Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 4th Sep 2011 15:48 UTC
Legal "Secret U.S. government cables show a stunning willingness by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands (more here) for a U.S.-style copyright law here. The documents describe Canadian officials as encouraging American lobbying efforts. They also cite cabinet minister Maxime Bernier raising the possibility of showing U.S. officials a draft bill before tabling it in Parliament. The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list." Unbelievable. Suddenly I understand why the SFPD had no qualms about acting as henchmen for Apple goons to violate someone's constitutional rights. If a government is messed up, it only makes sense this is reflected in the corporate policies of its prime corporations.
Thread beginning with comment 488547
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:


I think you are wrong. I think Avatar would have been made even with changes to copyright. Here's why: Avatar made more money at the box office than any other movie ever, pulling in $760 million. Most copying happens after media release. (except for crappy theater cam versions) Even if you don't release to video, the movie was still hugely profitable. Now, the dynamic would be different. But at the end of the day, even without copyright, hollywood for the most part would be ok. They make money off of live performances and rebroadcasts. Since they control those outlets totally, there is no problem. Even if they did release dvds, enough people would pay to still make it profitable. Most people who pay do so because they want to own a copy, otherwise they would just rent.

Reply Parent Score: 3

cfgr Member since:

Even if they did release dvds, enough people would pay to still make it profitable. Most people who pay do so because they want to own a copy, otherwise they would just rent.

I think you're a bit naive there.

You often hear people saying "the entertainment industry is a dinosaur, they should change their business model or go extinct."

Well, that's true. The industry is changing their model, toward a streaming/cloud/online account/DRM based model where you no longer own anything, pay monthly and are entirely at mercy of the company holding your account. Violate the TOS and lose your games/songs/movies. This is what happens when neither side respects the spirit of copyrights any more.

Copyrights basically said that one copy = one item. If you buy it, you own it. Now you pay for a service and own nothing. Both greedy pirates and greedy companies have pushed everyone in that direction.

The victims here are those who actually pay for their copies and want to keep them as their own. The same people you described.

(The original) copyright is a good thing, abusing it in one way or the other is not.

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:

I don't think cessation / non-emergence of recent easy copyright infringement (on the consumer side) would influence in any way the other side, and their established disrespect to (the original) copyright; a disrespect evident by already long campaign to expand protection terms to the point of absurdity...

As to the victims - research suggest that the group of "pirates" overlaps with the group of most active paying customers.

Reply Parent Score: 1