Canadian Labour Congress Considers Reversal On IP Policy 112
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian Labour Congress is considering a dramatic reversal of its stance on copyright and IP policy. CLC is comparable to the US AFL-CIO, but Canada is over 30% unionized. The campaign 'we must change copyright and IP law to fight evil counterfeiters and copyright pirates' is actually succeeding in Canada. Quoting the CLC's new policy resolution: '... this critical issue requires a far-reaching response involving legislative and regulatory reform, policy change, and allocation of proper resources to combat the problems. The Canadian government must be given the structure and resources to mount a sustained attack on this pervasive problem, both within Canada and internationally. The criminal and civil laws in Canada must provide adequate deterrence. And consumers must be educated that counterfeiting and piracy are not victimless, nuisance crimes, but instead strike at the heart of our long term economic security.'"
Yes, sensible reforms are needed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Its good to see them backing sensible reforms to end needless piracy by shortening the copyright term to 18 years with a single 18 year extension while also reforming patent laws to outlaw software and buisiness model patents and change the review process for normal patents to make it easier for 3rd parties to file prior art.
Oh wait a minute, I think when they said "reform" they meant to say "ruin."
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm running out of places to move to.
Anybody want to take over a small island with me, in the interests of (intellectual) freedom? Seriously, I feel as though the realm of ideas is my favourite playground, and with each extension & perversion of copyright law another bully shows up. Today I can't use the slide. Tomorrow, the swings. Content should be created to be used, not merely sold like some cheap toy. /bitter
More knee jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
The latest in a string of bad lawmaking in an attempt to solve the piracy problem with a bad solution.
Let's just take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment. Piracy is only a problem because some (not all!) information and media businesses depend on a consumer cost downloads business model, which is marginalized by mass consumer circumvention of piracy.
Our collective response (or rather the collective response of our lawmakers) has been to increase penalties and (attempt to) increase control and regulation of the internet. This, however, always fails to achieve the desired effect. The endgame to this trend is complete and total regulation of the internet.
What does that mean? The only way to logistically enforce noncommercial copyright infringement committed by ordinary internet users is to monitor absolutely everything and cripple everyone's ability to make encrypted transmissions. The very openness of the internet has to be totally and utterly obliterated before true enforcement of antipiracy laws can occur.
I submit that since this is an unattainable goal, that we should just say screw is and legalize noncommercial copyright infringement. An unenforceable law doesn't belong on the books. As soon as lawmakers and our economy stop subsidizing clearly obsolete business models, then we can truly move on and realize the full potential of what the internet offers our society: limitless copying of information at negligible costs to everyone. A truly amazing ability.
The only alternative is to destroy the openness of the internet, which won't happen, or the slow, painful, inevitable market failure of businesses which depend on consumer cost downloads. For better or worse, they'll die at the hands of piracy if they don't find a business model that's actually enforceable.
And for those of you who might counter with an argument about how prices are decided by what the market is willing to pay, I respectfully ask you to again look at the bigger picture. What the market is willing top pay is fluid and is on a downward trend. The mp3 is 99 cents now. In ten years it may be 50 cents. In twenty it may be 10 cents. In thirty it may be less than ten cents. In forty it may be fractions of a cent. In fifty it may be free.
Actual time lines may very, but the end will be the same, a race to the bottom. If consumers don't get what they want from the market, they will resort to piracy. Businesses impacted today and in the future will either have to adapt or die. Draconian laws will not save them, nor will misguided moralizing. It's not our moral responsibility to subsidize their obsolescence, nor is it our duty to invent replacement business models for them.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright (and patents) was created so that artists and inventors could work for themselves, rather than a rich patron, which had been the case for centuries before. It had the goal of encouraging the creation of new works and allowing for more artistic freedom than existed.
It failed.
I'll grant that it may have worked for a time, but big corporations eventually came in and perverted it into a state-enforced version of the old patron system.
Copyright was never about trying to make labor compensated, and for good reason; it's an asinine idea. Why should someone make money simply for doing what they want? If what they do is worth money, someone out there will pay for it. It is not the state's place to try to protect *ANY* person's business. That's the basic principal of the free market, which the US and many of the other copyright-loving countries supposedly believe in.
Even if you refuse to accept that copyright was not intended for that purpose, it's obvious it does a piss-poor job of compensating effort. The few people who happen to have been taken under the wing of their corporate patrons are richer than the vast majority of humans, and most everyone else trying to produce some kind of artistic work is as much a 'starving artist' as ever, and by most measures worse off.
By now, just shortly into copyrighting works if you look at the big picture, we're already running out of totally original ideas. Some say such a thing doesn't even exist, but it's debatable so I won't assert that. It is, however, a fact that it is almost impossible to create any kind of work in the modern world without running the risk of violating someone's copyright, patent or trademark. The effect? The bar of entry is raised to only those who can afford it... the ultra-rich, and the media conglomerates.
The simple fact of the matter is, copyright just ensures that the old patron system not only live on, but is more entrenched legally AND socially than ever before. It has failed it's purpose, it has failed us, and we as the people who it was supposed to serve now need to take back what is ours.
Re:More knee jerk (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm willing to give intellectual ideas and any other non-cultural intellectual property 7 years. This includes patents on scientific ideas of every kind you can imagine. Cultural patents (music, literature, etc.) I give 15 years. A generation can listen to and love music for 15 years. After that, its the next generations turn. No one is really going to listen to their parents music. 7 years for the other, because you might be the brightest in your generation, but the second brightest should be given a chance too. If it was a great idea, 7 years should be enough for you. If not, let someone else try. Copyrights and patents both. Brand names can be protected for longer, its the only exception to the rule, but must be re-filed every 5 years. Anything else, and someone is being overly greedy.
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
When are you coming over to change my oil?
as soon as you will agree to pay me monthly for that ONE oil change .. for the rest of my life
Utter Crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Counterfeiting is actually quite rare. It's difficult, costly, and dangerous. The vast majority of that crap occurs at swapmeets and shady street vendors. It makes up a very very small percentage of copyright infringement. It's also the easiest to stop, in Canada or the U.S at least. Forget about it in China, or some other country. Rule of thumb, is that once your copyrighted works leave the country, they are no longer your copyrighted works. Good luck with China and a myriad of other countries.
Piracy is far more prolific, since the supply is easier to attain. Just go to any number of public or private torrent trackers and you have huge amounts of content to infringe upon its copyrights.
Striking at the heart of the long term economic security of Canada or any other country? Pure, Unadulterated, and Absolute Fucking Nonsense.
Every Specific Action of Copyright Infringement != Loss of Sale
If the average person has 10 pieces of gold total to spend 1 piece of gold each on copyrighted works and instead pirates 1,000 different copyrighted works, you cannot say that the market lost 1,000 pieces of gold. That's just common sense.
If an entire country's "heart" of its economy is sales of copyrighted works, ITS FUCKED. It can never get above the 10 pieces of gold each in the first place, all the while pushing inaccurate data about losses that are at least 10 times the total amount of possible revenue.
Counterfeiting and Piracy are the smallest and most insignificant impact on the economy. What is dying is an outdated business model that cannot adapt to changes in society.
Trying to turn it into some national security issue is just a farce.
Re:no one's requiring them to make music (Score:2, Insightful)
I never asked Colgate for toothpaste. Does mean I can go get a free tube whenever I want? Not unless Colgate decides to let me have it, which they could do.
That's because materials are limited and in this case owned by Colgate. You didn't ask them to invent toothpaste, but since they have a limited quantity and you can't make it yourself, you're damned right you have to hope Colgate decides to let you have some. Usually their answer is yes - for a price.
However, if replicators existed that could fabricate toothpaste, you bet you could get a free tube whenever you want - if not for the artificial IP laws designed to place a limit on things that are limitless.
For another example, If you wanted a Big Mac at Mcdonald's you could potentially have to pay them for their grease. But then if you could get the supplies to make your own and knew how to make a burger, you certainly don't have to pay them a penny and perhaps wind up with a Big Mac that tasted a heck of a lot better than the version they're trying to overcharge you for. You know, that derivative idea.
Re:Attainable -- not desirable, however. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh huh. You mean like the War on Drugs?
The U.S prison system is the largest in the world, but it is also the fastest expanding system too. It serves private interests to the tune of billions to create policies that fill these prisons as fast as possible. Every single person is worth between 30K and 100K per year to the system.
Why would creating a whole new War be that far fetched? There are people in prison now simply for possessing a plant that kills nobody by itself, has proven medicinal values, and on it's own is harmless. These people do not represent a danger to society, and the only real danger is created by the illegal transactions through the policies themselves. They are however involved in a controversial argument which is used to turn them into highly profitable "cattle". The rest of society pays this bill in ever increasing amounts each year.
Your future may actually come to pass where I am in prison and your tax dollars are paying for me to be there, simply because I participated in an unregulated communications infrastructure that might possibly facilitate the infringement of copyrights.
Re:Attainable -- not desirable, however. (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S prison system is the largest in the world, but it is also the fastest expanding system too. It serves private interests to the tune of billions to create policies that fill these prisons as fast as possible. Every single person is worth between 30K and 100K per year to the system.
This is one of the main reasons why I suspect that our general slide towards either communism or fascism may be unstoppable. It's becoming more cost effective for the lower 25% or so of the demographic to be in prison than it is for them to be out of it.
This, of course, is not economically sustainable, but it is useful to create what amounts to a slave class to whom work is more important as a means of staying out of prison than making a living. All that's needed is a socially acceptable way to make prison worse than life in a slum.
We couldn't bring back debtor's prison so we're working on another way to achieve the same thing.
Re:More knee jerk (Score:1, Insightful)
I spoke to an RCMP officer about this once and the reply was "there's MUCH worse stuff going on there than the counterfeit sales".
So what societal problems would you prefer they focus on? Stuff that endangers lives, or stuff that makes a small dent in corporation's revenue? (Law enforcement budgets are not infinite, so you can't answer "both").
That said, they frequently do large stings that close up lots of shops and seize huge amounts of goods, all over Toronto at the same time. (I hear about such stings at least every few months). The costs of patrolling and prosecuting on a daily or even weekly basis just isn't feasible. Keep in mind every arrest/charge also requires court time.