I hate to tell you this but large parts of C-11 are, allegedly, ACTA compliant. Which may have been a waste of good time as ACTA seems to be falling apart at the seams anyway.
And I'm not going to step in your cesspool of a trap by going over Cancon where it came from and the minor detail that it's far outlived its usefulness. I'll side step around it long enough to make the minor point that the private companies in the motion picture and recording industries that have profited the most from Cancon and related levies have been, in order, American, British and French owned companies not Canadian ones.
The point is that fair dealing is a right. Levies are a privilege and always have been.
I also don't see where any of what you say makes it easier to pirate in Canada. Where it falls into the realm of fair dealing perhaps, from a Hollywood perspective, it does but mass piracy wouldn't be covered or excused under this ruling.
The simple reality is that long before copyright existed authors wrote, composers composed, sculpture was made -- the entire concept of culture as we know it came to be.
An outgrowth of the Agricultural Revolution which spawned the need for writing and so on. Which isn't to say that hunter-gatherer societies don't have culture -- they do. But what we've come to know as civilized culture required agriculture to appear.
Culture as we know it didn't only arise without copyright it flourished.
Invention didn't appear after patents came about, it too flourished. Invention, as much as anything, is the response to a need or to simply "scratch an itch" where the itch is "I can do it better than that". Or by sheer accident. Take Kitty Litter for that one. (Yeah, I know, Kitty Litter was patented almost as soon as the guy selling it figured out that all kinds of people wanted his fullers earth concoction.)
I'm still trying to figure out, with some horror, what would have happened if the guy who came up with the wheel could have patented it and then enforced that patent on the rest of us.
Each of these concepts -- copyright and patents -- confer a temporary right of monopoly in return to contributing to the wider public good. There is no natural right to either and no natural right to monopoly which allows one to say "it's MINE" until the universe dies which seems your viewpoint.
And neither has the slightest connection with Marxist/Leninist/Maoist Communism or the disaster that they are/were. Oh, let me rephrase something. More accurately it's Stalinist/Maoist Communism which betrayed Marxist theory concerning just who would control what, turned it on its head and became and excuse for some of the most murderous tyrannies we've known. Sadly, some free market capitalist societies that have had zero regulation have done the same. No one is pure here.
My point here is that long before structures were adopted that, for all practical purposes, became exclusionary culture and invention flourished.
Equally sadly, in many, if not most cases, these exclusionary practices have removed whatever control an author, innovator or inventor may have had in theory are removed in practice as in order to be published or capitalize an invention, the exclusionary rights had to be assigned to someone else removing the control you so value. Or claim to. Unless you're suffering from an ideological blindness/delusion. Not that uncommon. I've been known to suffer from that from time to time myself.
Exclusionary rights or practices are as offensive to freedom and culture as tyrannies pretending to be the protectors of "the working class" were and are.
Precious little, actually. The problem with the entire levy system is once you collect the money how do you divide it up?
Based on sales? Based on who got downloaded the most in some remotely piratical way? Based on the relative sizes of the English and French markets including, say, the US and UK for English and France and other french speaking markets for what Quebec and Acadia produce?
Fairness is all very well and good and a laudable goal but just how do you come up with a formula that has a chance of working?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response from Access Copyright (And a question)
That's how I was reading it, too. Access Copyright seems to want to make a big deal of the 5-4 vote but looking at the entirety it doesn't look like the majority and minority are all that far apart. So if Access Canada was looking for the Court to revisit this in the near future I think they're paddling upstream in the Fraser Canyon without a paddle.
In this context the US Constitution is or may be a reference point but as we're talking about the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Constitution, both written and unwritten parts thereof, it doesn't apply.
That's why I fall back on the Statue of Anne and it's intended purpose of a balance between public and private good which, indirectly, leads us to the same place you're at.
I'm far from saying the Statue of Anne is/was perfect. What I'm saying is that it attempted to strike a balance between the public good -- Education -- and the private good -- a grant (not a natural right) of a temporary monopoly for rights holders.
Keep in mind that I said temporary, not permanent, not eternal and certainly not the joke copyright has become wherein your creator (authors), in the vast majority of instances, has to assign their copyright simply to get published to the publishing company thereby completely giving up the right you want them to have of control over their works. They end up with none.
For the most part it worked as long as publishing and production remained what it more or less was in 1710. Then came things like sneaker net, pre-Internet BBS systems and then the Web, high speed connections everywhere and the entire set of assumptions around production, control and exclusion or inclusion began to fall apart until we get to today where it has fallen apart.
Oh yeah, and programs the enable just about anyone to typeset and produce their own ebooks too. Skills may be lacking in many cases but the means to produce and reproduce are there in abundance.
Screaming "it's MINE!" like a 2 year old doesn't change that.
It might, which would mean another trip to the Supreme Court and the merry-go-round will start again.
The text of the rulings indicates that the court isn't backing down on this. It would make it very, very interesting to see a clash between the Constitution and the Court on one side and TPP on the other over little things like extraterritoriality on the other side.
The government could try to get around it by amending C-11 so that it falls in line with the TPP if Canada signs on.
Unlike ACTA, TPP isn't being discussed totally in the dark though it's very opaque. For now. Nor is it as "sure" a thing as ACTA was supposed to be.
Things get a little more interesting now that Iceland has told VISA to honour donation payments to Wikileaks restoring at least some funding to that site. If that holds TPP may become a leaky ship indeed given reports that some countries aren't happy with the way things are going there. It could become quite interesting. And, entertaining. :-)
"There will be no FRAND or RAND in the future, because to make those available is to make it easier for competitors to sue you and you can't hit back."
I'm not all that sure there's much in the way of FRAND or RAND now.
You're right about the affect of exclusionary tools -- patents -- to software was the concern the tech industry had when they came about. Even Bill Gates expressed these concerns!
That they're inappropriate to start with is made worse by USPTO inspectors who seem totally unfamiliar with tech ignoring "minor" details like prior art -- the one click patent is a beautiful example.
Yeah, Samsung got it's injunction in Germany against Apple so Apple turned around and got one against Samsung in the US.
Kept lawyers busy but didn't do consumers any good, the market any good or innovation any good.
Once the likes of Brazil, India and China get going it'll get even worse. Innovation and, even, invention, will grind to a halt while innovators and inventors spend years checking out patents rather than bringing new ideas and ways of doing things to market.
Not exactly what patents were supposed to do. The polar opposite in fact.
Like many other UN agencies it's convinced that if you put people in a room, pass around some chateau noir and half an hour later you can come up with some kind of binding agreement.
That they don't get it that the root cause is a system that allows software patents which has caused companies to build patent thickets to defend themselves from patent trolls and each other.
They even site JPEGs as a concern though the licensing costs of JPGs are minimal at best. That and the JPEG patent covers encoding and compression that occurs not just on smartphones but on cameras of all kinds to reduce storage space on the camera itself. Not a single camera I'm aware of stores photos in any other format out of the box though many can also store pictures as TIFF or PNG.
FRAND has long been a point of contention with patent holders and has become much more of one since the court imposed opening the flood gate for software patents. A development the tech industry, by and large, didn't want and were opposed to. For just this reason.
From the BBC report:
"We are seeing an unwelcome trend in today's marketplace to use standards-essential patents to block markets," said the ITU secretary general Dr Hamadoun Torre.
"There needs to be an urgent review of this situation: patents are meant to encourage innovation, not stifle it."
Welcome to the wonderful world of patents, Dr. Torre. Sorry to awake you from your pleasant dream. Time for the real world now.
Patent thickets make everyone a potential patent troll now. Right, Apple?
We tend more to you're with us or we'll feed you to the:
(a) polar bears
(b) grizzly bears
(c) killer whales
(d) cougars
(e) timber wolves
(f) wolverines
Re: Re: Response from Access Copyright (And a question)
I just had a brief look at the dissent from the majority which doesn't reject the majority decision outright but seems to add some important points and concerns.
That would make it extremely hard for someone to bring this back trying to get the court to reverse its ruling if I read it right.
The ruling also says that it's not good enough for the copyright board to be "sorta, kinda" right but they must be right in the judicial sense. Add that to the repeated use of "large and liberal" and "broad and liberal" hammers it makes it quite clear what it is all but directing the copyright board to do.
It's not just Access Copyright that got hammered here it was SOCAN which is I believe our very own branch plant of the RIAA/MPAA.
TPP provisions that affect the copyright act would require the government of the day to introduce a bill in the Commons amending the Act. It doesn't happen automatically.
These rulings and the language used in them make it clear the Court is having the final word here unless that happens. TPP can't change that. And their view that Fair Dealing ought to be interpreted broadly and liberally would be hard to reverse later on unless the minority had some equally strong wording or that the legal ground changes substantially.
The Supreme Court of Canada rarely reverses itself.
Evidently you have not familiarized yourself with the history of the Statue of Anne which is the basis of our copyright regime.
I won't bother repeating the history prior to the Statue of Anne but at least you could look up the title:
"A Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof"
From the beginning there was a balanced emphasis on the public good and on the rights of those who owned the manuscripts (books) in question. The owner of those rights need not be creators. The public good is learning which is where the Supreme Court largely ruled.
Authors, songwriters, composers and so on unless extremely well known rarely retain their copyright. In order to get published, recorded, performed and so on they need to assign their copyrights. Not something a lot of creators find to their taste but none the less that's the reality. For reference see George Harrison - "Only A Northern Song".
Your world, wherein creators hold copyright and control doesn't exist. As you say you your site creators shouldn't be forced to surrender those rights under duress yet publishers do just that and have since 1710 with the blessing of the courts. Fair dealing, that part of the regime intended to encourage learning, has been in place since 1710 as well. Early rulings in England, repeatedly rejected the notion that copyright was primarily concerned with being exclusionary it had the dual concern for learning.
While your ideal world, if your site is any indication, is that copyright exists only to be exclusionary doesn't and never has existed.
While publishing rarely leaves creators in deep debt as the recording industry arranges for its newly signed creators it can leave the author in some debt. That is the book needs to sell enough copies to cover whatever advance the author may get while the author relies on the publisher to promote the book. It's very rare than an unknown author gets much if any of an advance on sales unlike the situation that exists in the recording industry where it's common.
Your dismissal of fair dealing as some form of socialism is, then, so much utter and complete hogwash.
Copyright, as we know it, from the Statue of Anne is a balance between public and private good no matter what you think or want it to be.
If you were to get your desire for a totally exclusionary form of copyright then what support there is for the concept would utterly vanish. Nor, as you assert, is all creation the result of some god-given genius or talent. That one has been taken apart by courts over and over again as extremists like yourself have attempted to establish perpetual copyright.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the law as it exists and will exist when C-11 becomes law and has since 1710. Strangely I agree completely with your assertion that creators should be recognized for their creations but I totally reject your way of doing that.
And no...copyright is not "because it's MINE" in its entirety nor is it all about "don't like it - don't use it.". As a lawyer you should know better. Unless you've been breathing in too much diesel exhaust from what's left of the marshalling yards right by your building or the ships idling in Vancouver harbour.
TPP cannot overrule Supreme Court of Canada rulings. When the Court says it has no intention to be pushed back on this, then enforces that by repeating it there is something to smile about here. Broadly.
This just in --
We have just learned that staffers on the HJC and staffers from other committees have met and proposed changes to House rules that will allow the to adopt the progressive, inclusive and successful transparency rules used by the the USTR during its recent successful efforts to get ACTA enshrined as an international treaty. The USTR has followed this up with unprecedented transparency, public consultation and efforts to ensure that members of the US Congress can follow the moment by moment progress of the coming TPP agreement.
Rules in the US House of Representatives will be changed to copy this highly transparent, democratic, consultative process beginning Friday, July 13th at 12:01AM EDT.
Gee, does this mean I can access the Daily Show "by other means" free of the idiotic geographical blocks on it?
Nahhh, probably not. But I'll rewrite some Captain Highliner ads like the one where a disreputable character asks "Arrrrgggg, Billy, has ya eva bin to sea?" just in case. :-)
If signing ACTA was a price for Mexico to join Canada sitting in the TPP peanut gallery probably getting less information about what's going in than the US Congress gets it sounds like a rotten deal to me.
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Re:
And I'm not going to step in your cesspool of a trap by going over Cancon where it came from and the minor detail that it's far outlived its usefulness. I'll side step around it long enough to make the minor point that the private companies in the motion picture and recording industries that have profited the most from Cancon and related levies have been, in order, American, British and French owned companies not Canadian ones.
The point is that fair dealing is a right. Levies are a privilege and always have been.
I also don't see where any of what you say makes it easier to pirate in Canada. Where it falls into the realm of fair dealing perhaps, from a Hollywood perspective, it does but mass piracy wouldn't be covered or excused under this ruling.
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Re: Not a great day at all...
An outgrowth of the Agricultural Revolution which spawned the need for writing and so on. Which isn't to say that hunter-gatherer societies don't have culture -- they do. But what we've come to know as civilized culture required agriculture to appear.
Culture as we know it didn't only arise without copyright it flourished.
Invention didn't appear after patents came about, it too flourished. Invention, as much as anything, is the response to a need or to simply "scratch an itch" where the itch is "I can do it better than that". Or by sheer accident. Take Kitty Litter for that one. (Yeah, I know, Kitty Litter was patented almost as soon as the guy selling it figured out that all kinds of people wanted his fullers earth concoction.)
I'm still trying to figure out, with some horror, what would have happened if the guy who came up with the wheel could have patented it and then enforced that patent on the rest of us.
Each of these concepts -- copyright and patents -- confer a temporary right of monopoly in return to contributing to the wider public good. There is no natural right to either and no natural right to monopoly which allows one to say "it's MINE" until the universe dies which seems your viewpoint.
And neither has the slightest connection with Marxist/Leninist/Maoist Communism or the disaster that they are/were. Oh, let me rephrase something. More accurately it's Stalinist/Maoist Communism which betrayed Marxist theory concerning just who would control what, turned it on its head and became and excuse for some of the most murderous tyrannies we've known. Sadly, some free market capitalist societies that have had zero regulation have done the same. No one is pure here.
My point here is that long before structures were adopted that, for all practical purposes, became exclusionary culture and invention flourished.
Equally sadly, in many, if not most cases, these exclusionary practices have removed whatever control an author, innovator or inventor may have had in theory are removed in practice as in order to be published or capitalize an invention, the exclusionary rights had to be assigned to someone else removing the control you so value. Or claim to. Unless you're suffering from an ideological blindness/delusion. Not that uncommon. I've been known to suffer from that from time to time myself.
Exclusionary rights or practices are as offensive to freedom and culture as tyrannies pretending to be the protectors of "the working class" were and are.
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re:
Based on sales? Based on who got downloaded the most in some remotely piratical way? Based on the relative sizes of the English and French markets including, say, the US and UK for English and France and other french speaking markets for what Quebec and Acadia produce?
Fairness is all very well and good and a laudable goal but just how do you come up with a formula that has a chance of working?
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response from Access Copyright (And a question)
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response from Access Copyright
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Not a great day at all...
That's why I fall back on the Statue of Anne and it's intended purpose of a balance between public and private good which, indirectly, leads us to the same place you're at.
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Re: Not a great day at all...
Keep in mind that I said temporary, not permanent, not eternal and certainly not the joke copyright has become wherein your creator (authors), in the vast majority of instances, has to assign their copyright simply to get published to the publishing company thereby completely giving up the right you want them to have of control over their works. They end up with none.
For the most part it worked as long as publishing and production remained what it more or less was in 1710. Then came things like sneaker net, pre-Internet BBS systems and then the Web, high speed connections everywhere and the entire set of assumptions around production, control and exclusion or inclusion began to fall apart until we get to today where it has fallen apart.
Oh yeah, and programs the enable just about anyone to typeset and produce their own ebooks too. Skills may be lacking in many cases but the means to produce and reproduce are there in abundance.
Screaming "it's MINE!" like a 2 year old doesn't change that.
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Re:
The text of the rulings indicates that the court isn't backing down on this. It would make it very, very interesting to see a clash between the Constitution and the Court on one side and TPP on the other over little things like extraterritoriality on the other side.
The government could try to get around it by amending C-11 so that it falls in line with the TPP if Canada signs on.
Unlike ACTA, TPP isn't being discussed totally in the dark though it's very opaque. For now. Nor is it as "sure" a thing as ACTA was supposed to be.
Things get a little more interesting now that Iceland has told VISA to honour donation payments to Wikileaks restoring at least some funding to that site. If that holds TPP may become a leaky ship indeed given reports that some countries aren't happy with the way things are going there. It could become quite interesting. And, entertaining. :-)
On the post: UN Wants To Host 'Patent' Summit To Deal With Smartphone Patent Thicket
Re: Re:
I'm not all that sure there's much in the way of FRAND or RAND now.
You're right about the affect of exclusionary tools -- patents -- to software was the concern the tech industry had when they came about. Even Bill Gates expressed these concerns!
That they're inappropriate to start with is made worse by USPTO inspectors who seem totally unfamiliar with tech ignoring "minor" details like prior art -- the one click patent is a beautiful example.
Yeah, Samsung got it's injunction in Germany against Apple so Apple turned around and got one against Samsung in the US.
Kept lawyers busy but didn't do consumers any good, the market any good or innovation any good.
Once the likes of Brazil, India and China get going it'll get even worse. Innovation and, even, invention, will grind to a halt while innovators and inventors spend years checking out patents rather than bringing new ideas and ways of doing things to market.
Not exactly what patents were supposed to do. The polar opposite in fact.
On the post: UN Wants To Host 'Patent' Summit To Deal With Smartphone Patent Thicket
That they don't get it that the root cause is a system that allows software patents which has caused companies to build patent thickets to defend themselves from patent trolls and each other.
They even site JPEGs as a concern though the licensing costs of JPGs are minimal at best. That and the JPEG patent covers encoding and compression that occurs not just on smartphones but on cameras of all kinds to reduce storage space on the camera itself. Not a single camera I'm aware of stores photos in any other format out of the box though many can also store pictures as TIFF or PNG.
FRAND has long been a point of contention with patent holders and has become much more of one since the court imposed opening the flood gate for software patents. A development the tech industry, by and large, didn't want and were opposed to. For just this reason.
From the BBC report:
Welcome to the wonderful world of patents, Dr. Torre. Sorry to awake you from your pleasant dream. Time for the real world now.
Patent thickets make everyone a potential patent troll now. Right, Apple?
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Re: Not our style
(a) polar bears
(b) grizzly bears
(c) killer whales
(d) cougars
(e) timber wolves
(f) wolverines
We might even give you a choice :)
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Response from Access Copyright (And a question)
That would make it extremely hard for someone to bring this back trying to get the court to reverse its ruling if I read it right.
Is that how you read it, Leigh?
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Response from Access Copyright
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Re: Response from Access Copyright
It's not just Access Copyright that got hammered here it was SOCAN which is I believe our very own branch plant of the RIAA/MPAA.
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re:
These rulings and the language used in them make it clear the Court is having the final word here unless that happens. TPP can't change that. And their view that Fair Dealing ought to be interpreted broadly and liberally would be hard to reverse later on unless the minority had some equally strong wording or that the legal ground changes substantially.
The Supreme Court of Canada rarely reverses itself.
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re: Not a great day at all...
I won't bother repeating the history prior to the Statue of Anne but at least you could look up the title:
"A Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and for Securing the Property of Copies of Books to the rightful Owners thereof"
From the beginning there was a balanced emphasis on the public good and on the rights of those who owned the manuscripts (books) in question. The owner of those rights need not be creators. The public good is learning which is where the Supreme Court largely ruled.
Authors, songwriters, composers and so on unless extremely well known rarely retain their copyright. In order to get published, recorded, performed and so on they need to assign their copyrights. Not something a lot of creators find to their taste but none the less that's the reality. For reference see George Harrison - "Only A Northern Song".
Your world, wherein creators hold copyright and control doesn't exist. As you say you your site creators shouldn't be forced to surrender those rights under duress yet publishers do just that and have since 1710 with the blessing of the courts. Fair dealing, that part of the regime intended to encourage learning, has been in place since 1710 as well. Early rulings in England, repeatedly rejected the notion that copyright was primarily concerned with being exclusionary it had the dual concern for learning.
While your ideal world, if your site is any indication, is that copyright exists only to be exclusionary doesn't and never has existed.
While publishing rarely leaves creators in deep debt as the recording industry arranges for its newly signed creators it can leave the author in some debt. That is the book needs to sell enough copies to cover whatever advance the author may get while the author relies on the publisher to promote the book. It's very rare than an unknown author gets much if any of an advance on sales unlike the situation that exists in the recording industry where it's common.
Your dismissal of fair dealing as some form of socialism is, then, so much utter and complete hogwash.
Copyright, as we know it, from the Statue of Anne is a balance between public and private good no matter what you think or want it to be.
If you were to get your desire for a totally exclusionary form of copyright then what support there is for the concept would utterly vanish. Nor, as you assert, is all creation the result of some god-given genius or talent. That one has been taken apart by courts over and over again as extremists like yourself have attempted to establish perpetual copyright.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the law as it exists and will exist when C-11 becomes law and has since 1710. Strangely I agree completely with your assertion that creators should be recognized for their creations but I totally reject your way of doing that.
And no...copyright is not "because it's MINE" in its entirety nor is it all about "don't like it - don't use it.". As a lawyer you should know better. Unless you've been breathing in too much diesel exhaust from what's left of the marshalling yards right by your building or the ships idling in Vancouver harbour.
On the post: Great Day For Canadian Copyright: Supreme Court Issues Five (Count 'Em) Rulings Supporting Fair Dealing And Fewer Tariffs
Re:
And I'm smiling broadly.
On the post: Dear Lamar Smith & House Judiciary: Have You Learned Nothing From SOPA?
Change the rules?
We have just learned that staffers on the HJC and staffers from other committees have met and proposed changes to House rules that will allow the to adopt the progressive, inclusive and successful transparency rules used by the the USTR during its recent successful efforts to get ACTA enshrined as an international treaty. The USTR has followed this up with unprecedented transparency, public consultation and efforts to ensure that members of the US Congress can follow the moment by moment progress of the coming TPP agreement.
Rules in the US House of Representatives will be changed to copy this highly transparent, democratic, consultative process beginning Friday, July 13th at 12:01AM EDT.
Beginning at 12:02AM EDT please contact your Senator or Congressman at What_Constitution@WaltDisney.com.
Please remember that we are working for YOU, the citizenry of the United States. Improving legislative clarity, transparency, efficiency and efficacy.
On the post: Viacom Uses Fans As Hostages: Blocks Daily Show, Colbert Streams For Everyone To Spite DirecTV
Nahhh, probably not. But I'll rewrite some Captain Highliner ads like the one where a disreputable character asks "Arrrrgggg, Billy, has ya eva bin to sea?" just in case. :-)
On the post: Rewind: Mexico Surprises Everyone, Signs ACTA
Next >>