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 488565
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It is really sad.
by jefro on Mon 5th Sep 2011 19:52 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

I feel sad for those that argue such a flimsy excuse that somehow they are not stealing. Sad they argue it is the government that is at fault. Sad that they don't see the harm in their actions. Somehow you feel that an artist or performer or a programmer in some country is somehow not worth your effort to protect. Yet you feel that if you were in their shoes, you should be protected. Why do you feel that others should let you steal? You guys should really consider investing in some ethical and honesty courses.

Copyright laws have been in place for a very long time. Along with many other concepts such as patents, and trademarks and other legal issues such at deeds and marriage certificates and money. Yes, the money you all use is a legal document that is protected. Your arguments would lead me to believe that since I can counterfeit your money legally in one country then that is OK. That I should do it in fact since I disagree with your country. How exactly does that differ? It doesn't face it. Just be honest. You know you are crooks and petty crooks at that if you download stolen works.

To go further, you guys are addicted to this. You need help.

Reply Score: 0

RE: It is really sad.
by Alfman on Mon 5th Sep 2011 21:34 in reply to "It is really sad."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jefro,

"You guys should really consider investing in some ethical and honesty courses."

Who exactly are you responding to?

If it's my post, then let me point out that there is absolutely nothing dishonest or unethical for a society to evolve in such a way that copying is acceptable. Theft is intrinsically harmful under any conceivable civilization. Copying is not.

If you cannot understand the difference than perhaps it is you who should invest in courses...see what I did there?

"Just be honest. You know you are crooks and petty crooks at that if you download stolen works. To go further, you guys are addicted to this. You need help."

As much as this might disturb you, we are just as honest and hard working as you are, it's just a different philosophy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: It is really sad.
by zima on Sun 11th Sep 2011 23:59 in reply to "RE: It is really sad."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Theft is intrinsically harmful under any conceivable civilization.

I think you might find it interesting how even that is not strictly true... even under the cultural sphere shared to a relatively large degree by most people here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunde_Null#Other_sources_of_food (Fringsen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Frings#.22fringsen.22 (here, with greater context of his words, it's clear he wasn't quite so forthcoming as suggested by the first link; but a) still, far from "intrinsically harmful" b) it seems like the first meaning is very much present in our collective culture & consciousness, it's easy to accept...)

PS. Yeah, I'm horribly late ;p ...and I think I shouldn't be able to comment by now, anyway; maybe it has something to do with un-hibernating a machine after a few days, one where I started writing this reply and few others (old session, cookie? Either way, it's bound to expire at any moment); might as well do "slow osnews evening" and finish them (maybe, it's late) - including one already long in our main discussion here (where you seem to be offended from seeing one adverb as an adjective; mentioning also popular myths people believe in, which in turn often influence irrational support & voting; no further replies possible but not to worry, you know by now that I keep it on a level, and where to find me)

Edited 2011-09-12 00:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: It is really sad.
by TechGeek on Mon 5th Sep 2011 21:50 in reply to "It is really sad."
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Its also really sad that the pact that was made with artists has been distorted and abused in the name of greed. Copyright protection is a two way street, a contract between society and artists. Unfortunately, the artists have become greedy pigs. If they (and you) expect people to respect copyright, then they have to respect it also. Creating laws that bypass our basic freedoms and dictating laws for other societies goes well beyond the power creators are suppose to have under copyright.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It is really sad.
by dragossh on Mon 5th Sep 2011 22:09 in reply to "It is really sad."
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Copying is something we've been doing for millions of years now. Humans copied each other's traditions, tools, languages. That's how we evolved. Trying to stop copying is trying to stop a normal thing. You CAN'T stop copying, it's like trying to stop gravity. There'll always be ways to copy something, whether you want it or not.

Copyright is a good idea but, like democracy, it's just something we've implemented and limited ourselves with. Maybe getting rid of it will provide a better society where people's lives aren't destroyed for downloading an album (for non-commercial purposes!!) while big corporations are protected up the wazoo.

Edited 2011-09-05 22:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: It is really sad.
by zima on Sun 11th Sep 2011 18:47 in reply to "It is really sad."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Copyright laws have been in place for a very long time. Along with many other concepts such as patents, and trademarks and other legal issues such at deeds and marriage certificates and money


You could be more forthcoming with how you live in a fantasy world...

Copyright has been really around for less than a century, for most of human population. Copyright with ridiculously overblown terms, less than the timespan of an average human life.
That's a blink of an eye in terms of our civilisation. You don't really even mentally differentiate between, say, ancient Mediterranean in 300 vs 200 BC.
(similar with patents or trademarks; and BTW, historically, <em>every</em> upcoming technological powerhouse ignored "intellectual property" rules of its time ...only after establishing itself on the world stage, they tried to push such limitations on possible future competition;
rules governing marriage and money also greatly changing over time)

We're still in a time when this <em>insanely recent</em> concept sways one way or the other; far before its stabilisation. And with a generation who largely understands the web, who grew up on it, coming of age and into politics in a decade or two.

Edited 2011-09-11 18:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1