Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Unknown on from the sharing-is-sinful-children dept.

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."

34 of 164 comments (clear)

  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 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.

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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?

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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...
    13. 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

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    14. 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.
    15. 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!
    16. 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
  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 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. 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 stanlyb · · Score: 2

      Nothing supersedes the domestic law. NOTHING.

    3. 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
    4. 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).

  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 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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...

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.