New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law • Hacker News Board

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#81

Post by err4nt » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:56 PM UTC

flycaliguy wrote: post #64

err4nt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen, Tom Mulcair is the only Canadian politician that seems to be in favour of the TPP. His criticism of Harper is that Harper is too weak to see it all the way through to a deal (implying an NDP gov't would ). Unless he's changed position on that he's the one to avoid on these issues.

Interesting. I know that the dairy farmer's are going to get a chance to flex their influence over conservative rural seats if things don't fall in their favour. Likewise manufacturing bases are going to be shook up. My take away is not that Mulcair would see these decisions through. More so that he feels Harper has softened Canadian influence so much over the past decade that we don't have the negotiation power to s…

In my personal opinion Harper started off as a good leader because he did exactly what he said he would do. Lately (past couple of years) I get the feeling he has been a bit of a loose canon, and I feel like the government that had been representing the public's desires fairly well became suddenly divorced from what the people want now. We've seen law after law go through that nobody was in favour of, so it's kind of feeling like having Jean Chretien back with his autocratic 'dictatorship' leadership style.

Having said my opinion on Harper's leadership, I feel that Harper has acted well in this situation, not a failure at all. It's in our best interest to not be in this deal, or if we must for us to negotiate the terms that give us benefit and limit the sovereignty we have to forfeit. That seems to be the position we are in now so I'd say he's done an okay job of putting us where we need to be. Let's hope we get get the courage to ditch the TPP entirely!

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#82

Post by kiiski » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #54

api wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also important to note that even if you pirate, you are increasing a film or album's viral coefficient and possibly helping verbally promote it. So yeah, if you hate an industry boycott it. Remove it from your life.

That's the funny part. One of the principle arguments for "legit" piracy is that the increased exposure is actually good for business. So combined, these two arguments amount to "you should pirate from these terrible, evil companies in order to increase their profits." Huh.

And that's why you shouldn't combine arguments from two separate persons. Just because they both disagree with you, doesn't mean they agree with each other.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#83

Post by Silhouette » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 9:26 PM UTC

joesmo wrote: post #63

rayiner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit. I don't understand this rationale at all. Surely the solution to an industry whose business practices you don't like is to stop using their products . Indeed, your rationale is one reason why Hollywood has so much power. Piracy…

I think it is my right to access culture, and it is my duty, if at all possible, to avoid supporting organizations that cause such pain and suffering in the world. I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent. I think access to culture is importa…

I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact that I don't want people going to jail and losing everything because they copied a song or movie and some company somewhere allegedly lost some fraction of a cent.

I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. More specifically, I don't agree with the general principle that copying stuff without paying for it is OK within our current economic system. (I do agree that the heavyweight criminal penalties for minor infringement advocated are wildly disproportionate and that some Big Media organisations abuse some legal systems in ways they should not be able to, but I consider both of these to be separate points.)

The only reason your strategy is successful is that other people are paying for these works, which makes them economically viable to produce. By copying, you aren't just ripping off the original creators of the work -- work that you demonstrably value enough to still watch/use/listen to it even though you refuse to pay for it -- you're also freeloading on the back of all the people who do pay instead of contributing your fair share.

I also think that copying has been a huge boon to society and the economy in a scale that we can hardly fathom, let alone measure. It has contributed a lot more than the companies holding the copyright to the education and advancement of people and society.

Sure it has. That's why all businesses run Open Source software written by volunteers instead of expensive commercial software, fan fiction is much better quality than a well-edited novel written by a professional author, your local beer money band create the same atmosphere with their recorded-at-home CD as a professionally produced recording of a studio session, and Furious 7, Avengers: Age of Ultron and Kingsman: The Secret Service were all funded on Kickstarter.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#84

Post by lolbertarian » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

ewzimm wrote: post #11

norea-armozel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me that doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem as I see is that hardware manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, and etc will feel obligated to cover their rear ends and force consumers to verify their non-DRM content. So, if you can't verify it then you can't load it on their phones/players. The reason why they would do this sort of thing is to cover themselves in case of liability. If you can't load up non-DRM c…

I sure hope it doesn't go in that direction. What will they do when I want to play the music I recorded myself or my friends' bands? It seems like this might actually discourage verification because it can be a criminal offense to change the name of the artist or track name, so it could introduce some huge liability for misidentifying music. Any verification system is going to have a few bad results, so they might ha…

Upload it to your creative cloud and get a license to play it from Apple or Youtube.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#85

Post by Silhouette » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 9:50 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #39

rayiner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At this point, piracy is the only ethical solution to obtaining such content, as giving these companies money is immoral and supports people who threaten and ruin people's lives for profit. I don't understand this rationale at all. Surely the solution to an industry whose business practices you don't like is to stop using their products . Indeed, your rationale is one reason why Hollywood has so much power. Piracy…

When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. See Moxie Marlinspike's presentation about this concept applied to technology: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk When one oligopoly owns the vast majority of contemporary popular culture, we, the popula…

When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected.

I think that's a stretch.

Some things in life are essential to functioning effectively in modern society, like the abilities to have a stable home, to travel, to communicate, and to transact financially. Some infrastructure is then necessary to support these things, like sources of power and water for your home, effective transport and communication networks, and reliable currency. Losing access to these things is very bad, and so it is reasonable to consider measures like government regulation and universal/unbiased provision to protect that access.

On the other hand, the world is full of people with different tastes and different cultures. Sharing some specific entertainment may provide a bit of enjoyable discussion around the family dinner table or office water cooler later, but it's hardly essential in the big picture.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#86

Post by Snesker » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

passive wrote: post #70

flycaliguy wrote: post #33

I'm excited to see the TPP potentially become an election issue in the recently ignited campaign. Really hoping the NDP brings both this mess and Bill C-51 up front so maybe we can squeeze some democracy into the process.

If you read the Liberal platform, the way the TPP has been developed flies directly in the face of their commitments for running government. It's a great opportunity for them to highlight their platform using a law that will have real applicability to every Canadian. It would also be a way for them to put their money where their mouth is. ;)

I'd still rather keep my guns.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#87

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 12:03 AM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #85

nitrogen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. See Moxie Marlinspike's presentation about this concept applied to technology: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk When one oligopoly owns the vast majority of contemporary popular culture, we, the popula…

When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. I think that's a stretch. Some things in life are essential to functioning effectively in modern society, like the abilities to have a stable home, to travel, to communicate, and to transact financially. Some…

Sharing some specific entertainment may provide a bit of enjoyable discussion around the family dinner table or office water cooler later, but it's hardly essential in the big picture.

Then why bother with criminalizing circumvention and perpetually extending copyrights?

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#88

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 12:18 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #40

nitrogen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. See Moxie Marlinspike's presentation about this concept applied to technology: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk When one oligopoly owns the vast majority of contemporary popular culture, we, the popula…

One of my very most successful friends, by far one of the most socially and artistically connected people I know, didn't see Star Wars until his late 30s. He seemed to have suffered for that: not at all. Exactly, in as much detail as you can be patient enough to provide, how does "effective cultural participation" require you to see shitty new-release Hollywood movies? Is Marco Arment culturally disconnected? http://…

One cannot always choose one's friends and environments. There are indeed friend groups that would not be available to someone who has not watched Star Wars, or Jersey Shore, or what have you.

There's no one item, no short list, of essential works that define the threshold between effective and ineffective cultural participation. But there is a compounding social effect for each movie/song/book/etc. someone doesn't know. Each additional water cooler conversation that one cannot join, and each additional movie reference missed, is one step further away from those friends. At some point, people stop trying to communicate with someone who doesn't understand them.

Beyond mere socialization and entertainment, popular culture forms the behavioral and memetic vocabulary with which people communicate. As an example of how isolating cultural non-participation can be, consider how difficult it is for escapees from fundamentalist religious communes to integrate into society. That is the extreme end of a spectrum, and each decision not to participate in one's local popular culture moves one closer to that extreme.

I'm not saying piracy is right; I'm saying that the choice not to consume is inextricably linked to a whole lot of other choices, including whether to participate in society at all.

Given all that, it is unconscionable for Hollywood et al. to wield the amount of power they have demonstrated in the provisions in leaked TPP drafts and other laws and treaties.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#89

Post by Silhouette » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 1:34 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #87

Silhouette wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When effective cultural participation requires keeping up to date with at least some of Hollywood's products, choosing not to view/listen is the same as choosing to be just that much more socially disconnected. I think that's a stretch. Some things in life are essential to functioning effectively in modern society, like the abilities to have a stable home, to travel, to communicate, and to transact financially. Some…

Sharing some specific entertainment may provide a bit of enjoyable discussion around the family dinner table or office water cooler later, but it's hardly essential in the big picture. Then why bother with criminalizing circumvention and perpetually extending copyrights?

Where did I say I supported either criminalisation or perpetual extension of copyrights? Other than for the equivalent of other serious fraud in the former case, I support neither.

Re: New Trans-Pacific Partnership Leak Means ‘Significant Overhaul’ for Canadian Law

#90

Post by jakejake » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 1:44 AM UTC

joesmo wrote: post #69

jakejake wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you feel that way and don't want to support the industry, the real ethical thing to do is to not watch or listen to their products. Only support artists who are releasing their material under terms that you agree with.

I'm already not supporting them financially. Why should I have to also deprive myself of culture as well because of them, especially when I think access to culture is my right? Your argument makes no sense.

Depriving yourself of culture? Give me a break! Just say that you don't want to pay anything for music and movies released by major labels and studios, but you still want to enjoy them. Don't pretend you're taking some ethical stance.