Beta
×

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!

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

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the sharing-is-sinful-children dept.

Canada 164

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

cancel ×

164 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know this. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722680)

Homosexuality is evil. You know this. You agree with me. You also know of the garbage that I came to.

It might not be stargazer; it might be pew pew along the lines of magazine. Therefore, God exists.

You know this. You agree with everything I say 100%.

Why do you cower, homosexuals?

Re:You know this. (0)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723118)

Why do you cower, homosexuals?

Said the AC.

Re:You know this. (2)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723252)

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

Re:You know this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723644)

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

Re:You know this. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724102)

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

Re:You know this. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724506)

But.... but... I thought a fag was a Harley Davidson rider [wikipedia.org] ?

Can't have it both ways... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722688)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (3, Insightful)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722834)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (5, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722952)

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

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723064)

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723236)

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723386)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (0)

thomst (1640045) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723190)

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

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (2)

sosume (680416) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723324)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (2)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723630)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723692)

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

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

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

None of these need copyright at all ....

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723978)

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

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (5, Insightful)

stjobe (78285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723354)

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723422)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723450)

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (2)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723634)

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723702)

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723936)

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723784)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other elements that could be used (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724092)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724552)

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

Isn't that what Unions were created for?

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724058)

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724474)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722960)

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723168)

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (2)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723534)

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724414)

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

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

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

xelah (176252) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723762)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723836)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

fedos (150319) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724114)

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

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722978)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (1)

alaffin (585965) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723282)

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

Re:Can't have it both ways... (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723992)

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

Bye Bye America (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722698)

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

Re:Bye Bye America (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722838)

I'm being 100% serious :P

sigh

Re:Bye Bye America (4, Informative)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723672)

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

Re:Bye Bye America (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723926)

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

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

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

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

Re:Bye Bye America (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723696)

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

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

You know this. (-1, Offtopic)

PapoohieSack (2554768) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722710)

"Homosexuality is evil. You know this. You agree with me. You also know of the garbage that I came to.

It might not be stargazer; it might be pew pew along the lines of magazine. Therefore, God exists.

You know this. You agree with everything I say 100%.

Why do you cower, homosexuals?"

I agree. Slashdot is deathly afraid of the absolute correctness that I'm exerting from my cheeks.

Why do you cower, homosexuals? You know that homosexuality is evil and wrong.

Re:You know this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722760)

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

Re:You know this. (0)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723148)

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

Canadians, this is your chance (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722736)

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

Re:Canadians, this is your chance (2)

annex1 (920373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722756)

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

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

Re:Canadians, this is your chance (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723162)

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

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

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

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

Re:Canadians, this is your chance (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723968)

Nothing supersedes the domestic law. NOTHING.

Re:Canadians, this is your chance (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724104)

Nothing supersedes the domestic law. NOTHING.

You force me to Google.

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

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

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

Re:Canadians, this is your chance (4, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724248)

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

Re:Canadians, this is your chance (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724502)

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

Re:Canadians, this is your chance (1)

Sinesurfer (40786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722868)

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

Totally, absolutely, completely agree!

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

Re:Canadians, this is your chance (1)

Sinesurfer (40786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722902)

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

US is not a member of TPP anyway. (3, Insightful)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722740)

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

Re:US is not a member of TPP anyway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722824)

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

Re:US is not a member of TPP anyway. (2)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722900)

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

Re:US is not a member of TPP anyway. (1)

a.h.a.s. (1678572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722854)

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

Re:US is not a member of TPP anyway. (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722958)

From your linked article:

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

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

Wait, what? (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722806)

opportunity to force Canada to enact

What the FUCK am I reading?!

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

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723160)

Many things people find offensive are still true.

Re:What the F*** am I reading?! (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723202)

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

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

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

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723288)

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

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

Re:Wait, what? (1)

lcam (848192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723758)

+1

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

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

TPP Does NOT Need America (5, Insightful)

Sinesurfer (40786) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722852)

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

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

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

Re:TPP Does NOT Need America (4, Insightful)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722932)

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

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

Re:TPP Does NOT Need America (1)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723578)

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

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

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

Well, good things Lobbies don't have a say in this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722886)

Right guys? Guys?

If you are concerned, contact these folks: (2)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722906)

http://www.openmedia.ca/ [openmedia.ca]

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

Is it just me? (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38722910)

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

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

SOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38722918)

The US Mob in full "song"

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

Join or you'll be sorry...

Come on canada. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723038)

Reach down and find those frozen balls you guys sport.

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

Natural Devolution (4, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723056)

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

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

Re:Natural Devolution (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723332)

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

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

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

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

It's going to be ugly.

On a side note... (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723076)

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

Re:On a side note... (1)

canowhoopass.com (197454) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723200)

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

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

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

Canada to U.S.Assholes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723094)

Fuck you with a rusty chainsaw. Don't make us cut YOU off........you know what I mean. No more lifeblood for you = you die while we laugh.

The TPP is about one industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723096)

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

end the wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723126)

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

dear Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723158)

Mind your own damn business.

Signed,

Everybody Else.

Abolish Patents and Copyrights (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723186)

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

The Free Market solution must be used - Trade Secrets.

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

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

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

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

Re:Abolish Patents and Copyrights (2)

lcam (848192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723728)

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

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

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

In a time of flat rates/taxes ...? (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723262)

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

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

Get in line (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723286)

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

Re:Get in line (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724156)

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

Shit Content (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723344)

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

Re:Shit Content (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723412)

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

Internet has become dangerous (1)

Droog57 (2516452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723350)

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

Extra-governmental entities (2)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723374)

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

Until now... (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723382)

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

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

More of this douchebaggery, please. (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723384)

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

Enough. (1)

steveaustin1971 (1094329) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723554)

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

Re:Enough. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724048)

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

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

As a Canadian who lives in Australia... (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723586)

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

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

Social Intolerance (1)

lcam (848192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38723616)

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

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

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

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

Administration Consistency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38723628)

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

*AA can't buy Canada (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#38724144)

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

Bad trade terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38724622)

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

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?