Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Prime Minister To Music Lobby: Here's Your Copyright Term Extension

Posted by timothy on from the plenty-more-where-that-came-from dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Canadian government's decision to extend the term of copyright for sound recordings in the budget may have taken most copyright observers by surprise, but not the music industry. The extension will reduce competition, increase costs for consumers, and harm access to Canadian Heritage, but apparently all it took was a letter from the music industry lobby to the Prime Minister of Canada. Michael Geist reports on a letter sent by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the music lobby on the day the change was announced confirming that industry lobbying convinced him to extend the term of copyright without any public consultation or discussion.

70 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Politicans who forget who voted for them... by unique_parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and make decisions with their wallet.

    1. Re: Politicans who forget who voted for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who voted for them? Does it matter? You have to vote for someone and there is nobody the industry cannot buy. No money, no politics. Now open that pretty mouth wide while we shit into it.

    2. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence that there was any financial gain except by the music industry.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    3. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like there is an option to vote for someone who isn't a corporate whore.

      The main difference between a prostitute and a politician is that the prostitute only sells her body, not her soul.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, he did it 'cause he believes the copyright industry really, really needs more time than lifetime + 70 years to recover their investment.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is lots of evidence that the music industry gave bribes, they are just the legal kind, called "donations".

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re: Politicans who forget who voted for them... by polyphemus · · Score: 1

      The mind blowing thing is that even though the money follows the winner (everyone loves to back a winner!) the politicians give their loyalty away for contributions, as if those contributions ensured their victory, rather than the other way around.

    7. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by voss · · Score: 2

      Actually its not life + 70 years its 70 years period.

    8. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We have more than two political parties in Canada. The choice isn't limited to "Conservatives or Liberals". You can vote for NDP, Green Party, etc.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    9. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Funny

      In his defence, a rather large cheque was also in the letter.

    10. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by zedaroca · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The main difference between a prostitute and a politician is that the prostitute only sells her body, not her soul.

      I think the main difference is that prostitutes keep their promises.

    11. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You can change that. Run for office yourself and refuse to become a corporate whore. Talk to friends and family and encourage others to do the same. That's what democracy is about - not just whining about what you don't like.

    12. Re: Politicans who forget who voted for them... by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      There are plenty of people the industry cannot buy, but under a democratic system the large established media companies can always ensure that these people never have enough mass media coverage and thus the voters aren't aware that they exist and don't vote for them.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    13. Re: Politicans who forget who voted for them... by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      I love it when idiots claim to know the obvious but fail to see it. Ron paul in the states ran verry little tv ads nor sucked up to any corporations and had quite alarge and popular following that generated huge amounts of donations.

      All i heard is crying that its too dificuly. But thats just code for not everyone thinks the way you do. You don't start at the top either, You generally start at the bottom or mid level and work up.

      But hell, lets just pick impossible goals, go at them in the most difficult ways, then wear our tears of defeat as a badge of honor while crying that its some huge conspiracy by corporations and whatever other boogerman of the month. That way it can always be some others fault and you have something to constantly bitch, moan, and cry about.

    14. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      More likely coverage. Harper's government has been picking on the media companies until recently and now seems to be rewarding them. You don't win elections without positive coverage from the media.
      There's a lot of negative things to be said about Harper but he is very smart and patient.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    15. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      The Conservatives changed the rules to make it very hard and expensive to get on the ballot. Up until the last election there had always been close to a dozen names on the ballot for my MP, this made it easy to do a protest vote for someone like the Rhino party, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Last election there was only 3 or 4 names on the ballot as it is expensive ($10,000?). I don't think even the Green party was on the local ballot.
      Parliamentary system so all we vote for is our representative.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    16. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For now, until that 70 years is up.

    17. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, swell idea. I never heard that one before, why didn't anyone have this awesome idea before? Just run for office! People will vote for you and ... erh... no. Wait. They won't. Because they don't even know you run for office. So you run an ad campaign and ... erh... well, that works if you're kinda filthy rich. But if you are, why the hell should you run for an office, politics is pretty much working in your favor. But, ya know, you could do it as a hobby. The fate of a country as a rich boy's play toy, why not? And you would change the fate because ... yes, because why exactly? You'd only piss off your other rich friends.

      And even if you're a filthy rich guy who could literally throw millions of dollars behind such a campaign without having to throw parties for corporate friends and suck some corporate dick to get a bit of corporate money, you'll still be ignored by TV and other media,

      So please, if you ever have any great ideas again, here's what you do: Go to your bed, lie down on your back with your hands folded behind your head and pat yourself for having the greatest idea in the world. It makes you feel good, it doesn't annoy the rest of the world and most of all it doesn't make anyone write you a reply that might make your idea look less great.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let's wait 70 years and see.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      When idiots like Ron Paul can rake billions in campain contributions through small personal donations and remain a senator for several terms while not only running for higher office and repeatedly failing yet influencing those who won to some degree, it is proof that what you say is nothing more than crying that it is too hard for you to understand how to do it.

      And yes, i say idiots because they failed to moderate their niche message enough to attract mainstream support yet had huge success operating from other people's money. Why is others can do this but in spite of available evidence you think it's impossible?

      Rich people do not tend to spend much of their own money to run for office. They spend other people's money. If enough people think the same way you do, getting the money to run will not be a problem. If they do not, then you have to either realize the status quo is what the public wants or convince them of the error of their ways. Either way it can largely be done by donations if you are not some kook. And even if you are, there are a lot of kooks who give it a lot better shot than you seem willing to give.

      Maybe it is you who should just go back to bed and lay down. It's obvious that you already have and just want to cry that your doing nothing is not making the change you want. At least if you stay in bed, you wouldn't be polluting the efforts of other good people and maybe they can do what you think is too hard to even try doing.

    20. Re:Politicans who forget who voted for them... by DedTV · · Score: 1

      ...and make decisions with their wallet...

      Keep getting reelected.

      A few months ago I had to get shoulder surgery and had one arm completely immobilized for 6 weeks. Rather than sit at home doing nothing until I could work again, I took a job doing polls at a local mall. Often, the questions had to do with how people felt about controversial issues such as patent law, gay marriage, medical/recreational marijuana and psychedelics, contraception, etc... And despite being in a solidly Red section of the state, the poll results were almost always solidly liberal by a very large margin.
      The disheartening part was that, time and time again, when I asked "Are you registered to vote" those who took the more liberal positions on such issues said "No.", often giving me some diatribe about why their vote didn't matter and thus registering and voting was pointless. However, the ones who were in the "people who distribute contraceptives should be subject to the death penalty" camp always answered that they were registered to vote and voted in every election, no matter how minor.

      The politicians haven't forgotten who votes for them at all. They just also know that people who strongly dislike them are more likely to not vote than to vote against them because of the mindset that once a person they dislike gets elected or a policy measure they don't like gets passed, there's no point in voting at all ever again.

  2. Sure, a "letter" by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    all it took was a cheque from the music industry lobby to the Prime Minister of Canada.

    FTFY.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:Sure, a "letter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably a bit more than a check. To the person who mentioned 'no financial gain' get fucking real, of course there was gain, there is absolutely no other reason to do this than being bribed outright and openly.

      Revolution, burn them all, burn their families, burn their lands, take everything, we have logistics via computers and do not need these people

    2. Re:Sure, a "letter" by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      That's how they do it in third world countries, in civilized countries you just get a nice job after you leave office or family members get big contracts for their companies.

    3. Re:Sure, a "letter" by dryeo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well this government has been using copyright(1) to deny citizens access to taxpayer funded research and I'm sure they'd love to keep unfavourable research secret forever, I doubt they're looking that far in the future.
      1. All government stuff is under the Queens copyright in Canada.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re:Sure, a "letter" by meerling · · Score: 1

      It's not true, that's been studied quite a bit it seems. However, science, statistics, and ethics mean nothing to a politician looking for a treat or with an ax to grind.

  3. Votes mean nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When all the candidates on the ballot are bought and paid for by the corporate interests

    1. Re:Votes mean nothing by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy is just a sham anyway. It only really works to your advantage if you happen to be one of the dumbest people in the country. Then you can trust that the "majority" are smarter than you and will make a better choice than you. If you are of average or higher intelligence then enjoy the fact that your leaders will always be picked by people stupider than you, since you will be in the "minority".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Votes mean nothing by ultranova · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Democracy is just a sham anyway. It only really works to your advantage if you happen to be one of the dumbest people in the country.

      ...I think someone needs to read up on world history and the relative performance of various political systems.

      If you are of average or higher intelligence then enjoy the fact that your leaders will always be picked by people stupider than you, since you will be in the "minority".

      Which is far preferable to leaders who are picked by birth, rule by divine authority and are answerable to no one. Or to violent chaos. Which are the only known alternatives to democracy.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:Votes mean nothing by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Leaders picked by birth are basically 50/50 wether they are power hungry despots or benevolent dictators...

      Politics on the other hand almost always attracts a specific kind of person, those who want power and will do whatever is necessary to acquire it. Succeeding in a democratic system requires getting enough people to vote for you, which requires sufficient media coverage otherwise the voters won't even be aware of your existence. With such a system, it's no wonder that large media companies hold so much power.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re: Votes mean nothing by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      That's what we have today. Except "merit" is measured by capital or income and "smarts" measured by the ability to lobby.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Votes mean nothing by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Just because you've only seen three answers so far doesn't mean that there are only three answers. Unless of course you stop looking.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Votes mean nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Stupid" and "smart" are largely irrelevant. It's a question of values. Stephen Harper is probably one of the smarter and craftier people in Canadian politics. Look where it's getting us - the PM has very different values from most of us, and is putting his smarts to work enforcing those values on his people. "Smart" is not a good character trait in a politician, as "smart" people tend to want to (and actually do) try to subvert the system for their own ends.

      What you need to do is elect someone who shares your values and isn't dumb, but isn't too smart to fuck you over for their own benefit. Let the advisers, who are often the actual smart ones, carry out the value edicts of the boss while he sells them to the populace.

    7. Re:Votes mean nothing by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      "Majority" choice my ass. In republics we elect oligarchs to rule for us. I wish it was mob rule like in an Athenian Democracy.

    8. Re:Votes mean nothing by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Democracy is just a sham anyway. It only really works to your advantage if you happen to be one of the dumbest people in the country.

      ...I think someone needs to read up on world history and the relative performance of various political systems.

      Well, what stats are you looking at? Plato (in the Republic) discussed various forms of government, and democracy was the second-worst, eventually inevitably (according to him) degrading into tyranny.

      And if you look at the track record of historical democracies, the giving of greater power to the public at large is often a prediction that a transition to a totalitarian, tyrannical, or autocratic form of government will follow. The people at the bottom of the socioeconomic system are desperate and will chase leaders who promise them anything, and all it takes is one or two such leaders with bad intentions, and things can turn bad really quickly.

      Of course, those who promote "modern democracy" tend not to acknowledge such systems as true "democracies" -- they are instead oligarchies or totalitarian states or whatever that claimed to be "democratic" but were something else. But that sort of analysis generally neglects the fact that the totalitarian regimes are often at some point granted power in a democratic system... and then they become very difficult to unseat. One can find examples throughout history -- from the decline of the Roman Republic due to increasing populism and increasing power given to more people, ultimately leading to a string of dictators concluding with the Empire under Augustus Caesar, to the chaos and horrors in things like the French and Russian Revolutions where temporary periods of democracy rapidly gave way to terrors, purges, and then a return to autocratic or totalitarian rule, to the rise of power of Hitler in the Weimar Republic, a regime initially voted into office by majority rule (and then politically manipulated to turn into the Nazi state).

      Democracies are dangerous things, and they put a lot of trust in both the people (and their leaders) to not vote away liberties, particularly in times of instability when the poorest and worst off are desperate enough to elect anyone, even someone ready to destroy democracy and negate rights in the name of helping them. I'm not saying there's a significantly better alternative, but democracy is certainly not the panacea that many people seem to think it is.

    9. Re: Votes mean nothing by countach · · Score: 1

      This is a case of non-democracy - an executive decision by the PM. If a democracy was less executive, at the very least calling for a vote of parliament, or better yet, citizens' vote, we wouldn't have this problem. Even a citizens initiated bill like you have in California would have some hope of overturning something like this.

    10. Re: Votes mean nothing by terrab0t · · Score: 1

      This is a case of non-democracy - an executive decision by the PM.

      In essence, the way you describe it is true, but it's not that simple. This is not something the Prime Minister of Canada has the direct authority to change. He is adding it to the upcoming budget, which is a piece of legislation that must receive a majority vote in parliament to pass. His decision can make this happen because his party currently holds a majority of the seats in parliament and they vote however he orders them to so long it's not something contentious enough to cause a revolt.

    11. Re:Votes mean nothing by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2

      Leaders picked by birth are basically 50/50 wether they are power hungry despots or benevolent dictators...

      .....

      That depends on the society. Your description fits European hereditary systems (oldest surviving son of the current ruler).

      In West Coast native society, heredity chose which families the next chief came from, but matrons of the community chose which child from the candidate families would be the next chief. Needless to say, a more thoughtful and caring child was more likely to be chosen under that system.

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    12. Re: Votes mean nothing by KDiPietro · · Score: 1

      If there are smarter, more competent people out there than "the current mob" (politicians) - what do they know that makes them not bother running for parliament?

      Oh, I don't know, maybe they prefer not to get Kennedied.

  4. What Bothers me Most by Rashkae · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't that Copyright protection was extended. That's bad enough, buit is in good company of poorly thought out laws that burocracies and governments have to live with.

    What really bothers me is the Canadian government following the Amerian example of sneaking new laws in completely unrelated bills. A change to the copyright act should have been made in a bill ammeding the copyright act. How can a legal system possibly be sutainable when you have to start looking at annual budget bills of some obscure decade to figure out the copyright statues currently in place?? This practice serves no purprose, other than as a trick for governments to sneak in legal statues they would otherwise not legally be able to do due to opposition, either legislative or public.

    1. Re:What Bothers me Most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The practice of "riders" would quickly stop on its own if Senate voters asked themselves "do I want this?" for every item in the bill, and applied a logical AND to determine their vote. There's no shame in saying "I really like your bill and would vote for it, but you let some crap in, so remove it and try again". Right now voters apply either an OR ("I really want this item into law now, rest be damned"), or MAJORITY ("this bill is mostly good").

    2. Re:What Bothers me Most by JeffOwl · · Score: 1

      I wholeheartedly agree with you. The way it seems to work in the US is that you have a bunch of politicians who want X bill to pass, but some others that either don't want it, or don't care. However these others want unrelated provision Y to become law. The two sides make a handshake deal and combine the different topics in one bill. Or one side of the aisle doesn't want a bill to pass but they don't want to be seen voting against it, so they add some rider to the bill that is completely unpalatable to the other side. Or the other way, one side wants a provision that the other would never pass, so they add it onto something that must pass (veterans benefits, say). It's a win-win for the first side because they will either get their rider, or they can slam the other side for being anti-veteran. Happens all the f-ing time. And I agree that all this stuff is BS. Every topic should get a straight up or down vote. I think it was in the state of MN that they have a constitutional provision that requires one bill to be one (broad) topic. They fought the concealed carry law (and won) based on the fact that it was passed with a department of natural resources budget bill. Concealed carry passed separately later on.

      Understand that even though the bill was something that was, on the surface, completely unrelated, it actually amends the relevant code. So if you want to know what's in the copyright code, you would look at the copyright code once it is modified. In the old days I can see this as being problematic, but with everything online just finding the current language isn't a problem.

    3. Re:What Bothers me Most by dryeo · · Score: 2

      It's different in Canada. A majority government can force through any bill they want with only the courts to keep them in check (thank god for the Constitution act of 1982).
      What this government has been doing is creating huge omnibus budget bills, like 800 pages with all kinds of horrible unpopular shit hiding in there, then they limit debate and invoke closure to pass it before the opposition can even finish reading it, little well bring up the negative parts in question period.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re: What Bothers me Most by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      We used to have this kind of absurdity here in Brazil. The first divorce law was in a budget law as well. In the last years, some laws where enacted to limit the obvious: budget laws can't deal with anything but budget stuff; an amendment to a "medida provisÃria" (provisional law from the president) has to do with its subject. I was made to think that we are the only ones who needed that kind of things, but unfortunately we where wrong.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    5. Re: What Bothers me Most by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Some laws have budgetary impact so are somewhat logically linked to a budget. Example: if the government decides to make university free it is an expense they must budget for. I can see that getting added in to the budget (after the idea has been kicked around for a while as an independent bill). Go through committees get a pretty polished version ready, tack it on to the budget and get the funds allocated for it at the same time. The copyright issue though: kind of silly. Shouldn't affect the budget much either the original artist gets money, or the new artist that remixes it does, or for the most part it is something relatively small sales (say the Platters discography becomes public ... wow 10k best of albums don't get sold/taxed this year). Regardless, the copyright issue should be separate from its impact on government revenues: the law doesn't exist to provide income to the government but to "promote culture".

      Add to that, the vast majority of revenue is going to foreign corporations and/or Canadians now living as ex-pats our government should have little interest in becoming record industry shills.

  5. Seems like Politiculitus has spread everywhere by JohnnyDoesLinux · · Score: 1

    It changes your DNA and makes you believe you are helping everyone while your hand is sticking out waiting for your reward of wealth/power/fame...

    Am I the only one who used to have faith that our elected leaders had our best interest at heart so we did not have to worry about what they were doing?
    You think that is why we are here today?

    And our future leaders are being groomed by todays leaders, how scary.

    I want to vote for the guy who does not want to run for office. What is his name, Noneof Theabove?

  6. Re:unacceptable by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

    We must develop a new deep AI which will attempt to do what is best for our country and people.

    So then we pass control of the country to some corruptible, bribable idiots we have a hope of voting out to some small group of corruptible, bribable AI developers who we may not even know who they are. Sounds like a great idea. Pretty sure SHODAN wouldn't do very well running the country, either.

    --
    "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  7. You're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Politicians don't have souls.

    1. Re:You're wrong by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Of course not anymore after the sale.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Didn't he say "open for business"? by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative

    Come on guys, you had to see this coming. The "conservatives" of that type are all for change if it's paid for.

  9. Re: unacceptable by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Skynet is incapable of deep thoughts.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  10. Once again by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    Harper proves that he thinks of himself as either a king or a dictator. No democratic process whatsoever.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  11. Does it actually matter by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    I dislike the ridiculous copyright laws as much as anyone else, but does it really matter much in reality? The internet has made it so easy to access all manners of information and the average person really doesn't care much about copyright laws as far as their own personal use goes. Much like more and more people really don't care about others smoking pot or two men getting married, I think we'll eventually reach a point where the general population will collectively not care about personal piracy and it won't be cost effective for the record industry to try to enforce any laws.

    I suspect that within 30 years most of the music labels will have ceased to exist as we currently know them. They have no real purpose any more and creating and publishing your own content is only going to get easier and cheaper as time moves on. I would imagine that we'll also see payment systems mature a lot as well and it will probably be easy to cut out the big sellers like Apple and Amazon as well because it will be no less difficult to transact directly with the artist. They'll probably exist, but mostly as agents to handle some of things that the artists don't care to oversee themselves.

    1. Re:Does it actually matter by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We're building a deep international surveillance state combined with growing capabilities in machine learning and pattern recognition. I expect the laws we ignore today will be enforced internationally, effectively and draconianly as part of "trade" agreements with a side helping of "Terrorism!" and Who will think of the children!" in the future. I don't know what will happen but I expect ownership of copyrights will be even more valuable in the future.

      It's far fetched, but possible to imagine a future as extreme as one where a combination of listening to a song in public, facial and other recognition. persistent public tracking and law enforcement linking to corporate databases might get you sanctioned for listening to a song you aren't paying a fee for.

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    2. Re:Does it actually matter by Sibko · · Score: 1

      It's quite the wonderful dystopia we're barreling towards, isn't it?
      I can already see the day someone says, "Dude what are you doing!? I can't afford to listen to that!"; and it won't be a joke.

  12. There is no such thing as copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Until public domain is reinstated, there is no such thing as copyright.

    Copyright was a social contract, when they suspended public domain, they reneged on their side of the contract. The contract is now null and void.

    1. Re:There is no such thing as copyright by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Until public domain is reinstated, there is no such thing as copyright.

      Copyright was a social contract, when they suspended public domain, they reneged on their side of the contract. The contract is now null and void.

      Unfortunately, things like copyright affect more than just "big content industry". They affect free software and creative commons as well.

      By declaring copyright null and void, you've also declared free software null and void as well because copyleft requires copyright.

      Copyright by default makes everything "All Rights Reserved". Copyleft takes that and lets you get additional rights if you agree to the license If you do not agree, then those rights are not granted.

      A typical EULA tries to take away more rights than what copyright allows without realizing that really, copyright grants you a basic set of rights (which is why most EULAs have clauses that say "parts may not apply per local law"). Technically, not agreeing with the EULA should give you all the rights Copyright allows (which has exceptions for software execution in it).

      And yes, violation of the GPL and other stuff is copyright violation, aka piracy. So distributing GPL code without source? GPL violation, (if you want to agree to that), or copyright violation (if you don't want to agree to the GPL).

      So while eliminating copyright seems great, it would destroy creative commands and free software, for their ability to grant rights is diminished. And while it would be great to distribute Linux without releasing source (I'm sure there's plenty of companies who want to be unbound from the GPL), I don't believe that's the wisest course of action.

  13. We need to quit being defeatists to solve this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It'll take a concerned group of activists a lot of energy to fix this problem. We don't just need to fix this one issue- but a slew of issues and we're up against financially powerful adversaries. It only seems like the government has overwhelming power because most people go along with it and the army is well-funded. However all it takes to change a society's position (including those in the military) is to poke at it. Agitate the government into doing something the people won't stand for and frame it in such a way that makes a significant chunk of the population want to stand up to and/or join up on the opposing side and you've actually got a chance at a solution through violent and possibly even non-violent means. No war succeeds purely through violence so it's not unfathomable that a liberal set of individuals couldn't impact the political direction of a country- even a very powerful one.

    Go look at the Free State Project as an example. While you can certainly poke fun at these people they have made progress and have had a fair amount of success. This despite being a minority population in the United States thats spread out across the country. However this population of people moving together in one place (New Hampshire) has proven successful. The project is 83% of its way to a target goal of moving 20,000 people to the least populated state. More than 12% have already moved and another 12% are natives to the state. The 12% figure might sound low, but the agreement among signers is to move within 5 years of reaching the 20,000 goal. Unlike other efforts the people who sign are serious about moving. People are encouraged to check out the Free State Project's events (ie visit New Hampshire for conferences and festivals, etc) and everything.

  14. Vote left by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I do is just vote for the most left leaning candidate I can get my hands on. It's better than nothing.

    When you don't vote then that's a signal to the rich and powerful that they can get away with even _more_ than they did the last time around. What do you think happens when their lap dogs win in a landslide? Same thing as anyone who wins an overwhelming victory, it emboldens them.

    Vote the most popularist person you can get. Here in the States I'll vote Hilary even though she's a a corporate douche because at least she won't gut the last round of medical reforms (which I have several friends/family dependent on).

    Moreover we're adults. We shouldn't pout and cross our arms and say if I can't have everything I'll take nothing. Take what you can get. The Phrase "it can always get worse" really _does_ mean something...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  15. Fiat by rnturn · · Score: 1

    It's not just an Italian car.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  16. 70 years doesn't sound over-the-top by J+Story · · Score: 1

    If this is 70 years, period, and not lifetime plus 70 years, then it may be tolerable, I think. If 50 years was the previous term of copyright, it would conceivably be possible for an artist to create a work when very young and outlive its copyright. This is even true for 70 years, but that seems like a better balance between public and private good.

    1. Re:70 years doesn't sound over-the-top by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Who cares if an artist outlives their copyright? You can easily outlive your patents why is someone making a jingle more important than someone making an new gadget?

    2. Re:70 years doesn't sound over-the-top by vux984 · · Score: 2

      it would conceivably be possible for an artist to create a work when very young and outlive its copyright.

      And this would be bad because?

      I don't get paid again for the work i did last week, but you need to keep getting paid for something you did at 15 when you are 85 years old? Seriously? WTF?

      The purpose of copyright is to provide a limited monopoly to provide incentive to create. Are you SERIOUSLY arguing there are 15 year old artists and authors that are sitting there thinking... I was going to create a new work of art today, but then i realized i wouldn't still be getting royalties in my 80s and realized I couldn't make ends meet like that, and went to work on an assembly line instead...

      And therefore less art is created, and the world is poorer for it.

      Really?

    3. Re:70 years doesn't sound over-the-top by vux984 · · Score: 1

      So make a big hit work that people will be listening or reading 60 years from now.

      Well I would, but copyright ter,s aren't long enough to motivate me yet. I just don't have enough incentive. Maybe if they were just bit longer, more people like me would switch to working on art. /sarcasm ;)

  17. Simply by koan · · Score: 1

    Never buy music or video ever again, watch these termites disappear.

    Ahh but you can't can you.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  18. Re:Alberta not lesson enough? by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know Canadian politics, so not sure what you mean by your comment.

    In the recent provincial election in Alberta (generally regarded as the core of the Conservatives (Stephen Harper's seat is in Alberta). It gets stereotyped as the Canadian version of Texas), the Progressive Conservative Party (who have held government in that province since 1971 (and before them, the also right-wing Social Credit Party held government since 1935) and before the election held 70 out of the 87 seats in the provincial legislature) were swept out by the social-democratic New Democratic Party. It was a really stunning reversal for the province that has been electing right-wing governments for longer than most have been alive to shift straight to our leftish party and, if the recent polling results are to be believed, it has given the federal NDP a serious boost and turned the upcoming federal election (which is expected to happen in October) into a three-way race.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  19. Welcome to Communism in the West by Tom · · Score: 2

    We've all seen and heard this kind of government behaviour before: In the communist countries.

    In Eastern Germany there was a failed popular uprising in 1953. One of the most famous authors of that time, Bertold Brecht, coined a phrase following it that became immortal: If the government is not happy with the people anymore, wouldn't it be easier to dissolve the people and elect a new one?

    He is spot on for today as well. It used to be the parliament would represent the people, and if we felt dissatisfied, we could dissolve it and elect a new one that represents us better.

    But in almost all western countries, politicians have taken control of the political process that was intended to control them, and basically you don't have a chance to actually get a new government. You can choose different names, but they don't really mean different things. And more and more you hear politicians talk about their subjects (oh wait, isn't that the wrong way around? Yes, actually it is, but we're moving back to medieval mindsets!) in a way the reminds you of Brecht.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  20. The extended period of time was missing by Mister+Null · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know what the extended period of time was changed to by the Canadian government?

  21. Re:Alberta not lesson enough? by compro01 · · Score: 1

    Would you prefer footnotes?

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  22. American Pressure did it. by softcoder · · Score: 2

    I think the reason this was done was because of american diplomatic pressure. The US state dept has classified Canada as a 'pirate country' right up there with China, and other countries that make billions from counterfeit knock-offs just because we have different copyright laws. Further, the US has pushed hard, and successfully to have the the 70 yr term included in the new (quasi secret) Trans Pacific trade treaty. None of the other countries wanted that term but the US got it in there anyway. Canada finds it very difficult to do things the US is strongly opposed to; and once the Treaty was approved we would be stuck with 70 years anyhow. This is very much a case of 'Resistance is Futile' and the Borg is the US state department.
    softcoder.