Slashdot Mirror
Tech Companies Say Don't Blame Canada For Copyright Problems
An anonymous reader writes "The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which includes a who's-who of the tech world, including Microsoft, Google, T-Mobile, Fujitsu, AMD, eBay, Intuit, Oracle, and Yahoo, has issued a strong defense of current Canadian copyright law, arguing that the US is wrong to place Canada on the annual Special 301 list. The submission argues that the US should not criticize Canada for not implementing anti-circumvention rules (PDF) and warns against using the Special 301 process to 'remake the world in the image of the DMCA.'"
I love the fact that I can download copy written content without penalty as long as I don't redistribute it... Fuckin' eh!!
Geeks don't grock information, they grep it.
Where are these companies when it comes to US legislation?
I vaguely remember at primary school, the use of friends/enemies lists in the ongoing process of classroom politics.
Apparently some people never grow out of classroom politics, and go on to become actual politicians. "Canada can't come to my birthday party."
My personal opinion, as a Canadian, is that copyright regulation such as in the USA is insane. With that in mind I am proud of my Government for resisting the tide. There is a balance that needs to be drawn somewhere, I do not believe it is where industry in the USA would like it to be. With this in mind, let the USA go all hysterical: as the pendulum swings around with other parties such as my Government providing some balance the theory, and hope, is that it will eventually settle somewhere sane.
Shh.
Well, first of all, the Constitution doesn't say that all men are created equal; the Declaration of Independence does. (Lots of Americans get those mixed up too.) The former is, in theory the supreme law of the land, while the latter is a document of great moral authority but no legal authority. But yes, it was written by a slaveowner, and that paradox occupied a great deal of the nation's early existence. It kind of came to a head in this little dustup a century and a half ago. Since then, we still haven't fully dealt with the consequences.
The basic problem is, you ask ten different Americans to tell you what "freedom" means, and you'll get eleven different definitions. Some are concerned almost exclusively with economic freedom; as long as they can make money, they're happy, regardless of what else may be going on. Some focus on social freedom: who they sleep with, where (or whether) they worship, what substances they can put in their bodies. Some are concerned primarily with freedom from foreign military threats; pretty much everyone agrees this is a prerequisite for the other freedoms, but there are and always have been many who take their concern with it to fanatical extremes -- they forget that in order to defend our freedom from those who want to take it away, we must have freedom left to defend.
And no matter what kind of freedom people are most worried about, a regrettably large number will say, in effect, "I've got my freedom, screw yours." Thus those fighting for the Confederacy, and their latter-day counterparts in white sheets and pointy hats, could claim in all seriousness that they were fighting for freedom: their freedom, and the fact that preserving their view of freedom meant denying it to large numbers of the people who lived in their society didn't bother them at all. Thus the flag could be defined as the symbol of freedom, and freedom limited to those who wished to pledge allegiance to it. Thus any act, no matter how vile, that was anti-communist could be defined as serving the interests of freedom.
Personally, my definition of freedom includes not only my freedom to do what I want to do, but others' freedom to do what they want to do, including things that I personally have no desire to do. But this definition is far from universally accepted. I don't think this is an exclusively American problem by any means, but it does seem like we're a bit better at others at fooling ourselves into thinking we're implementing a universal definition of freedom, while picking and choosing our freedoms carefully in practice.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Actually, this is mostly a state by state governed issue but generally, the only limit outside of cost is a one year waiting period for preexisting condition coverage. In my state, that isn't even allowed if the company changes insurance providers and you purchase your policies through your work. And in the case of costs, the provider cannot increase your premiums if your a new hire within the 90 day limit or enroll during the open enrollment for at least one year after. And ot make things a little more clearer or obfuscated (depending on how you look at it), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HPAA) which is a federal law mandates that no waiting period be applied to anyone with a preexisting condition who leaves a group plan for any other coverage plane. This means that if you are fired or lose your job which you purchased your insurance through, or if you were a member of a club or organization (our local chamber of commerce offers both HMO coverage and indemnification coverage options to all members) which offered coverage under a group plan and left it for some reason, any provider you move to cannot deny coverage or require a waiting period because of a preexisting condition.
OF course, those are the rules in my state with the exception of the HPAA which should be nationally. Unfortunately, the HPAA does not protect private policy holders when they move coverage but there are still some companies that will cover preexisting conditions. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is one that I believe has a no fault- no waiting- policy that covers preexisting conditions.
If you are looking at 20 years or so into the future, may I suggest that you create a Heath Savings Account and purchase some sort of catastrophe insurance as a supplemental program. The advantages of a HSA is that you can move the funds before taxes apply which saves the hassle of claiming medical costs on your return or not having enough out of pocket costs to benefit from claiming them. As I mentioned before, the HPAA doesn't cover private policy holders so you are probably in a catch 22. The catastrophic insurance would/could provide coverage for your preexisting condition if something happened and your existing coverage faltered (lost jobs and/or couldn't afford premium or company goes out of business or whatever). In my state, the law used to be that a provider couldn't cancel coverage for non-payment while a patient was hospitalized and there was a grace period after before they were allowed to cancel coverage to give the patient a chance to come current in their premiums. However, I'm not sure if this is still true or if any other states have this rule/law.