Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Government News Politics

Canadian Gov't Considers Plan To Block Public Domain 169

Posted by Soulskill
from the victory-for-dead-authors dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Canada celebrated New Year's Day this year by welcoming the likes of Ernest Hemingway and Carl Jung into the public domain just as European countries were celebrating the arrival of James Joyce and Virginia Woolf, 20 years after both entered the Canadian public domain. The Canadian government is now considering a plan to enter trade negotiations that would extend the term of copyright by 20 years, meaning nothing new would enter the public domain in Canada until at least 2032. The government is holding a public consultation with the chance for Canadians to speak out to save the public domain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Gov't Considers Plan To Block Public Domain

Comments Filter:
  • by jtseng (4054) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:08PM (#38611922)

    Who's paying for this legislation? Is it the same cast of characters that does the same shenanigans in the US?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This raises a question. Unless you are down on your knees, pleading hopelessly with a language construct. I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!

      • by ackthpt (218170) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:34PM (#38612296) Homepage Journal

        This raises a question. Unless you are down on your knees, pleading hopelessly with a language construct. I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!

        It beggars belief.

      • This raises a question. Unless you are down on your knees, pleading hopelessly with a language construct. I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!

        That is a perfectly cromulent phrase.

      • I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!

        You're asking us to assume the phrase "begs the question" can only mean one thing. News flash pal: words and phrases can have multiple meanings. Besides, Petitio principii was mistranslated in the first place.

    • No, it IS the USA. (Score:5, Informative)

      by bussdriver (620565) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:13PM (#38612012)

      Wikileaks shows the US government and especially the State Dept. work on behalf of the big moneyed interests which historically were US organizations but not so much today. I'm just waiting for the day a leak shows them going to bat for Chinese interests.

      Just recently we have news of them actually threatening Spain to be more draconian and not that many years ago they were threatening Spain again but that time it was to allow GM foods wholly "owned" by Monsanto to the point where they were directly planning with Monsanto execs on the maneuver.

      Other nations do it a little but nobody has topped the USA at it; one of the few things we are still #1 at. (see France and the privatization of water.)

      • by dbet (1607261)
        "I'm just waiting for the day a leak shows them going to bat for Chinese interests."

        Why wait? Corporations are international. All you need is one satellite office in Wisconsin and you can funnel money into the U.S. to pay politicians to do things.

        And of course that's fair, right? I mean, the U.S. pressures everyone else, it's not unreasonable that other places pressure the U.S.
        • by ackthpt (218170)

          "I'm just waiting for the day a leak shows them going to bat for Chinese interests."

          Why wait? Corporations are international. All you need is one satellite office in Wisconsin and you can funnel money into the U.S. to pay politicians to do things.

          And of course that's fair, right? I mean, the U.S. pressures everyone else, it's not unreasonable that other places pressure the U.S.

          Chinese were buying influence in US elections in the 1990's.

      • Why bother with a free people when you can kill anyone that objects, or threaten to move the work elsewhere - as bids to divide the people amongst themselves?

    • by doconnor (134648) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:17PM (#38612054) Homepage

      Corporate political donations are banned in Canada and individual donations are limited, so it's not the money. It's just that the elected leaders happen to believe corporations should get whatever they want.

      • by drunkennewfiemidget (712572) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:23PM (#38612136) Homepage

        Wait, and you believe for a second that they change anything?

        They can't make donations, but they can let politicians into their swanky dinner parties for free.

        And they can let the politicians and their families borrow their stately manor in the Muskokas.

        And so on and so forth. Don't think for a second our corrupt collection of assholes in parliament aren't still benefitting HUGELY from these corporations.

        • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:28PM (#38612224)
          Plus this is a media lobby - they can offer discounted TV slots, or better slots, or favorable news coverage. It doesn't even have to be a shady under-the-table deal - any politician can work out that the media will be on good terms with him if he is with them.
          • by rtb61 (674572)

            There is always the imfamous mass media interview. Friend of the corporate owners or enemies of the corporate owners, it shows up in the language and questions, what a joke thought, friends don't get asked questions, the whole interview is an acted out script.

            Those 'question' have been sent out to the corporate pet weeks ahead of time so a whole team can go through them to ensure the 'answers' sell what ever message they want to sell and the 'questions' are revised, added to and deleted to ensure the des

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Wait, and you believe for a second that they change anything?

          They can't make donations, but they can let politicians into their swanky dinner parties for free.

          And they can let the politicians and their families borrow their stately manor in the Muskokas.

          And so on and so forth. Don't think for a second our corrupt collection of assholes in parliament aren't still benefitting HUGELY from these corporations.

          Left out the corporate jobs they seem to move into with relative ease once out of office...

        • I have to declare the value of every meal I get taken out on by our clients & other 'gifts' if the total per day comes over £40... and even have to pay bl00dy tax on the benefit I've received... how come these swine get away with this?

          Note, there are moves afoot in the UK to start chasing our politicians on these house & boat lendings and other entertainment schemes to get them for the tax on the equivalent benefit in kind...

          • by Pope (17780)

            How do they get away with it? They're in charge, they make the rules.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Not to mention that Brian Mulroney was caught taking envelopes full of hundreds of thousands of dollars, cash, in shady hotel rooms.

          If he was caught doing it, they are all doing it, just not getting caught. The laws don't really mean that much in this regard.

        • Here in the US, and I would imagine in Canada, too, another tactic is to give cushy, ill-defined, high-paying jobs to the family members of government officials. There are many examples (like Michelle Obama), but consider Susan Bayh. She's an attorney. According to Wikipedia:

          "An Indiana newspaper listed eight corporations of which Bayh was a director, as of 2006.[1] Bayh began serving on corporate boards in 1994 and has since served on the boards of 14 corporations, including the insurance, pharmaceutica

      • by symbolset (646467) *
        You actually believe that?
      • It is the money (Score:5, Insightful)

        by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:34PM (#38612308)
        It is the money being used to buy off US politicians, who then put pressure on Canadian politicians. The US is Canada's biggest trading partner and visa versa, so what the US wants has a big impact on what the Canadians do.
      • by ackthpt (218170) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:38PM (#38612374) Homepage Journal

        Corporate political donations are banned in Canada and individual donations are limited, so it's not the money. It's just that the elected leaders happen to believe corporations should get whatever they want.

        You've never met a politician who wasn't rewarded for loyalty after they left office. This is the retirement plan for a large share of the US House and Senate.

      • by lonecrow (931585)
        And now that we have more oil then god and are just another captured petro-state, that isn't going to change soon.

        Goodbye Canadian Democracy, hello corruption of the legal system.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06, 2012 @03:05PM (#38612740)

      Who's paying for this legislation? Is it the same cast of characters that does the same shenanigans in the US?

      It's the Extreme Right of the Stephen Harper Conservatives. They are pro-corporate and anti-consumer. Some of the Harper Conservative initiatives:
      - eliminate universal health care
      - support warrantless internet surveillance
      - support Internet Usage Based Billing (reversed stance do to public outcry just before election, though the government passed a watered-down UBB-type measures afterwords)
      - increase criminal penalties for recreational drug violations (and spend billions of dollars on new penitentiaries during an economic crisis)
      - eliminate and weaken gun control legislation (he stated, for example that people who refuse to register fire arms with the government will make criminals out of innocent citizens)
      - supported increased censorship of the Internet and movie industries
      - unequivocal support for the state of Israel and rejection of any Palestinian claims
      - constantly campaigns to lower taxes on corporations
      - wants to eliminate any form of social welfare
      - took a leadership role in rejecting Kyoto
      - is a global warming denier
      - is anti-abortion (and of course, is pro-death penalty)
      - likes to do business with the corrupt Chinese government and their corporations
      - The Wikileaks people discovered that the Harper Conservatives secretly urged the United States to put Canada on a worst-offenders list of copyright violators and bittorent users (to help with the pro-copyright propaganda campaigns)

      Here are some Stephen Harper quotes:

      Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.

      [Regarding the lies that the second Iraq War was based on, and the terrorism that resulted from it:]
      On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction.

      We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.

      ===

      I believe that all taxes are bad.

      In terms of the unemployed... don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

      [S]ome basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk... Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.

      Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.

      Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.

      Same sex marriage is not a human right. ... [U]ndermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on multiculturalism and the practices in those communities.

      These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of âoechild povertyâ...

      If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away⦠This is oÂne more reason why Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. â¦Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home â" a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn.

      "activist judges" [I can't seem to find a direct quote, but there are references to Harper complaining about "liberal activist judges".]

      And finally, not Harper himself, but one of his henchmen calling pe

      • And given its length, I was bound to find one thing that I agreed with.

        I personally happen to support the notion of the death penalty as well for a limited number of types of crimes.

        Pretty much everything else in that list I either disagree with or had not previously formed any position.

        For what it's worth, I didn't vote Conservative.

        • I support the notion of death penalty in theory, in a sense that I can imagine quite a few crimes for which it would be an appropriate punishment.

          That said, I don't see how I could possibly support it in a less-than-perfect (i.e. any real-world) justice system, where innocents can and are pronounced guilty. Of all other forms of punishment, death penalty is the only one that cannot be reversed. If someone spends 20 years in prison for something they didn't done, it's still horrible, but at least we can let

      • Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.

        I don't like Harper. I don't like his party. I've posted one post in this thread about one of their stupid laws already.

        HOWEVER, this quote has been taken out of context. The human rights commissions he was talking about are quasi-judicial "court" with flimsy standards of evidence which does appear to be a

      • by Phrogman (80473)

        Harper definitely has an ultra-conservative agenda, and he will continue to ram it down the throats of Canadian citizens as long as our fellow citizens continue to the vote the cocksucker into office. I am so ashamed of my fellow Canadians, embarrassed even, that we gave this asshole a single vote, let alone returned a majority for him. I don't think he represents a single position I can agree with.
        Harper, IMHO, stands to ruin just about every aspect of Canada I cherish. Apparently Canadians as a whole agre

        • by angus77 (1520151)
          Don't be ashamed of Canadians for this. Less than 24% of eligible Canadians actually voted for Harper's party. Blame the messed-up first-through-the-post system that allows 24% of the vote to equal a Majority, and blame the whole Confidence Vote bullshit for scaring MPs into voting for the party line lest they have to dissolve Parliament...again.
    • by dryeo (100693)

      They're right wingers. By default they believe in property ownership of all kinds and are disgusted by the idea of free things and peoples and especially businesses losing there property to the public domain. And they really believe that copyright is a real form of property.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:11PM (#38611962)

    The public domain needs to be defended from the government? That thing that supposedly represents the will of the public?

    Holy shit, what a world we live in.

  • ... and are deciding whether to be pwned or not.

  • by sinij (911942) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:28PM (#38612218) Journal
    Sadly, this is all but done deal. Traditional Canadian values are being traded for closer ties with US. Conservative Harper government has an ability to pass this, in exchange getting border harmonization (less restrictions on shipping) with US.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      With any luck, it will be like Canada's pot laws, which exist on paper just to prevent the USA from freaking out, but aren't actually enforced in Canada. Lawyers, judges and lawmakers don't know this, but cops do, and that's really all that matters.

      • by broken_chaos (1188549) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:46PM (#38612452)

        Harper wants to enforce minimum sentences on all drug offenses, including jail time. Really.

        • by oldspicepuresport (1551767) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:59PM (#38612650)
          I'm no fan of Harper but that's just not true.

          Minimum sentences apply only under aggravating circumstances... like selling drugs on school property, selling drugs while armed with a gun, or selling drugs on behalf of organized crime.

          Sorry to let reality get in the way of your paranoid delusions. Really.
          • by Suddenly_Dead (656421) on Friday January 06, 2012 @03:33PM (#38613140)

            Minimum sentences apply only under aggravating circumstances...

            That's not true, unless you count recidivism as aggravating, and I would argue that in this case it really shouldn't be.

            (a) subject to paragraph (a.1), if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and
            (i) to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if
            (A) the person committed the offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, as defined in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code,
            (B) the person used or threatened to use violence in committing the offence,
            (C) the person carried, used or threat- ened to use a weapon in committing the offence, or
            (D) the person was convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for a designated substance offence, within the previous 10 years, or

            Minimum 1-year if someone has been caught with drugs twice. The minimums you're talking about are also there: two years for on/near a school or any public place with minors, or if minors were involved at any point.

            It's also minimum 1-year for trafficking, and I'm assuming that would include "was smoking his marijuana with his buddies".

          • by msobkow (48369)

            A lot of people never bothered to read the legislation as it was written when it finally passed. The Harper government did temper it from it's original form, and put in clauses to clarify the situations when the mandatory minimums would apply.

            But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Canadian society wants our drug policies to be up for a MAJOR rethink of our approach, shifting it to either a legalization/regulation or medical model from the current incarceration/prohibition approach. The H

          • by lonecrow (931585)

            Minimum sentences apply only under aggravating circumstances... like selling drugs on school property, selling drugs while armed with a gun, or selling drugs on behalf of organized crime.

            You are mostly correct, however let me help clarify

            "selling drugs on school property"

            WRONG. Selling drugs "near where children frequent" is the language used. So is that a city block or a mile? I posit that in a city you are never more then a few blocks for a school, day care, etc.

            "selling drugs on behalf of organized

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Whether or not it's a done deal is kinda up in the air, but remember Canada already has it's own very version of "media protectionism" in place called Cancon and it's very protective of that even without, outside influence.

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      Sadly, this is all but done deal.

      Traditional Canadian values are being traded for closer ties with US. Conservative Harper government has an ability to pass this, in exchange getting border harmonization (less restrictions on shipping) with US.

      Vibes of the Helms–Burton Act, 1996. In effect: Canadian companies doing business in Cuba could not do business with US Government or US Corporations - which in this multinational world is like trying to dance through a minefield.

      The whiff of influence is possibly due to sentiment, like you state, in the interest of happy cross border trade ($$$) rather than in the interests of the people of Canada.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Is that as a Canadian citizen I needed to learn about this on Slashdot, so much for public consultation!

  • Same song different tune.
    • by ackthpt (218170)

      Same song different tune.

      Time for the Swedish Copyists to open a Mission in Ottawa.

    • by game kid (805301)

      Song, tune, and all related insignia, characters and distinctive likenesses thereof ©2012 Music Canada or its members. All rights reserved in perpetuity, legally or otherwise.

  • at some point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nimbius (983462) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:47PM (#38612482) Homepage
    America has forgotten something important about canadian parliament. Namely, that it is a wholly divorced entity from the united states and free to make laws, rules and regulations sans-input from it; which is coincidentally completely divorced from the concept of 'soverign nationality.'

    if the wikileaks cables expose anything, its the fact that america hasnt just been instructing the cadence to which the world will march, its been fitting the boots and tightening the slacks in which the world marches as well.

    So as an american taxpayer who believes in a free and democratic, soverign nation for all those who seek it, I can only hope canada will through consideration completely disregard this attack on the rights and freedoms of canadian citizens.
    • Re:at some point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nugoo (1794744) on Friday January 06, 2012 @04:34PM (#38614044)

      America has forgotten something important about canadian parliament. Namely, that it is a wholly divorced entity from the united states and free to make laws, rules and regulations sans-input from it; which is coincidentally completely divorced from the concept of 'soverign nationality.'

      More importantly, so has Canada.

    • Re:at some point (Score:5, Informative)

      by future assassin (639396) on Friday January 06, 2012 @04:52PM (#38614268) Homepage

      >I can only hope canada will through consideration completely disregard this attack on the rights and freedoms of canadian citizens.

      The Harper Government - yes they want to be called The Harper Gov instead of Government Of Canada will do no such thing, This will pass. Why? Well look what happened after the Wikileaks cables shwed that Canadian politicians where working hard to let the US see early drafts of our bills and OUR politicians were asking the US to put US on the 301 list. This hit a few news sites but NOTHING happened.

    • by msobkow (48369)

      That's because some Americans still think they rule the world and that they can shove their screwed up system down everyone else's throat.

      Fuck the wanna-be dictators in the US. They do NOT own the world, much as it pisses them off.

  • by itsme1234 (199680) on Friday January 06, 2012 @02:52PM (#38612544)

    ... and just print some money and hand it to these bozos to leave us alone? I mean we can't pretend anymore that there's any fairness at all. Copyright was some kind of a deal in which both parties contributed with something: "the people" agreed to let "the authors" have some kind of unnatural monopoly over how some specific information is distributed with the understanding that they'll get back after a while some more interesting information in return. Free for share and for recycling in any way we see fit.
    Already life of the author plus 50 years or whatever is whatever relevant jurisdiction is ridiculously high and defeats the spirit of copyright. Heck, there's freakin' JULES VERNE still under copyright (and really hard to find if you are on the wrong continent).
    Life + 70 years is just a spit in the face. It should be like patents, about 20 years, with the need for explicit extensions. And a DRM-free copy of the original should be provided in escrow to some state organization which should make sure at the date when the copyright expires the DRM-free copy is available for everyone. Or you chose your poison: copyright will not protect you if the copy you distribute has DRM. Either it's mine to do whatever I am legally allowed to do OR you don't come crying that you want to sue a printer in some campus for "distributing copyrighted work".

    If I'm not mistaken Canada is also one of the countries where if you want to back-up your pictures (for example) to CD it's presumed that you infringe copyright and you have to pay some fee no matter what, isn't it? I think this goes back to my original argument that there's no rhyme or reason to the laws, just get what you can for whatever pretext.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by silentbrad (1488951)
      Actually, it's a private copying levy [wikipedia.org] on blank media that is paid back to the Canadian Private Copying Collective.
    • by Minwee (522556)

      If I'm not mistaken Canada is also one of the countries where if you want to back-up your pictures (for example) to CD it's presumed that you infringe copyright and you have to pay some fee no matter what, isn't it?

      It's also one of the countries where it is legal to share music. Funny how that works, isn't it?

      • by itsme1234 (199680)

        Of course it's one of the countries in which is legal to share music, as it's legal to share in ALL countries. The problem comes when you start to qualify the statement: "depending on the license", "without compensation", "for free", etc.
        Are you saying that you're allowed to share (obviously without compensation or any previous agreement) the latest Metallica album:
        a. on your web site?
        b. in your shop (street corner, class, company, etc)? Even assuming you're using "taxed" CDs?

        • by dryeo (100693)

          Distributing is illegal, so it's illegal for me to make you a copy but perfectly legal to lend you my copy so you can make a copy even including letting you use my equipment to make that copy.
          On the internet the courts have ruled that making available is legal, just not pushing so yes, having a web site that includes a link to your shared folder is not illegal.
          The artists (in theory) get compensated by a levy and perhaps the organization that collects the levy will one day share.

      • by green1 (322787)

        The government is working hard to "fix" that... they are trying to remove our right to share without removing the levy. It remains to be seen if that will fly in the courts (considering that it would amount to a presumption of illegal activity)

  • by jenningsthecat (1525947) on Friday January 06, 2012 @03:00PM (#38612660)

    ...I urge every Canadian reading this to send an e-mail expressing your (reasonably worded and well-considered) views to consultations@international.gc.ca. I also suggest that you write to or e-mail your Minister of Parliament, and any other MP's that are involved in the process of destrying the Public Domain in Canada.

    In the past these letter writing campaigns have resulted in unfavourable and unfair Internet legislation in Canada being rejected, and although the current Conservative majority does not bode well for maintaining a healthy Public Domain, it's still worhwhile trying. In my view these issues are like elections - if you don't weigh in and make yourself heard, you have no right to complain about the outcome. So please raise your voices in an effort to stop this ill-conceived attack on the public good.

    • by dryeo (100693)

      I'll add that a hand written letter counts for much more then an email so actually write a letter. You don't need a stamp either if mailed to parliament.

    • The only thing I'd add to your entry, is asking our fellow canadians to tell their friends, family, everyone in fact, to send such an email by spreading the word on Facebook, Google+, Twitter, or any other means you have. Hey, we're in a connected world now, let's show them that we're able to use those connections for a meaning!

    • Just to add to your post, the email *needs* your name & address.

      From Mr Geist's blog [michaelgeist.ca]:

      The consultation is open until February 14, 2012. All it takes a single email with your name, address, and comments on the issue. The email can be sent to consultations@international.gc.ca [mailto]. Alternatively, submissions can be sent by fax (613-944-3489) or mail (Trade Negotiations Consultations (TPP), Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Trade Policy and Negotiations Division II (TPW), Lester B. Pearson Building, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2).

  • by advocate_one (662832) on Friday January 06, 2012 @03:06PM (#38612752)
    I'd have less objections if the legislation changed the length of term for NEW items, BUT didn't change the length of EXISTING copyrights...
    • I always thought that ex post facto legislation is a biiiiig nono in civilized countries?

      • by green1 (322787)

        Please provide a list of these "civilized countries" of which you speak. You know, the mythical places where freedom exists, laws are fair, and the government works for the people.

  • by Froggie (1154) on Friday January 06, 2012 @04:16PM (#38613754)

    ... consider this one, which is purely economic:

    If copyrights are extended by 20 years, the entire Canadian public is deprived of value, which is handed mostly to holders of existing copyrights. What are you getting in return?

    If the answer is 'nothing', then why would your MP, whose sole job is to represent the Canadian public, vote for this?

    If the answer is 'more creativity', then that statement would need considerable backup before it's worthwhile changing the status quo, considering the loss involved. Last I checked there was no shortage of new novels, films and so on, and no indication that more money for the creators in the long distant future would change that.

    And if the answer is 'appeasing other countries', then someone needs to justify the value of such appeasement.

    Anything else would seem to be a dereliction of the MP's duty.

    • If you're purely looking to give more value to new works, then you don't have to change the copyright term for old ones. The creators knew what they signed up to when the work was created: changing that deal now cannot possibly be fair.

    • by compro01 (777531)

      What are you getting in return?

      The Conservative MPs get cushy jobs after they retire from politics or get their ass booted out of parliament by displeased voters. What the mere citizens get is irreverent.

  • ... if they could also see to it that another 20 years is tacked onto the term of my mortgage.

  • Save Your Breath (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rueger (210566) * on Friday January 06, 2012 @04:57PM (#38614326) Homepage
    The government is holding a public consultation with the chance for Canadians to speak out to save the public domain."

    Tee hee. It's so cute when people think that they can make a difference. The Tories have majority, which means that they will do exactly what they want, when they want, and only what they want.

    This thing is a done deal, and no amount of punditry and internet petitioning is going to change it.
  • by spaceyhackerlady (462530) on Friday January 06, 2012 @05:32PM (#38614718)

    We all know the drill by now.

    The government will listen intently to everybody, then do exactly what Big Copyright told them to do.

    ...laura

  • How about we extend copyright to the point of the property being totally fucking useless to anyone.

    • "Hey, it's not that bad, it's just 20 years more, so it enters PD a bit later."

      Bullshit. It will never enter PD anymore. Every 20 years we tack on another 20 years. Essentially, this means perpetual copyright. And this is a slap in the face of the intention behind it when it was invented.

  • Again we see the foolishness of copyright. If we need it to function as a society (and that is a very, very big IF), then the maximum term should be five years, no more. That is enough time for any content creator to bring their product to market and gain any recognition they deserve.

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Working...