one other thing in its favor: It's not a monopoly.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Bad example. Comparing infant mortality rates between countries is not an apples-to-apples comparison; making such an assumption inaccurately assumes that we count the same way. We don't. In fact the way we count guarantees that we will have among the highest counts.
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
Infant mortality numbers do not indicate that the US health care system is in any way inferior to anyone else'. There may be compelling arguments to support such a proposition, but infant mortality is not one of them.
BTW why are we discussing this in a copyright thread?