And you don't even need a stamp.

First, go here: http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/action/firstlook/

Then fill out the form. Copy the preview result and print that out. Finish the groovy webapp, then send off the hardcopy.

Seriously, it takes 10 minutes. It it accomplishes nothing, then you've only lost 600 seconds of your life, 1 sheet of paper and an envelope (not even a stamp!)

But what happens if it could accomplish something?

Captain Copyright is a shameless copyright propaganda effort to teach children the so-called value of intellectual property. Their Terms and Conditions are especially laughable:

Permission is expressly granted to any person who wishes to place a link in his or her own website to www.accesscopyright.ca or any of its pages with the following exception: permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright. Specifically, permission to link is explicitly withheld from sites featuring pornographic, racist or homophobic content.

Whoah. Here is another gem:

You are not permitted to copy or cut from any page or its HTML source code to the Windows™ clipboard (or equivalent on other platforms) onto any other website.

Two words: Fair. Use.

Man. This is very lame. The whole site is put together by Access Copyright, which is either an organization devoted to protecting the rights of authors and publishers. Seems to me that they are taking it a little far.

Via Boing Boing

It's been a little while since I have ranted copyright. But This article just pisses me off to no end.

Music sales in Canada dropped 4% in 2005 to $536 million, the Canadian Recording Industry Assn. reported Thursday.

The dip is part of a 10-year decline that the CRIA blames on illegal music downloading.

Except, the RIAA, the big brother to the CRIA, as been known to fudge their numbers, and claim things like music sales are dropping, when really they are gaining in the face of a recession. So have music sales really dropped 4%? Does it have to do with piracy, or does it have to do with the number of music retailers online? Does it account for non-Canadian music e-tailers that sell to Canadians? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I rather suspect it goes something like "We cherry-pick whichever makes it look like we are losing the most money!"

Maybe the real answer to the question is that Canadians don't need to buy that pop album because it is all we on the radio. I don't know the state of radio for the rest of Canada, but if Calgary is any indication, it is pop, rock, more pop, and a little bit of country. To be hones,t I haven't really looked into buying music online, but I rather suspect that a dollar per song is about right. So, say a full CDs worth of songs (call it 10-12 songs) is almost equal to the cost of a music CD (10-15 dollars). They're selling bits. There is no artwork, no packaging and no inventory. Shipping is incredibly fast, easy and cost-effective. Why aren't the savings passed on to the customer?

Another problem. "Illegal music downloading"? Errr... no. It is legal, according to the Supreme Court of Canada and our current copyright legislation. But what gets me is this quote from the CRIA head honcho:

"As legal downloading surges ahead in other parts of the world, Canada is marooned on the sidelines," said CRIA president Graham Henderson. "The goal of a vibrant digital marketplace in Canada will remain beyond reach until our legal environment encourages people to buy music instead of passively accepting theft on the Web."

So wait a second. You lobby to get higher levies on blank media, because Canadian copyright law allows private copying, and you get it. Now that you have it, you want Canada to make private copying illegal? So you want to have your cake, and eat it too then? I see.

Funny how this "News Article" from variety just listens to one side of the story. Sounds to me like they got it from a press release.

Sam Bulte rightfully lost her seat, and the conservatives probably will not be able to form a majority government.

Unfortunately the greens didnae get a seat. Ahh well. Next time. Who knows how soon that will be?

We got a little note, "Authorized by the Official Agent of Stephen Harper". So, not from Stevie boy, not from his agent, but the note was authorized by his agent. He is a busy man. Very busy apparently.

The note they sent us basically outlined their position on gay marriage. See, a year ago I sent him a short little email informing him that I was in favour of equal marriage. Seeing as how he is my MP and all, I figured he should know my opinion. A couple of week later (to my recollection) I got a note from the office. A bog standard "We have forwarded this information to the offices of Mr. Harper" or some such. It was so form-letter that I didn't even save it. (I kinda wish I did)

Now, in May 2005, his office called us counting on our vote (hahahhahaha). And I haven't heard back from his office since.

Which is a load of claptrap. I rather suspect that the Conservatives expect a free vote on a bill in parliament (we got the funk!) that "defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman" to pass. The gambit here is that the Conservatives get to say something like "See, we listened to Canadians, and Canadians wanted to return to traditional marriage." So they get their wish, and they don't look like bad guys in the process. There is a problem with this: a free vote is essentially redefining democracy. Democracy is about majority rules with minority rights.

Stop redefining democracy Stephen Harper! See? I can use scare words too!

It is taking a lot of restraint not to use language like "first against the wall" and "treasonous" when writing this entry. But really, that kind of colourful language only lets the reader know that the writer is totally rabid.

And its not like I am rabid about copyright issues. Me? Oh no.

At any rate, Sarmite Bulte, Liberal candidate for Parkdale-High Park is basically taking bribes from the strong IP lobbies (music, movies, television and of course pharma) in the form of campaign financing. When you look at Sams involvement in the copyright issue, you see that she only really cares about copyright when given money by the lobbyists. A prime example is this:

Ms. Bulte claims that “Nobody influences me. Nobody can buy me.” I’ll take her at her word. But I am concerned at Ms. Bulte’s recent fascination with copyright law. Ms. Bulte was first elected in 1997. According to Elections Canada’s candidate contributions and expense reports, her campaign contributions totaled $67,423. Corporate sponsors aplenty, but no big copyright. And, interestingly, I cannot find reference to Ms. Bulte even uttering the word “copyright” until the dying months of that Parliament, when, as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, she asked a few questions in a working sessions on a study of the Canadian book industry. She’d have to have slept pretty hard to avoid talking copyright there.

In the November, 2000, election, Ms. Bulte had managed to scoop up over $81,000 in campaign financing. And now some of the big copyright names are there: SOCAN, the Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association, Alliance Communications Corporation, Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc., Epitome Pictures, Chapters, CanWest Global, CTV, Rogers Communications, Baton Broadcasting, Good Earth Ventures and the Astral Television Network. Interestingly, there are a number of other IP intensive industries represented: beer (Molsons), wine (Pilliteri Estates Winery) and pharmaceuticals (Pfizer and Apotex – makes you wonder what she said to these two!). And when the 37th Parliament began on January 29, 2001, voila, Ms. Bulte began publicly uttering pro-copyright platitudes.

This is from the Creative Commons licensed blog Copyright Watch which is about to make my RSS feed in a big way.

In fact, you should go read that blog entry if you are interested in copyright in any way, shape, or form. It is very informative about how our representatives in this government are being manipulated by the big content industries. To see someone so shallowly, and if I may use the word, transparently in the pockets of big business makes me sick to my stomach.

She is essentially giving a big "Fuck You" to all Canadians, and her constituents especially. She is saying that the rights of the individual Canadian are trumped by the rights of big corporations. Now, I am not talking about the right to freely download music (or infringe on copyright). I am talking about far more important rights then that. The IP lobbies are using the music/movies downloading issue as the bait to a far more sinister hook to control the means of content creation and distribution. They understand that their models, especially the distribution models, are fuct. They want copyright laws that make it easy to take down threats and protect their business models. A classic example here is the webcasting industry. In a report to the senate about mandatory licensing for all webcasters the RIAA told the senate that a license should be around $1,000,000 because that is "what the market could bear". At this time, around 90% of all webcasters were private individuals, and lots of them were playing content that was not under copyright control from the RIAA.

The big content industries are not worried about kids downloading music. They are worried about kids downloading music, remixing, reinterpreting, and re releasing it for themselves. Downloading music isn't the issue. The issue is that someone can create, edit, and release their own content completely free of the shackles of the movie and music industries. And it is getting easier all the time.

If you define culture as "The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought." (Answers.com definition for 'culture') then you can see that a majority of our culture is owned, and the rules of ownership are getting stricter all the time. 20 year copyright terms are fair, 90 year terms of copyright that are extended every time Steamboat Willy gets close to being public domain are insane. Content creators deserve to maintain a monopoly on their work for a period of time as this is the incentive that our culture uses to keep our artists, musicians and film makers creating. But the monopoly shouldn't be for the lifetime of the artist plus 75 years. All art is generated from the past. The problem is that currently, if an artist is inspired by a video game, TV show, movie or other media, they have to be extremely careful about how they express this inspiration, lest they get a Cease and Desist order. Frequently it doesn't matter if the artist has fair use rights or not. A Cease and Desist sent to the artist (or their ISP) is enough to kibosh any work. How many artists have the money to pay for copyright lawyers?

In fact, the only thing that the big content industries have that the rest of us don't are vast teams of copyright lawyers, and politicians in their pockets. And you better believe me, they know their advantage, and are using it.

So fuck you very much Mrs. Bulte. You are whoring your countrys culture out to primarily American corporate interests. (How Canadian is the Canadian Recording Industry Association if it is also made up by the same members of the Recording Industry Association of America?) Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

mychoice.ca is a web site committed to restoring common sense, balance and civility to the way Canada's adult smokers are treated by their federal, provincial and municipal politcians.

So starts the introduction to MyChoice.ca. a "non-profit organization funded by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers’ Council". They have some interesting and funny 'Public Service Announcements'.

Now, I am not about to argue that a so called "Nanny State" is a good thing. But going to tobacco companies for freedom is like financing al Queda for ending war in Iraq. Its completely asinine. The tobacco companies want to do one thing, and one thing only. Make more money by selling highly addictive substances to whomever will buy them.

Period.

They don't care about our freedom, they don't care about our health. They care about their bottom line. And their bottom line is directly related to how many people they can slowly kill with their product. Smoker or non, you cannot deny it. Do smokers have the right to stand up for what they believe is right? Yes. But this whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And 'public service announcements'? Please. How is the public being serviced by the tobacco lobby getting more power? Unless by 'serviced' you mean getting a 13" sandpaper dildo in the rosebud.