Slashdot Mirror


Copyright Lobby Wants Canada Out of TPP Until Stronger Copyright Laws Passed

An anonymous reader writes "'The U.S. government just concluded a consultation on whether it should support Canada's entry into the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations.' The TPP raises significant concerns about extension of copyright and digital locks, so that might be a good thing. However, Michael Geist reports that the IIPA, which represents the major movie, music, and software lobby associations, sees this as an opportunity to force Canada to enact a Canadian DMCA and to implement ACTA."

164 comments

  1. Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can't have it both ways, the extra tax on recordable media would have to go, but I bet they would lobby against that.

    1. Re:Can't have it both ways... by azalin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I actually like the concept of the tax much more than the alternatives. It accepts that fair use includes a certain amount of copying and sharing, while at the same time reimbursing the recording industry. So it could be a win-win situation (if you accept that the artist/recording companies do have a right to make money of their product). It could be a kind of music flatrate for everyone. Of course this ceases to work once the companies get greedy and start stating song x was copied y times with song x would have sold y times and therefore they should get y times the retail store price of the cd.

    2. Re:Can't have it both ways... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it accepts that fair use includes a certain amount of copying and sharing, while at the same time reimbursing the recording industry.

      Fair use does involve copying and sharing, but since the use is 'fair', there is absolutely no reason that the recording industry should be receive any money. As I understand it, the tax really only covers personal backups and mixtapes. That is not within the realm of what copyright should be allowed to dictate.

      if you accept that the artist/recording companies do have a right to make money of their product

      That's a very strange notion. "To make money" is not something you can really have an explicit right to do. Copyright gives authors a specific opportunity to make money that a market without it would not offer. And I do not accept that even having that is a right of an author. Instead, it is (in theory) a means to an end of enriching the public.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you ever manage to split the money up to represent all content that might be pirated?

      Some guy comes along to the tax office, saying that he drew a picture of a smiley face and he is worried that the evil blank-media purchasing masses might copy it, and he leaves half a dollar richer because there's no way to be sure his drawing wouldn't be pirated?

      Or you could subsidise only the large recording industries, and trust them to be fair with the money? The term "Ahahahahahaha! Yeah right! Fair! Pffft." comes to mind.

    4. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they allready get "five-ways" in most european countrys, we pay money to the MAFIAA for casettes (yes, still sold), CDR, Harddrives, USB-Sticks and Cellphones (!!!), still, copying Music is still technically illegal...

    5. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Nursie · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the tax really only covers personal backups and mixtapes.

      Why would you need a tax for that? That should be a basic part of the bargain.

    6. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you admit that tax is o.k., you spread your cheeks for a filling.
      When you admit that the recording industry is due ANYTHING, you keep musicians around the world from working in favor of a parasitic industry and the musicians it picks out for harvest and abuse.
      The only win/win situation will be when recorded music is free as promotion for musicians who make a living performing.
      Not only will this fill more "jobs" than the industry currently "offers", but will exponentially improve the quality of music in any market by sheer diversity alone, yet there are so many more ways this makes the world a better place.
      Download all the music you want, pay no one, we as a world decide the market price, not an artificial industry. Help the industry die so the world can prosper.

      As for movies/video/tv industries, who could care when you really stop to think about it?
      This is a destructive industry as well that spews pollution over the top of any product you might believe is underneath. We have been subjected to infinitely recycled plots, told what makes a good actor in spite of our intuition, made to endure Hollywood gossip shows and tabloids, watched as our 'News" programs began replacing actual news with "Stars" promotional misbehaviour. Generally fed crap and made to pay for it, while we hunger for entertainment, we are given THIS instead. If Hollywood were nuked tomorrow, next week we would happily be entertaining ourselves at our computers anyway.
      They can die for the common good as well.

      Now with all this established, we can forget the premise of the article and write it off to more fake macho posturing on the part of the corrupt sister-boy politicos.
      Nothing to see here, move along please.

    7. Re:Can't have it both ways... by thomst · · Score: 0

      For some strange reason, king neckbeard got a +5 Insightful rating for saying:

      Copyright gives authors a specific opportunity to make money that a market without it would not offer. And I do not accept that even having that is a right of an author.

      So, in your philosophy, authors have no rights to the fruits of their own, individual labor? You maintain that they should just be humbly grateful that you deign to enjoy the products of their labor, with no obligation on your part to provide quid pro quo?

      Would you care for a little gander sauce, your majesty?

      --
      Check out my novel.
    8. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Pieroxy · · Score: 2

      Because you need to feed the trolls. The trolls being the *AA (your localized version of course)

      In France, we have the tax, the long terms, the three strike law. Soon, they'll have more power than the government itself.

    9. Re:Can't have it both ways... by alaffin · · Score: 1

      What's more, I would expect a tax refund on media that's already been purchased. After all, I paid for the right to use it in a manner which I'd no longer be permitted to by law (and the law change would've come at the behest of the group collecting the taxes) I really doubt that's going to happen, but it'd be interesting to make a stand on it and take it through the court systems. If you landed in the right court in front of the right judge and had the right backing (enough $$$ to counter the army of media lawyers you'd be facing) it could be very interesting.

    10. Re:Can't have it both ways... by sosume · · Score: 2

      Copyright is designed to give authors a limited period to profit from their creation, after which it belongs to the public domain. It is ridiculous that someone can write a song consisting of three or four chords (which most songs are) or create a cartoon of a mouse and generate an income for a lifetime. Society has the right, even the duty to take ownership of the cultural expressions that define it.

    11. Re:Can't have it both ways... by stjobe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Authors (and musicians, and whoever else falls under copyright these days) have no right to make money off their products. They have an opportunity to do so, an opportunity that is denied anyone who does not hold the copyright to the piece in question.

      There is no right to make money. There is only opportunity, and with copyright that opportunity is made exclusive to the copyright-holder.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    12. Re:Can't have it both ways... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      You don't even get that: Even if you have some legal protection for fair use that doesn't involve having to pay your life savings in legal fees to defend it, you still will likely run into DRM which makes it technologically impossible to exercise fair use - and breaking the DRM is itsself a crime in most countries now.

    13. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When the copyright lobby makes unreasonable demands I don't see why I should be reasonable. Quid pro quo indeed.

    14. Re:Can't have it both ways... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Within the US tradition, labor alone cannot create copyright, so bringing labor into the debate shows that you are ignorant of the institution, or are referring to a non-US philosophical tradition, virtually all of which are totally irrational.

      Now, what the author has the right to do is to control the initial publication of a work. They have such control by virtue of exercising control over something physical, such as a computer on which they type up a novel. After that, they have no control of what happens downstream once a work is published, absent the intervention caused by the legal monopoly of copyright. The right to control via copyright is not something that authors have, but something that is given to them by the government.

      Make no mistake. Copyright exists for the sake of society and only for the sake of society, not for the sake of authors.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    15. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Mistlefoot · · Score: 2

      And if I actually downloaded moves, music or Tv shows I might agree. But I don't. I pay my cable company for that (music channels, movie channels).

      What other private companies want to tax me next? I live in British Columbia where drinking and driving laws have recently changed. You can now be fined for 0.05 of alcohol in your blood (although the legal limit is still 0.08) so this has contributed to huge decline in people dining out and enjoying a drink at pubs. How about a tax paying to pay for free cabs home? Now we all know how far that tax would go. But why would be forced to prop up one entertainment industry while watching another (that employees thousands in my home town) flounder?

    16. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

      Copyright is designed to give authors a limited period to profit from their creation, after which it belongs to the public domain. It is ridiculous that someone can write a song consisting of three or four chords (which most songs are) or create a cartoon of a mouse and generate an income for a lifetime. Society has the right, even the duty to take ownership of the cultural expressions that define it.

      Yes, but most of the popular works being copied are recent and would still be covered by copyright even in your much shorter term version.

      The fact is that both sides of this argument has people that are full of crap. On one side are the producers organisations like the MPAA and such who are just lobbying for laws that would enable them to make more money. On the other side though are a large number of people who want to watch the latest movie or listen to what ever crap is in the charts but do not want to pay the amount the person who owns the copyright wants to charge. Neither side is in the right.

      I have a good deal more sympathy for the people on the pirating and though. I used to run a very active gnutella node many years ago when I had no way of affording all the music and films I wanted to enjoy. The prices were (and still are) set according to appeal to people as I am now, ie - fairly affluent. As a poor student I hated seeing that every DVD I wanted to buy cost so much compared to my meagre loan.

      I used this and many other excuses to justify my rampant piracy but now I look at it slightly differently, I now blame the high costs of these luxury items on the vast differential between the richest and poorest in our society. I now earn just short of £20 per hour yet the minimum wage in the area I live is about £5, the minimum for a student is closer to £3. True I have have far more outgoings but the reality is that if you are aiming a product at a young professional like me then you are going to pick a price that will exclude a great many people from being able to afford it.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    17. Re:Can't have it both ways... by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Copyright exists for the sake of society and only for the sake of society, not for the sake of authors.

      While I (think I) understand your sentiment, this wording isn't quite right since, currently, all evidence points to the contrary position.

      One might argue that that is what legitimate Copyright is for, but in its current incarnation? The "sake of society" doesn't enter into it.

    18. Re:Can't have it both ways... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Movie : They make it, sell the rights to Movie theatres, make money, sell the rights to TV companies, make more money

      Song : Artist writes song sells it to musician (unless it is themselves) makes money

      Performance : Artist performs song, people watch live having paid for a ticket, artist makes money

      None of these need copyright at all ....

      Now the companies have the extra revenue stream of selling media again and again, they get paid less for all of the above ...this is the problem

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    19. Re:Can't have it both ways... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      So, in your philosophy, authors have no rights to the fruits of their own, individual labor?

      That was the situation for centuries, and copyright was not introduced because of some moral imperative -- in England (whose laws served as the basis for American and Canadian laws), copyrights were introduced to improve the public's access to written works.

      If you think there is a moral argument for allowing authors to continue to profit from their work decades after it was done, I would like to hear it. If I produce a hammer, will I receive payment for the use of that hammer decades after I produced it? Let's turn things around -- what makes authors so special?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    20. Re:Can't have it both ways... by xelah · · Score: 1

      It's not a good concept at all. It's not just about being 'fair' to a loosely defined collection of many people named 'the recording industry', the incentives placed on people is also important. Copyright is about creating incentives to product copyright material which will be benificial to society as a whole. That means rewarding people who play a part in producing things that are widely valued, whether as creators, financers who take on risk, or whatever, and not rewarding those who do not. Distributed blank media tax revenues via some sort of formula may not do a good job of correlating payments with the value of the work people are doing. It's a bung to dominant encumbants and no incentive to new entrants, for example.

    21. Re:Can't have it both ways... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      So, in your philosophy, authors have no rights to the fruits of their own, individual labor?

      There are few philosophies that give authors inherent rights to a particular ordering of words and punctuation.

      You maintain that they should just be humbly grateful that you deign to enjoy the products of their labor, with no obligation on your part to provide quid pro quo?

      This is the way the world worked for thousands of years. Mind you, most societies included a moral obligation to compensate the author, if you enjoyed the work they authored. It was the invention of printing that changed things. Suddenly books could be replicated cheaply, and copyright was created to prevent businessmen from selling copies of books and cutting the author out the transaction. You see the man who didn't pay the author could charge less for his books than the man who did. As a side note, we see a very similar problem in manufacturing today, where the company that doesn't pay it's employees a living wage can generate more profit than the ones that do, yet no one has yet stepped in to protect factory workers and their "rights to the fruits of their own labour".

      Personally, I'm torn on whether there needs to be any copyright at all. On the one hand getting rid of all copyright would allow publishing houses to return to the days where they take an authors work and publish it without paying him a dime. On the other other hand, maybe that would be better handled by non-disclosure contracts and standard civil law. There are other issues as well, so maybe we should continue to have copyright, but in today's fast paced technological world maybe copyright needs to be no more than a few years after first publication. A study indicated that for the vast majority of works covered by copyright 98% of their total net earnings are earned in the first 15 years. I think it went further and found that for a majority of works close to 98% of the total net earnings were earned in the first 7 years. Copyright could probably be reduced to as little as 3 years and still adequately compensate authors.

      We should also whether a long copyright term encourages the under compensation of artists and the hijacking of author's rights. After all, if the rights last of 75 years, that gives a company good reason to take those rights from the author. If it only lasts 3 years? Why bother? They will be expired, soon enough. Also, if the author only expects to receive payment for 3 years he might expect to paid more for the publishing rights in each of those years, rather than being bamboozled into accepting a lower amount spread over a potentially longer time span. Of course, for virtually all of those authors they may actually be ending up with just less money when their works don't enjoy the longevity which the author believed they should have had.

      This is a complex question, but there are countless indicators that the current status quo is not working and giving the constant attack on the rights of the public, I'm increasingly becoming concerned that copyright must be abolished lest we put more people in prison for the crime of enjoying without paying.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    22. Re:Can't have it both ways... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 2

      Why? The collectors get 60% of the money, the attorney/agency keeping tabs for the artist get 10%, and the artist has to split up the remaining 30% with everyone involved making it -- including the tax man. All of this bullshit is about middlemen not getting a cut. You don't get to tax shared media. You can't run an agency if the art only gets sold once.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    23. Re:Can't have it both ways... by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      That was the situation for centuries, and copyright was not introduced because of some moral imperative -- in England (whose laws served as the basis for American and Canadian laws), copyrights were introduced to improve the public's access to written works.

      Wrong. Copyright originated as a tool of censorship. When the censorship expired, the same measures were repackaged and reintroduced (sans government oversight of book content) as the copyright we know today under heavy lobbying of publishers who most profited from the monopoly warranted by government oversight. Comparison to copyrightless 19th century Germany shows that copyright did the exact opposite of improving public's access to written works.

    24. Re:Can't have it both ways... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      On the other side though are a large number of people who want to watch the latest movie or listen to what ever crap is in the charts but do not want to pay the amount the person who owns the copyright wants to charge.

      These people are a decided minority; most people will pay if you let them and they can afford it. Lots of movies are unavailable outside a certain geographical region, and if anyone outside that region wants to see it, their only recourse is to download from TPB.

      Then there are forty year old songs by dead musicians that the industry demands to be paid for. This is just disgusting. I will never see anything recorded in my lifetime reach the public domain. There is no reson for John Lee Hooker's or Janice Joplin's music to NOT be in the public domain.

      So I think it's a good tradeoff. You have the MAFIAA stealing our culture, and the pirates infringing copyright on their newer works. It's a wash.

    25. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Actually it would be a levy refund, not a tax refund. Because this isn't a tax, it isn't collected for or by government. Nor does it go into government coffers. This would get expensive for the media companies very quickly. I think in my case alone, I could produce receipts for around $10k alone. I went through a lot of CD's at one time for off-site backups.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    26. Re:Can't have it both ways... by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      So, in your philosophy, authors have no rights to the fruits of their own, individual labor? You maintain that they should just be humbly grateful that you deign to enjoy the products of their labor, with no obligation on your part to provide quid pro quo?

      Even if we go for the sake of argument with the ridiculous idea of rights to the fruits of one's own labor, the argument for copyright still falls flat on its face. Because copyright doesn't secure that. What it does secure is a special status of one particular obsolete related service at the expense of all other possible ways to profit from the actual valuable labor. Why should we grant special status to some related service and burden everything else with tons of pointeless paperwork?

    27. Re:Can't have it both ways... by fedos · · Score: 1

      song x was copied y times with song x would have sold y times and therefore they should get y times the retail store price of the cd.

      Don't use the same variable to refer to different things.

    28. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can now be fined for 0.05 of alcohol in your blood (although the legal limit is still 0.08)

      This makes no sense to me, why didn't they just lower the legal limit to .05?

      How about a tax paying to pay for free cabs home?

      Why don't they just put the money they make from fining people into a free cab ride fund?

    29. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Of course they have rights to their ideas. They have the right to use, copy, and modify their ideas all they want. When you get to the point where you're claiming that you can modify my behavior because of an idea you had, that is over the line. My rights to my own body and property are far more fundamental than any supposed rights you claim over your ideas.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    30. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Imagix · · Score: 1

      where the company that doesn't pay it's employees a living wage can generate more profit than the ones that do, yet no one has yet stepped in to protect factory workers and their "rights to the fruits of their own labour".

      Isn't that what Unions were created for?

    31. Re:Can't have it both ways... by FireFury03 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Personally, I'm torn on whether there needs to be any copyright at all. On the one hand getting rid of all copyright would allow publishing houses to return to the days where they take an authors work and publish it without paying him a dime. On the other other hand, maybe that would be better handled by non-disclosure contracts and standard civil law.

      I can't see how copyright can be replaced with non-disclosure contracts (especially in an age when copying is cheap and easy). Lets take your example of the relationship between author and publisher:
      The author spends many man-hours writing a book and requires financial compensation from it so he can afford to live (the alternative is that he gets a job and only writes in his spare time, which I'm sure most people would agree would probably be detrimental to the amount of quality literary works being produced). So the author approaches a publisher and signs a contract saying they will pay him for the work. This contract may stipulate a lump sum, an amount per copy sold, or whatever, that's unimportant. The publisher produces the book, sells it, takes a cut of the profit and hands some cash on to the author. Another publisher buys the book from a high-street shop, scans it and starts printing copies themselves and selling them at a lower price. The original publisher can't shift their stock because they can't afford to sell as cheaply as the new publisher since the original publisher is bound by their contract with the author. The copying publisher has no contract with anyone, so is free to do what they like - in your "no-copyright" world, there are no laws to prevent them from doing this.

      Essentially, your proposal to use NDAs in place of copyright suffers from the same flaw that prevents DRM from working - at some point you have to make the works available to end customers, and at this point someone can copy it (whether that simply be someone giving a copy to a mate, or a printer publishing 100,000 copies that undercut the original publisher).

      The only way I can think of this being enforcible through normal contract law is by also requiring every consumer to also sign an NDA. The practice of requiring consumers to sign away their rights (such as software EULAs do) has the danger of licences progressively taking more and more rights (the consumer is already used to signing a contract, they probably don't read it and don't notice what rights are being revoked). There would be no room for negotiation, so if you don't like it your only option is to do without entirely.

      in today's fast paced technological world maybe copyright needs to be no more than a few years after first publication.

      I certainly support the idea that copyright shouldn't be as long as it currently is, but I don't think that "today's fast paced technological world" has anything to do with this. Morally, why should the author of a book receive less in a "fast paced technological world" than in years gone by? Its true that technology makes it easier for people to copy and therefore of the people reading the author's book a lower proportion will have paid him for it(*), but this is a reality of what *does* happen rather than what *should* morally happen.

      (*) Note that whilst copyright infringement means a lower *proportion* will have paid, it does not necessarily imply that a lower *number* will have paid. Copyright infringement is actually quite good advertising. Anecdotally: I illegally copy music. If I like a song I tend to buy the CD, so the bands which produce music I like actually benefit from my infringement.

      I'm increasingly becoming concerned that copyright must be abolished lest we put more people in prison for the crime of enjoying without paying.

      I certainly don't think that copyright should be abolished. It serves a useful purpose (not least, it allows licences such as the GPL to work). However, the governments need to stop bowing to the wishes

    32. Re:Can't have it both ways... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The author spends many man-hours writing a book and requires financial compensation from it so he can afford to live (the alternative is that he gets a job and only writes in his spare time, which I'm sure most people would agree would probably be detrimental to the amount of quality literary works being produced). So the author approaches a publisher and signs a contract saying they will pay him for the work. This contract may stipulate a lump sum, an amount per copy sold, or whatever, that's unimportant. The publisher produces the book, sells it, takes a cut of the profit and hands some cash on to the author. Another publisher buys the book from a high-street shop, scans it and starts printing copies themselves and selling them at a lower price. The original publisher can't shift their stock because they can't afford to sell as cheaply as the new publisher since the original publisher is bound by their contract with the author. The copying publisher has no contract with anyone, so is free to do what they like - in your "no-copyright" world, there are no laws to prevent them from doing this.

      That is how books were sold in Germany before they had an effective copyright regime. The result was that the public had more books and authors got paid more. Publishers made money by flooding the market with cheap books before competitors could get out the door with even cheaper ones. Sales of most books (and creative works in general) are very strongly front-loaded, so being first provides a significant advantage.

      I certainly support the idea that copyright shouldn't be as long as it currently is, but I don't think that "today's fast paced technological world" has anything to do with this. Morally, why should the author of a book receive less in a "fast paced technological world" than in years gone by? Its true that technology makes it easier for people to copy and therefore of the people reading the author's book a lower proportion will have paid him for it(*), but this is a reality of what *does* happen rather than what *should* morally happen.

      Technology has decreased the costs of making an equivalent work, decreased the costs of distribution and reproduction, and increased the potential market. Thus, the author can get an adequate return on investment in less time. Also, there is nothing moral about copyright.

      I certainly don't think that copyright should be abolished. It serves a useful purpose

      I would disagree. There is a theoretical good purpose for it, but as far as I can tell, it has been an utter failure in fulfilling that purpose.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    33. Re:Can't have it both ways... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Essentially, your proposal to use NDAs in place of copyright suffers from the same flaw that prevents DRM from working

      Fair enough.

      I certainly support the idea that copyright shouldn't be as long as it currently is, but I don't think that "today's fast paced technological world" has anything to do with this. Morally, why should the author of a book receive less in a "fast paced technological world" than in years gone by?

      What makes you think they're receiving less? I think they're receiving more and receiving it sooner. They don't need as long to earn the same amount as they used to and, I think the earnings fall off faster they used to. Done appropriately there should be little loss of revenue, because even with a small loss on the long tail, the main body of earnings should be greater than it used to be.

      However, the governments need to stop bowing to the wishes of the content industry.

      Absolutely, my concern is that only way to curtail the corruption of copyright may be to abolish it completely, because of that I'm not convinced that copyright remains a net good for society. The content industry is always going to try and use it's money to influence legislation to benefit themselves, but I'm not aware of any governments where there is a similarly powerful voice to advocate for the rights of the people. Of course, that may be the real issue that democratic governments need to be redesigned to have a powerful advocate to prevent public goods from being given away to lobbyists.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    34. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Fair use does involve copying and sharing, but since the use is 'fair', there is absolutely no reason that the recording industry should be receive any money. As I understand it, the tax really only covers personal backups and mixtapes. That is not within the realm of what copyright should be allowed to dictate.

      Yes, but the music industry is anything but fair and has shown time and time again that they are willing to bring out the lawyers and drag shit like this out in court for years at a massive expense just as a giant "fuck you". The media tax is bullshit, but it's bullshit meant to appease them and prevent even worse bullshit. Canada accedes to them in a fashion... and now the fuckers want to double dip!

    35. Re:Can't have it both ways... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, my concern is that only way to curtail the corruption of copyright may be to abolish it completely, because of that I'm not convinced that copyright remains a net good for society. The content industry is always going to try and use it's money to influence legislation to benefit themselves, but I'm not aware of any governments where there is a similarly powerful voice to advocate for the rights of the people. Of course, that may be the real issue that democratic governments need to be redesigned to have a powerful advocate to prevent public goods from being given away to lobbyists.

      If you can convince the governments of the world to abolish copyright (i.e. stop listening to the media industry lobbyists) then you could equally convince them to stop bowing to the media industry's demands (i.e. stop listening to the media industry lobbyists).

      IMHO the problem is much deeper than copyright or the media industry: the problem is that governments seem to be more interested in listening to big industry and their own political agendas than what the _people_ want. And also the fact that once legislation has been passed, it is extremely difficult to have it repealed.

      Many years ago, I used to like the idea of a united planet. These days I support the idea of having many independent sovereign states. The reason: because it is harder for bad laws to be "harmonised" across many independent states. That said, in the EU there has been benefit in that on occasion a foreign MEP stands up and opposes a bad law, preventing it from being passed, whilst the MEPs from my own country are clearly well under the industry thumb, so in these cases I'm glad to see foreign dignitaries standing up for my interests when my own people will not.

    36. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. That's free income for them. That's staying, AND Canada will roll over and take it from the USA. I'm beginning to hate this damned country for following the USA like a fucking lapdog.

    37. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Pope · · Score: 1

      Tools and creative works are completely different kinds of things, to start.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    38. Re:Can't have it both ways... by silentbrad · · Score: 1

      Song : Artist writes song sells it to musician (unless it is themselves) makes money

      Wrong. More like:

      Song: Artist/band writes song, is loaned a large amount of money to record song/album, pennies on the dollar go toward paying back the loan, record company makes money while artist/band goes into debt.

    39. Re:Can't have it both ways... by khallow · · Score: 1

      In France, we have the tax, the long terms, the three strike law. Soon, they'll have more power than the government itself.

      And where will that "power" come from? The government which will maintain the arrangements as long as the tribute/bribes continue to be paid. I remain amazed that people think a greedy attitude and a business plan that isn't too shitty somehow magically translates into genuine power over others.

    40. Re:Can't have it both ways... by azalin · · Score: 1

      Of course this ceases to work once the companies get greedy and start stating song x was copied y times with song x would have sold y times and therefore they should get y times the retail store price of the cd.

      Don't use the same variable to refer to different things.

      x=name of song
      y=nr of times song is copied

      statement with y=100 000 and x="Jailhouse Rock": ... companies get greedy and start stating "Jailhouse Rock" was copied 100 000 times, with song "Jailhouse Rock" would have sold 100 000 times and therefore they should get 100 000 times the retail store price of the cd.
      Recording companies do tend to name their perceived lost profits that way. Which of course is bogus, because of the 100 000 people who did copy the song, only 1-2% (if not less) might have wanted it enough to spend money on it.
      Condensed statement sans variables: Number of copies/downloads is not the same as amount of lost sales.
      So where did I mess up the variables?

    41. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So wait, are Canadians even still capable of downloading music without legal reprecussion? I can never seem to locate a straight answer on that these days.

    42. Re:Can't have it both ways... by thomst · · Score: 2

      I asked:

      So, in your philosophy, authors have no rights to the fruits of their own, individual labor?

      Leading betterunixthanunix to riposte:

      If you think there is a moral argument for allowing authors to continue to profit from their work decades after it was done, I would like to hear it. If I produce a hammer, will I receive payment for the use of that hammer decades after I produced it? Let's turn things around -- what makes authors so special?

      Way to conflate apples and oranges. A hammer is a physical good. Unless you're talking about coming up with a complete redesign of "a hammer", as a product, it has NOTHING in common with works of art (excepting physical works of art that are by nature unique, such as paintings, where there is only one original, and it can be physically possessed and displayed by only one owner). People like you, who poo-poo the notion of intellectual property tend overwhelmingly to be non-artists. It's not your work that's being appropriated without recompense, so why should you care?

      If you made your living by creating music, art, or literature, I suspect you'd look at things very differently. Saying, "Hey, you got your book published, so you have no right to complain if I scan a copy into PDF, Epub, or text format and upload it as a torrent," is sophistry of the most self-serving kind, and profoundly immoral. And to put forward the argument that, prior to the invention of the printing press, it was considered perfectly fine to make copies of existing works of literature and pay only the scribe, and not the author, for them somehow makes it okay to copy them without recompense today is utterly laughable. Prior to the 19th century, slavery was universally acceptable, too. Do you argue that slavery is therefore morally defensible in the modern world? I doubt it.

      Societal mores evolve over time. I do not approve of the current U.S. patent and copyright laws - but I wholeheartedly endorse the notion of an artist's intellectual property rights to his/her own creations. (Note, I equally strongly disapprove of the notion of intellectual property rights inhering to a corporation, because I fundamentally disagree with the fiction of corporate "personhood" for any purpose other than providing some limited - VERY limited - degree of shielding from individual liability on the part of a corporation's officers.)

      For the benefit of /.'s Randroids, let me give you the example of a theoretical architect - let's call him Howard Roark - who designs a house with unique, Frank-Lloyd-Wright-quality features. Ultimately, the original purchaser of the house pays him for that work, and later purchasers OF THE SAME HOUSE owe him no additional payment. But, if someone decides they like the design of that house so much that they want to construct an exact copy of it elsewhere for themselves, that person is both morally and legally obligated to pay Mr. Roark for re-using his original design to build an architecturally-identical copy of the house in question. Leaving the legal issue out of the discussion, the MORAL obligation is clear - the owner of the copy is appropriating Mr. Roark's intellectual property for his own benefit - not inheriting or buying your stupid hammer, but instead using Roark's unique design to construct a "hammer" of his/her own. That's theft. And it's not the blueprints, or the Autocad files that he/she is necessarily stealing - even reverse-engineering those blueprints and creating a new set of Autocad files doesn't absolve the actor in question of being a thief, because the design is what is being stolen. The fact that the design pura is an intangible doesn't change the fact that re-using it without recompense to its creator, or obtaining his prior permission is THEFT.

      Full stop.

      The same is equally true of music, literature, or the design of a better mousetrap - the fact that intellectual property is intangible

      --
      Check out my novel.
    43. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      The three strikes law actually doesn't involve the judiciary system at all, except in a completely automated way. No judge or any other human being is being told anything. The music producers are entirely all-powerful to cut the internet to any french citizen.

      I agree with you, it's just bells and whistles since they can't abuse it too much, but still! There was a time where their main business was to produce music!

      And all that to try to go against human nature. This will cease at some point, and 200 years from now people will look at this fight laughing their asses off "They tried to monitor all communication!! " "Ah ah ah ah ! How dumb can you be !!! ah ah ah !!!"

      But now it is pissing me off.

    44. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright is needed for much of this to work.

      With no copyright, they couldn't sell movies to theatres, because the theatres, the TV companies and the citizens could all copy freely. Movies are expensive to make, and would have to be supported in other ways, such as ads.

      The performing artist is the only one not hurt by a lack of copyright, people will still have to pay to get into the concert hall. But then, they'd be free to record the whole thing - no copyright . . .

    45. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      How about a tax paying to pay for free cabs home?

      No wonder you guys aren't finding a happy solution if that is what you think of.

      How about keeping regular public transit running during the hours that there is a large demand to recreate?

      Or, perhaps you guys should do some public education on designated drivers.

      Was there political threats from the pub owners, "if this law passes nobody will want to come here" training people in advance to stop coming for awhile? If so, don't worry, that effect is very temporary.

    46. Re:Can't have it both ways... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      If you made your living by creating music, art, or literature, I suspect you'd look at things very differently.

      Why do people say this as if it makes any difference? "If you were in situation X, you'd feel differently!"

      It doesn't matter. That could be said about you, me, and everyone on the planet. It's a mere assumption that they actually would look at things differently, but it could be said about anyone (if you were in my situation, you'd look at things differently). Whether or not they would look at things differently if they were in a different situation than they are now is irrelevant. That does not make their current views wrong.

      and profoundly immoral

      I think that's just subjective.

      In any case, I personally see no reason that copyright should exist in any form. I don't care for artificial scarcity, and I wouldn't mind if less works were produced because there was no copyright.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    47. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that person is both morally and legally obligated to pay Mr. Roark for re-using his original design

      This is only correct if the architect designed the house, and someone later came along and asked to use the design to build their own house to those designs. However, if there is a contract (implied or explicit) that states that this house design is to be unique, then the architect loses the ability to continue using that design for houses, and now may spend more time designing a different house for himself or another customer. This is how artistry worked prior to the introduction of copyright: "for hire work and agreements between individual parties".

      You also forget that there is another component to this: information. Does the builder instantly forget all of the little things that were part of the design as soon as the job is done? No. Is there anything preventing some other architect coming along, looking at the finished house, and drawing up his own designs to as closely match what he sees? No. Nor is there anything preventing both that second architect and the builder from getting together to build more houses. The builder never made an agreement to never build another house, nor did the builder and new architect agree to never build a house that looked similar to the just-finished one. THis also doesn't take into account all of the other people involved that may have learned somethign new while building the house and went on to use some (or all) of that knowledge on other houses.

      Though you actually went out of your way to state that "Intellectual Property" is different from "physical property," you seem to have returned to the idea that it should still be treated as such as your post progressed. That we have Copyright, Trademark, and Patent all rolled into the nebulous and often intentionally misleading term "Intellectual Property" doesn't help the issue. If the artist wants to claim that it is art, then the designs get a Copyright (currently), and some elements may get Trademarked to attach the architect's brand to the overall design, or if a certain new process for building some key component is devised, a Patent might even apply. This issue has been reiterated so many times since the "Intellectual Property" term was coined that I'm surprised anyone on /. still refers to it unless it is intentionally used as a shorthand (which is usually also shortened to "IP" which in no way should be confused with the term "Internet Protocol").

      Anyway, the builder may still retain some knowledge, and some other architect will likely be able to figure out some of the design elements, and yet this "additional" knowledge is not supposed to directly translate to deposits in the original architect's bank account. An idea cannot be taken away from a person once it's been had or shared with them. And only the person who had the idea can control that idea, until it is given to another person. If your architect had the skills and ability to single-handedly build the house, then there is no reason that the design would ever need to leave his head, and therefore there is no possible way the designs can be replicated somewhere else unless someone rips the finished house apart to reverse-engineer them. This is the same thing that occurs with every physical product on the market today. So what should make the treatment of non-physical products in any way different?

      With all those pretty words you threw into the comment box, you still never did answer the GP's actual question:

      Let's turn things around -- what makes [artists] so special?

    48. Re:Can't have it both ways... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      If you made your living by creating music, art, or literature, I suspect you'd look at things very differently

      ...and if you made your living making hammers, you would think that nobody but you should be allowed to make hammers, and that for every nail a particular hammer is used on you should receive a royalty payment. Except that we all know that is absurd, right? After all, a hammer is not a story!

      Please, what difference does it make whether or not I am an author, musician, or artist of any kind? Copyright law affects me, it affects the society I live in, and the decisions we make about copyrights today will affect future generations. I have every right to have an opinion on the subject, and I have every right to dismiss views that make no sense, such as this:

      Saying, "Hey, you got your book published, so you have no right to complain if I scan a copy into PDF, Epub, or text format and upload it as a torrent," is sophistry of the most self-serving kind, and profoundly immoral.

      Profoundly immoral? To scan a book and share it with the world? You have an interesting moral code. If you wanted to read books that were lost to history, I think your view would change. Try to find "full" versions of conference papers from the 1970s, then tell me how "immoral" it is for people to dare make copies of books.

      The entire point of the copyright system is to improve the public's access to science and useful art. It is not to create a new form of property; in fact, copyright is vastly different from real property rights. Unlike real property rights, copyrights expire after some period of time (unless you can buy congressmen and get them to keep extending copyrights for you). The fact that a house was purchased in 1805 has no bearing on whether or not it can be inherited generation after generation; yet nobody can hold a copyright on a book published in 1805. The public domain is what separates copyrights from property rights.

      You cannot justify stealing it, simply because it's intangible

      Good thing an intangible idea cannot be stolen. I suppose I could remove the part of your brain where the idea is "stored" and implant that into my brain, but I think medical science needs a few more years -- and the continued available of published research papers and books to the people who build on those works -- before such a thing is possible. "Theft" implies thatthe person who owns the thing that was stolen no longer has access to it, not simply that they cannot monetize it.

      If I build a big, ugly structure next to your property and drive down its real estate value, is that theft? Why, then, is violating a copyright or a patent "theft?" Right, it is not theft, it is just depriving you of an opportunity to monetize your creative work.

      A baby doesn't understand the concept of right and wrong. Unfortunately, it appears that neither do you.

      Insulting people is the way to win arguments on /., right? No, the only people who turn to insults are people whose arguments are so poorly grounded that they have no other choice.

      I find it interesting that you did not bother to cite this part of the constitution, which forms the basis for our patent and copyright laws:

      The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

      I suppose you tried to avoid it because it neither mandates the copyright system and it clearly indicates that copyrights must only exist for limited periods of time. Perhaps if you had spent whatever time it took you to think up your insults reading the constitution, you would have spotted this...or maybe the constitution is not even relevant in your mind, because you think that copyrights are natural rights like life, liberty, and property (although as plenty of people have pointed out, none of those rights come with expiration dates).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    49. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stacked up a pile of rocks in a way I consider artistic. Do I have a right to make money from it?

    50. Re:Can't have it both ways... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      If a theatre or a TV station wants to keep a good business relationship with the studio, they won't make unauthorized copies of it. The studios would probably be negotiating on the chain level anyway, and it would be unwise to give or sell a copy to your competitor.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    51. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      These people are a decided minority; most people will pay if you let them and they can afford it

      That was also my point. You pick the price of something based on how much your target market can afford to pay. I can afford to pay an amount that excludes a large number of people from being able to afford it.

      Now you might say that you should always pick a price according to the poorest being able to afford it but that is not how capitalism works. This is why the argument against copyright should really be an argument against unregulated capitalism.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    52. Re:Can't have it both ways... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Our government kisses the center of the buttocks of the American lobbyists who want to insure their global rules apply to copyright. We already rejected this TPP by a huge mail-in response to our members of parliament.

      I believe that in the final outcome, if the act gets passed (or SOPA) gets passed, that either will be unenforceable due to the vast number of violations. They cannot stop the damn by using a finger to plug a hole. The RIAA has tried and they have failed.

      Technology allows anyone to be a publisher, movie producer, or music composer, and not rely on the enterprises that claim to be the only ones to represent the authors. The worst mistake regarding the new technology trends was made by a family that sold away a distillery business in order to enter the entertainment industry.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    53. Re:Can't have it both ways... by thomst · · Score: 1

      cheekyjohnson admitted:

      In any case, I personally see no reason that copyright should exist in any form. I don't care for artificial scarcity, and I wouldn't mind if less works were produced because there was no copyright.

      Fair enough. If the loss to society of some unquantifiable - but undoubtedly large - number of new creative works due to the absence of the copyright protection that allows writers, musicians, and other non-physical-medium artists to profit from their works is an acceptable trade-off from your perspective, then I have no basis for argument with you. Our world-views and values are simply too different to permit meaningful dialogue between us.

      The thing is, I suspect you're lying. Not to me, and not purposely, but lying nonetheless: to yourself, and out of philosophical/ideological blindness. See, if there were any way of establishing the truth of the proposition, I'm pretty sure that, were you suddenly to be deprived of the experience of every form of art and literature that copyright enables to exist - the works of professional writers, musicians, artists, filmmakers, etc., who depend (or, very critically to this thought experiment, who depended) on the protection of copyright law to enable them to make a living at their art, you would feel that deprivation rather more keenly than you imagine.

      Consider that you would lose most of the works of Mark Twain, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Ernest Hemingway (to name only the tip of the tip of the literary iceberg); of Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, and Ridley Scott (to name only ... well, you get the idea); of The Beatles, Nirvana, and, yes, even Radiohead (I know, this is getting monotonous, but, still, just the tiniest fraction of the recording acts I could include on this list), of Alfred Esenstaedt, Robert Mapplethorpe, and Richard Avedon (etc., etc., etc.); and on, and on, and on. "Well," you might say, "I've already read/seen/heard all those, anyway, so ... so what?"

      So what if you had never had those experiences? You would certainly not be the same person you are now, because we are the sum total of our experiences, plus our genes. What about your children, if any? Would you want to deprive them of Star Wars (no copyright, no Star Wars)? Of Dr. Suess (no copyright, no Dr. Suess)? Of ... I don't know your musical tastes, but let's take Etta James' version of "At Last", for instance (no copyright, no such song, and no recording of "At Last"). Und so weiter.

      Do you begin to see what you would lose without some kind of protection for intellectual property? Your personal world would be vastly different, as would the world as a whole ... and not, I think, for the better.

      Those of us who create for a living need a mechanism that allows us to do that. Without it, no Blade Runner ... and no Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep to inspire it. Without it, no Sgt. Pepper's ... and very probably no Beatles, either. No pop culture, in fact, because so much of pop culture depends so heavily on copyright simply to provide the conditions that make group creative endeavors possible. I wouldn't want to have to give up that incredible treasure ... and I doubt that you would, either.

      Again, I'm certain we both agree that present copyright and patent law is broken. The better solution to that problem is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater - it's to change the bathwater. I endorse the Berne Convention precept that copyright be automatic, for instance, but not the notion that it should extend to the author's life plus 70 years. I think that a copyright term of, say the date of creation of the individual work to the author's death, or 25 years, whichever is longer, is plenty. (That way, if I write an international bestseller, but drop dead during the promotional tour, my surviving spouse and/or children get at least a reasonable benefit from the products of my labor

      --
      Check out my novel.
    54. Re:Can't have it both ways... by thomst · · Score: 1

      betterunixthanunix sneered:

      Saying, "Hey, you got your book published, so you have no right to complain if I scan a copy into PDF, Epub, or text format and upload it as a torrent," is sophistry of the most self-serving kind, and profoundly immoral.

      Profoundly immoral? To scan a book and share it with the world? You have an interesting moral code. If you wanted to read books that were lost to history, I think your view would change.

      Way to conflate out-of-print and orphan works with currently published material. I'm impressed with your intellectual honesty.

      Wait a minute ... no, I'm not.

      To scan and upload a book that is no longer in publication, whose author is dead or missing, and whose nuturing and promotion has been abandoned by everyone with a claim to its copyright is one thing - and something of a special case. To do the same with a book in current publication is quite a different matter.

      And YOU KNOW THAT, very well. That's why you choose "conference papers from the 1970s" as your example, rather than, for instance, "The Jefferson Key" or "The Help". It's as intellectually dishonest an argument as possible, because it deliberately couches your position in terms that make it appear as though scanning and uploading essentially abandoned works, and scanning and uploading currently-published and actively-promoted works by living authors who make their living from their books are morally equivalent acts. They're not.

      No, the only people who turn to insults are people whose arguments are so poorly grounded that they have no other choice.

      Cynician, heel thyself.

      I find it interesting that you did not bother to cite this part of the constitution, which forms the basis for our patent and copyright laws:

      The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

      I suppose you tried to avoid it because it neither mandates the copyright system and it clearly indicates that copyrights must only exist for limited periods of time. Perhaps if you had spent whatever time it took you to think up your insults reading the constitution, you would have spotted this...or maybe the constitution is not even relevant in your mind, because you think that copyrights are natural rights like life, liberty, and property (although as plenty of people have pointed out, none of those rights come with expiration dates).

      I didn't bother to cite the Copyright Clause, because it's non-germane. The question at hand is the validity of the concept of intellectual property, not the existence of copyright law, or the Constitutional authority therefor.

      I do think intellectual property (NOT "copyright") is a natural right, just like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Property ownership is not, per se a natural right - it's a matter of law and custom. Miwok Indians ran afoul of the white settlers of Mariposa County because they had no cultural concept of individual property, so they simply took any of the white folks' chattels that captured their fancies - and were massacred by those same settlers for their cultural ignorance.) That it has not yet been recognized as a natural right by the non-creative majority doesn't matter, because, as I pointed out in an earlier post on this subject societies evolve. What today is granted by copyright law will, eventually, be undstood as an inherent human right: the right to own and control your own creative product.

      Anyway, I have to say that I'm amused to see that, thus far, my original post - which has sparked more than 150 subsequent comments - was modded to +0 Flamebait. Seems pretty contradictory to me, given the number and range of viewpoints of the commenters, but, hey ... it's Chinatown.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    55. Re:Can't have it both ways... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      That's why you choose "conference papers from the 1970s" as your example,

      I chose that example because:

      1. They are relevant to the modern world
      2. They are not nearly as easy to obtain as papers that have been posted on their authors' websites
      3. They are still "owned" and thus I cannot just get them, scan them, and make them available to the rest of the world.

      These papers are not even lost to history -- they are buried in university archives, unavailable online. It seems, however, that you have a different concept of owning a published paper than the people who hold the copyrights on those papers.

      It's as intellectually dishonest an argument as possible, because it deliberately couches your position in terms that make it appear as though scanning and uploading essentially abandoned works, and scanning and uploading currently-published and actively-promoted works by living authors who make their living from their books are morally equivalent acts. They're not.

      Please, many of the people who wrote and published those papers in the 70s are still alive. I wonder what time scale you would prefer. Something a little more current? How about scanning a book within a few minutes of its release in the United States, so that poor people in South America can have access to it? No? We are not allowed to ever paint copyright infringement in a positive light?

      There are plenty of books, music, movies, and software that are simply not being made available by the people who hold copyrights on them, except in select places in the world, or in some cases not being made available anywhere. For people living in those places, those works might as well be lost to history. Yet you are quick to make an exception for out-of-print books; I wonder what your moral justification for that is:

      To scan and upload a book that is no longer in publication...whose nuturing and promotion has been abandoned by everyone with a claim to its copyright is one thing - and something of a special case.

      Or in other words, "Yeah, violating intellectual property rights is OK sometimes, you know, like when people exercise their rights in a way I do not agree with."

      I didn't bother to cite the Copyright Clause, because it's non-germane. The question at hand is the validity of the concept of intellectual property, not the existence of copyright law, or the Constitutional authority therefor.

      Oh, the constitution is irrelevant now, even though it is the basis for the copyright / patent / trademark laws in this country. You are starting from the premise that "intellectual property rights" are "natural rights" like the right to live; not only is not universally agreed upon, it is not even in agreement with the very people who created such rights in this country. Yes, created those rights, because without a legal framework those rights do not exist at all -- which is not true of natural rights (nobody "created" your right to live; you were born with it).

      In reality, "intellectual property rights" are a myth designed to make people forget that we created the copyright/patent/trademark systems for a reason: to benefit everyone. You were not born with the right to tell people they are not allowed to make copies of the books you write, that right was conferred to you by the law, in an effort to establish a system whereby the public would have access to books (etc.). There was no concept of "intellectual property" before such systems were created; at one time, anyone could simply copy books or retell stories (compare to the right to live, which has existed in one form or another for as long as we have historical records -- every society protected the right of at least some of its members to live).

      That it has not yet been recognized as a natural right by the non-creative majority doesn't matter, because, as I po

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    56. Re:Can't have it both ways... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The thing is, I suspect you're lying. Not to me, and not purposely, but lying nonetheless: to yourself, and out of philosophical/ideological blindness.

      I can play that game, too. The thing is, I suspect you're lying. Not to me, and not purposely, but lying nonetheless: to yourself, and out of philosophical/ideological blindness.

      So what if you had never had those experiences?

      Then I'd be a different person and I'd be none the wiser. What works would and would not have been created without copyright is likely impossible to determine (unless you can peer into alternate realities, of course). But, again, I don't really care.

      Do you begin to see what you would lose without some kind of protection for intellectual property?

      No. If intellectual property never existed, then I'd never have had those things to begin with. Therefore, I couldn't "lose" them, and I wouldn't even know about them (assuming they didn't exist, of course).

      The better solution to that problem is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater

      I disagree that that's the "better" solution.

      In any case, the maximum amount of years of copyright I would agree to (if copyright should exist at all) would be 15. Although I think copyright should be abolished entirely (artists would, like everyone else, have to find ways to make money without being granted the ability to enforce artificial scarcity), that doesn't mean that I'm not open to agree to things that are slightly better than what we have now.

      Anyway, my point is that taking extreme positions is a helluva lot easier to do on issues that do not affect your personal ability to make a living.

      Making choices that will personally benefit you is also presumably a lot easier. In the end, though, it doesn't matter how 'easy' it was to come to the decision, or how 'biased' you are. That doesn't mean that you're wrong.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    57. Re:Can't have it both ways... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Exactly. How does someone pirating a copy of PhotoShop that they can't afford harm Adobe in any way?

    58. Re:Can't have it both ways... by thomst · · Score: 1

      betterunixthanunix sneered:

      How about scanning a book within a few minutes of its release in the United States, so that poor people in South America can have access to it? No? We are not allowed to ever paint copyright infringement in a positive light?

      There are plenty of books, music, movies, and software that are simply not being made available by the people who hold copyrights on them, except in select places in the world, or in some cases not being made available anywhere. For people living in those places, those works might as well be lost to history.

      And your point is what?

      There are plenty of people in the world who lack access to all kinds of things: sufficient food, clean water, medical care. Those are actual needs. Entertainment is not. That someone else desires my property in no way obligates me to satisfy his desire. As for "those works might as well be lost to history," hyperbole much?

      You are starting from the premise that "intellectual property rights" are "natural rights" like the right to live; not only is not universally agreed upon, it is not even in agreement with the very people who created such rights in this country. Yes, created those rights, because without a legal framework those rights do not exist at all -- which is not true of natural rights (nobody "created" your right to live; you were born with it).

      I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut if my contention that intellectual property is a natural right is "not universally agreed upon". That slavery was morally right, that ALL humans have a natural right to be free was "not universally agreed upon" in this country until after the Civil War. Today, however, with the exception of pimps and the employers of illegal aliens, it IS universally agreed upon. Societies evolve. What you are advocating is the tyrrany of the majority - a concept that both I and the Constitution reject.

      In reality, "intellectual property rights" are a myth designed to make people forget that we created the copyright/patent/trademark systems for a reason: to benefit everyone. You were not born with the right to tell people they are not allowed to make copies of the books you write, that right was conferred to you by the law, in an effort to establish a system whereby the public would have access to books (etc.). There was no concept of "intellectual property" before such systems were created; at one time, anyone could simply copy books or retell stories (compare to the right to live, which has existed in one form or another for as long as we have historical records -- every society protected the right of at least some of its members to live).

      Oh, bosh.

      I was born with the right to be free. That the laws of the United States did not grant that right to every law-abiding resident of the U.S. until after the Civil War doesn't affect the fact that freedom is an inherent, natural right of all human beings. It just took a long freakin' time for society (and law) to acknowledge that right exists for everyone. The same logic applies to my right to control the fruits of my creative labor - right now, international copyright agreements accord that right only limited status. In time, it will come to be seen as an inherent natural right, just like freedom from slavery, free association, voting, freedom from discrimination, and many, many others have done, because societies evolve.

      Sure societies evolve, but natural rights do not evolve. Natural rights do not require complex legal frameworks to exist.

      See above.

      The concept of "natural rights" is a construct of human civilization. The Universe at large recognizes no such rights. "Right to life?" Tell it to the great white shark. Or Ebola. "Right to freedom from slavery?" Tell that to aphids. "Right to freedom of association?" Well, the l

      --
      Check out my novel.
    59. Re:Can't have it both ways... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Sell the movie to a theatre or TV company, with a contract that specifies what they can and cannot do with it ...

      Just like everything else, with a contract, you don't need copyright

      Copyright is only if there for when there is no direct contract between you and the artist, and so they lose control of their work ...But they should have already made money from it by then ..?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    60. Re:Can't have it both ways... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Exactly. How does someone pirating a copy of PhotoShop that they can't afford harm Adobe in any way?

      No idea, but that wasn't what I was saying.

      I was saying that the world we live in is based on money. So people who create software should have the right to charge whatever price they choose for what they create. People who want to use it should either pay or do without. If some use it without paying that that is not fair to the people who do pay. Why should some people pay for something that is considered by all to be a luxury or business expense when others do not just because they have more money.

      That is not how our capitalist system works, it works by giving the people who have more money to spend more privileges in life. This is what drives people to make more money.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  2. Bye Bye America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good riddance MAFIAA, Your country will find itself increasingly isolated, because Canada will still carry on trading with other countries including Europe and Australia, and will probably set up it's own treaty to NEVER trade with your government until this retarded nonsense stops. I'm being 100% serious :P

    1. Re:Bye Bye America by azalin · · Score: 1

      I'm being 100% serious :P

      sigh

    2. Re:Bye Bye America by GeckoX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh if only our current government had the balls to do this. Historically you'd be spot on.
      Unfortunately there's zero chance right now. Bush North, er, I mean Harper, already has us bent over with our pants down for this. He tried forcing through a DMCA style bill through both terms in minority and thankfully failed. He has no such restrictions now however and it is only a matter of time before this happens.

      --
      No Comment.
    3. Re:Bye Bye America by Wowsers · · Score: 1

      The Chinese are continuing to buy a solid assets (like gold), other countries are dumping the US Dollar, the US are still spending and printing money. And yet, people still think that "Intellectual Property" is the saviour of an economy (same stupidity in the UK).

      Have no sympathy for the RIAA / MPAA and the rest of these trade cartels who have REFUSED to update their business model. Actually not quite right, they've taken to suing their own "customers", who in turn are dumping their products and spending the money elsewhere.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    4. Re:Bye Bye America by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It's time for the US to wake up to reality or piss off. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Strategic_Economic_Partnership "The original agreement between the countries of Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore". Four additional countries â" Australia, Peru, United States, Malaysia and Vietnam".

      WTF, corrupt US lobbyists are attempt to lay down the law, to all the countries, no discussion you will obey. Everylooks at the US being a corrupt government run by lobbyists at the command of the 1% but what makes those lobbyists think all those other countries will put up with it.

      For a start zero campaign contribution are going from US lobbyists to those others countries, so what you think you get those other countries politicians for free. Is the US going to start making military threats along with, what would be empty trade threats, as the TPP is a trade pact, can't very well go shutting down trade within a trade pact as it kind of makes it all redundant.

      It is hard to believe that US lobbyists are now ignoring their own bought of politicians and now negotiating treaties direct, what next, starting wars?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Bye Bye America by alaffin · · Score: 1

      Oh if only our current government had the balls to do this. Historically you'd be spot on.
      Unfortunately there's zero chance right now. Bush North, er, I mean Harper, already has us bent over with our pants down for this. He tried forcing through a DMCA style bill through both terms in minority and thankfully failed. He has no such restrictions now however and it is only a matter of time before this happens.

      Historically? Historically the Liberal tried to introduce a DMCA-lite bill C-60 before Harper got into power. It died when the government fell. Harper has tried twice since then - bill C-61 (died when the government fell) and bill C-32 (died when the government fell). But don't lionize the Liberals for having had the balls to stand up to the American media cartel. They didn't. And while I can't be certain, I'm fairly sure that the NDP would just tip the same way.

    6. Re:Bye Bye America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you that there is zero chance the NDP would pass such a bill.

    7. Re:Bye Bye America by Earache65 · · Score: 1

      I can tell you that there is zero chance the NDP would pass such a bill.

      ..and about as much chance that they would have the opportunity. But even in that fantasy world (which I support) Canada is tied so strongly to the US economically that even the NDP would likely be very cautious and gracious in sidestepping the wishes of the US.

    8. Re:Bye Bye America by alaffin · · Score: 1

      Becuase there's zero chance of them ever forming the government? Man, where's a drum kit when you need it?

      Seriously though, the NDP aren't dumb enough to not play ball on this. And I think the NDP rank and file are pretty dumb to begin with (no offense intended, but I can not get on board with a party that at both the federal and provincial level insists on running joke candidates in my riding). There's obviously immense pressure on the Canadian government (doesn't matter who's in charge or how many times it dies as the government falls) to get a DMCA like system in place. What are the costs to the country if the NDP flat out refuse? Tough to fund social programs when there's no money coming into the economy for exports (which are almost entirely to the US).

      Sadly you've got to pick your battles and I don't think the Liberals, the Conservatives or the NDP are willing to die on the hill of digital rights. Sad bu true fact about politics in Canada.

    9. Re:Bye Bye America by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      New Zealand bent over and implemented a three-strikes law written by the US copyright lobby.

    10. Re:Bye Bye America by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Harper has been reconsidering his relationship with the US lately. He finally got tired of them dithering on the Keystone pipeline and started investigating selling oil to China instead. When various US officials assured him that the pipeline would go through, he apparently told them "nah, we're looking into other options now."

    11. Re:Bye Bye America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And while I can't be certain, I'm fairly sure that the NDP would just tip the same way.

      Which is why we need a Bloc government, lol. :P

  3. Canadians, this is your chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't want the TPP and you don't want the US forcing their copyright laws onto you. Here's your chance to say that you want neither.. you should holler it from the rooftops until every last corrupt politician knows it.

    1. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by annex1 · · Score: 2

      You don't want the TPP and you don't want the US forcing their copyright laws onto you. Here's your chance to say that you want neither.. you should holler it from the rooftops until every last corrupt politician knows it.

      Excellent comment. This is exactly what we need to do. Tell every person you meet and scream it to every person that can hear it. Write as many letters to every representative you can. Our freedom continues to creep away from us and we need to make it known that this shit has to stop. They were elected by us and they work for us, let's remind them of that!

    2. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by Sinesurfer · · Score: 1

      You don't want the TPP and you don't want the US forcing their copyright laws onto you. Here's your chance to say that you want neither.. you should holler it from the rooftops until every last corrupt politician knows it.

      Totally, absolutely, completely agree!

      Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom already share so much in common. Far more to negotiate with your cousins than the neighbours.

      --
      Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
    3. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by Sinesurfer · · Score: 1

      "Far more to negotiate with your cousins" should be "Far *easier* to negotiate with your cousins". Right, Preview button and pay attention this time.

      --
      Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
    4. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      You don't want the TPP and you don't want the US forcing their copyright laws onto you. Here's your chance to say that you want neither.. you should holler it from the rooftops until every last corrupt politician knows it.

      Excellent comment. This is exactly what we need to do. Tell every person you meet and scream it to every person that can hear it. Write as many letters to every representative you can. Our freedom continues to creep away from us and we need to make it known that this shit has to stop. They were elected by us and they work for us, let's remind them of that!

      I totally agree, but be careful you don't ruin some long time reader's Slashdot experience while you do it.

      Sounds like another FTA, those exist so that corporations can get around a countries laws. Free trade agreements are treaties, treaties supersede domestic law.

    5. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      Nothing supersedes the domestic law. NOTHING.

    6. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Nothing supersedes the domestic law. NOTHING.

      You force me to Google.

      Turns out we're both right. In Canada, OZ, and GB, treaties cannot change domestic law without a further act of parliament. It is only in the US that treaties become law by default.

      The governments of all the countries I mention can sign treaties without further approval.

      I stand corrected and I'm glad I looked that up. I'm not an American and I thought that that rule was more or less international.

    7. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by compro01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to worry. The Harper Government will be harmonizing and modernizing our domestic law to ensure strong economic partnerships with our key allies and provide a strong and vibrant economic landscape.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    8. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      When we discussed the last "treaty" with USA, which in fact is giving them all the info about everyone and everything crossing our border (canadian), and how we become the 51th state, i asked them the reasonable question: NOW IS TIME TO COUNT. WHO THE FUCK VOTED FOR THEM?
      No one dared to say anything. That's our main problem, we are a nation of kids, 2nd grade. Barely able to read and do some base math, but unable to take any responsibility for their acts (voting).

    9. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you realized this or not, but the voice of Canadians doesn't seem to matter one iota with regards to Copyright these days... a majority of voters were stupid enough to allow the Conservative government to get a majority position in parliament, and now the Conservatives can now do whatever the heck they damn well want, even in the face of otherwise unanimous opposition from all other party members. Since the Conservatives are in the USA's hip pocket, take a wild guess which way this is going to go? They don't even really need to worry about issues surrounding reelection, because so few Canadian voters even understand these issues or perceive them as actually important, that the Conservatives will still have plenty of supporters next election.

    10. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. Copyright Lobby, for one, does not welcome their new non-complying northern underlings.

      I am A-OK with "them" excluding us; I would hope that this becomes a general trend, based on the crap coming out of that country, lately. Doing things as we see fit will become incredibly easier without Big Sam breathing down our necks.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see the Loosely Associated States of America do their thing on their own, and a robust level of trade with a neighbor is convenient, but the unpalatable direction(s) you've turned in the past decade is making you a difficult neighbor to remain cordial with. We like ya, but we don't want to be like ya.

      In retrospect, if (15/20 years ago) I had been the one planning stronger economic and political ties, I would have promoted a trade zone defined (more or less) by nations in/near the Arctic circle: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Russia, Canada, etc. Countries with common needs and industrial capacity built for the weather & seasons common to the group.

    11. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by silentbrad · · Score: 1

      The majority of voters did not vote Conservative. A good majority of the Conservative ridings went that way because of split votes; and if people had voted strategically, there would have been far more red and orange across the country. I paid attention to Edmonton ridings in particular, but I'm pretty sure it happened elsewhere as well.

    12. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I never said that a majority voters voted conservative... I said that a majority of voters were stupid enough to allow the conservatives to get a majority government. There is a difference.

    13. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it's too late. Last election we elected a Conservative majority. In Canadian politics, this essentially means they can pass anything they want. They've been busily demonstrating that since the election in spring.

      Usually, there is still debate and a good airing of issues. A majority government can still pass anything they really want to, but they tend to listen, at least a bit, and are also thinking about the next election. If there's enough outcry, bills have been quietly let go before.

      The Harper government has demonstrated that they're not going to take that path. They've been cutting short debate on bills through what used to be a rarely used technicality, so they can get straight to passing it. Just this week they told the provinces what the health care plan is going to be - something which has always been negotiated between provincial and federal levels. Plans that were defeated when they had a minority - such as closing the Wheat Board (a.k.a. "screw the little farmer"), eliminating the gun registry, creating Texas-style super-max prisons and strict minimum sentencing requirements - have been brought through in the last six months.

      The signal is very clear that the Harper government feels they can do what they want, and Canadians can suck it up. So, in this case, it is highly unlikely that any public outcry would change anything.

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    14. Re:Canadians, this is your chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also unwillingly take responsibility on themselves.
      Anytime there is a problem people go to the government as little kiddie asking for more.
      That's how the freaken Health Care scam come into play which feeds no one except the medical/pharmaceutical industry which in turns feed the greedy politicians.

      These people always say "you have to vote, you have to vote" kind of crap and say "if you don't vote you can't complain". Typical thinking of not taking responsibility. They don't even know how the government continuously violate the constitution.
      I am informed on how I am screwed and I know voting doesn't make any difference, and I put up a good fight when some crooks try to violate my constitutional right. On the other hand the average Joe in this country goes vote and just sit there like zombie, and tell me I have no right to complain for the crook they voted for? Get real.

  4. US is not a member of TPP anyway. by donscarletti · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure Brunei, New Zealand and Singapore are already familiar enough with their fellow Commonwealth member to evaluate its merits without requiring the US to provide a character reference.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    1. Re:US is not a member of TPP anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the US is a member. They were not a founding member but they are a current member. The current members (as of November 2011) are: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United State

    2. Re:US is not a member of TPP anyway. by a.h.a.s. · · Score: 1

      Mmmm, I think you're wrong... read here: http://www.ustr.gov/tpp

    3. Re:US is not a member of TPP anyway. by donscarletti · · Score: 2

      No, it is not. The members have already signed and ratified the provisions of the original treaty. Australia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Peru and US attend meetings but their status is that of being part of negotiations of the next treaty.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    4. Re:US is not a member of TPP anyway. by donscarletti · · Score: 1
      From your linked article:

      President Obama along with the other eight TPP leaders agreed to seek to finalize an agreement in the coming year.

      I.e. it has not signed the agreement as Chile, Brunei, New Zealand and Singapore have, it is participating in negotiations.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  5. Re:You know this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only cheeks you're exerting from are your butt cheeks.

  6. Wait, what? by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    opportunity to force Canada to enact

    What the FUCK am I reading?!

    I'm not sure what's more offensive: That they're so used to ignoring the democratic process in the US they ACTUALLY think this way, that ANY government thinks ACTA/DMCA helps further scientific progress and the arts, or that Corporations can throw their weight around in the political arena without being boycotted into oblivion.

    1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many things people find offensive are still true.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      ... or that Corporations can throw their weight around in the political arena without being boycotted into oblivion.

      I'd like to think that you are right. I don't, but I'd like to.

    3. Re:Wait, what? by lcam · · Score: 1

      +1

      It must be the end of the world. I can't believe it either.

      The US might as well allow patenting and copyrighting of human DNA segments that way they can boost their GDP by allowing their friends to charge people "fair use" of such copyrighted assets.

    4. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or that Corporations can throw their weight around in the political arena without being boycotted into oblivion.

      It is organized corruption known as lobbyism, maybe you have heard of it?

  7. TPP Does NOT Need America by Sinesurfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I respect Canada for placing *their* needs before that of the US unlike the New Zealand and Australian governments act of total, complete and utter capitulation.

    TPP doesn't need the US and Canada should be brave enough to propose direct negotiation with Australia, New Zealand, Brunei and Singapore. When you include the United Kingdom then these four Commonwealth realms have so very much more in common than a shared and separate Head of State. Our support of democracy, human rights, the doctrine of common law, a single language and our Westminster Parliamentary tradition to entreat with our contemporises in Brunei and Singapore. Diplomats already refer to these four nations as CANZUK then by including both Brunei and Singapore we'd have a trading pact second only to the US, Japan, the EU and China (with NZ already in an FTA with China and Australia very likely soon to follow).

    It's the Commonwealth unification of similar minds and morals for *our* own mutual benefit instead just American copyright holders who continue to extend their copyright period.

    --
    Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
    1. Re:TPP Does NOT Need America by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      TPP doesn't need the US and Canada should be brave enough to propose direct negotiation with Australia, New Zealand, Brunei and Singapore.

      As a New Zealander I can confidently say the the NZ government will only negotiate as the US government directs them too anyway. Australia will probably not be much different.

    2. Re:TPP Does NOT Need America by c · · Score: 1

      > I respect Canada for placing *their* needs before that of the US unlike the
      > New Zealand and Australian governments act of total, complete and utter
      > capitulation.

      Whoah there... don't be too hasty with the respect.

      I can assure you that Canada will be more than happy to totally, completely and utterly capitulate to the US as soon as feasible. The only reason we haven't recently is a few years of ineffectual and/or minority governments. We're back to a majority government and I'm quite confident that as soon as our politicians think they can get away with it, they'll bend Canada over and pull down the britches for a good 'ol red-white-and-blue ass pounding.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:TPP Does NOT Need America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as another NZ'er that's only true while National are in government. As soon as it swings the other way again I'm sure it will be all fingers to the US Government again just like we did over our Nuclear free stance not so long ago.

      Whats the worst that can happen? No Free trade agreement? Big Whoop, banned from military exercises with the US again? Sounds good to me, then when they next need SAS troops for the next invasion of some country we've got no interest in we can say sorry no.

  8. Well, good things Lobbies don't have a say in this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right guys? Guys?

  9. If you are concerned, contact these folks: by Phrogman · · Score: 2

    http://www.openmedia.ca/

    They have done a pretty decent job of getting the word out about the Telecom's and Big Media's attempts to shape Canada to be another of their bitches.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  10. Is it just me? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Recall the days when Microsoft was "partnering" itself with just about everyone in order to get them to give up whatever it is they have that's valuable or useful for next to nothing and then Microsoft screws them over somehow after they've got it? (It's probably still going on, we just hear less about it or business has finally started to catch on..?)

    Doesn't this seem eerily like what the US copyright interests are doing through the US government? Setting up partnerships and trade agreements and ultimately screwing the other parties over and/or manipulating them to do their bidding? How much longer before they start catching on? I get the feeling they are already catching on somehow...

  11. SOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US Mob in full "song"

    Nice country you've got there. *kicks borders* You wouldn't want anything to "happen" to it, would you? Mr Big is getting very unhappy with your attitude you know, and you wouldn't like it when he gets unhapppy... But I'm sure we could come to an arrangement....

    Join or you'll be sorry...

  12. Come on canada. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reach down and find those frozen balls you guys sport.

    And don't be yet another whore for the USA.

  13. Natural Devolution by redelm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just what do you expect? First, concentrated interests learn through trial-and-error how to influence, control and capture their most relevant regulators and legislators. Once this is done (Sonny Bono copyright extention of 1995), they look to extend their power and influence further afield, in this case to foreign governments.

    This is just business as usual and the concentrated interests can pay for it. The real problem is the dilute interests (public at large) does not individually have enough money at stake to do anything. This inertia allows the concentrated interests to prevail. The US Constitution protects against some abuses, but more active measures are necessary. A static, defensive strategy always loses in the long term.

    1. Re:Natural Devolution by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      ... The US Constitution protects against some abuses, but more active measures are necessary. A static, defensive strategy always loses in the long term.

      I'm sorry to say it, but I don't think the US government pays any attention to the constitution any more. It's too bad, it's a terrific document.

      The corporations have won, they own the largest military in the world, and now have the right to deploy it anywhere for any reason, including on US soil, against US citizens, and with impunity.

      And when they do, we will be forced to revolt.

      It's going to be ugly.

    2. Re:Natural Devolution by redelm · · Score: 1
      Again, just what do you expect? Look at it -- the US Consititution almost exclusively acts to limit the powers of both leglislative and executive branches. Of course they are going to object and find loopholes and squeeze past any way they can. Weasles gonna weasle!

      A bigger issue is the tremendous amounts of money spent or controlled through legislation. This gives lots of incentive to lobby. And difficulty stopping big spenders.

      The courts who have always been a bit of a safeguard for minority rights, have largely been disempowered by populism and the curious notion that democacy is a goal rather than a method of achieve a goal. Both the Left and the Right whine mightily about "Legislating from the Bench" when rulings go against them. Never mind that the judges do not legislate but rather strike down legislation, the epithet tars them.

  14. On a side note... by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    When I went to the IIPA, Web of Trust went berserk and said the site has a poor reputation for "trustworthiness," "vendor reliability" and "privacy." It also scored a low score on "child safety."

    1. Re:On a side note... by canowhoopass.com · · Score: 1

      When I went to the IIPA, Web of Trust went berserk and said the site has a poor reputation for "trustworthiness," "vendor reliability" and "privacy." It also scored a low score on "child safety."

      I'm can't say I'm a fan of politics influencing security ratings like this. Not being a user of the tool, I must ask if this a common trait in Web of Trust's database?

      I see that the sites for the riaa, and mpaa are also flagged and have piracy related comments on them.

  15. The TPP is about one industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyright law needs to benefit all industries.Sorry, when a proposal requires almighty gusts of rhetoric to understand why we'd sabotage everyone else for one group's benefit, it's bad law.

  16. Re:You know this. by Tsingi · · Score: 0

    Why do you cower, homosexuals?

    Said the AC.

  17. end the wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are these fools going to realize that forcing our ideology on sovereign nations is why we are constantly are war - the real ones.
    Enough of the *War On......* also, it does not contribute to our image.
    The best thing is politics will not be which Potty is elected but removing lobbyists and money.

  18. Re:You know this. by Tsingi · · Score: 0

    Not an AC this time. A brand new user with no content. But nothing you say makes any sense at all.

  19. dear Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mind your own damn business.

    Signed,

    Everybody Else.

    1. Re:dear Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear everyone else,

      We would love to, it's our damn politicians that can't leave it alone.

      Sincerely,
      Americans

  20. Abolish Patents and Copyrights by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Patents and copyrights must be abolished. They are just going to be the last nail in the coffin of US economy.

    The Free Market solution must be used - Trade Secrets.

    You want to protect your business for a while? You must not be able to use government force to protect your business model, so use trade secrets. Of-course /. crowd doesn't understand the principle behind trade secrets, so I have to spell it out.

    Trade secrets are much more fair business practice, it does not lock any potential competitor out off the market, it does not prevent others from trying to understand how your product works and build their own. In case of patents it does not prevent others from discovering the ideas independently and implementing them on their own the way patents do.

    I thought it should be clear at least on /., but obviously it's not.

    As to Canada - they have a real economy, they have surpluses, they should trade with countries WHO CAN PAY. I mean they should sell their oil and other products to countries who produce something and can exchange products with Canada, and obviously USA looks like less and less a country that can pay for products it consumes. It can print, but printing isn't paying. Paying is working and giving some PRODUCTS back in exchange for products delivered.

    1. Re:Abolish Patents and Copyrights by lcam · · Score: 2

      I think Abolishment is an extremist position. Revised, certainly, so that we don't make criminals out our citizens for their "cultural" and/or economic values.

      Copyrights and Patents have their place in a healthy capitalistic system. The problem we have is our capitalistic system doesn't seem so healthy anymore because IMO, business models made obsolete by advances in technology are being clung to and our political and legal landscape is unable to adapt in a meaningful way.

      I didn't know Canada has a surplus in their government spendings. I'd like to remind you that the ability to "pay" is symbolic, especially because we all use a fiat based currency system. Technically, the US debt, is only a debt in some belief of value. The irony is copyright extremists too, only really have a claim to a belief of some value associated with their assets, except they are managing to pass laws that make real human beings criminals (in my opinion much more then just symbolic) when they exercise their rights by not sharing the beliefs held by such extremists.

    2. Re:Abolish Patents and Copyrights by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that without the exclusivity associated with patents and copyrights, you create disincentives for people to widely publish the things that they create, unless they were already willing to completely sacrifice the exclusivity that relative obscurity offers them in the first place. While I realize there may be no lack of people who are willing to do this, it's still *SUBSTANTIALLY* lower than the number of people that utilize copyright to retain their exclusivity on the right to decide who else may make a copy. This has nothing to do with anybody's economy... because copyright is really about exclusivity, not monetization. It merely happens to be the case that the exclusivity is often monetizable because it can be utilized to create an artificial shortage of the work. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the side effect is still that the work does actually get published in the first place. Finally, it is also worth noting that even among works that are released for free, a staggering majority of them are still explicitly released under some form of copyright, which in the end, still prohibits any unauthorized copying (even if you can apparently copy and redistribute copies of the work freely, there are some caveats, such as the copyright notice must remain in place, or credit must be given, or what have you... such provisions merely grant permission to copy to the people who agree to those terms). Truly unlimited permission for absolutely anybody to copy a work, and not having any terms on such provisions at all, is actually a choice by the creator to effectively relinquish their copyright, and is just the same as public domain. While without copyright, some creators might still release their works directly into public domain, the number of such works would be certain to be dramatically lower than the number of works released today. If a variety of such works can enrich a culture, then it must follow that creating disincentives for people to widely publish works is harmful to that same culture. I understand and can sympathize with the reasons for what you are proposing, but the real ramifications of it would still not stand well to be positive.

  21. Re:What the F*** am I reading?! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    "I'm not sure what's more offensive: That they're so used to ignoring the democratic process in the US they ACTUALLY think this way, that ANY government thinks ACTA/DMCA helps further scientific progress and the arts, or that Corporations can throw their weight around in the political arena without being boycotted into oblivion. "

    We're getting to the point "don't assume ignorance when the answer might involve malice instead". So for your comment above, "points 1 and 3". The lobbies used to be at least a little clever with their wink & nod bribery, and at least a little modest with their perks. Very rapidly, on an accelerating curve, we're getting tons of stories about "**AA has successfully bullied ______ *country*. Countries?! We're blackmailing entire countries on their copyright policy?!

    Then of course it's the "two punch" of the one-two surveillance combo. (The other being the Terrorist-Kiddie Safety meme.) So that makes your point 2 the lie, in service of the corruption of points 1 and 3. Like Division By Zero in Math, once you start getting blatant lies and ignoring the entire constitution, then reality sinks down into Wonderland very very fast. (Did you ever see those 1+1=3 proofs in grade school number theory books? They all work with division by zero tricks.)

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  22. Re:You know this. by JockTroll · · Score: 0

    If you hate gay people then you don't like lesbians. Therefore, you're a faggot. Dismissed.

    --
    Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  23. In a time of flat rates/taxes ...? by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    CreditCardRate+DebitCardFee+BillPayCharges+WhateverNext ....
    AirFare+BaggageFee+MealPurchase+WhateverNext ....
    RIAA+ASCAP+MediaFormatChange+MediaTaxes+WhateverNext ....
    Whatever is next? Is a creative way to increase prices, profits, and maintain other charges.

    CorporateWelfare+CorporateLaws+CorporateTaxes+CorporateBailout+WhateverNext ... is not capitalism or democracy, but it is a totalitarian welfare state for plutocrats. IOW: FuckUS

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  24. Get in line by Tridus · · Score: 1

    At the end of the day, this is small potatoes for TPP. The real barrier to Canada being taken seriously in these talks is the outrageously protectionist supply management system in dairy, and the 300% tariff wall that goes with it. Since the supposidly "conservative" and "pro-trade" government is quite in favor of keeping that price gouging system in place to placate farmers in Ontario & Quebec, Canada's not going to be making much progress in TPP.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Get in line by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      This isn't about tangable things like natural resources. This is a "foot in the door" attempt to sneak in control on non-tangables using natural resource trade as hostage. The U.S. isn't even a member of the TPP. However, if we can chump the countries involved into adding restrictive copyright agreements, that will change. That is what we are good at. ie. Passing laws that look like one thing but mean something completely different. An example is SOPA. The talk is "protect the childrenz and businesses". The reality is censor content and snoop on the people.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  25. Shit Content by andydread · · Score: 1

    Why do people keep buying their crappy content? Stop buying their products and they will not have the type of power they have now to OWN governments all around the world. This crazyness has to stop. When the Internet was just starting to get popular these were the same people that were trying to find ways to kill it. I for one will not purchase,rent, or go to the movie theatre anymore to consume any of their content. When you keep consuming their products they take your money to go buy laws that work against you. in effect people are part of the problem. Vote with your wallet.

    1. Re:Shit Content by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Because the crappy content is backed up by an incredibly powerful marketing machine that tells people what they want, and the people believe it. Billions of dollars have been spend on the art and science of advertising, and it has become very refined and potent now.

  26. Internet has become dangerous by Droog57 · · Score: 1

    Apparently the Internet and the Freedom that it embodies has become a dangerous thing, according to multi-national commercial interests. This is in line with the recent aggressive anti-Internet tactics adopted by most Communist and Totalitarian Governments around the world, and now with SOPA and it's ilk, the USA has joined forces with it's greatest enemies. As the USA becomes more and more isolationist, it has apparently made the calculation that since "America" champions the cause of "Freedom" around the world, it must leave Internet censorship to the private sector, while the US Government retains the ability to wash it's hands of any actual participation in the restrictive legislation that results from sicking the corporate dogs on freedom. Canada, luckily, is in no mood lately to bow to US pressure, mostly due to the big brother tactics employed by US based pressure groups to control or deny Canada's economic best interests starting with Keystone XL. The USA is Canada's largest trading partner, and it may come as some surprise to Americans that Canada is also THEIR largest trading partner, and the supplier of a large percentage of their domestic Oil needs. Not to mention fresh water, hydro-electric power etc. With the Government currently in control in Ottawa, American paternalism may be in for a shock when we start shipping oil to the east instead of to the south, and adopt a attitude of "chuck you farley" in our relations with the ultra-liberal Obama "administration". Canada is no longer in a position of having no option but to ride the coattails of American prosperity, we are now in a position to dictate policy based on our own best interests, and American lawmakers had better wake up to that fact before it bites them in the ass. Unfortunately, based on recent US policy, it is an unlikely scenario, too bad for them.

    --
    "If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
  27. Extra-governmental entities by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    The right-wing always frets about the dreaded UN wanting to control the world. But about the MAFIAA and Standard & Poors (who made money in the sub-prime pyramid scheme) being allowed to literally threaten and destabilize entire governments, they say not one harsh word.

  28. Until now... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    ... I, and I suppose a lot of Europeans with me, saw Canadians as less nonsense-and-hype-prone than US Americans; this goes especially for Canadian politicians as opposed to US politicians. I sincerely wish the Candadians to keep this reputation.

    One might be astounded at the amount of credit the USA has lost in the western world. Both the tone of the OP and many of the comments here seem to underscore this.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  29. More of this douchebaggery, please. by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    If the media industry continues this shameless behaviour, there will be more an more people like me who support the complete abolition of copyrights. That's going to hit in the face the media industry, and I, for one, will be watching and laughing. I want nothing more than my scientific research results to be available to everybody. A great number of musicians and visual artists are just as nonchalant about copyrights, and our numbers are going to grow. It seems inevitable.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:More of this douchebaggery, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree.

      As a mathematician I want nothing more than the ability to do research with my colleagues and have all of my work available to everyone.

      I would imagine that many artists feel similarly. They would like to be able to do what they love and live comfortably as a result.

      Unlike gamers, movie buffs, and marketers, good researchers and artists have a net positive effect on humanity and I feel an effort should be made to create a system which rewards such people appropriately without, of course, stamping all over fundamental human rights. If it is impossible to create such a system then so be it, free communication (correctly phrased) is infintely more valuable than the sum total of all art and research and I would sacrifice my job and support the abolishment of copyright anyway. However, thankfully, the dichotomy is false and there are a quite a few examples of how art and freedom can coexist, even if this means much less money going into art. I will continue to vote maximally with my feet and wallet fortified with the knowledge that more and more people are doing likewise. Change is in the wind it seems.

      They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary entertainment, deserve neither liberty nor entertainment.

  30. Enough. by steveaustin1971 · · Score: 1

    Its time to get US lobbies out of Canada. By force if necessary. Too many times politicians have bowed to US pressure and gone against the wishes of Canadians. Enough is enough.

    1. Re:Enough. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well industry canada has already said that enough is enough. You might have heard the deal with the keystone pipeline? And people being signed up, who didn't actually sign up? And people basically clogging the system and screwing with our own sovereignty issues? Yeah. Even our government is getting tired of this, not only by foreign individuals, but by foreign countries(the US in this case).

      As it stands now? Well, China is more than happy to buy our oil. And to be perfectly honest, that's fine with me.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  31. As a Canadian who lives in Australia... by beaverdownunder · · Score: 1

    I think Canada should call the US's bluff on this one. I know sentiment here isn't going to allow the US to enforce SOPA style laws on Australia, and frankly, without Australia this whole TPP thing isn't going to happen.

    Give it a year, and then once Australia makes the Yanks go home with their tails between their legs, Canada can join the TPP without having to yield to the American's strange notion of 'rights'.

    1. Re:As a Canadian who lives in Australia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Canada should call the US's bluff on this one. I know sentiment here isn't going to allow the US to enforce SOPA style laws on Australia,

      No... because Australia is doing everything the US wants voluntarily.

      Like the schoolyard bully, the US system works by going up against one country at the time. What "we" need to do is get a Copyright Reform Alliance going where an attack against one is considered an attack against all. Once the RIAA/MPAA's power is broken by reducing copyright term to 12-20 years, allowing for a huge, flourishing Public Domain, the stranglehold of Hollywood is broken and the US can go back to try and being the Greatest Country in the World, as they like to call it.

  32. Social Intolerance by lcam · · Score: 1

    I have two points I'd like to share, I've not RTFA yet and probably won't, so take this at face value.

    1. The attitude demonstrated is a perfect example of extremist intolerance. All non-conformists will soon be labeled; we must all surrender our individualist values and all adhere the values of collectivism. The problem I see is that such collectivist values, especially in this case seem to directly benefit a minority.(classic/previous examples of extremist intolerance were previous "witch hunt" scenarios where labels included: "communist", "axis of evil" and even more recently "terrorist"). I found it most interesting, in a recent television news broadcast regarding an incident in the continuing instability in the middle east where extremist Jews had invading Palestinian occupied territories, where Palestinian leaders called for the labeling of those extremist Jews as terrorists. Israeli leaders concede that in fact they could be called terrorists but "...they will not be _treated_ as terrorists". In the example of extremist intolerance as worded in the Slashdot article, from the political posturing, Canada is being *treated* in a discriminatory way (in some ways similar to an embargo) and that everyone, or at least someone, wants it to be accepted as kosher.

    2. It could also argue that by passing laws to "protect" (whatever that means in this case) the interests of special interest (copyright holders) and criminalize actions that do not directly cause real harm to any real human being. Our government is moving to pass laws causing ordinary law abiding citizens to be regarded as criminals. The end effect is to compromise large groups of society and their liberties and freedoms (if there is any presumption such groups have any) for the benefit of a few. This is yet another example of extremist social intolerance, (http://entertainment.ie/music/news/EMI-launches-lawsuit-against-Irish-state/97275.htm) it is not a stretch to conclude that special interests at work here have no real respect for the laws of a nation or state.

    My personal view is that as this social intolerance continues, there will be a continuing declension in the distinctions between American democracy and totalitarianism insofar as we regard the way people are *treated*.

  33. Administration Consistency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. administration needs to repudiate ACTA to be consistent with their latest pronouncements on SOPA/PIPA. And the presumption of guilt and short-circuiting of due process in the DMCA should be repealed.

  34. Re:You know this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arguing against homophobia, then call him a faggot. How about you fucking quit saying that shit?

  35. Other elements that could be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Abandonment laws: when you stop producing a copy, you lose the copy rights. If you end support for software, you lose copyright.
    Transformative editions: when you apply for copyright, you MUST make available a version that can be used to make new versions. I.e. a key to unlock DRM, source code so binaries are recompiled, decoding algorithms for trade secret compression, and so on.
    Property taxes: your property is taxed like any other business premise, based on the value of that property. Absent that, you only get the option for punitive damages (to be given to the state) and cessation of the infringing activity if a copyright breach is detected and you have assigned zero cost to your property.
    Inheritance tax: when you give away your "property" you pay tax on its value. Do the same here.

  36. Re:You know this. by JonySuede · · Score: 1

    Not my post but how about no,
    I, and almost everyone else around 30 I know, use fag to denote effeminate manners in a male regardless of the sexual orientation. You can be gay without being a faggot and you can be a faggot without being gay. We have to stop that fucking political correctness, freedom of speech meant that I should to be able to hurt other people feelings if I feel that they deserved it and derogatives words are perfect for that. Stop being such a pansy...

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  37. *AA can't buy Canada by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    The *AA have to try to force the US government to act against Canada because Canada has intelligent not to mention real election financing laws.

  38. Re:You know this. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    But.... but... I thought a fag was a Harley Davidson rider?

  39. Bad trade terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are pretty much fucked up if you depend so much in trade with a single country that they even get to influence politics, demand things or threaten, just look at how it had affected for example Mexico, which is pretty stagnated this days because ridiculous treaties with USA.

    The rest of the world should just form a block of trade and leave bullies like those to throw tantrums and cry all they want alone. That may even help them to get their shit together.

  40. Re:You know this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I hate those faggot Harley riders.

  41. What a coincidence by SoVi3t · · Score: 1

    Copyright lobby wants Canada out of the TPP, and I want the copyright lobby out of Canada.

    --
    Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
  42. Re:What the F*** am I reading?! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    We're getting to the point "don't assume ignorance when the answer might involve malice instead".

    Don't confuse Hanlon's Razor with mcgrew's razor. Hanlon (which I believe is a misspelling of Heinlein) "Never assume malice what incompetence explains". mcgrew: "never assume incompetence what greedy self-interest explains".

    If I "screw up" and benefit from the "screwup", you should assume the "mistake" wasn't really mistaken. If I screw up and you're harmed but I'm not helped, Hanlon should come into play.

  43. Re:You know this. by zeroshade · · Score: 1

    It's not political correctness, it's calling someone out for being a dick. Freedom of speech means that you are fully able to hurt other people's feelings without the government stopping you, it does NOT mean that you shouldn't be called out for being a fucking asshole when you do it.

  44. Thants great and all by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    >You don't want the TPP and you don't want the US forcing their copyright laws onto you. Here's your chance to say that you want neither.. you should holler it from the rooftops until every last corrupt politician knows it.

    But when pretty much only Michael Geist will report on this while none of the big newspapers will report it. If they do it'll be on some obscure blog deep inside the news site.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  45. Go ahead by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, make my day. We get a lot of mainstream content and it's a difficult market place for budding artists. Crack down on copyright material, make it harder to reach all the popular songs for free and you have to buy everything.

    You'll be doing a favour for a lot of independent artists out there. There's a lot of good music that doesn't make the radio or that a particular crowd will really enjoy, or a less popular genre that will get more exposure. All you'll do it as allow small artists to release tracks for free or exceptionally cheap, which people will then become aware of and start listening to their music.

    You know, people you don't have record deals with. E.G you'll be doing your competition a favour. So, I'm good with it either way.

  46. Tried that, they aren't listening by kawabago · · Score: 1

    The media industries have poured so much money on our politicians we actually needed to give them swimming lessons! Not only that but the Conservative government is determined to enact every law that has not worked anywhere else. Also, if you disagree with the Government then you must be a terrorist. Things are polarized near the poles!

  47. Re:You know this. by JonySuede · · Score: 1

    I would not dare to try to says that to the Harley riders around here, they really don't give a fuck about other people freedom of speech but they do care and take affirmative action about theirs hurt feelings by capping your knees !

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  48. God damn interfering Americans by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Your own White House and Congress canned SOPA, yet you demand that Canada implement the same kind of draconian legislation that YOUR OWN PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT REJECTED.

    Can you see this pair of fingers waving on high?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  49. Just some quiet lobbying for a done deal by gordguide · · Score: 1

    Prime Minister Harper is determined to expand FT agreements worldwide. Last week the final touches on the FTA with the EU was finalized. They have eliminated the Canadian Wheat Board late in 2011 ... something that the US vigorously demanded in the original US-Canada FTA signed by George Bush Sr and PM Brian Mulroney and ratified by the two governments in 1988 ... and then equally vigorously demanded a second time when the Canada-US FTA was abandoned and NAFTA (adding Mexico) took it's place. He has also gone on record as saying he will dismantle any legislation that stands in the way of the Trans Pacific Partnership (there are Dairy and Poultry mechanisms that are also on the chopping block, and which the US is keen to exploit once they do).

    Since he's already (twice) introduced the very legislation this story calls for over a number of years (due to political realities, like elections and minority governments they haven't yet been able to pass the legislation, but with a fresh mandate and a solid majority this time it won't be an issue) I very strongly suspect this is a planted comment asked for by Canadian diplomats and the US has complied. It's clearly designed to blunt some of the opposition to many aspects of the bill domestically (and which have been subjects on /. previously). The hard reality is he has the power to pass the law anytime over the next 3 years or so and he will.

    I can imagine diplomats on both sides smiling at the success of the plant making Slashdot.

  50. Re:Canada to U.S.Assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Don't talk like that or someone might claim you've got a WMD in your back yard.
    Though as long as you price your tar-oil in US$ instead of € you should be safe.
    </troll>

  51. Consider it done by peawormsworth · · Score: 1

    Canada will implement this sort of law regardless. It is coming. This sort of threat is just another excuse for our citizens to accept such an oppressive law as a necessary evil and for those in power to claim they had no choice. The best government is a minority government because it gets less accomplished. Now that we put in place a majority we see the government ruling in full steam. "That government is best which governs least".

  52. Sounds good to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canadians don't want Canada to be a part of TPP anyway... so fine by me. The copyright laws need reducing as it is.

  53. Bad Analogy by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    You make it sound like Harper is resisting... This is more like he is on his knees giving tribute to the corporate gods...