Slashdot Mirror
The Behind-the-Scenes Campaign To Bring SOPA To Canada
An anonymous reader writes "SOPA may be dead (for now) in the U.S., but lobby groups are likely to intensify their efforts to export SOPA-like rules to other countries. With the Canadian DMCA back on the legislative agenda at the end of the month, Canada will be a prime target for SOPA style rules. In fact, Michael Geist reports that the recording industry wants language to similar to that found in SOPA on blocking access to websites, new termination policies for subscribers, and an expanded SOPA-style liability for sites that could include YouTube and cloud-based services."
Another reader points out that similar mischief is afoot in Ireland: "The Irish government's new 'statutory instrument' threatens to do some of the same things as SOPA, mainly introducing the power to force ISPs to block websites suspected of having copyrighted material on them."
Any provisions that can be boiled down to
A Association Is Collaboration
B Accusation is Conviction
needs to result in the bill being killed.
Linking to %BadContent% should not be a crime per say (unless thats a majority of what you do). And Blunt killing of a server (or server farm) should not even be considered.
Also there should be a short waiting period (to send a takedown REQUEST to the site owner) before a whole server gets nuked.
The last thing that should be in any law is if it is found that the complainant acted "In Bad Faith" then he should receive 7/8ths of the punishment that was involved (and be open to CIVIL remedies).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
This attitude is just part of the problem.
Both sides are full of unrealistic extremists and it's getting us nowhere. The digital world is very different in regards the reality of property. For the same reason that traditional property rules don’t apply well (or at all), the kind of logic you are applying doesn’t either.
We need rational thinking where both sides meet half way, not two sides screaming their extremist views at each other... especially as one side has a lot more influence to wield that the other.
No, this is stupid. We want people to publish their developments and techniques: so that more people can use them. Also, copyright (for a limited time is a good thing). 70 years after your death (more likely, indefinitely, due to the inevitable increase in this duration) is too long. Patents are probably good, I don't know about the duration. However, design, business method, and obvious patents are not.
Would we be better off without them at all (than what we have now)? Possibly. But it would be best to have a fine-tuned system that actually encouraged invention, instead of stifling it.
Why does Tyranny always come back to societies over and over. Seems throughout history, humans just can't put an end to dictatorship rule! All these new laws are being put in place to control our lives until we all become puppets on a string.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
...just not as it is currently implemented.
Terms of 7/14/20/28 years may still be appropriate, as the rise of technology has made duplication of intellectual works easier to copy and disseminate. Those who create content are no longer concerned about a dozen possible sources of competition in duplication, but tens of millions. The ease of publishing and typical shelf life should, actually, serve to reduce - not extend - copyright and patent terms, as the ability to bring a product to mass market is on a significantly shorter timescale than 200 years ago.
Interestingly, there are methods in place which provide for (almost) easy compliance with copyright laws. but they apply to only the narrowest slice of content. I'm talking about mechanical licensing fees - 10c per physically recorded track or permanent digital download. Problem is, it only applies to the composer of music, and only to mechanical rights. Not to arrangement. Not to synchronization (video). Not to masters (people performing the work). Not to written or spoken work. Not to images. Not to video clips. Not to patents.
The biggest problem is not the existence of patents and copyright, but the byzantine implementation and licensing, and the one-sided legislation which is being written to perpetuate these institutions.
IP laws are a good thing; the way they are implemented is flawed.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
We need rational thinking where both sides meet half way...
This topic, like how much murder is tolerable, or what level of slavery is most beneficial, is not one which is amenable to half-hearted compromises. The only difference is that this issue remains undecided.
Depending on the principles you start from, you end up in one of three basic positions: (1) copyright, etc., are fundamental rights, which should persist for at least the lifetime of the producer (and possibly inherited) and should never be infringed upon; (2) copyright, etc., are legitimate constructs, not rights, instituted to promote the social good, and should be set at whatever point optimizes this good, infringement being a crime against society for subverting this policy; or (3) copyright, etc., contradict fundamental rights, such as the right to own and use private property in a non-aggressive manner, and thus have no legitimacy.
Compromise is only really possible within the second category, over issues such as the optimal length, or socially-beneficial exceptions. This is possible because the second position ignores the question of natural rights entirely; it assumes that producers do not have a natural right to control distribution of their work, and that the government has legitimate authority to curtail use of private property. All that remains is to work out the details.
You can't "meet halfway" between category (1) and category (3), or even between either group and category (2), however, without one side or the other forfeiting their integrity. In the case of group (1), while they might be individually willing to shorten their claims or forgo them entirely, they can't make that decision for all producers everywhere. However much they may want to compromise on behalf of "their side", they don't have the authority to do so. Group (3) has the same problem; any compromise would affect not just themselves, but everyone else whose property rights are to be violated to incentivise production of creative works.
A willingness to forgo one's own perogatives and preferences to arrive at a mutually-acceptable compromise is an admirable trait. However, one must never compromise one's core principles—and that is exactly what would be required to "meet halfway" in this situation.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Have you seen what the US does to countries that don't?
Move in for 10 years, mess up the place and then give up?
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all