Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Your Rights Online Politics

The IIPA Copyright Demands For Canada and Spain 113

Posted by timothy
from the axis-of-cheese-and-meat dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The IIPA Copyright Demands For Canada and Spain

Comments Filter:
  • Michael Geist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2013 @04:49PM (#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.

    • "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.

    • by Mashiki (184564)

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

    • by DarthVain (724186)

      Unfortunatlly mostly yes.

      The lobby groups have done a pretty good job over the years confusing what copyright and copyright infringement is. Your average Canadian probably doesn't give a flip about any of it, nor do they see the larger repercussions that come with it later. There is a smaller subset that is aware, and vocal, but until politicians see majority votes it isn't a big deal to them. That is the fight. Education VS FUD.

      That said this is the what, the 5th year Canada has been "put" on this list as

  • by benjfowler (239527) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @04:50PM (#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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2013 @04:55PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fredgiblet (1063752) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @04:59PM (#42923639)
        Silly. It's by the coporations of the corporations for the corporations. You need to the get the new revision of the handbook.
      • by tepples (727027) <tepples@gm a i l . com> on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:08PM (#42923683) Homepage Journal

        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by diegocg (1680514) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:40PM (#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.

        • 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.
          • by Joce640k (829181)

            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 (Score:4, Informative)

          by turbidostato (878842) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @10:13PM (#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.

        • AFAIK, IP right aren't alone in trade agreements, a lot of other deals would be canceled as well. And it's all regulated by the WTO, so more countries would boycott them.
    • 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.
    • by c0lo (1497653)
      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).
    • by c0lo (1497653)

      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?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by icebike (68054) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:20PM (#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?

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        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.

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

        • by Maow (620678)

          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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2013 @04:52PM (#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.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      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.

      • by Maow (620678)

        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.

  • 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!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2013 @04:56PM (#42923617)

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

  • by Anonymous Coward

    To find their name on the Special 301 watchlist.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:06PM (#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 (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kjella (173770) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:32PM (#42923805) Homepage

      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.

      • "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

        • 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.

          • "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.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      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?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • 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 se
    • tl;Dr
      I think you missed the point.

    • by houghi (78078) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:44PM (#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.

      • by chrismcb (983081)

        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 y

        • by houghi (78078)

          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.

      • "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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2013 @06:08PM (#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

      • by chrismcb (983081)
        So you think the write should get his due. But the editor, the proof reader, the formater, and the marketer shouldn't?
        • This cannot be said loudly or often enough: A good editor is worth his weight in gold-pressed latinum.

        • by Shagg (99693)

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

          They take a LOT more than "their due" from the writer. It can be argued that Publishers rip off the artists a lot more than "pirates" do.

      • 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

    • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @06:29PM (#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.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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 bu

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • 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 resul

    • by syockit (1480393)

      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.

    • by sjames (1099)

      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?

    • 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

    • 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

    • by Maow (620678)

      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

    • by deimtee (762122)
      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/ Relea
    • "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.

    • 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!

  • by houghi (78078) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:30PM (#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.

    • Do you really think all companies with an interest in copyright are US owned corporations? Anyone can buy stock in publicly held companies. In all likelihood, wealthy people from many countries around the world, including your own, hold substantial amounts of stock in these companies. Many ordinary people will hold stock in these companies as well, without even realizing it, primarily through holding mutual funds.

      The problems with copyright don't really come down to a battle between the US and the rest o

  • by future assassin (639396) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:31PM (#42923799) Homepage

    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.

    • by DarwinSurvivor (1752106) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:40PM (#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.
      • by Phrogman (80473) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @07:56PM (#42924667) Homepage

        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.

        • by dryeo (100693)

          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 pro

  • by rueger (210566) * on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:32PM (#42923803) Homepage
    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.
  • Canada eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kawabago (551139) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:52PM (#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.
  • by Rudisaurus (675580) on Saturday February 16, 2013 @06:04PM (#42924023)
    Dear IIPA,

    Go fuck yourself. Thank you.

    Sincerely, Canada
  • I'm Canadian... and I've tried to stay informed about the copyright reform laws, and I'm completely unaware of any sort of compromise that supposedly protects consumers. Bill C-32, which passed just last year, leaves consumers of copyrighted content with virtually no choices with respect to almost any technology developed since roughly the turn of the 21st century. So... how is buggery considered "protection", exactly?
    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      I'm Canadian... and I've tried to stay informed about the copyright reform laws, and I'm completely unaware of any sort of compromise that supposedly protects consumers. Bill C-32, which passed just last year, leaves consumers of copyrighted content with virtually no choices with respect to almost any technology developed since roughly the turn of the 21st century. So... how is buggery considered "protection", exactly?

      Because of a few completely worthless provisions in C-32.

      That is, a user is allowed to spa

      • by mark-t (151149)

        That was kind of my point... the alleged fair dealing provisions that are found in the bill are essentially moot for practically any technology developed since the turn of the century, so it's not really any sort of "consumer protection" at all.

        So I'm kind of wondering what sort of "compromise" they are talking about that allegedly benefits consumers that would somehow warrant that Canada still be on the "naughty list"?

  • Its time that the IIPA, MPAA, RIAA and their fellow travelers be prosecuted for Rackettering under the RICO Act [wikipedia.org] These folks are international terrorists destroying fundamental liberties and democratic values around the world.

The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.

Working...