One thing often missing in the discussion of music and copyright is that what people almost always use as background on YouTube is a particular performance of a song who may or may not be the songwriter. As both can be subject to copyright this does confuse things a bit if you follow AverageJoe's advice and negotiate with someone. Just who might that someone be?
If the songwriter is under contract with the same label as the performers then, I guess, you'd negotiate with the label. Who will, of course, tell you to pound sand as they don't recognize such things ass fair use/fair dealing. If the composer is licensing the work through, say, CAPAC then you'd negotiate with them where you'd get the same answer as the label would give you for much the same reasons. Naturally the band may object to the use as it's their arrangement of the song and their specific performance you're using so you'd have to negotiate with them too. As you can see the list gets long quite quickly.
Great work for someone hoping to be called to the bar soon.
As the act establishing copyright in the UK specifically mentions "education" as the motivation for the act and the US Constitution says it's for the promotion of science and the useful arts it's fairly easy to read into both that some form of fair use/fair dealing was antipated and allowed for, at least in the broadest sense. Neither makes any claim about a guarantor of income to the rights holder at all and neither would have anticipated the incredible period of time that a copyright is now in effect. (Notice that I didn't say creator of the work as that person, for one reason or another, is often not the rights holder.)
Yes, claims of fair use/fair dealing may be risky but there are volumes of case law defining what it is and where and why it's appropriate. The rights holder doesn't get to say "I don't like it" and that's that. It just doesn't work like that.
As for it being property like a toaster the sooner we get rid of that notion the better. It isn't. It's an incentive and a control over who can copy the entire work. It ain't a toaster or a lawn mower or a clock radio!
I don't know any government that likes leaks. Well, except for those it arranges itself which happens a lot more often than most people think.
Some are trial balloons sent up to see what the public reaction would be. Some, like the Pentagon Papers a government would much rather see the leaker vanish than even behind bars where the media could get to him/her for interviews and lovely stuff like that.
Questions like "do you want Iran to get The Bomb" deflect a good look at the issue kept secret by invoking the "us vs them" response in people which is amazingly effective in the short term. What it ignores, in this case, is that Iran has the know how to build one. It's just missing some parts, which it is working on. If the get close it will trigger an open secret which is that Israel will bomb the snot out of the reactor that made the stuff. At which stage the Iranians will have moved the stuff they made somewhere else.
Not all leaks are on that level. The good ship TPP seems to be getting leaky, which isn't all that uncommon with behind closed door trade negotiations where one or more parties to it feel they're being forced into something they don't want to do or are against the best interests of their country as they see it. ACTA sprung similar leaks. The source tends to be high up the pecking order of one or more participants.
As someone has already said secrets of this kind exits to make it easier to do things "for our own good" that we may have a negative reaction to in our "ignorance" which might scuttle all or some of the deal being worked out.
Security is often cited as the reason for something being kept secret. Stuxnet is a prime example. Cybersecurity becomes a big issue not because America was attacked but because supposedly America had a hand in attacking someone else. Different agencies line up to plead for money because the baddies of the day just might break into someone's server somewhere and learn something. After all if "we" can do it to someone else "they" can do it to us. And it's important that we understand it's for our own good.
Rather in the way that it's important to understand that continuing the approximately 60 year old trade embargo on Cuba put on at the height of the Cold War just before or during a period where Moscow and Washington decided it would be "fun" to play nuclear brinksmanship with the world.
It's continued on "for our own good" as Cuba somehow might pose a threat to the United States. It's always struck me that it ended up posing much more of a propaganda threat because of that isolation than if the embargo had never taken place.
More often than not government isn't protecting anything in the security realm. It's protecting itself from what they know will be a critical public. When it leaks government doesn't seem capable of understanding the reaction is part outrage and part WTF did they do this for we'd figured it out already.
It's like anyone who does things for "our own good", it's done for their good OR to protect them from looking like Grade A Prime idiots.
people only say aboot and eh in Ontario. The rest of us are almost pristine in our use of English. Even if here in BC we also use words like "skookum" and "chuck" which is perfectly good BC English.
We have lineups to get in too, so you'd have to take our place in line. Sadly, reading Techdirt doesn't get you extra points with Immigration. ;-)
highlighting the many, many, many ways in which current patent system is totally screwed up.
A lot of these ideas also sprung up around the time of the SCO vs anything remotely Linux lawsuits where companies such as Novell and IBM and others pledged not to use their copyrights or patents against open source or GPL software. How much of it was a "stunt" and how much seriously is open to question though Novell and IBM are deep in the Linux business on corporate servers and what not so that keeping the OS healthy and defended is very important to them.
If it only works to highlight the mess US Patent Law has become then it serves a valuable service. Readers of this blog, Groklaw and others that follow this sort of thing are the few who realize what's become of it in the last 10 or 15 years and those start ups and even veterans in the tech industry. Perhaps not even then till a patent troll bites them.
In fact highlighting the mess so-called IP has become in the past few years might just wake the broader public to the mess it's become, far beyond what it was ever intended to be.
Even the idea of defensive patents or pools of the makes me nervous. Does this mean that we've reached the point where only the nuclear button is the only option to deal with invalid patents, over aiming patent holders and our good friend the patent troll?
If that is the case then we've reached the point where patents as a concept have utterly and completely failed.
Yes, the United States has the most servers in the world no matter how you count it but Canada is a close second when you take population into account. Way back when the UK was next, then Germany, then South Africa though I'm sure the number of servers in places like Brazil and India have increased exponentially as have China's.
As for actually needing more money to invest in infrastructure for the Net someone wants us to buy a very large pig in a poke here. They're all doing fine thanks if not on the landline side the mobile (cellular) side is raking it in because they charge by the minute for access from smart phones in the majority of cases. Naturally they'll take more from this silly rake off the top particularly if they get most of it which they traditionally have in North America.
As for how high speed is paid for at when it hits the side of the house, ever look at what you pay for it on a monthly basis? The last thing telcos or cablecos want it government skimming off the top for their own purposes. With respect to remote areas the mere presence of a military installation in those areas will pay for it in no time flat
How this helps emerging and poor countries is beyond me but then Eurocentric things like this generally don't.
At the end of the day it's all bullshit. The telecom industry isn't a closely regulated monopoly any longer but it's still considered vital by governments and regulators. And that includes the parts that carry the Internet. Net neutrality isn't in danger as long as the military and commerce keep demanding it as part of contracts they sign with telcos and cablecos.
I'm not going to blast Apple here, though it's ever so tempting.
That said we're back to the companies that make this sort of software or software/hardware combinations having a fight over a patent rather than what's best for this girl. Valid patent or not there's something very immoral about what's going on here. If the idea of all of this is to make it possible for children such as Maya to communicate then isn't the main goal just that rather than battling over a bloody patent?
What's more important here? Money or Maya? Sadly it's money. It's hard to swallow. The devices in question are completely different in that one runs on an iPad and the other runs on dedicated hardware. At least in that sense.
Isn't the question here what's best for AAC sufferers and not the patent battles between two or three companies?
Surely a solution can be found that doesn't mean the end of something that's been useful for (at least) one little girl so that all three companies can get on with the business of supporting, helping and opening new worlds for a child like Maya than patent lawsuits which may not be settled until she's well into her twenties.
It's disgusting. It was the first go round and it is this time, too.
Imagine all the damage done by my growing up on TinTin books, various forms of 1950s style "where's waldo" stuff, Dick and Jane, lots of books with pictures of the people in quaint native dress in South Carolina and Looney Tunes!
Now think of how much worse it would have been if enhanced ebooks had been added to that mix!
Oh, you mean nothing happened to me at all from all of this any worse than my going out, playing in the mud and sometimes accidentally swallowing some, being taken for walks by the family dog and discovering the wonderful, if slimy taste of uncooked earthworms?
But the headline writer said it did and that I've been screwed for life by it all! There goes all my faith in the media and it's ability to tell me the truth. Oh heck.
Guess, I'm not bleeding enough. I'll be back in time for the late news with that corrected. Promise!
Nice to see you willing to convict while only hearing one side of the story. Not that I'm the least bit surprised.
As the servers are in the United States and seized by the United States Government which implies at least temporary ownership of the servers and data on them belongs to the United States Government as we would with the seizure of physical objects. Which leaves only the US Government and/or Carpathia.
As Megaupload has no business at this moment, no cash flow and little chance of having any of that soon there is no point in suing them. I guess he could try to sue DotCom in New Zealand if there's much use while he's in custody.
So the US government it is as the current, if temporary, owner of record of everything Megaupload.
Perhaps once a court case begins in the United States, should DotCom be extradited from NewZealand, we'll hear what happened here from both sides. For the moment we're only hearing one side and that from the extradition hearing in New Zealand which doesn't fill me with confidence that the authorities actually HAVE a case.
Perhaps once day as you troll you'll find someone here who will completely agree with you other than bob.
I'd agree with you that the business is gone. If, however, they get a ruling against the authorities then that informs the next site to be clobbered like this. Whether or not they can afford it and want to pursue it is the question.
There's already the court ruling that says the arrest and all that followed shouldn't have happened which sets something of a precedent itself. Something that backs that up would be helpful if not entirely necessary.
The thing is that C-11 has no provisions that I can find that are similar to what is proposed by the council.
I was under the impression that it had passed the Commons but all the same, at this point, there is nothing based on this report, as yet.
Giest does headline his post the group's position as a post Bill C-11 playbook which is partly where I took my erroneous statement from. I should have read deeper but I thought I read it completely through.
Thanks again, for the correction. But C-11 doesn't contain any of these provisions.
In no way does that mean that we Canucks can let our guard down. Bits and pieces of this may find its way in either in the House or Senate or in regulations which is something Harper is fond of.
Still there is no bill based on this post C-11 shopping list.
I'd have to wager, as well, that a great deal of this shopping list would find itself in trouble with the Charter.
This story is a report on a shopping list report that the Canadian IP Council wants. There is no bill in front of the Commons remotely near this. Nor is there likely to be in the foreseeable future.
There was a new copyright act passed in this past winter while all the SOPA hubub was going on in the States. The Government took notice of the hubub and assured the opposition at the time that the new copyright bill, flawed as it was and now is as the law of the land, was as far as they were going.
While some in the Tory caucus may be tempted to follow the suggestions in the report I find it hard to believe that Harper's inner cabinet would be so stupid as to try to adopt anything this draconian.
Keep in mind though that this is a report written by a lobby group, there is no bill in the Commons to bring any part of this report alive as legislation.
This isn't a bill before the House. It's a report from the Canadian IP Council, a group who are regularly ignored by policy makers because they're so off in la-la land most of the time. And the House is near ready to rise for the summer which means MPs will be back in their ridings. If this gets out, even if just into the tech community for now, the MPs will get an earful particularly MPs from the Ottawa, Metro Toronto and Metro Vancouver regions where the kind of thing that sunk SOPA would cost the Tories seats in the House in the next election.
Nor does site blocking, messing with DNS or a whole lot of other things on the shopping list of the Canadian IP Council make a lot of sense technically or things Canada has jurisdiction over.
For now, this is just a shopping list by one group. And keep in mind that Parliament just passed a bill updating Canadian copyright and patent law this past winter as the SOPA/PIPA revolt was gaining steam in the States. The PM and the Minister in charge of that bill both noted the revolt and made it clear that nothing like that was under consideration here.
There is a long list of things with higher priority on the list of things for the House to do when it gets back in the fall than to do much of anything with this report.
None of this is government policy nor has it been enacted into law here.
Very unlike, say, the United Kingdom where most of it already is. So perhaps the UK should abandon the Union Jack and apply for statehood?
Now that that is out of the way. Our federal government is wonderful at yapping about what we need to do and our international commitments (ACTA) but they're not all that rapid on acting on things like reports from this collection of lunatics.
I'm no fan of Stephen Harper's policies and politics but he does take good care of that part of his base that might wander off if he pushes this kind of thing too far and this report is too, too,too far. It's his voters who fall into the broad category of those most likely to download pirated software or to seek out counterfeit meds or even go looking for fake fashions.
He's also sensitive to what has happened in the States with regard to SOPA/PIPA, currently in Europe with ACTA, the leaks from TPP and the slowly increasing resistance to it around the Pacific Rim. He wants to stay Prime Minister for the long term and not risk it all on a throw of the dice to do what this group wants him to do Even his training as an economist would let him easily catch the smell of bad economic policy around this should he follow this group's demands.
Bit of a bully that he is he'll use it to get what he wants from the Opposition in the house but as far as anything concrete I seriously doubt it.
On the post: The Cyberpolitics Of Cyberbellicosity Cyberpushing Cybersecurity To Cyberprevent Cyberwar
Re: Cyberattacks
If spies are getting into sensitive government networks then perhaps it's time those networks had better security.
The same applies to corporations between their forays into spying on other companies.
To date what you're referring to is classic espionage with newer tools. Not as sexy as James Bond but a whole lot cheaper!!!
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
Re: Re:
If the songwriter is under contract with the same label as the performers then, I guess, you'd negotiate with the label. Who will, of course, tell you to pound sand as they don't recognize such things ass fair use/fair dealing. If the composer is licensing the work through, say, CAPAC then you'd negotiate with them where you'd get the same answer as the label would give you for much the same reasons. Naturally the band may object to the use as it's their arrangement of the song and their specific performance you're using so you'd have to negotiate with them too. As you can see the list gets long quite quickly.
Great work for someone hoping to be called to the bar soon.
As the act establishing copyright in the UK specifically mentions "education" as the motivation for the act and the US Constitution says it's for the promotion of science and the useful arts it's fairly easy to read into both that some form of fair use/fair dealing was antipated and allowed for, at least in the broadest sense. Neither makes any claim about a guarantor of income to the rights holder at all and neither would have anticipated the incredible period of time that a copyright is now in effect. (Notice that I didn't say creator of the work as that person, for one reason or another, is often not the rights holder.)
Yes, claims of fair use/fair dealing may be risky but there are volumes of case law defining what it is and where and why it's appropriate. The rights holder doesn't get to say "I don't like it" and that's that. It just doesn't work like that.
As for it being property like a toaster the sooner we get rid of that notion the better. It isn't. It's an incentive and a control over who can copy the entire work. It ain't a toaster or a lawn mower or a clock radio!
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
Re: Re: Part of the Plan
On the post: Politicians Grandstand About Leaks, But The Rest Of Us See The Prosecution Of Whistleblowers
Some are trial balloons sent up to see what the public reaction would be. Some, like the Pentagon Papers a government would much rather see the leaker vanish than even behind bars where the media could get to him/her for interviews and lovely stuff like that.
Questions like "do you want Iran to get The Bomb" deflect a good look at the issue kept secret by invoking the "us vs them" response in people which is amazingly effective in the short term. What it ignores, in this case, is that Iran has the know how to build one. It's just missing some parts, which it is working on. If the get close it will trigger an open secret which is that Israel will bomb the snot out of the reactor that made the stuff. At which stage the Iranians will have moved the stuff they made somewhere else.
Not all leaks are on that level. The good ship TPP seems to be getting leaky, which isn't all that uncommon with behind closed door trade negotiations where one or more parties to it feel they're being forced into something they don't want to do or are against the best interests of their country as they see it. ACTA sprung similar leaks. The source tends to be high up the pecking order of one or more participants.
As someone has already said secrets of this kind exits to make it easier to do things "for our own good" that we may have a negative reaction to in our "ignorance" which might scuttle all or some of the deal being worked out.
Security is often cited as the reason for something being kept secret. Stuxnet is a prime example. Cybersecurity becomes a big issue not because America was attacked but because supposedly America had a hand in attacking someone else. Different agencies line up to plead for money because the baddies of the day just might break into someone's server somewhere and learn something. After all if "we" can do it to someone else "they" can do it to us. And it's important that we understand it's for our own good.
Rather in the way that it's important to understand that continuing the approximately 60 year old trade embargo on Cuba put on at the height of the Cold War just before or during a period where Moscow and Washington decided it would be "fun" to play nuclear brinksmanship with the world.
It's continued on "for our own good" as Cuba somehow might pose a threat to the United States. It's always struck me that it ended up posing much more of a propaganda threat because of that isolation than if the embargo had never taken place.
More often than not government isn't protecting anything in the security realm. It's protecting itself from what they know will be a critical public. When it leaks government doesn't seem capable of understanding the reaction is part outrage and part WTF did they do this for we'd figured it out already.
It's like anyone who does things for "our own good", it's done for their good OR to protect them from looking like Grade A Prime idiots.
On the post: Politicians Grandstand About Leaks, But The Rest Of Us See The Prosecution Of Whistleblowers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yeah!
We have lineups to get in too, so you'd have to take our place in line. Sadly, reading Techdirt doesn't get you extra points with Immigration. ;-)
On the post: Defensive Patent License: A Solution To Patent Problems... Or Just A Way To Highlight Them?
A lot of these ideas also sprung up around the time of the SCO vs anything remotely Linux lawsuits where companies such as Novell and IBM and others pledged not to use their copyrights or patents against open source or GPL software. How much of it was a "stunt" and how much seriously is open to question though Novell and IBM are deep in the Linux business on corporate servers and what not so that keeping the OS healthy and defended is very important to them.
If it only works to highlight the mess US Patent Law has become then it serves a valuable service. Readers of this blog, Groklaw and others that follow this sort of thing are the few who realize what's become of it in the last 10 or 15 years and those start ups and even veterans in the tech industry. Perhaps not even then till a patent troll bites them.
In fact highlighting the mess so-called IP has become in the past few years might just wake the broader public to the mess it's become, far beyond what it was ever intended to be.
Even the idea of defensive patents or pools of the makes me nervous. Does this mean that we've reached the point where only the nuclear button is the only option to deal with invalid patents, over aiming patent holders and our good friend the patent troll?
If that is the case then we've reached the point where patents as a concept have utterly and completely failed.
On the post: The EU Telco Plan To Have The UN 'Tax & Track' Internet Usage Goes Against Fundamental Internet Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxman
Second:
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Taxman- lyrics-The-Beatles/5CDCCB0FEE68ED6E48256BC20013CFDA
In the trueist of true freetard traditions the site doesn't ask for a few pennies to cover the licensing fee for passing this on and then me passing it on here.
Yes, the United States has the most servers in the world no matter how you count it but Canada is a close second when you take population into account. Way back when the UK was next, then Germany, then South Africa though I'm sure the number of servers in places like Brazil and India have increased exponentially as have China's.
As for actually needing more money to invest in infrastructure for the Net someone wants us to buy a very large pig in a poke here. They're all doing fine thanks if not on the landline side the mobile (cellular) side is raking it in because they charge by the minute for access from smart phones in the majority of cases. Naturally they'll take more from this silly rake off the top particularly if they get most of it which they traditionally have in North America.
As for how high speed is paid for at when it hits the side of the house, ever look at what you pay for it on a monthly basis? The last thing telcos or cablecos want it government skimming off the top for their own purposes. With respect to remote areas the mere presence of a military installation in those areas will pay for it in no time flat
How this helps emerging and poor countries is beyond me but then Eurocentric things like this generally don't.
At the end of the day it's all bullshit. The telecom industry isn't a closely regulated monopoly any longer but it's still considered vital by governments and regulators. And that includes the parts that carry the Internet. Net neutrality isn't in danger as long as the military and commerce keep demanding it as part of contracts they sign with telcos and cablecos.
On the post: Apple Steps Into Patent Fight To Unnecessarily Silence A Little Girl
That said we're back to the companies that make this sort of software or software/hardware combinations having a fight over a patent rather than what's best for this girl. Valid patent or not there's something very immoral about what's going on here. If the idea of all of this is to make it possible for children such as Maya to communicate then isn't the main goal just that rather than battling over a bloody patent?
What's more important here? Money or Maya? Sadly it's money. It's hard to swallow. The devices in question are completely different in that one runs on an iPad and the other runs on dedicated hardware. At least in that sense.
Isn't the question here what's best for AAC sufferers and not the patent battles between two or three companies?
Surely a solution can be found that doesn't mean the end of something that's been useful for (at least) one little girl so that all three companies can get on with the business of supporting, helping and opening new worlds for a child like Maya than patent lawsuits which may not be settled until she's well into her twenties.
It's disgusting. It was the first go round and it is this time, too.
On the post: Funnyjunk Lawyer Being Mocked Mercilessly, Makes Things Worse By Trying To Shut Down The Oatmeal's Fundraiser
It's time for Carreon to stop digging, get out of the hole and admire his work then fill it in before he drowns.
Just closing his yap would go a long, long way to ending this.
On the post: Techno-Panic Headlines: 'Enhanced Ebooks Are Bad For Children'
Imagine all the damage done by my growing up on TinTin books, various forms of 1950s style "where's waldo" stuff, Dick and Jane, lots of books with pictures of the people in quaint native dress in South Carolina and Looney Tunes!
Now think of how much worse it would have been if enhanced ebooks had been added to that mix!
Oh, you mean nothing happened to me at all from all of this any worse than my going out, playing in the mud and sometimes accidentally swallowing some, being taken for walks by the family dog and discovering the wonderful, if slimy taste of uncooked earthworms?
But the headline writer said it did and that I've been screwed for life by it all! There goes all my faith in the media and it's ability to tell me the truth. Oh heck.
Guess, I'm not bleeding enough. I'll be back in time for the late news with that corrected. Promise!
On the post: The Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk: How The Court Of Public Opinion Beats The Court Of Baseless Legal Threats
Re: Re: Re: Please let Funnyjunk pursue this
AFTER a might in the local pub sampling the newest beers in vast quantities.
On the post: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
Re:
As the servers are in the United States and seized by the United States Government which implies at least temporary ownership of the servers and data on them belongs to the United States Government as we would with the seizure of physical objects. Which leaves only the US Government and/or Carpathia.
As Megaupload has no business at this moment, no cash flow and little chance of having any of that soon there is no point in suing them. I guess he could try to sue DotCom in New Zealand if there's much use while he's in custody.
So the US government it is as the current, if temporary, owner of record of everything Megaupload.
Perhaps once a court case begins in the United States, should DotCom be extradited from NewZealand, we'll hear what happened here from both sides. For the moment we're only hearing one side and that from the extradition hearing in New Zealand which doesn't fill me with confidence that the authorities actually HAVE a case.
Perhaps once day as you troll you'll find someone here who will completely agree with you other than bob.
On the post: When The Entertainment Industry Can't Legally Shut Down A Site It Doesn't Like, Bogus Charges Can Do The Trick
Re:
That didn't seem to be enough for the court, now, did it?
On the post: When The Entertainment Industry Can't Legally Shut Down A Site It Doesn't Like, Bogus Charges Can Do The Trick
Re: Re: Idle question
There's already the court ruling that says the arrest and all that followed shouldn't have happened which sets something of a precedent itself. Something that backs that up would be helpful if not entirely necessary.
On the post: Canadian IP Lobby Calls For SOPA North, Complete With Website Blocking And Secondary Liability
Re: Re: Re: There IS NO BILL
The thing is that C-11 has no provisions that I can find that are similar to what is proposed by the council.
I was under the impression that it had passed the Commons but all the same, at this point, there is nothing based on this report, as yet.
Giest does headline his post the group's position as a post Bill C-11 playbook which is partly where I took my erroneous statement from. I should have read deeper but I thought I read it completely through.
Thanks again, for the correction. But C-11 doesn't contain any of these provisions.
In no way does that mean that we Canucks can let our guard down. Bits and pieces of this may find its way in either in the House or Senate or in regulations which is something Harper is fond of.
Still there is no bill based on this post C-11 shopping list.
I'd have to wager, as well, that a great deal of this shopping list would find itself in trouble with the Charter.
On the post: Canadian IP Lobby Calls For SOPA North, Complete With Website Blocking And Secondary Liability
Re: There IS NO BILL
There was a new copyright act passed in this past winter while all the SOPA hubub was going on in the States. The Government took notice of the hubub and assured the opposition at the time that the new copyright bill, flawed as it was and now is as the law of the land, was as far as they were going.
While some in the Tory caucus may be tempted to follow the suggestions in the report I find it hard to believe that Harper's inner cabinet would be so stupid as to try to adopt anything this draconian.
Keep in mind though that this is a report written by a lobby group, there is no bill in the Commons to bring any part of this report alive as legislation.
On the post: Canadian IP Lobby Calls For SOPA North, Complete With Website Blocking And Secondary Liability
Re: Re:
Nor does site blocking, messing with DNS or a whole lot of other things on the shopping list of the Canadian IP Council make a lot of sense technically or things Canada has jurisdiction over.
For now, this is just a shopping list by one group. And keep in mind that Parliament just passed a bill updating Canadian copyright and patent law this past winter as the SOPA/PIPA revolt was gaining steam in the States. The PM and the Minister in charge of that bill both noted the revolt and made it clear that nothing like that was under consideration here.
There is a long list of things with higher priority on the list of things for the House to do when it gets back in the fall than to do much of anything with this report.
On the post: Canadian IP Lobby Calls For SOPA North, Complete With Website Blocking And Secondary Liability
Re: This is getting ridiculous.
Very unlike, say, the United Kingdom where most of it already is. So perhaps the UK should abandon the Union Jack and apply for statehood?
Now that that is out of the way. Our federal government is wonderful at yapping about what we need to do and our international commitments (ACTA) but they're not all that rapid on acting on things like reports from this collection of lunatics.
I'm no fan of Stephen Harper's policies and politics but he does take good care of that part of his base that might wander off if he pushes this kind of thing too far and this report is too, too,too far. It's his voters who fall into the broad category of those most likely to download pirated software or to seek out counterfeit meds or even go looking for fake fashions.
He's also sensitive to what has happened in the States with regard to SOPA/PIPA, currently in Europe with ACTA, the leaks from TPP and the slowly increasing resistance to it around the Pacific Rim. He wants to stay Prime Minister for the long term and not risk it all on a throw of the dice to do what this group wants him to do Even his training as an economist would let him easily catch the smell of bad economic policy around this should he follow this group's demands.
Bit of a bully that he is he'll use it to get what he wants from the Opposition in the house but as far as anything concrete I seriously doubt it.
Next >>