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!

The IIPA Copyright Demands For Canada and Spain

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the axis-of-cheese-and-meat dept.

Canada 113

Dangerous_Minds writes "The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is demanding a number of countries be placed back on the special 301 piracy watchlist. One country being recommended for inclusion is Canada (PDF). Apparently, even though Canada passed copyright reform laws, any compromise to protect consumers is reason for inclusion. Michael Geist offers some analysis on this move. Meanwhile, the IIPA is also recommending that Spain be included in the watchlist. In a separate filing, the IIPA makes a host of reasons why Spain should also be included. One of the main reasons seems to be that even though Spain passed the Sinde Law in spite of protests, the courts aren't simply rubberstamping any takedown requests and that cases that were dismissed due to lack of evidence is cause for concern. Freezenet offers some in-depth analysis on this development while noting towards the end that the Special 301 report suffers from credibility problems."

cancel ×

113 comments

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

Michael Geist (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923565)

Is this Michael Geist guy the only person between the Intellectual Property goups and the people of Canada?

It seams that if he was out of the picture there wouln't be anyone else in canada who gives a shit.

Re:Michael Geist (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923735)

Ubuntu £inux is the next step in the copyright litigation of Canada. First they offer Ubuntu as a "Free Download" image. It's distributed as an ISO image like all pirated games, so it lets them track you. Ubuntu also provides you with a torrent app to entrap you into piracy and even provides the tools needed to make low level copies of disk images (dd). Ubuntu is however a corporate conspiracy, not a liberator. They know when you pirate because of the experimental black project NSA tracking device implanted in your Ubuntu Phone. Microsoft has cautioned people against Ubuntu but nobody will listen.

Re:Michael Geist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923851)

Wow. I was looking for your blog on FuckingCrackpot.com [fuckingcrackpot.com] but I couldn't find it. Please share a link ... and the drugs you're talking.

Re:Michael Geist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42925813)

I think it's just sarcasm.

Re: "this Michael Geist guy" (2)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923967)

"this Michael Geist guy"

The first you're hearing of Michael Geist just now, huh? I sincerely envy your man-cave. The isolation is nearly perfect. Faraday would have been jealous.

Re: "this Michael Geist guy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42925745)

The first you're hearing of Michael Geist just now, huh?

Um, no, that isn't what I said. What I said is that his is the only name I ever hear about in relation to defending the Canadian people from draconian copyright laws.

How the hell did you get "I have never heard of Michael Geist before" out of what I said?

Re: "this Michael Geist guy" (1)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42926585)

The peculiar way you said it: "this Michael Geist guy". That phrase connotes an unfamiliarity with the subject because of the hesitance to simply refer to him by name.

Re: "this Michael Geist guy" (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42926375)

It is possible to consider the IIPA as so far behind the times, that they are still using dial up for internet connections. Their business models have been out of date for so long; they make the old 8-tracks look like new tech.

I think I have seen their kind having a closer relationship with the batch of idiots known as Conservative MPs, than the same MPs have with their own constituents.

Re:Michael Geist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924231)

Michael Geist is a left wing "intellectual" who has never held a proper job. He needs to regularly publish pseudo-intellectual oped pieces to maintain his "researcher" position at the University of Ottawa.

Re:Michael Geist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924277)

Whatever you say, shill.

Re:Michael Geist (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924767)

No he's just got the loudest mouth. We have CIPPIC [cippic.ca] , Openmedia [openmedia.ca] and there's also JF Mezei [twitter.com]

IIPA (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923573)

The Sinde Law is already about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit in Spain, and is incredibly unpopular.

But then, if these cocksuckers want to double down and make themselves even MORE unpopular, then let them -- they deserve all the bad karma they're generating for themselves.

Re:IIPA (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923605)

Agreed, and since when do international and undemocratic syndicates have the authority to dictate National law and policies. Is no government in the world sovereign, for the people, by the people, of the people it represents?

Re:IIPA (4, Insightful)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923639)

Silly. It's by the coporations of the corporations for the corporations. You need to the get the new revision of the handbook.

The purpose of trade treaties (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923683)

Is no government in the world sovereign, for the people, by the people, of the people it represents?

It happens when a country's elected representatives use their treaty power to give up some of the country's sovereignty in return for other countries agreeing not to impose prohibitive import tariffs on products from that country.

Re:IIPA (4, Insightful)

diegocg (1680514) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923849)

Is no government in the world sovereign, for the people, by the people, of the people it represents?

In theory yes, Spain is sovereign. But so is America. If Spain decides that pirating is OK, i guess that Americans can restrict/boycott Spanish IP commercialization.

In the real world, issues like IP protection need worldwide collaboration. Everybody wants their own IP protected, and in order to get that they need to protect the IP of other nations. It's necessary to find a balance, and if every nation listened only to their own citizens, they would never find one.

Re:IIPA (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924061)

Sure, but very little from Spain income comes from IP, and a huge part of US income comes from IP. Furthermore Spain depends very little on US at all. It could very easily say fuck off and let US do its worst. US would be the more damaged party by far if this went all the way to commercial sanctions.

Re:IIPA (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#42926861)

In Spain we already pay a tax on all computer media (SD cards, hard disks, etc) which is supposed to go to the copyright cartels.

Isn't this enough? Are they going to refund all that if we switch to a different set of laws?

Re:IIPA (3, Informative)

turbidostato (878842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925383)

"If Spain decides that pirating is OK, i guess that Americans can restrict/boycott Spanish IP commercialization."

Problem being that Spain never decided that pirating is OK. Heck, Spain even sent war ships to Somalian waters to fight piracy.

And no, Spain is not in favor of IP violations either, but that doesn't mean it has to be Disney's shill which is what this IIPA 301 list is all about.

Re:IIPA (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#42926055)

Spain's history with piracy goes back hundreds and hundreds of years.

Re:IIPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42926927)

Spain's history with piracy goes back hundreds and hundreds of years.

... although, not always as the perpetrators: Battle in the Bay of Matanzas [wikipedia.org] .

Re:IIPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923615)

The Sinde Law is already about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit in Spain, and is incredibly unpopular.

Well? Well? Which one is it? Is it popular or unpopular?

Re:IIPA (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925271)

I'd guess that would depend on if your helmet's on or not.

Re:IIPA (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923821)

Does it matter? The IIPA is a nebulous group like the RIAA or MPAA. They hide behind the name. They could announce plans to put copyright violators in death camps and people would be horrified (what few found out about it) while STILL not realizing the media they purchase and TV they watch is funding it.

Re:IIPA (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924247)

Good work, IIPA, keep it that way please.
Nothing like a good list showing the countries that are interested the freedom of their citizens more that the financial interest of some companies which make a title of honor from minimizing the contribution to the society of those countries (a.k.a. the tax avoidance).

Re:IIPA (3, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924585)

It's a counterbalance. First you had the Axis of Evil, now you have the Axis of Freedom. How do we apply?

Re:IIPA (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924267)

a fart in a spacesuit in Spain

(friendly kidding) You reckon a fart in a spacesuit would be even slightly more popular if it would happen elsewhere?

Re:IIPA (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925849)

I'm guessing that you've never heard of chorizo.

Translates to (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923587)

IIPA having childish temper tantrums again, can't we just ignore them? or at least get the US government to ignore them? failing that, we need to get the other 99% of the world to sign a legally binding international treaty forbidding the removal of fair use clauses in any future copyright law land grabs.

Who are the USA going to blacklist then, if 99% of the world are against their copyright pushes? They'd only be hurting themselves in the long run.

Re:Translates to (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923741)

IIPA having childish temper tantrums again, can't we just ignore them? or at least get the US government to ignore them?

Wouldn't putting THEM on a watch list be more effective?

Publishing the home address, email, phone numbers, street view links of the CEO of each company that is a member, as well as each representative they send to these meetings? Maybe outing the meeting locations, and times?

If these bozos think its fair game to try to intimidate entire countries, why is turn-about not fair play?

Re:Translates to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924465)

Because that would be hacking - it would be evil and unfair, while all big business dealings are above board, just by definition, and must be protected by the police, FBI, and so on!

Re:Translates to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42928059)

and they have a Code of Conduct!

Re:Translates to (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924635)

Don't stoop to their level, man.

It's practically your civic duty to pirate stuff now, in order to get your country on to this prestigious list of freedom loving societies.

Re:Translates to (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925559)

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Re:Translates to (1)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925571)

Wouldn't putting THEM on a watch list be more effective?

Publishing the home address, email, phone numbers, street view links of the CEO of each company that is a member, as well as each representative they send to these meetings? Maybe outing the meeting locations, and times?

If these bozos think its fair game to try to intimidate entire countries, why is turn-about not fair play?

Don't stoop to their level, man.

It's practically your civic duty to pirate stuff now, in order to get your country on to this prestigious list of freedom loving societies.

I don't want to pirate their stuff, as I have no need for the output of most of the military-industrial-entertainment complex (with exceptions for the industrial part).

But pirating their crap makes their case stronger in some people's eyes, making it easier for them to get legislation to take away my rights.

No, I think I like the GP's idea better.

An IP isn't enough evidence (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923589)

So unless they come up with actual proper evidence, they can suck it. Some of our ISP in Canada are actually fighting for their consumers, unlike in the US.

Re:An IP isn't enough evidence (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923703)

It's nice to see for a change, although it's really only the small providers like TekSavvy that are standing up for consumers. Even if there is evidence of illegal activities, there are already laws in place to deal with it. The problem is that for a media corporation, due process is 'inconvenient' and cuts into their profits.

Re:An IP isn't enough evidence (2)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925319)

It's nice to see for a change, although it's really only the small providers like TekSavvy that are standing up for consumers. Even if there is evidence of illegal activities, there are already laws in place to deal with it. The problem is that for a media corporation, due process is 'inconvenient' and cuts into their profits.

I agree and just wanted to add my "Thanks!" to TekSavvy for providing excellent service at a good price, and for standing up to the copyright brigade of bullies.

Think about this... (1)

3seas (184403) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923611)

if the population was as the georgia guidestones (1/2 billion) or as suggested elsewhere such as UN agenda 21....

How about copyright and patent holders just pretend the population is that size and the rest of us just don't exist and therefore what we pirate doesn't exist either.

There, problems solved!

Terrorist Organisations (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923617)

Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political goals.
Lobby your congressman to get IRAA, MPAA, IIPA classified as terrorists.

Re:Terrorist Organisations (1)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923691)

That would be so, so sweet.

Re:Terrorist Organisations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923795)

Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political goals.
Lobby your congressman to get IRAA, MPAA, IIPA classified as terrorists.

Yeah, not likely.

Take a look at who the MAFIAA makes bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hpolitical contributions to.

Yeah, the same guy who thinks it's just fine to summarily execute US citizens.

Ain't out-ot-control government power wonderful. Summary execution and crazy copyright laws.

Tell me again why it's a GOOD idea to put such a government in charge of health care?

Re:Terrorist Organisations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42928143)

Sorry to burst your bubble but campaign contributions from these schmucks isn't something you can make partisan no matter how hard you try. The MPAA for example makes contributions to numerous politicians, both democrat and republican. You can see a glimpse into how they divide it up from the records from their own small PAC [campaignmoney.com] . Note that this is just donation's organized through that committee, not personal donations from MPAA executives or contributions by member corporations. Check the list of receivers for the small time and you'll see even there they've pretty much an even spread between parties.

Speaking as someone outside the US looking in, your whole system is fucked. Sadly it's very similar where I am too, only better in matters of degree rather than kind.

Re:Terrorist Organisations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42926415)

Put it on "We are the people". See what happens.

Fuck you. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923629)

There is nothing that isn't corrupt about the Grand old USA. Who the fuck are you to tell anyone how to deal with media content?

Things like Cinavia kills fair use dead, and it's in everything proprietary now. That your last leg getting chopped out from under you right there! You will die sooner or later. Here's hoping for sooner.

Any nation should be proud... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923645)

To find their name on the Special 301 watchlist.

Re:Any nation should be proud... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924147)

Hehe where can I print custom bumper stickers? I want two:

Proud to be on IIPA's watchlist.

I stood up to the IIPA bullies and copied this bumper stricker.

IIPA's newspeak (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923671)

Statements issued by the Attorney General in 2006 de-criminalizing infringing distributions of content by P2P networks continued to have ramifications in 2012, having led to a halt in criminal enforcement actions against illegal file sharing. Circular 1/2006 from Spain’s Office of the Prosecutor-General (Attorney General) argues that unauthorized uploading of copyright protected materials over the Internet, including via P2P systems, is not subject to criminal action under Article 270 of the Criminal Code unless such acts are “for commercial profit”, and that unauthorized downloading must be considered an act of private copying.

So, judging from this, for IIPA, "illegal file sharing" does not actually mean "things that are outlawed and prosecuted in respective countries", it simply means "things we don't want other people to do".

Re:IIPA's newspeak (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923805)

So, judging from this, for IIPA, "illegal file sharing" does not actually mean "things that are outlawed and prosecuted in respective countries", it simply means "things we don't want other people to do".

Well at least in the US you have civil and criminal copyright infringement, so it can be infringing without being criminal. As I understood it in Spain downloading is considered an act of private copying which is legal, but it sounds like unauthorized uploading still is illegal, just not criminally prosecuted unless it's for commercial profit. I'm sure they would have formulated it differently if all non-commercial file sharing was fully legal, you could set up huge, legal, non-profit seeds in Spain.

Re:IIPA's newspeak (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925483)

"Well at least in the US you have civil and criminal copyright infringement, so it can be infringing without being criminal. As I understood it in Spain downloading is considered an act of private copying which is legal, but it sounds like unauthorized uploading still is illegal, just not criminally prosecuted unless it's for commercial profit."

That's not the case. It says that uploading without commercial profit is not criminally prosecutable and says absolutly *nothing* about civil cases. Not because it is (implicitly) illegal but because General Attorney talks just about criminal matters.

On a side note, SGAE (Spanish RIAA) has tried the civil route too, without luck. That's why they pushed for the "Sinde law" which basically sidesteps judges' work by trying to be able to close web sites they don't like without trial or judge hearing (in its short life they went to close sites that had previously already been judged, penal and civil, and found unguilty).

More on this, the Comission tried to maintain its members in secrecy up to the point to menace of punitive actions to a famous Spanish lawyer if he revealed them. Luckily, the members' list has been filtered to press just about two weeks ago.

"you could set up huge, legal, non-profit seeds in Spain."

Not yet: SGAE attornies had tried the lucrum cessans route too (whitout any luck... yet) and its lobby is pressing to change the laws -once again, till they get what they want. It is useful to remember how the Wikileaks papers showed members of the SGAE lobby to be the Spanish shills of USA on this (and now they are very near to current government, so go figure). Oh! and don't forget that basically the whole damn board of directors of SGAE is now waiting trial for fraud, unlawful misappropiation and financial crime (well, the previous one, at least they had the honorability of changing the board when the previous one got arrested).

Re:IIPA's newspeak (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925933)

Thanks for posting something I actually had to look up [thelawdictionary.org] .

lucrum cessans means a loss of expected gain/profit, as opposed to a loss of real goods or money already held.

IOW, it's the classic MAFIAA equation "profits not as high as we'd like = we've been robbed" that any reasoning person knows to be false.

Re:IIPA's newspeak (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about a year ago | (#42927273)

"Thanks for posting something I actually had to look up.
lucrum cessans"

Sorry for that. I'm Spanish native so my vocabulary tends to lack on technical terms. 'Lucrum cessans' sounds basically the same in Spanish (lucro cesante) and, yes, it's exactly what you explained.

Re:IIPA's newspeak (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924603)

Notice how they confuse uploading and downloading in the same sentence. A subtle attempt to equate the two, even though most legal systems (including the US one) differentiate it?

Outrageous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923681)

As a spanish, I do not know why in hell a foreign entity should try to change our legislation. And, btw, the present legislation on the subject, the infamous Sinde law, was created inside the US embassy in Spain, in a meeting between the US ambassor, a RIAA/IIPA representative and our (then) minister of culture.

It's easy to get a positive mod (1, Interesting)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923755)

I could take the safe route and complain about copyright holders. The tougher question which most avoid is why are copyright holders assumed to be evil? I'm not talking corporations, we can all agree they are inherently evil. I'm strictly concerned with artists that are often vilified as greedy. Say I spend a year writing a novel then publish it on iTunes for sale. Why am I evil asking a few dollars for some one to read it? Say you spend a few days or a week reading it in your spare time $2 or $3 dollars seems like cheap entertainment. If it takes me six months to a year to write it why am I expected to work for free and the readers expect to be paid for their time? Before I get shouted down by people claiming that's not what they are talking about I see such posts constantly modded highly that stand up for reader rights and attack the content creators. Personally I have no use for these corporate lackies that are involved with the lawsuits and such but why aren't the readers sticking up for the indy writers and filmmakers that want their work seen and read but also want to feed their families? It's nearly impossible for writers to survive on live performance fees as everyone demands from musicians so what option do they have? I personally have a stack of unpublished novels and at present the only way I know to protect them is to leave them unpublished. If I let a distributor release them they want all the rights and if I release them independently the readers claim they have the rights. The joke is if I leave them unpublished then I keep all my rights and no one can claim them. I'm risking my Karma making this post, I'm at excellent right now, I just feel strongly about this as a writer. I avoid like the plague posting on copyright posts to avoid Karma hits but sometimes it's hard to sit back and hear how evil rights holders are. I've recommended to fellow writers to not publish their works because of the hostile environment but how do the readers benefit when writers fear publishing their work? I know capitalism is a foul word but what's wrong with letting the market decide? If you don't want to pay don't read the work. I have 400 to 500 novels saved off on my iPad all public domain. It'll take me many years to read it all. There's plenty of free material but most want what's hot right now and they still want it free. When I was growing up we'd save up a month or more to buy a book. Now most expect to have hundreds if not thousands at their finger tips. How is this the writer's fault and why do we have to suffer because of current expectations? There has to be a compromise? One that allows writers to make a living and people to have reasonable access. You may have paid $500 for your iPad but not a dime of that went to writers. We just want a fighting chance to make a living. I'm posting this mostly for friends since I have no plans to release any of my current work. After I'm dead the family can decide what to do with it all.

Re: It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923867)

tl;Dr
I think you missed the point.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (4, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923869)

Sure you can TRY to follow a business plan by doing it that way. However if that business plan fails, do not blame the people, blame your business plan.

After I'm dead the family can decide what to do with it all.

So they should be able to get some rights and turn that into money, just because you are a dead relative? What have THEY done?
First you say it is about the individual copyright holder if he is maker of whatever the copyright is on and now suddenly somebody who has NO part in the process of the making and might not even have been born at that time is suddenly allowed to have a say in the matter.
Still you think THAT is ok, but a company is evil? I see no difference in what you are saying and what the 'evil companies' are saying.

You have chosen your side. Unfortunately you can not have the cookie and eat it too.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925709)

So they should be able to get some rights and turn that into money, just because you are a dead relative? What have THEY done?

They were born, and you set out to provide for them. So are you saying it is bad for parents to save up money for their children? To work hard, so that their children can have it easier? Or Get an education? So instead of working hard at a factory job and getting a decent wage, and storing some of it away, perhaps you spent years and years working hard on the Great American Novel. You did it for your children, but you died shortly before/after it was published. So your children should get nothing? Because you feel only people who actually perform the work should make money?

Unfortunately you can not have the cookie and eat it too.

Perhaps, but that is what most consumers want, why can the creators have it as well?

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42926411)

When you stop working at the factory, does the factory still pay you?
If they do, they have taken an insurance in your name.
If you want to be payed after you die, take life insurance.
That means paying while you are alive. This has nothing to do with copyright.

And no, the consumer does not want to have the cookie and eat it too. They just want to CONSUME (i.e eat) the cookie.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#42927945)

"What have the relatives done?" This is the same meme used to justify large inheritance taxes so certain people can plunder the dead guy.

"Follow the money."

In the case of copyrights, you have to have a post-death buffer of some years so the author can get maximum money out of it. Contracts will be for less if your stepping in front of a bus puts the publisher's investment at high risk.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924041)

Having to post Anonymous so my employer doesn't get my login credentials:

I'm sorry, but...you're a writer? If your post exemplifies your work I would not pay to read it and you couldn't pay me enough for me to crack the book open. Tip: The white space is just as important to clear conveyance of message as the text itself. It's the reason we have paragraphs.

More to the point you are writing about: If you write an enjoyable story that I don't have to expend large amounts of energy on reading comprehension, and it's a story that fits into what I'd want to read in the first place, I have no issue with making sure the writer gets his due... Publishers on the other hand...they leave a very bad taste in my mouth.

-Ravenlrd20k

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

chrismcb (983081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925715)

So you think the write should get his due. But the editor, the proof reader, the formater, and the marketer shouldn't?

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925965)

This cannot be said loudly or often enough: A good editor is worth his weight in gold-pressed latinum.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#42926087)

Bah! With a proper writer, an editor should have nothing to do.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42926135)

Come write for me, then, and let me retire a few years early.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#42928017)

Something is also wrong if he has to be scared of karma hits for defending "the other side".

It's no longer a joke at slashdot. The metamod system is either impotent, or itself co-opted (nobody meta-downmodding downmods of "the other side") or both.

Thus does an online, mutually-reinforcing meme community drive out any rational discussion, thus giving themselves an even falser sense of security that their received wisdom is settled.

The meme as independent entity, which nobody "really believes in", has human actors as enforcement mechanisms in itself like enzymes and protiens in cells.

"What is thy bidding, my master, I mean, my meme?"

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (5, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924179)

If it takes me six months to a year to write it why am I expected to work for free and the readers expect to be paid for their time?

You're not expected to work for free. Produce the novels or don't; it's entirely your decision and your decision alone. The readers may expect to be paid for their time when someone asks them to complete a job, but that situation is simply not the same as someone deciding to produce a novel and people later deciding to copy it and distribute it without interacting with the one who wrote it at all.

but how do the readers benefit when writers fear publishing their work?

For that matter, how are you benefiting from all that unpublished work?

but what's wrong with letting the market decide?

Indeed, but what does that have to do with government-enforced monopolies like copyright? Almost nothing, in my opinion.

Erroneous presumption of profitability (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924191)

You are making the flawed assumption that just because you want to engage in some particular occupation and use some particular business model, that the world must then adapt to your requirements so that you can profit from your choices.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The world doesn't owe you anything at all, least of all to adapt itself to suit you.

The world is as it is, and if you are a businessman who desires an income then you must adapt yourself to suit the environment in which you wish to do business. The digital revolution has transformed the environment in recent years, such that 1's and 0's have become trivially replicable at practically no cost. That's the environment in which you live, and you cannot mandate that it be different.

The fact that this makes old business models no longer as lucrative as in the days when works were distributed on non-replicable media is an inherent feature of digital technology, and you cannot uninvent it. Perhaps you need to re-examine your chosen line of business, because selling buggy whips may not have long-term viability.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924441)

Mate, stop drinking the cool-aid that the big corps are giving you... Piracy doesn't hurt independent/individual artists that much, not as long as said artists' goals are to make a reasonable buck and not become a millionaire. Piracy hurts the big corps because they want to be billionaires.

Example: I get to see a lot of small-time musicians, most make an OK living touring, teaching music, and selling CDs. Yes, they sell CDs and songs on iTunes. I've tried to look for their CDs and songs on the torrent sites, no dice. These musicians are very good at their craft, they're just not famous enough to be pirated. Piracy is a problem for the famous artists, not really a problem since they're rich and famous already, but a problem because they can't become the richest person in the world.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (2)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924783)

Piracy is a problem for the famous artists, not really a problem since they're rich and famous already

You're making the mistake of assuming that famous artists are automatically rich and famous. I don't think you understand how badly the record labels get their tentacles into the artists themselves... case in point, the song Black Velvet [wikipedia.org] , by Alannah Myles, was released on her first album in 1989. The song was a #1 hit in the US and top 10 on pretty much every chart around the world. Over the course of her career, she was hit for over $7million in "expenses" for the production of her 3 albums, and as a result, even though that's one of the most overplayed songs on the radio, she didn't see her first royalty cheque until 2008.

In other words: even though she was an international mega star, she had to stop making records in order to start making money.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924475)

You do not have the right to make a living by doing what you love. Just because you want to write, doesn't mean anybody has to pay you. DId the readers contract with you before you wrote? If not, why do they owe you anything? If writers can't make a living, that means the free market has decided that society does not value writers, and you and all others should find another line of work.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (2)

syockit (1480393) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924541)

I know capitalism is a foul word but what's wrong with letting the market decide?

The readers is/are the market. So they will decide.

You writers suffering is probably because of the publishers. So work out with the readers on how to deal with the publishers. Or create your own channels for distributing your works. Maybe you can learn something from how a minor group of Japanese people [wikipedia.org] sells their stuffs.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924643)

Where do you think public domain content comes from? A balanced copyright helps everyone, but the Mickey Mouse Curve has destroyed that balance and breeds contempt for copyright.

http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2009/08/copyright-duration-and-mickey-mouse.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924671)

I'm about 3/4 through the comments and yours is the first to even mention individual artists at all. That includes TFA and the summary. Where is this vilification?

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924761)

Copyright holders are assumed to be evil because they are trying to use a system which is clearly abusive in order to get rich from their hobby, that is without actually having to work for the money.

I always says that all work deserve a salary, but work is something someone else ask you to do. For example, after the last snow storm, I shovelled my car. I then decided to do a bit of exercise and spent two hours shovelling about two cars from people I didn't know. No one asked me to, I just thought it was a good exercise (there was too much snow to run and I hate going to a gym). Do you think I should have been paid for this? Personally I don't think so. It was not really work, it was a hobby I decided to do.

If someone ask you to write a book, you deserve a salary. If you write a book because you feel like it, it is a hobby and you don't deserve anything.

Of course things are a bit more complicated. So I'll make this proposition. If the book you write is considered as a masterpiece which is read by millions of people, then I think a salary of $100/hour is justified. If your book is considered better than average and read by a significant number of people, which means you are really talented, then $50/hour is probably right. If your book is average, something any writer could do, then I don't think your time is worth more than $25/hour. Finally, if your book is just a piece of amateur crap, then sorry but your time is worth nothing. Do you agree to that way of being rewarded? Because if you don't, it would mean to me you are just another asshole trying to abuse a system and have free money.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

InsectOverlord (1758006) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924817)

If I let a distributor release them they want all the rights and if I release them independently the readers claim they have the rights. The joke is if I leave them unpublished then I keep all my rights and no one can claim them.

Hm, can you clarify that? Honest question - I buy quite a few e-books from Amazon.

Readers can't claim they "have the rights" just from having bought a book, at least not the copyright. You retain the copyright.

I still don't understand why you don't release them as e-books on Amazon/Google Play/iTunes. What's the worst that could happen? People copying the books? How is that worse than remaining unpublished and unknown?

I understand you must be concerned about plagiarizers - meaning people who take your book and sell it, or a work that borrows heavily from it, as their own. However that is not indeed not the topic here. No one is saying plagiarism should be OK, every country signatory to the WTO IP agreement (almost every country in the world) is required to have laws against it, and that is not controversial.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (2)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925115)

I'll give you a hint. Look at most sci-fi today on iTunes. The authors explicitly chose no DRM. That is not the same as no copyright of course but it does mean that they both respect and encourage fair use rights.

These are also best selling authors. What that means when combined with a lack of DRM on their eBooks is that they are rolling in cash despite the ability for anyone to pirate their book (for distribution or for consumption).

How is it that these authors can make a great living and yet you seemingly can not?

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925355)

Thank you for recognizing and helping to preserve the precarious status of the critically endangered genus known as "white space" and specifically the subspecies known as "paragraph breaks".

Your conscientiousness is appreciated by conservationists everywhere!

Now, what did you say? I couldn't really be expected to wade through all that... And you're a writer? Egads.

Maybe I'm being harsh, so I apologize in advance; just working on my own composition skills.

And I can't say I disagreed with what I did gather from what you wrote, just in an effort to be fair. It's just that I refuse to put in effort to read something that appears purposefully or carelessly obfuscated.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

deimtee (762122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925411)

The world has changed. The old copyright model doesn't work well anymore, and pretty soon it won't work at all.
There are a few ways that you can make money writing:
1/ Try to use the existing system and be good/popular enough that people are going to buy hard copies anyway.
2/ Release one work as an example of your quality, and start a kickstarter for each subsequent work. If you are good enough, over time your reputation and readership will build and you will be able to raise the kickstarter levels.
3/ Release it with a donation nag screen on the front (or at the end might be better), and hope that it is good enough to inspire a donation.
4/ Start a website, post your work, and depend on ad revenue.
5/ Find somebody who wants the work done, and contract with them.

1/ is a dying model
2/ probable future for discrete works, novels, albums, movies etc.
3/ and 4/ useable for most works
5/ eg journalism, in-house technical manuals, etc.

What you can't do is hide in a cabin writing your masterpiece, and then demand the world owes you for it. The world didn't ask you to write it, you chose to.
You absolutely do have the right to choose as you have and not release it, but then the question of revenue is moot.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

turbidostato (878842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925529)

"The tougher question which most avoid is why are copyright holders assumed to be evil? I'm not talking corporations, we can all agree they are inherently evil."

End of the question then, since corporations are the real copyright owners.

"Say I spend a year writing a novel"

Then ask for any compensation to the one that promised it before you started writing.

What? Nobody promised you anything before start writing? Tough luck, then.

"Say you spend a few days or a week reading it"

That certainly takes effort too. Do you really think I'm entitled to ask you for compensation, then?

"If it takes me six months to a year to write it why am I expected to work for free"

Again, who told you anyone was expecting *anything* from you to start with? Please, ask him compensation, not me, for I certainly didn't expect nothing from you.

"We just want a fighting chance to make a living."

Me too. Do you know what I did? I agreed *first* for the work to be done and the compensation I wanted; only *then* I started working on it. Up to date, I respect my side of the deal and so does the one that pays my bills.

Re:It's easy to get a positive mod (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925953)

As a working author who's had about 15 books published in the last decade or two, I'd like to offer you a bit of professional advice:

PARAGRAPH BREAKS.

Know them, love them, and FFS *use* them!

Can Belgium be on the list? (5, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923793)

I am from Belgium and I would think it to be an honor to be on the list with other countries that are more interested in the freedom of their people then the wealth of their US owned music companies.

An honor to be on the list. I hope that many other countries will get on that list, so it won't be a privilege.

Re:Can Belgium be on the list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42926625)

Belgium has been kowtowing to the likes of SABAM way too much to be allowed on that list. (I'm from Belgium too)

Population US 315,341,617 vs Canada 34,880 (3, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923799)

By those numbers the amount of piracy in the US should be higher by quite a bit. Hell California has 38,041,430 people. 4 million more than Canada.

Who the fuck are these retards kidding and why the fuck do they get to go around slandering other countries when their backyard is dirty as hell. The countries on the 301 list should do a proper study and create an nice official site stating the piracy rate in the US vs them.

Re:Population US 315,341,617 vs Canada 34,880 (3, Interesting)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923847)

Apparently last time Canada was on the list, it was at the backroom REQUEST of Canadian officials so they would have a "reason" to push anti-privacy- um, uh, I mean anti-"piracy" laws. I highly doubt our country's leaders will try to explain why we are on there this time.

Re:Population US 315,341,617 vs Canada 34,880 (3, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924667)

Yes, our Conservative government under Harper is just looking for ways to justify draconian anti-privacy legislation. They are more than willing to do whatever the Copyright Goons (tm) ask them to do. Asking to be put on this list is just then seeking another false justification for restricting our rights, restricting or eliminating our privacy etc.
Harper would really be quite happy as a dictator I think. He already rules his party with an iron hand, and the Conservatives have already ensured that scientists (who receive any funding from the government) doing research cannot talk about it with the media - or publish their results - without getting government approval, particularly if the research has anything to do with climate change.

Re:Population US 315,341,617 vs Canada 34,880 (1)

dryeo (100693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925751)

and the Conservatives have already ensured that scientists (who receive any funding from the government) doing research cannot talk about it with the media - or publish their results - without getting government approval, particularly if the research has anything to do with climate change.

They were talking about this on the CBC the other day. Namely interviewed an American scientist who had worked with Canadian government scientist(s) on arctic ice levels. He was pissed as the Canadian government was stopping him from publishing and as he said, the worse the American government does is make him add a disclaimer, not officially the opinion of the US government or such.
Anyways they also interviewed the minister in charge of stifling science and he kept trying to argue that it was all about protecting IP and it has always been done this way.
Remember when Harper preached the most open government ever?

To Which I Say: Ahoy! (4, Interesting)

rueger (210566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923803)

Every time a story like this pops up I find it impossible to not fire up Bittorrent, visit the Pirate Bay, [thepiratebay.se] and download something that the entertainment mega corps have already made a gazillion dollars selling.

Re:To Which I Say: Ahoy! (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924641)

How about the South Park movie? Blame Canada, Blame Canada...

Saves me money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42923827)

Saves me money... don't want to have copyrighted media in my possession in case it somehow leads to me getting in trouble. I'm in trouble if I rip it, and if I watch it on an oil rig where I work (not licensed for use there according to several of my DVDs). Better to not buy them at all. Thanks for saving me money by pushing for all these draconian laws and restrictions.

Canada eh? (3, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42923933)

Well we're putting the IIPA on our watch list of robber baron copyright trolls! It's time to take our culture back from greedy entertainment conglomerates! It's our culture and we should be able to use it any way we want to once a song has fallen down the charts, maybe a year after release. How do you like them apples IIPA? Yes you can buy laws, but we can band together and have them changed to suit us.

From Canada ... (3, Funny)

Rudisaurus (675580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42924023)

Dear IIPA,

Go fuck yourself. Thank you.

Sincerely, Canada

Re:From Canada ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42925187)

P.S: Sorry

Re:From Canada ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42925607)

Actually, that should be:

Dear IIPA,

Please go fuck yourself. Thank you.

Sincerely, Canada

Re:From Canada ... (3, Funny)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42925293)

Dear IIPA,

Go fuck yourself. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Canada

At least give them a choice.

Dear IIPA,
In regards to your recent demands, please take one of the following actions:

1 - Go fuck yourselves
2 - Fuck off
3 - Piss off
4 - Eat a box of dicks
5 - All of the above

Cordially,
Canada

Woo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924389)

As a Canadian, I would be proud to be back on that list.

Nothing says "fuck you" more to these copyright mongers then being placed on their "naughty list" and being pleased that you're there. I would be quite displeased to find out that my government bent over backwards *not* to be put on that list, because frankly we have other things to worry about that actually matter.

Spain = 3rd World Country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42924987)

Those scumbag subhuman shits hang greyhounds (Galgos in Spanish) from trees at the end of the hunting season.
If the dog caught a lot, then it is hung from a high branch. Death comes relatively soon.
If the dog was not as successful as the breeder would have liked, then they are hung from a low branch, so low that their feet reach the ground. These dogs take three or more days to die.

Spaniards should be rounded up into cages, then have their feet shot off. After that they can be rented out to the recently rescued Mali people as house slaves.

Obviously they should have to pass the Bull Test (Rabid bull weeds out the slow ones by goring/stomping, to ensure quality slaves reach their future owners) before they are judged fit to serve in a human's home.

Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42925005)

That's the biggest problem we have right now in Spain.

Everything else is peachy.

kicking a country when it's already hurting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42927007)

Actually, that's what I thought: Spain's government has its hands full on keeping the country away from the brink of chaos,
so *NOW* might be a good time for foreign organisations like IIPA to give them a kick in the cojones: they're too pre-occupied on internal matters to divide their attention to tell IIPA to fuck off.
I hope someone in the Spanish government writes a proposal to WIPO to change copyright duration back to 14 years as a result of this.

Blame our own government. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42925429)

We've done this before. Here's how it goes:

The Conservatives want a new IP law.
They bribe, cajole or otherwise convince some copyright watchdog to call Canada a haven of piracy, even when it isn't
The whistleblower agency obliges
The Conservatives tell Parliament "Look what they're saying about us, we gotta fix this!" and propose some ridiculous IP law

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>