
New North American Trade Deal Has Bad News for Canadian Copyright - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/new-north-american-trade-deal-has-bad-news-canadian-copyright
======
mwfunk
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.

~~~
galaxyLogic
> both US parties are weirdly on board with continually extending the reach of
> copyright and IP laws

I don't think it is weird considering that US is a mass-exporter of
Intellectual Property. Hollywood is big global business. It is good for the US
economy if other countries respect the copyright laws and are willing to pay
for movie-tickets.

US is also a massive software exporter. I don't have the numbers but we know
US has Oracle and IBM and Microsoft.

Think about Intel and AMD, without copyright their processors could be copied
by anybody and pirated and sold much cheaper.

What's the best length for copyright protection is a different discussion, I
agree that "Monopolizing works for most of a century after the life of the
author is bad policy." But I don't think it is weird that countries which
benefit from it would support longer terms and better IP protections in
general.

~~~
mwfunk
I’m not arguing against IP laws in general, I just feel that in many ways
they’ve become weighted far too much in favor of IP holders, as a result of IP
holders having all the money and thus power in Washington. I’m not anti-patent
or anti-copyright as a rule. They are legal fictions (an actual term, not a
disparaging one) which were created in order to benefit everyone. The fact
that they directly benefitted IP holders was not the intention, just a side
effect. The goal was to spur creation, which everyone would benefit from, not
to protect anyone’s revenue stream.

The rhetoric seems to have shifted to treating IP as a fundamental right. No
longer is it a legal fiction to benefit everyone, which had a side effect of
allowing a few to reap more profits. Now politicians talk about it as if
patent protections, etc. exist solely to protect the IP holders and their
revenue, which for some reason is treated as an inalienable right, and not as
a compromise for the greater good for everyone. At least that’s my impression
as an observer.

~~~
toyg
The goal has always been to protect revenue streams - originally, it was the
one of printers of music sheets. Most artists have always worked on patrons’
commissions and continue to do so; most musicians made money when performing,
and continue to do so; most engineers made money when building things, and
continue to do so. Copyright fundamentally benefits a tiny minority of
middlemen and investors in the distribution chain, and that’s always been
true. It’s one of the distortions of mass-market, where the real money-makers
are subjects that have the resources and connections to operate at scale -
like in retail.

------
mncharity
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?

------
mikelward
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
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.

~~~
bediger4000
Honest question: why the difference? Why is one a constitutional no-no, and
the other is not? Is there some logical reason?

~~~
npsomaratna
That's a good question, and a tricky one to answer.

Criminal law is based on the concept of crime and punishment. Depending on the
crime, the punishments can be very severe (e.g. loss of liberty or life).

Permitting ex post facto criminal laws would allow legislatures to arbitrarily
criminalize actions that were perfectly legal at the time they were committed.

Given the potential severity of criminal punishments, this just lends itself
to abuses of power. Because of this, most countries explicitly disallow
retroactive criminal legislation in their constitutions.

Civil law pertains to rights and duties. In this context, there are legitimate
occasions where retroactivity may be useful.

Sure, retroactive civil laws can still be used to target specific entities or
persons. However, the potential negative outcomes are milder (at most, the
loss of movable or immovable assets).

Because of this, there is no universal consensus on retroactive civil laws.
Most countries allow them; many other countries frown on them; a few ban them
outright.

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

~~~
justtopost
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
> 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_Th...](https://play.google.com/store/music/album/Various_Artists_The_Promised_Land?id=Bvc2egkqeocgcoxoop5shjvhqyq)
Christian/Gospel _slowclap_

------
qwerty456127
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
I wonder if the Canadian government can get an exemption for national security
reasons. (/s)

