5 ms·

New North American Trade Deal Has Bad News for Canadian Copyright

145 points by DiabloD3 8y ago

mncharity 8y ago
For those missing context, both copyright extension and FOSTA 'reign in the internet' are Hollywood. When the US dropped TPP, Canada took up leadership of the process as CPTPP. TPP was called two treaties in one, though not often in the US press. Canada kept the free trade part, and "postponed" the Hollywood copyright, pharma patents, and corporate ISDS. But what's the point of being a hegemon if you can't provide one-stop shopping for arm-twisted world-wide regulatory capture?
Nerdfest 8y ago
I think we're at the point that copyright can no longer be respected, or certainly close to it.
- justtopost 8y ago
  I think we have there a long time. Respect the artist, the middleman less so. Go see that band you pirate live, or send em a fiver. Buy a some merch. Find out what prifit goes to whom. To vote with your dollar means you have to intelligently spend, not just withhold.
  - chx 8y ago
    > Find out what prifit goes to whom. I was wondering about that the other day. See, I just discovered Moshe Koussevitzky a few months ago (Wikipedia says "a lyric tenor with a spectacular and perhaps unparalleled upper register among cantors. Koussevitzky is regarded as among the greatest Cantors of the 20th century.") and I bought a track of his and I was wondering about just that: he died in 1966, who the heck gets that money now? Ps. https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Various_Artists_The_Promised_Land?id=Bvc2egkqeocgcoxoop5shjvhqyq https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Various_Artists_Th... Christian/Gospel slowclap
- annadane 8y ago
  "Copyright" is a broad term but broadly, I agree - with the internet's instant transmission of information it seems absurd to block things based on country or persecute pirates, etc
  - tzs 8y ago
    If copyright was justifiable before the internet was available, back when copying was difficult and costly, I don't see how the internet changes that...unless you believe that the reason for copyright back then was to prevent people wasting time and money on copying when it would be cheaper and quicker for them to use that time to earn money to buy a copy?
    - mrob 8y ago
      When copying was more difficult, the opportunity cost to the public of banning it was less.
mikelward 8y ago
I emailed my (Democrat) California senators on copyright extension, and they were in favor. I don't see how it actually promotes the creation of new works, and I definitely don't think laws should have effect retroactively. (Isn't that a basic premise of the rule of law?!) But when it has bipartisan support, I'm not sure what else to do, other than try to support more like-minded challengers when those senators are up for reelection. If the US can't get it together, I guess "harmonization" is inevitable.
- npsomaratna 8y ago
  Law student here. We use the term "ex post facto" for laws that have a retroactive effect. Article 1 of the US. constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, but the supreme court has traditionally interpreted this to only apply to criminal law. Civil laws can and have been applied retroactively.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bediger4000 8y ago
    Honest question: why the difference? Why is one a constitutional no-no, and the other is not? Is there some logical reason?
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      The relevant Supreme Court case is Calder v. Bull. As for why that might make sense as a rule, some being reasons cited in the case and others my own thoughts: First, there are textual arguments. For example, why does the Constitution prohibit states from impairing the obligations of existing contracts if the general prohibition on ex post facto laws would do? Further, in the normal course of governing, one must sometimes rearrange the rights of others. For example, to pass bankruptcy laws, one must abridge the rights of creditors. Changes to property laws necessarily alter preexisting rights, e.g. to keep people off your land or to sell it or to build a particular thing on it. Civil law is all about rights. Which leads to the special nature of criminal law in expressing moral condemnation and imposing often-severe punishment (as opposed to the civil law requiring payment of damages). There is an element of moral humility in requiring the prohibitions to be stated ahead of time. Reasonable, thoughtful, and well-intentioned people disagree enormously on morality, but if we spell out the prohibitions ahead of time, we at least put everyone on notice as to what is expected. Also consider that contract and tort law, being judge-made law, have an inherently retrospective component whenever new issues come before the courts, or whenever a doctrine is altered or reversed. It would be odd to tolerate this in some parts of civil law (those that are mostly judge-made) but not in others (those that are statutory). All of which is not to say that retrospective civil laws are always right. It would definitely be immoral for Congress to pass a law tripling the tax bill for your income from ten years ago. But the Constitution is not a general prohibition against bad laws. Perhaps in this case, the ex post facto clause could be read to prohibit such practices as well, but at some point you have to rely on the legislature to get it right.
mwfunk 8y ago
I wonder if copyright extensions are exhibit A for the negative impact of money on politics. Copyright holders have a motivation to lobby for extensions but no big players have a motivation to lobby against them. Hence, both US parties are weirdly on board with continually extending the reach of copyright and IP laws in general. If there were no invisible hand constantly guiding politicians toward extending copyright, surely at least some politicians would have different views on it. It doesn’t help that it’s an issue that is so opaque to the general population, so there’s no popular opposition to it either. I love the EFF but when it comes to money and lobbying power they are much less influential over elected officials than the combined powers of most of the entertainment industries plus much of the tech industry.
- appleflaxen 8y ago
  this isn't because the EFF is disorganized or incompetent. it's because of money. if a billion-dollar cartel supported the EFF, lawmakers would suddenly turn their heads.
  - mwfunk 8y ago
    Agreed 100%. The likes of the EFF are at a huge natural disadvantage because nobody stands to profit from rationally curtailing copyright. Groups like the EFF are literally just trying to do the ethically right thing for everyone (at least in their eyes and mine), and it costs them money to do so, money that comes almost entirely from donations (I think). Whereas those pushing for copyright extensions not only have their own revenue stream, they actually stand to profit from the results of their lobbying. The EFF has to spend money they don’t have to fight for their beliefs, but the copyright extension people likely make a net profit over time fighting for their own interests. It’s like a negative sum game- the net result is worse for almost everyone to a greater degree than it benefits a few. If money played no role in politicians’ decision making, those decisions would be much more rational and responsible. For all I know, maybe most of them would still support copyright extensions, but it would at least be because in their judgement it was the right thing for the American people. The ridiculous amount of money in American politics muddies the waters and forces all participants into moral hazards and perpetual conflicts of interest.
qwerty456127 8y ago
It's infuriating how notorious the USA is inserting copyright BS in every single "free trade agreement". Is it really necessary to always glue a piece of shit like that to a good thing like a free trade agreement being introduced? Can't we just agree to trade freely?
DKnoll 8y ago
I wonder if the Canadian government can get an exemption for national security reasons. (/s)

145 points by DiabloD3 8y ago

For those missing context, both copyright extension and FOSTA 'reign in the internet' are Hollywood. When the US dropped TPP, Canada took up leadership of the process as CPTPP. TPP was called two treaties in one, though not often in the US press. Canada kept the free trade part, and "postponed" the Hollywood copyright, pharma patents, and corporate ISDS. But what's the point of being a hegemon if you can't provide one-stop shopping for arm-twisted world-wide regulatory capture?

Nerdfest 8y ago

I think we're at the point that copyright can no longer be respected, or certainly close to it.

justtopost 8y ago
I think we have there a long time. Respect the artist, the middleman less so. Go see that band you pirate live, or send em a fiver. Buy a some merch. Find out what prifit goes to whom. To vote with your dollar means you have to intelligently spend, not just withhold.
- chx 8y ago
  > Find out what prifit goes to whom. I was wondering about that the other day. See, I just discovered Moshe Koussevitzky a few months ago (Wikipedia says "a lyric tenor with a spectacular and perhaps unparalleled upper register among cantors. Koussevitzky is regarded as among the greatest Cantors of the 20th century.") and I bought a track of his and I was wondering about just that: he died in 1966, who the heck gets that money now? Ps. https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Various_Artists_The_Promised_Land?id=Bvc2egkqeocgcoxoop5shjvhqyq https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Various_Artists_Th... Christian/Gospel slowclap
annadane 8y ago
"Copyright" is a broad term but broadly, I agree - with the internet's instant transmission of information it seems absurd to block things based on country or persecute pirates, etc
- tzs 8y ago
  If copyright was justifiable before the internet was available, back when copying was difficult and costly, I don't see how the internet changes that...unless you believe that the reason for copyright back then was to prevent people wasting time and money on copying when it would be cheaper and quicker for them to use that time to earn money to buy a copy?
  - mrob 8y ago
    When copying was more difficult, the opportunity cost to the public of banning it was less.

mikelward 8y ago

I emailed my (Democrat) California senators on copyright extension, and they were in favor. I don't see how it actually promotes the creation of new works, and I definitely don't think laws should have effect retroactively. (Isn't that a basic premise of the rule of law?!) But when it has bipartisan support, I'm not sure what else to do, other than try to support more like-minded challengers when those senators are up for reelection. If the US can't get it together, I guess "harmonization" is inevitable.

npsomaratna 8y ago
Law student here. We use the term "ex post facto" for laws that have a retroactive effect. Article 1 of the US. constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, but the supreme court has traditionally interpreted this to only apply to criminal law. Civil laws can and have been applied retroactively.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bediger4000 8y ago
  Honest question: why the difference? Why is one a constitutional no-no, and the other is not? Is there some logical reason?
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    The relevant Supreme Court case is Calder v. Bull. As for why that might make sense as a rule, some being reasons cited in the case and others my own thoughts: First, there are textual arguments. For example, why does the Constitution prohibit states from impairing the obligations of existing contracts if the general prohibition on ex post facto laws would do? Further, in the normal course of governing, one must sometimes rearrange the rights of others. For example, to pass bankruptcy laws, one must abridge the rights of creditors. Changes to property laws necessarily alter preexisting rights, e.g. to keep people off your land or to sell it or to build a particular thing on it. Civil law is all about rights. Which leads to the special nature of criminal law in expressing moral condemnation and imposing often-severe punishment (as opposed to the civil law requiring payment of damages). There is an element of moral humility in requiring the prohibitions to be stated ahead of time. Reasonable, thoughtful, and well-intentioned people disagree enormously on morality, but if we spell out the prohibitions ahead of time, we at least put everyone on notice as to what is expected. Also consider that contract and tort law, being judge-made law, have an inherently retrospective component whenever new issues come before the courts, or whenever a doctrine is altered or reversed. It would be odd to tolerate this in some parts of civil law (those that are mostly judge-made) but not in others (those that are statutory). All of which is not to say that retrospective civil laws are always right. It would definitely be immoral for Congress to pass a law tripling the tax bill for your income from ten years ago. But the Constitution is not a general prohibition against bad laws. Perhaps in this case, the ex post facto clause could be read to prohibit such practices as well, but at some point you have to rely on the legislature to get it right.

mwfunk 8y ago

I wonder if copyright extensions are exhibit A for the negative impact of money on politics. Copyright holders have a motivation to lobby for extensions but no big players have a motivation to lobby against them. Hence, both US parties are weirdly on board with continually extending the reach of copyright and IP laws in general. If there were no invisible hand constantly guiding politicians toward extending copyright, surely at least some politicians would have different views on it. It doesn’t help that it’s an issue that is so opaque to the general population, so there’s no popular opposition to it either. I love the EFF but when it comes to money and lobbying power they are much less influential over elected officials than the combined powers of most of the entertainment industries plus much of the tech industry.

appleflaxen 8y ago
this isn't because the EFF is disorganized or incompetent. it's because of money. if a billion-dollar cartel supported the EFF, lawmakers would suddenly turn their heads.
- mwfunk 8y ago
  Agreed 100%. The likes of the EFF are at a huge natural disadvantage because nobody stands to profit from rationally curtailing copyright. Groups like the EFF are literally just trying to do the ethically right thing for everyone (at least in their eyes and mine), and it costs them money to do so, money that comes almost entirely from donations (I think). Whereas those pushing for copyright extensions not only have their own revenue stream, they actually stand to profit from the results of their lobbying. The EFF has to spend money they don’t have to fight for their beliefs, but the copyright extension people likely make a net profit over time fighting for their own interests. It’s like a negative sum game- the net result is worse for almost everyone to a greater degree than it benefits a few. If money played no role in politicians’ decision making, those decisions would be much more rational and responsible. For all I know, maybe most of them would still support copyright extensions, but it would at least be because in their judgement it was the right thing for the American people. The ridiculous amount of money in American politics muddies the waters and forces all participants into moral hazards and perpetual conflicts of interest.

qwerty456127 8y ago

It's infuriating how notorious the USA is inserting copyright BS in every single "free trade agreement". Is it really necessary to always glue a piece of shit like that to a good thing like a free trade agreement being introduced? Can't we just agree to trade freely?

DKnoll 8y ago

I wonder if the Canadian government can get an exemption for national security reasons. (/s)