Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tech Companies Say Don't Blame Canada For Copyright Problems

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the except-for-those-rowdy-ottowans dept.

Canada 104

An anonymous reader writes "The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which includes a who's-who of the tech world, including Microsoft, Google, T-Mobile, Fujitsu, AMD, eBay, Intuit, Oracle, and Yahoo, has issued a strong defense of current Canadian copyright law, arguing that the US is wrong to place Canada on the annual Special 301 list. The submission argues that the US should not criticize Canada for not implementing anti-circumvention rules (PDF) and warns against using the Special 301 process to 'remake the world in the image of the DMCA.'"

cancel ×

104 comments

Proudly Canadian (5, Insightful)

KazW (1136177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209582)

I love the fact that I can download copy written content without penalty as long as I don't redistribute it... Fuckin' eh!!

Re:Proudly Canadian (4, Informative)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209620)

Actually you CAN get a warning, and eventually a disconnection from major ISPs such as Rogers, Bell & Vidéotron. But in practice they never do it. They're much more happy to charge you for bandwidth excess usage and continue see you exceed it. :-P

Re:Proudly Canadian (4, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209724)

As far as I've seen, those warnings are given to people downloading using P2P, which also counts as distribution.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

KazW (1136177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210202)

Only if you share, in BT's case, seed, and bittorrent is the only true P2P I use. I use the usenet(encrypted on port 443) for 98% of my downloads(no upload required), and I don't really seed any media torrents, but if I did seed, I have forced outgoing encryption and I seed opensource projects from my PC, so it'd be fairly indistinguishable. Even with Shaw's deep packet inspection, I can still get 2-3 megs/sec when downloading, although I do have to slow my up bandwidth to 5-15 KB/sec for a decent down rate, Shaw sucks in that respect.

Re:Proudly Canadian (5, Interesting)

KazW (1136177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209746)

I only get 100 gigs a month from Shaw, I usually do at least double that, but all my connections are encrypted, be it BT or usenet. So far, no warnings after a few years of doing so, but they have mentioned that my area has very low usage compared to my personal usage when I've called to get my modem reset.

To get back on topic, the chances are very remote, and that's the way I like it. Personally, I feel Canadian copyright law is far ahead of the US's DMCA centric attitude. The nature of copyright has to evolve with current times and technologies, allowing P2P downloads for personal use while putting a fee on MP3 players and blank media is a compromise that I see as fair.

Re:Proudly Canadian (5, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209902)

Yep. Personally, I'm a big fan of the fact that we can format-shift, and make copies of friends' music, and stuff like that. I recognize the necessity to respect copyright, but the US has gone completely overboard, and few industries have any idea of the proper way to deal with it.

(In case any industry movers/shakers are reading this, the proper way isn't DRM, it's increasing ease and accessibility of your work.)

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210222)

Exactly. If I have 500GB of blank media then I paid 500GB worth of levy purchasing it and I will happily fill it up with 500GB of data. Copyright holders can go see whoever collects the levy for their cut. I'm sure as hell not paying twice.

The levy is currently 24cents for audio cassettes and 29cents for CDs. [cpcc.ca]

Kinda expensive if you DONT download/copy media. Gotta get my moneys worth!

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210564)

Yeah, really. I'm pretty sure 29c/CD is more than I paid total for the last spindle of CDs I bought here in the US.

A media levy would suck for me. I don't P2P and I burn my own music onto those discs.

Ultimately a media levy taxes the wrong thing. People consuming pirated material in large volumes don't use limited-write media like CD-Rs. They use MP3 players with hard drives they can write very many times. I'm sure there's a levy on those as well, but I bet those users pay proportionally far less.

So I guess I like neither the US nor Canadian ways of trying to deal with piracy. Where I probably disagree with most on Slashdot is that I'm perfectly OK with music labels suing file sharers for as much as they can get -- as long as they can properly prove who did it (in many cases their evidence and procedures have been sketchy, which is obviously not OK). Putative damages exist for a reason, and I have no sympathy for anyone caught by the RIAA that's actually guilty.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211008)

See also this:

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/735096--geist-record-industry-faces-liability-over-infringement [thestar.com]

Basically Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada are being sued for not paying the artists.

And quote:
After years of claiming Canadian consumers disrespect copyright, the irony of having the recording industry face a massive lawsuit will not be lost on anyone, least of all the artists still waiting to be paid. Indeed, they are also seeking punitive damages, arguing "the conduct of the defendant record companies is aggravated by their strict and unremitting approach to the enforcement of their copyright interests against consumers."

Re:Proudly Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31214804)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

They're argued that when the consumer infringes without profit that it is worth $20,000 per song. Think of the poor artists!

So when they infringe to make a profit, there is no reason to get hit with anything less than $20,000 each. Multiply that by the 300,000 counts of infringement in the case!

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211188)

Actually the Canadian system was put in place to make it legal to format shift. As in make a copy for your car stereo. The courts have ruled that this includes all music sharing.
Perhaps you are in favour of people being sued for making a copy for their car or MP3 player but I'm happy I can buy a CD, rip it and copy it to my wife's MP3 player all legally.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210802)

Personally, I'm a big fan of the fact that we can format-shift, and make copies of friends' music, and stuff like that.

Don't you pay for that privilege, though, via some sort of tax/levy system? It's not as if this is a something-for-nothing deal where Big Media is getting ripped off.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211148)

Yes and no. Some blank media like CDr has the levy but they never got around to implementing it for blank DVDs, MP3 players etc.
Now a days blank DVDs are cheaper then blank CDs and since everyone has a DVD player/burner...

Re:Proudly Canadian (2, Interesting)

Xiozhiq (724986) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209912)

Leaving ethical implications of piracy aside, I'm just curious whether you're sure your BT connections are encrypted. Many clients offer encryption for the purpose of circumventing traffic shaping procedures used by some ISPs, but are very adamant that this encryption does NOT provide any assurance in skirting the law. As far as I am aware, no client offers true endpoint-to-endpoint encryption, but even if they did offer it, most clients choose low-strength ciphers like RS4, because using the stronger AES cipher requires a lot more CPU cycles for both the handshake (which must be done with every peer you connect to), as well as the actual encryption of the sent data.

While encryption does make it harder to detect that the traffic crossing ISPs networks is in fact BT-related, it's not impossible for them to crack it. Also, being that circumstancial evidence, or simple blackmail, has worked for the RIAA thus far, I wouldn't be willing to chance it.

Were I to be interested in torrenting some content in a less-than-legal manner, I would ensure that I remained low on the RIAA (and others') priority lists by:
1) not downloading anything that is immensely popular (i.e. selling well) right now, or hasn't been released yet
2) encrypting as much of everything as possible in the event that the connections generated by me do catch someone's eye
3) not piss off your ISP by torrenting to your max bandwidth during peak hours (most clients have a download-scheduling preference pane that will allow you to restrict, or eliminate, downloading during these peak hours http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/01/08/sunday-evening-the-new-web-rush-hour/ [pcpro.co.uk] ). PS, if anyone has found any good, concrete data on when peak internet usage is, i'd love to see it :)
4) use a blocklist (some people like 'em, some people hate 'em). there's not much concrete data on whether they really help, but it helps me feel better. some clients (like Transmission) have built-in ones

And of course, feel free to correct/discuss any of this.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

KazW (1136177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210584)

Thanks to our personal privacy acts, we enjoy the fact that our encrypted data is private and only allowed to be decrypted if we're under investigation by law officials. As I've stated in another reply, thanks to the RCMP stating in 2007 that they won't pursue personal P2P downloaders, for just downloading, we're safe.

The American RIAA can suck my Canadian dick, and I've never really heard of the CRIA going after anyone for downloading, but I maybe wrong about that.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

mershin (470621) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211484)

The CRIA went after a canadian based P2P distribution site (isohunt), but AFAIK has not gone after 'end-users'. Personally I don't think going after sites like isohunt does much to deter those that will download illegal copies. When 1 site goes down, 5 more come up, hosted in some foreign country.

I'd like to think that if movie & music (and other content) publishers adopted an online distribution mechanism for a fair fee, the industry would flourish instead of flounder. Case in point, last I heard iTunes wasn't doing too bad for itself. It has even allowed indy artists to have a business model that works, instead of trying to get picked up by a publisher, which is not an easy task.

At the end of the day, imho it's a matter of dinosaur business models screaming bloody murder because they're unwilling to adopt to the fast-changing technological world. I applaud the companies that have tried new content distribution models.
I think games are on the forefront, with platforms like steam, or EAs downloader. We just don't need those software boxes lying around anymore. Manuals can be online PDFs or websites easily, convenient, and cheaper to both the publisher & consumer.

Re:Proudly Canadian (4, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209928)

To get back on topic, the chances are very remote, and that's the way I like it. Personally, I feel Canadian copyright law is far ahead of the US's DMCA centric attitude. The nature of copyright has to evolve with current times and technologies, allowing P2P downloads for personal use while putting a fee on MP3 players and blank media is a compromise that I see as fair

The reason that things like file sharing are legal in Canada is specifically because Canadian copyright law *hasn't* changed. Our laws were written in the 1980's, when it wasn't really easy to copy a large volume of music, and the risk was mostly just people copying a CD to a cassette for a friend, or making a mix tape for somebody. You weren't dealing with high volume copies, and you weren't dealing with anything near the ubiquity that the Internet affords, which is a large part of why the laws are so relaxed here.

Re:Proudly Canadian (4, Insightful)

epp_b (944299) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210214)

Perhaps it's that Canadian copyright law was wisely crafted with the future in mind.

Re:Proudly Canadian (5, Funny)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210286)

Perhaps it's that Canadian copyright law was wisely crafted with the future in mind.

I see that you are not familiar with our politicians.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213164)

The current ones or the previous ones. Not that the predecessors didn't have their issues, but many did seem to have a set a values that have woefully been forgotten in these days.

Re:Proudly Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31210952)

Canadians also built a jet fighter comparable to the F-4 Phantom 10 years ahead of its time too, but look where that got Canada's Avro avaition... But hopefully they'll suceed in this area, while they may fail in others.

Re:Proudly Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31211704)

Myth... it was more in line with the F-106 and the F-104.

The rest is Canadian propaganda and wishful thinking. You'll see quite a few specs given, yet they were never realized in actuality. A couple of shitty prototypes is all they managed.

Then they'll whine about how all of their engineers left to "launch the US to the moon", when in reality the majority of foreign-born engineers of note were German and British. Hell, many of the engineers in Canada of note were from the UK! They weren't home grown.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31211058)

Ha!

No, it means our politicians are as ineffective as other places, perhaps more so. They've tried to reform copyright law 2 times already and failed to pass the bills into law. Thus our copyright law is stuck in the 1980s, which turns out to be better than DMCA-style laws.

There are times when ineffective government is good government :-)

It also helps that we've had a string of minority governments, which has kept each party in power from ramming whatever they like through parliament, and makes them more answerable than usual to public opinion -- the main reason the last bill failed was the way people have become more aware of the implications of copyright and voiced their concerns over the changes. After two failures we *finally* had real public consultation over the last year, rather than the lobbyists == "public consultation" of the prior bill. Maybe that will result in a third bill that isn't insanely stupid. I'm not optimistic, but it is progress.

Re:Proudly Canadian (2, Interesting)

KazW (1136177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210390)

To get back on topic, the chances are very remote, and that's the way I like it. Personally, I feel Canadian copyright law is far ahead of the US's DMCA centric attitude. The nature of copyright has to evolve with current times and technologies, allowing P2P downloads for personal use while putting a fee on MP3 players and blank media is a compromise that I see as fair

The reason that things like file sharing are legal in Canada is specifically because Canadian copyright law *hasn't* changed. Our laws were written in the 1980's, when it wasn't really easy to copy a large volume of music, and the risk was mostly just people copying a CD to a cassette for a friend, or making a mix tape for somebody. You weren't dealing with high volume copies, and you weren't dealing with anything near the ubiquity that the Internet affords, which is a large part of why the laws are so relaxed here.

I meant in 2007, when the RCMP officially stated their stance on P2P file sharing for personal use. Their decision for P2P and the decision to put that fee on MP3 players is a decision for current times. At least, I consider anything within the past 5-10 years fairly recent, in terms of the speed of our legislation.

Re:Proudly Canadian (4, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210530)

The reason that things like file sharing are legal in Canada is specifically because Canadian copyright law *hasn't* changed.

Actually, Canadian copyright law has been changing constantly. [pch.gc.ca]

Our laws were written in the 1980's

Incorrect. 1988 was the first major overhaul since the law was written in 1924, however there have been a bunch of updates (in 1989, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2001 and 2007) to bring it to its current state - for example, when the 1988 law was enacted, the private copying right that we now enjoy (and that this thread is about) did not exist - it was illegal to copy any music without written permission, regardless of the reason. It wasn't until the amendment in 1997 that we gained the legal right to make private copies.

Misinformed Canadians Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

Russell McOrmond (123550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31217840)

You're not as familiar with Canadian law as you think you are.

The private copying regime came into existance in 1997, not the 1980's, and is only one year earlier than the USA's DMCA. It also only applies to audio recordings -- downloading anything else that is under copyright without permission is just as illegal in Canada as it is in the United States.

It is unfortunate that some of our idiotic politicians (mostly Liberals) mis-informed Canadians about the state of Canadian copyright law in their desire to pass DMCA style laws in Canada.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

sedmonds (94908) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210654)

The nature of copyright has to evolve with current times and technologies, allowing P2P downloads for personal use while putting a fee on MP3 players and blank media is a compromise that I see as fair.

The media levy is great for people who want to justify getting music without paying for it.

However, people whose works are being distributed have no way of being fairly compensated out of the levy collections. By fairly compensated, I mean that levy proceeds are distributed in a way related to the relative volume of the distribution of material. At present, from their policies*, distribution of funds is based on sales and some airplay data rather than volume of exchange. And based on their own data**, over 10% isn't distributed to "artists" at all.

And unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted works isn't the only use for blank media. Penalizing people who aren't infringing anyones rights is fundamentally unjust.

At any rate, the blank media levy applies to tapes and CDs. Federal courts told the Copyright Board they didn't have the authority to impose any levy other media.

* http://cpcc.ca/english/pdf/CPCC_Distribution_Eng_0401_2010.pdf [cpcc.ca]
** http://cpcc.ca/english/finHighlights.htm [cpcc.ca]

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

Mawen (317927) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211440)

The nature of copyright has to evolve with current times and technologies, allowing P2P downloads for personal use while putting a fee on MP3 players and blank media is a compromise that I see as fair.

I think it might be nice for us Canadians since the levies are not too high, but still a horrible compromise.
Conceding that everyone who buys MP3 player or blank media is a sort of criminal by putting a levy on the player is a horrible idea to me. It gives everyone in the country a license to be a legitimate pirate, because they're paying the penalty whether they like it or not. What kind of logic is "don't do this, it's bad, but even if you don't, we're taking your money anyway"? I've heard Indy producers get hurt by the blank media tax (not sure how much that is true). And where does the money go? In communistic fashion it gets redistributed in some horribly inefficient and inaccurate way to people who some government agency thinks deserves it, and it is a breakdown of the free market.

As for music (and movies), I think part of the answer is to make stores more convenient. The first music store I bought a lot from was allofmp3, but I don't think it was legit. It was awesome, had a very large library, letting me download previews and buy in any format I wanted. I wouldn't have minded paying more to a legit store. I currently subscribe to emusic and they give super short music samples, which is idiotic and I plan to unsubscribe when I finish getting what I want from there. (I can't speak for iPod/iTunes because I hate all the Apple DRM and proprietary lock-in.) A lot of people care about convenience more than freeness, and a lot of people also want to contribute back to the artists they love who they think does deserve something. Perhaps a radical idea is that it would be great to have more of a culture of honour and tipping. Magnatune.com lets the customer decide how much to tip, and most of their customers do, knowing 50% goes directly to artists. I also think Beatport.com has a great interface overall.

I think our government should take an anti-draconian stand in the world and against the US lobbies, and committing (in legislation) to never sell the souls of consumers to content companies. This legal and technical arms race in **AA is a cancer in the world and needs to be stopped. The forced obsolecence of the HD analog mentioned recently on /. makes me mad. Soon they will want to plug the analog hole by injecting devices into our eyeballs do degrade our viewing experience to standard def unless we pay extra money for the full experience, and throw everyone who takes the device out in jail.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215950)

iTunes music has been DRM free for years now.

Re:Proudly Canadian (2, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209918)

Unless the ISP gets a complaint from the copyright holder, they're not going to warn you for it. They do use traffic shaping to deprioritize traffic like BitTorrent, though, so you might notice lower transfer rates during peak hours, but that's about it.

And you're right, the ISP is much happier to charge you for the overage. In fact, most of those ISPs will actually sell you bandwidth "insurance" packages to allow you to have the overage... Bell, for example, will charge $5/month per 40GB extra you buy, to a maximum of 120GB.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31210494)

That's true. Friends of mine have received warning notices from Telus for downloading via P2P clients. They've all since moved to Shaw, who doesn't seem to care what people download as long as the bill is paid.

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

Aklyon (1398879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31220308)

so the company lets you do it as long as you bribe them with paid excessive usage fees?

Re:Proudly Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209822)

What about copyrighted content?

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

Like2Byte (542992) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209858)

Proudly Canadian
 
I love the fact that I can download copy written content without penalty as long as I don't redistribute it... Fuckin' eh!!

Don't you mean, "Fuckin' eh!! Eh."?

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

KazW (1136177) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210418)

Nah, we do say it a lot, but only once at a time, not twice in a row. Unless we're yelling to get someone's attention, then it's pretty much all we say.

You know what I mean, eh?

Re:Proudly Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31210696)

I dont mean to be rude or anything, but ive always been curious, is there an actual definition for "eh"

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

andreyvul (1176115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211768)

What are you talking aboot?

Re:Proudly Canadian (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210746)

That's far from a certainty. When you download content illegally, your don't pay the blank media levy and the issue remains somewhat gray. I suspect, however, that the next time it comes to court the ruling will not support the downloader, although damages will be limited to $500 per infringement. What is certainly illegal, is uploading copyrighted content in Canada. That means that if you use a P2P network and an investigation gets a hold of some packets of copyrighted material from your IP, you can be sued for infringement.

Don't get your information about Canadian copyright law from the U.S. recording industry. Canadian copyright law isn't behind the U.S., it isn't archaic and it is enforced. It may not be the same law that Big Content wants, but it is there.

It's the responsibility of the Big Content management to protect their rights (and revenue) but it's the responsibility of the Canadian government to protect the rights of Canadian citizens. I hope that the government does it's job properly and carefully balances the rights of those concerned; in my opinion, that balance would not be found by bowing to pressures from the IIPA.

oblig (0, Offtopic)

hemlock00 (1499033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209626)

There never was a south park reference joke so beautifully setup before this

Re:oblig (2, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209662)

There never was a south park reference joke so beautifully setup before this

That's not true. If you're looking for the best South Park joke setup, the Simpsons did it.

Blame Slashdot editors (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209738)

They really butchered that headline in order to cram a South Park reference in there. The end result is not funny or amusing in the slightest.

So... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209628)

Where are these companies when it comes to US legislation?

Re:So... (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211198)

Where are these companies when it comes to US legislation?

In some respects, I think they would like to see the US adopt a more "Canadian" attitude, specifically with regard to Fair Use/Dealing. I suspect the true motive of these companies becomes clear in the last paragraph:

The submission concludes by noting that Canadian copyright law is more protective of creators in some respects, pointing specifically to the existence of moral rights and the limitations of fair dealing when compared to the U.S. fair use provision.

The only thing they truly like about current Canadian copyright legislation is our watered-down fair dealing provision, which provides a far more restrictive list of non-infringing activities than fair use provisions in US copyright law do.

I think the focus for these "tech" companies is really to ensure that the scope of activities allowed under fair dealing isn't expanded to include things like time/media shifting.

It also appears to confirm that DRM - in its current guise - is dead to these companies. May as well appear to be giving something back by saying Canada shouldn't be shunned for not enacting anti-circumvention legislation, when in fact these schemes are costly to maintain and really bring them no benefit.

The only people actually inconvenienced by DRM is the paying customer, and apparently some of the geniuses running these companies are finally figuring that out.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

coekie (603995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212024)

The document is mostly about the Special 301 process, but they've used the opportunity to comment on US law:
  • on DMCA notice and takedown:

    [...] the world in the image of the DMCA, a world in which millions of automated cease-and-desist requests based on computer-generated allegations automatically trigger the blocking and take down of material, including of lawfully posted material, all without any due process or any judicial involvement.

  • About DRM ("rights against circumventing TPMs"):

    [...] the desires of certain rightsholder constituencies which seek to ban activities that are permitted under the copyright laws through the backdoor of a digital technological lock.

    wrong-headed policy; [...] cripple their own industries' innovation and damage the welfare of their own consumers.

There is nothing new to the average Slashdot reader in there; it's saying the same as many here have already ranted: DMCA is bad, DRM is not about copyright but a backdoor to gain more control over customers, and it is silly and damaging. But considering which companies this text comes from, I'd say this is some quite strong language that can not be misunderstood by US law makers.

In other news... (0)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209634)

The devil has been spotted shopping for ice skates.

Re:In other news... (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31214740)

Hell's fielding an olympic team this year then? Awesome!

DON'T Blame Canada?! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209638)

Well, you better have a pretty catchy song and dance to go with that message ...

Re:DON'T Blame Canada?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209894)

I sure do [youtube.com] !

Re:DON'T Blame Canada?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31210198)

This video contains content from Vevo, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

I lol'd

You're on the list (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209656)

I vaguely remember at primary school, the use of friends/enemies lists in the ongoing process of classroom politics.

Apparently some people never grow out of classroom politics, and go on to become actual politicians. "Canada can't come to my birthday party."

Re:You're on the list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31210698)

Someone who watched Hetalia might make an appropriate joke here...

one could 'blame' the 'who owns what' illusion (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209670)

you have the right to remain silent.

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about a 1000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need not to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

 

copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209682)

The problem here is the "Special 301" and the world's worst copyright law (the USA one)

Canada's IP laws are in some senses stricter (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209688)

But they've left out all of the dumb, anti-consumer portions that increasingly blight US law. How DARE they!

Special 301 list ?? (4, Funny)

phoxix (161744) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209732)

I hope the Canadians put us on a "Special Douche Bag" list

Gotta love our ability to spit on our friends

Re:Special 301 list ?? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209770)

I hope the Canadians put us on a "Special Douche Bag" list

I'm sorry, sir, but I regret to inform you that you have been on that list for quite some time now.

--random Canadian.

Re:Special 301 list ?? (0)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209772)

As a proud Canadian, I drool over the prospect of being the recipient of American saliva, and profusely apologize if we miss any.

Sorry for interrupting, and for this post.

Sincerely,

Pierre Beavernuk.

Re:Special 301 list ?? (-1, Flamebait)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209818)

America has friends?

Re:Special 301 list ?? (5, Funny)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209872)

Canada likes America. We just think you're mostly all insane. But after putting up with Quebec for so long, that's not a big deal.

Re:Special 301 list ?? (3, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210274)

Canada cares for the mentally ill? It must really cost a lot of money? God forbid you ever decided to give away free health care in general...

Re:Special 301 list ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31210558)

The serious answer:
Caring for the mentally ill costs much less than turning them loose on the society.
(In the same way that "If you think that education is expensive, try ignorance.")

The humorous answer:
Yes it does cost lots of money, but we more than make up for that with the savings from our "death panels".
(And of course our free copying of copyrighted US material.)

Re:Special 301 list ?? (2, Interesting)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210730)

Yes it does cost lots of money, but we more than make up for that with the savings from our "death panels".

What's really humorous is that we already have 'death panels' here in the US. They're called HMO's and they decide when the odds of you surviving an illness become to low to make it worth the expense of treatment. They also decide which treatments and doctors you are allowed to see...

Re:Special 301 list ?? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211116)

Yes, but those are free-market death panels.

It's totally different if some gov't bureaucrat decided whether you get some medical procedure done.

Because now, you are always free to switch to another HMO if the current one isn't meeting your needs.

Brought to you by the letter 's', for sarcasm.

Re:Special 301 list ?? (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211178)

Because now, you are always free to switch to another HMO if the current one isn't meeting your needs.

Really? Damn it! if only my grandmother had known!!!!

Re:Special 301 list ?? (1, Redundant)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31214894)

Well, at least under the current death panels, you can get indemnity insurance which would cover treatment/illness regardless of what any HMO decides. You can also get treatment outside the HMO by either charity, private grant, or paying for it yourself without fear of facing jail time for doing so as the current proposals have decided was in your best interest. Your also not currently taxed to hell and back for carrying better insurance then the government equivalent of an HMO.

It's real easy to bitch and complain about something being unpopular when you ignore all the reasons why it's unpopular.

Re:Special 301 list ?? (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215708)

you can get indemnity insurance which would cover treatment/illness regardless of what any HMO decides.

You can't get insurance after becoming ill and have it cover anything to do with that illness. I'm not saying that is unfair but I think you will find that it's hard to get any form of insurance if you have certain conditions regardless of the fact that they will not affect you for many years. This seems very unfair to me and I expect that it will get worse. They already want to know if your parents have any illnesses so how long before they start using data mining to make sure they don't provide insurance to those who are likely to use it? Pretty sure credit checks are being used now which is rather absurd.

I had the foresight to get a personal health insurance plan before I became ill with a couple of non-life threatening illnesses. It's a PPO which is suppose to be better than an HMO but who really knows anymore. Anyhow, I've since tried to change plans and also providers but that's completely impossible. You can never change your deductible or switch providers and still have a pre-existing condition covered. I don't goto the doctor anymore than most of you but in 20 years that will likely change and so lowering my deductible now is a big no-no...

Honestly health insurance is really just a big scam as everyone gets sick sooner or later. The only way to really make money is to change what is/isn't covered and simply not be honest about what is being sold. I've even had 2 of the 3 medicines I take go from covered to not covered in the last 5 years. Makes me wonder some times as my wife has the same insurance provider and basically the same plan only it's provided by her job and those very same drugs are still covered. That's a little funny isn't it?

It's a big game of tweak it until we make x amount of profit. Nothing more or less... Just hope you are never the one who is tweaked out.

I'm not saying the government would be any better but being able goto a doctor before something gets out of hand would save lives and money in this country so it would be nice if there was a minimum level of coverage provided to everyone. Being able to see a doctor and have basic tests done would be a start.

Re:Special 301 list ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31220170)

You can do all of that in Canada, too, where there aren't HMOs...

Re:Special 301 list ?? (3, Interesting)

lucidity14 (1130337) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210702)

Canada likes America. We just think you're mostly all insane. But after putting up with Quebec for so long, that's not a big deal.

Funny - most of us Quebecois would say we put up with the rest of Canada ;)

All jokes aside, I think it must be pointed out that Quebec (alongside some political parties like the NDP) has been fighting for years against the rising "American" attitude towards copyright and culture in Ottawa. Culture being extremely important to us (it's basically the only thing left that distinguishes us from most of North America), our society and artists are extremely vocal about protecting everyone's right, both the artist's and the citizen's, equally and fairly.

As a result, for example, the Quebec music industry is healthy and vibrant with talent, a lot of it fresh and new (think Arcade Fire, Malajube, Dumas, Rufus Wainwright, Jorane, Simple Plan, DJ Champion) and others older but well established (Leonard Cohen, Harmonium, Sam Roberts, Angèle Dubeau, Gregory Charles, Les Colocs)...

Insane? Maybe ;) But come and attend some of Montreal's great summer fests (Jazz Fest, Francofolies, Osheaga, Just For Laughs) and you'll see insane is sometimes not that bad a thing ;)

Re:Special 301 list ?? (2, Funny)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211250)

I notice how you left Celine Dion off your list.

The main awesome things about Quebec are QC's beautiful old city and the women. Quebecois women are the most incredible in North America.

Re:Special 301 list ?? (1)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212142)

you left Celine Dion off your list.

Isn't she Swiss? [wikipedia.org] :-)

Re:Special 301 list ?? (2, Interesting)

quax (19371) | more than 4 years ago | (#31214298)

I second this. As a German who lived in the US and now Canada (Toronto) I think I can claim informed outside observer status. My impression is that Quebec's influence pulled Canada away from the "conservative" excesses found in the states. I credit Quebec in large part for Canada feeling much more European - culturally as well as politically- than the US.

Re:Special 301 list ?? (1)

Goalie_Ca (584234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211606)

But after putting up with Quebec for so long, that's not a big deal.

Hé! we all friends hein?

Re:Special 301 list ?? (1)

Some1too (1242900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213402)

I've grew up on the east coast, lived on the west coast for several years and have been in Quebec for the past 3. Thanks for the chuckle!

wake up (0, Flamebait)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209760)

First they are demonized, then they are to be invaded.

Insanity. (5, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209764)

My personal opinion, as a Canadian, is that copyright regulation such as in the USA is insane. With that in mind I am proud of my Government for resisting the tide. There is a balance that needs to be drawn somewhere, I do not believe it is where industry in the USA would like it to be. With this in mind, let the USA go all hysterical: as the pendulum swings around with other parties such as my Government providing some balance the theory, and hope, is that it will eventually settle somewhere sane.

Re:Insanity. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209830)

My personal opinion, as a Canadian, is that copyright regulation such as in the USA is insane.

We disagree. They seem perfectly sane to us.

-Disney.

Re:Insanity. (5, Insightful)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209930)

With that in mind I am proud of my Government for resisting the tide.

Don't be too hasty. The Government would have passed draconian copyright legislation a long time ago (they've tried a few times) if it weren't for the fact that it's a minority government.

- RG>

Re:Insanity. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31209980)

You are correct, democracy does not always lead where I, as an individual, want it to go but in this particular instance - right now - I just so happen to be glad overall.

Re:Insanity. (3, Insightful)

Courageous (228506) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210150)

I really don't think it's the democratic elements of a government that would lead, in this particular case, to the thing you don't like. It's the representative aspects, who are kowtowing to the corporate influences, who will do so.

IMO,

C//

Re:Insanity. (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31213116)

Don't be too hasty. The Government would have passed draconian copyright legislation a long time ago (they've tried a few times) if it weren't for the fact that it's a minority government.

Yes, Harper is fully in support of DMCA-type legislation. He tried to pass some anti-circumvention thing a while ago. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad we have Liberals that are doing nothing except blocking this shit. :P

Re:Insanity. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31213182)

You are correct that the Government in Name is the party that technically holds power in a minority goverment [wikipedia.org] scenario. The parent was correct in the sense of government as the full legislative effect of that elected parliament.

I'm not actually correcting you. Just expanding for our southern neighbors, who are often pretty confused by our regular minority government situation and how it works.

Re:Insanity. (0)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31214960)

I hope you understand that the DMCA and Anticircumvention laws in the US are a result from the WIPO "WTP" and "WPPT" treaties and not because of some industry lobbyist right? While the industry lobbyist may have helped craft the treaties and did play a role the penalties of the legislation, it was all required by two treaties that most of the world signed onto including Canada.

Canada signed onto the WTC and WPPT treaties in December of 1997. They haven't been able to ratify them or enter into force since then, but they are signatories and because of that, they are enjoying some trade status (with the US as well as Europe and other areas) that wouldn't otherwise be offered to them.

If you really want balance or something, then you need to convince your government to change the treaties and to get other nations to sign on to them. Otherwise it will be nothing but your country attempting to implement some part of the treaty and other member states criticizing them for not being able to do so.

Re:Insanity. (1)

JNSL (1472357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31217260)

The Berne Convention won't change. Period. It's a dead-in-the-water treaty. As far as changing TRIPS, it's an executive agreement...so you'll have to focus your convincing arguments.

Re:Insanity. (1, Redundant)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#31221372)

Perhaps if you would concentrate on what I said instead of what you think you know, you would have payed attention to the "WCT" and the "WPPT" which is where the DMCA and anti-circumvention laws come from. It's neither part of the Berne Convention or WTO (TRIPS).

TRIPS is a WTO agreement not WIPO and the Berne convention is way before WIPO has come around. BTW, the WTO is where some of the trade advantages come from but the majority of them go through WIPO agreements which can be both executive agreements as well as treaty obligations.

Maybe this [wipo.int] and this [wipo.int] will help you a little.

FrIs7 psot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209786)

Mr. Raymon3's [goat.cx]

US influence (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31209954)

When I was younger, we used to look to the US as the guiding influence, a bastion of freedom and democracy in the world. What a pathetic joke the US has become in the last 25 yrs.

Re:US influence (1)

Peter Nikolic (1093513) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210334)

Hows about this will ALL Americans and their so called law junkies just do the whole world a favour and just FOAD you are a sick nation ,sick in mind ,sick in intention ,sick in action sick sick sick and i mean sick as in unwell putrid puke which is about the head contents of most of you BTW i include that wanker Eldrick Fuckface Woods in that he needs fucking shooting before he gets chance to get near another ball

Re:US influence (5, Interesting)

dryeo (100693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211468)

When I was younger, 40 odd years ago, I used to wonder why America was considered a bastion of freedom. Possession of certain plants were highly illegal, being a communist was illegal, kids who went to the States for a year of schooling came back with stories about having to swear allegiance to the flag every day much like in a dictatorship. Black people were finally being allowed to use the same washrooms as white people. They could with a straight face have a constitution which stated all men were equal and allowed slavery.
America always seemed like the ultimate example of successful propaganda.

Re:US influence (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31212086)

Well, first of all, the Constitution doesn't say that all men are created equal; the Declaration of Independence does. (Lots of Americans get those mixed up too.) The former is, in theory the supreme law of the land, while the latter is a document of great moral authority but no legal authority. But yes, it was written by a slaveowner, and that paradox occupied a great deal of the nation's early existence. It kind of came to a head in this little dustup a century and a half ago. Since then, we still haven't fully dealt with the consequences.

The basic problem is, you ask ten different Americans to tell you what "freedom" means, and you'll get eleven different definitions. Some are concerned almost exclusively with economic freedom; as long as they can make money, they're happy, regardless of what else may be going on. Some focus on social freedom: who they sleep with, where (or whether) they worship, what substances they can put in their bodies. Some are concerned primarily with freedom from foreign military threats; pretty much everyone agrees this is a prerequisite for the other freedoms, but there are and always have been many who take their concern with it to fanatical extremes -- they forget that in order to defend our freedom from those who want to take it away, we must have freedom left to defend.

And no matter what kind of freedom people are most worried about, a regrettably large number will say, in effect, "I've got my freedom, screw yours." Thus those fighting for the Confederacy, and their latter-day counterparts in white sheets and pointy hats, could claim in all seriousness that they were fighting for freedom: their freedom, and the fact that preserving their view of freedom meant denying it to large numbers of the people who lived in their society didn't bother them at all. Thus the flag could be defined as the symbol of freedom, and freedom limited to those who wished to pledge allegiance to it. Thus any act, no matter how vile, that was anti-communist could be defined as serving the interests of freedom.

Personally, my definition of freedom includes not only my freedom to do what I want to do, but others' freedom to do what they want to do, including things that I personally have no desire to do. But this definition is far from universally accepted. I don't think this is an exclusively American problem by any means, but it does seem like we're a bit better at others at fooling ourselves into thinking we're implementing a universal definition of freedom, while picking and choosing our freedoms carefully in practice.

Re:US influence (1)

Alcoholist (160427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215052)

Why is it that you aren't President? Because that was a hell of a lot more insightful than anything pretty well any President since like Jefferson has ever said.

Re:US influence (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31214784)

Your post triggered me to look up the whole pledge of allegiance thing, since the very concept has always seemed quite alien to me. Now, the funny thing is that according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , not only was the pledge written by a damn socialist, he didn't even put in the words "under god", which had to be officially added in the 1950's!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to call Glenn Beck, the US public school system is indoctrinating children with socialist values! Oh, wait...

Re:US influence (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#31217142)

When I was younger, 40 odd years ago, I used to wonder why America was considered a bastion of freedom. Possession of certain plants were highly illegal, being a communist was illegal, kids who went to the States for a year of schooling came back with stories about having to swear allegiance to the flag every day much like in a dictatorship. Black people were finally being allowed to use the same washrooms as white people. They could with a straight face have a constitution which stated all men were equal and allowed slavery.
America always seemed like the ultimate example of successful propaganda.

Really, blacks couldn't use the same restrooms as whites in the 70's?

Damn, here I thought that was all back in the 50s...

singing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31210268)

blame canada... blama canadaaaaaa....

oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31210420)

More like copywrong, amirite??

Some relevant links for Canadians (3, Interesting)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210516)

Some of you guys probably know these already, but it's important to get them out there:

Michael Geist's Blog [michaelgeist.ca] - Dr. Geist is a law professor who takes a rather dim view of the constant calls to make copyright law more strict.

The Pirate Party of Canada [piratepartyofcanada.com] - a small concern now, only about 100 card-carrying members, but it's not going to get any bigger (or reach the point where it's officially a party) if people don't get involved and at least send a bit of money their way to get over the legal hurdles. ($10 membership fee).

Dubbing Law (1)

Vamman (1156411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31210652)

It is a little known fact that Canada is still working on a tape dubbing ruling ;)

I have long felt that.... (2, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31211226)

... the exemption for private use copying in Canada's copyright laws is in sore need of an upgrade. Currently only audio works enjoy such protection. I would further choose to add some additional wording the exemption so that the exemption is (in my opinion) more balanced, and people do not enjoy the benefits of the exemption without adhering to the underlying intent behind it.

To that end, I would endorse the view that making a private copy of any copyrighted work, including time shifting, format shifting, decryption, or straight out copying, for the personal use of the person who is making the copy should *NOT* be copyright infringement, as long as the copy from which the private use copy is being made is not itself an infringing copy (or in the case where the copy from which it is made resides in a different place than Canada, nor would it be infringing on copyright under Canadian law). This exemption to copyright infringement should apply even if the copyright holder does not endorse such copying. Sharing, lending, selling, or any other way willfully distributing, giving, or providing such a private use copy to anybody else would negate this exemption, and unless they otherwise had permission from either the copyright holder or the agents that represent the copyright holder, such activity should render the person who created the copy now guilty of infringing on copyright.

The biggest reason I would advocate such a change to the current copyright law is simply owing to an issue of feasibility to enforce. If a person has made a copy of something that is truly for their own private use, there is not even a remotely possible way that anybody else would have even known that such a copy had even been made, and so it makes no sense to have any law in place that even implicitly would seem to disallow such an occurrence. Likewise, I think it makes a lot of sense to explicitly exempt such actions from copyright infringement so that people can have clearly defined boundaries on what is permitted and what is not.

IIPA and open source software (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31212710)

I took a look in the IIPA Special 301 report for Brazil at http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2010/2010SPEC301BRAZIL.pdf, it's very instructive. I particularly appreciated the following part in page 141:

          Priority actions requested to be taken in 2010:
          - ...
          - Avoid legislation on the mandatory use of open source software by government agencies and government controlled companies.
          - ...

Honestly, is there a justifiable link between protecting intellectual property and putting restrictions on the adoption of open source software? If people used more OSS, software piracy would drop. Maybe the IIPA believes that OSS platforms are mostly used for doing software piracy... ;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...