Entertainment Industry Flips Out At The Good Parts Of Canada's New Copyright Law, Demands Changes Via TPP

from the but-of-course dept

In discussing Canada’s C-11 copyright reform, we noted that while we were troubled by the “digital locks” provision that mirrors the DMCA’s ridiculous anti-circumvention rules, there was actually plenty of good things in the law, that other countries should take note of. Not surprisingly, the entertainment industry feels differently. With Canada joining the TPP negotiations, entertainment industry lobbyists are seeing it as an opportunity to roll back all of the good parts of Canada’s copyright law. Michael Geist has the story on how the IIPA — an organization made up of a bunch of other copyright maximalist organizations, like the RIAA and MPAA — have put in a filing that argues TPP should wipe out many of the reasonable parts of Canada’s new copyright law:

The IIPA, which recently submitted its position on Canada’s entry to the TPP as part of a U.S. regulatory process, takes particular issue with the role of Internet providers in enforcing Canadian copyright law. The Canadian “notice-and-notice” approach, which requires providers to forward thousands of infringement allegation notices to their subscribers, strikes a balance between effective enforcement and free speech, while preserving users’ privacy.

The model has begun to attract global attention with countries such as Chile adopting it within its own domestic law. The IIPA sharply criticizes the approach, however, calling for dramatic reforms. It argues that Canadian law “fails to provide meaningful incentives for network service providers to co-operate with copyright owners to deal with copyright infringements that take place in the digital network environment.”

Instead, the copyright lobby wants Canada to implement measures that would require Internet providers “to take action to prevent recidivists from repeatedly using their services to commit copyright infringement.” The plain language demand: a termination system that would cut off Internet access for subscribers accused of infringement.

The IIPA also wants Canada to undo statutory damages changes from Bill C-11 that created a liability cap of $5,000 for non-commercial infringement. It claims that the non-commercial cap renders statutory damages “ineffective in achieving its goals of full compensation and deterrence in the online environment.”

Even with the change, Canada remains one of the only developed countries with statutory damages that create the prospect of multi-million dollar damage awards for commercial infringement. The government created the non-commercial cap because it was uncomfortable with rules that could spur thousands of lawsuits against individuals.

This isn’t surprising, of course. These groups have always used international trade agreements to force through IP laws that they can’t get otherwise. In fact, what’s slightly ironic is that the whole reason that Canada was pressured to put in place C-11 in the first place, was because all of these same trade groups kept insisting that Canada was not living up to its “international obligations” with regards to earlier copyright-related agreements. So now that Canada has updated its law with some good ideas and some bad… the industry goes running right back to international agreement negotiations to try to delete the good parts, which it doesn’t like.

And, really, this is a big part of the problem with all the secrecy around the TPP. While the process in Canada to approve C-11 certainly had its issues, at least the bill itself was public and was open to significant discussion for quite some time. And if you look back to previous attempts to reform copyright law in Canada, the proposals had gone through significant public scrutiny. None of that will happen with the TPP, which is still being negotiated in secret, and will only be revealed as a done deal: take it or leave it. And none of it will involve real input from the public, who can give talks around the edges of the negotiation, but are never invited to comment on the actual proposals at all. Of course, the entertainment industry, being on various “advisory committees,” do have full access to TPP negotiating docs.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: iipa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Entertainment Industry Flips Out At The Good Parts Of Canada's New Copyright Law, Demands Changes Via TPP”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
100 Comments
Logan2057 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Joe, you and your ilk should get out of town, you’re a disgrace. Anyone who has a difference of opinion that doesn’t agree with you clowns and your IP maximimalist ideas is automatically considered a Pirate Apologist. Well, to me you’re nothing more than a loud mouthed moron who, along with your misguided and misinformed brethren, wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and bit you. Just because there are people out here who see what damage is being done by these idiots lead around by the nose by Ron Kirk with their demands that Canada do more by getting rid of fair dealing and allowing the crooks who pay their salaries in Washington free reign around the globe is simply wrong.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Last time I looked, Average Joe, Canada was NOT the 51st state and we have zero desire to become that. Nor are we part of or subject to American regulatory processes, your lunacy or that of the so-called entertainment industry.

As for the jobs and dollars can you at least come up with one, just one, reputable study that shows that before spouting off again? Do take your time. It’s gonna take a long time to find one that fits in with your view and that of Hollywood.

Jackass.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: usa

Ahhh, trish, please read what I just posted. I expect that I speak for better than 30 million of us, in both official languages, when I say that we don’t want a say in that mess.

For all the control you say the Americans have over our current government Hollywood and it’s Canadian allies, including the CBC, lost big time on C-11 so it’s not as great an influence as many seem to think it would be.

Changing that would mean the opposition parties would have to get their acts together so there was an option too. We’ll have to see what the NDP have to offer now that Jack Layton’s gone. The Liberals are a totally lost cause for one or two more elections if not permanently.

Anonymous Coward says:

Well, the IIPA has adopted the predictable tactic of complaining that C-11’s helpful restrictions and provisions are “ineffective in achieving its goals of full compensation and deterrence in the online environment.”
Frankly, I’d like to see them suggest legislation that will be effective. I know that no one can see what’s in the TPP, but when even brutal public torture and execution don’t stop infringement, I find it laughable that they think they can provide a “deterrent” that will.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The governmental peer pressure came from Mexico and other Latin American countries bordering the Pacific as well as smaller countries on the other side of the puddle. It’s not like the USA was wanting us there at all.

Truth be known I don’t think they did and when we and Mexico joined we were given a card table down the door from the conference room and not let in. We’re there in our own interests and those interests include increasing trade with nations other than the United States.

Our interests in this are different than American interests. The US is having to contend with the one massive player who isn’t at the table at TPP who may overtake them as the largest player on the Pacific Rim in the next decade. China. And China has no interest in playing this silly game. (Though I bet Chinese intelligence has all the documents down to the last comma and accent grave in them so far.)

In fact, TPP is a large joke without the Chinese there.

As for Hollywood — stuff it.

Anonymous Coward says:

and yet again, the US entertainment industries are trying to dictate what happens in other countries, but only when the laws there are less severe than are wanted.what should really happen is what should have happened decades ago. those industries should be told to fuck off. if you dont want your stuff copied or downloaded in other countries, if you dont want people doing what they want with what they have legally bought, DONT LET IT OUT OF THE USA!!! the rest of the world have their own entertainment industries and can most definitely do without these!

Gregg says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Dood, the US has invaded for less reasons in the past. It would take six months or less, for any President to convince it’s public that invading any country is in the best interests of the USA. And invasion is not always that visible. Look at the war on drugs and what the DEA/CIA has done in Central and South America in the last 40 years.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

IIt’s only ‘cherry picking’ because of the timing of the publicity of the agreement. Publish draft copies while it is still being negotiated and bam, suddenly the same behavior is negotiating. You’re trying to leverage the abject lack of transparency to mean objections after the fact are something to be dismissed with loaded language to cover up the reallity that the problem lies at the other end.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

What pressure? It’s not like we invade if they don’t sign a trade agreement.

Access to US markets. Foreign aid. Joining the WTO. Not appearing on lists of “problem countries” that don’t respect imaginary property rights (even if they do). There’s dozens of things used to pressure other countries short of military action.

TPP is a package. Each country needs to decide if that package is a net benefit or not.

Yet what is in the package is negotiated in complete secrecy, while the negotiators are lying and saying they are being completely transparent. At the end, it is a take it or leave it thing – you get it all, or get none. So while 95% might be great things for trade and policy, there’s this 5% that is completely horrible and which will lock everyone who signs it into that bit of horribleness for years or decades if they want the good stuff. The other option is to drop the whole thing and admit that all the years and man hours that went into negotiation was a complete waste – which no one wants to do.

Why are you so against the transparency and openness that might let us fix those horrible bits so we don’t have to kill the whole thing off?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“What pressure? It’s not like we invade if they don’t sign a trade agreement.”

Access to US markets. Foreign aid. Joining the WTO. Not appearing on lists of “problem countries” that don’t respect imaginary property rights (even if they do). There’s dozens of things used to pressure other countries short of military action.

These are simply advantages and disadvantages. If you want all of the goodies, you have to assume the responsibilities too.

“TPP is a package. Each country needs to decide if that package is a net benefit or not.”

Yet what is in the package is negotiated in complete secrecy, while the negotiators are lying and saying they are being completely transparent. At the end, it is a take it or leave it thing – you get it all, or get none. So while 95% might be great things for trade and policy, there’s this 5% that is completely horrible and which will lock everyone who signs it into that bit of horribleness for years or decades if they want the good stuff. The other option is to drop the whole thing and admit that all the years and man hours that went into negotiation was a complete waste – which no one wants to do.

The participating nations are the ones negotiating the agreement. They see it. And after they cut the best deal they can, their nation’s legislature votes to ratify or not.

Why are you so against the transparency and openness that might let us fix those horrible bits so we don’t have to kill the whole thing off?

The are literally hundreds of narrow special interests like yours clamoring for a seat at the table. The negotiators are well aware of the issues raised by the special interests and presumably take stock of it. The TPP is not going to negotiated from the EFF point of view, any more than it will be negotiated from the Earth First outlook. These nutty calls for crowd sourced trade agreements are absurd and counterproductive. In the end, a package of conditions will comprise the proposed agreement and countries will all have an opportunity to engage in fully transparent discussions of a fully articulated treaty before ratifying or not.

Gregg says:

TPP

Really in the end, it’s going to be the US that suffers from TPP. The other countries (excluding Australia) will end up not really enforcing it and only US citizens will be deprived and controlled by the RIAA and MPAA Propaganda Machine. As it looks like they already own your President, Legislature, Courts and FBIState Police Forces. Your Supreme Court will fail you in the end.

I encourage everyone to stop buying or going to see movies for one month. Send them a message. Cancel your cable, cancel your HBO and stop buying from iTunes. Free yourself for a month. Read an actual book or at least go outside and get some fresh air.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: TPP

I encourage everyone to stop buying or going to see movies for one month. Send them a message. Cancel your cable, cancel your HBO and stop buying from iTunes. Free yourself for a month. Read an actual book or at least go outside and get some fresh air.

That was supposed to happen last March. It was a spectacular failure.

Gregg says:

Re: Re: TPP

wrt – “That was supposed to happen last March. It was a spectacular failure.”

It never happens all at once. There is no National Union for the people to make massive changes like this. But each time it’s said, someone might read it and think, “yes” I might do that now or just curb my spending or maybe even say something about it to my local MP or Congressman. It’s the most effective solution and in the long run, the industry will force people to go under ground for their entertainment and knowledge.

If you have a better idea, please post it, as negative responses with no solutions is really just being a pessimist.

Greevar (profile) says:

The problem is property.

It has always been a problem with property. It’s not just IP that’s a problem, but private property too. The richest people want and strive to own everything they can because, if they own it, they also own every person who needs access to it. So people are shoehorned into giving up their labor to the owners, so that they can have access to that which they need. Profit is the money that goes directly to the owners for no other reason than that they have the power to control the flow of goods between the workers and the consumers. The owners don’t produce anything of real utility, they just exploit the workers to do that. They are the ultimate middlemen.

What we really need to be truly free is for everyone to have the independent ability to produce everything they need. That means each person can produce their own energy, food, and shelter easily and efficiently without the need to submit their labor to the will of an employer. It has to be designed from the ground-up to be focused on achieving efficiency, sustainability, and abundance. Once we establish that, we no longer need the idea of private property, of any kind. Once we get rid of this sickness that is the desire to own things, we have no need for a government. Our laws are seated in the need to protect property.

Take for example, transportation. Many feel the need to own a car because it provides on-demand access to transportation. What if the car could drive itself? Better yet, what if there were many cars that could drive themselves, just waiting to be called on to transport you at your whim? You wouldn’t need to own a car if you knew that at any moment, a car would come when you call for it, take you to your destination, and then drop you off to transport another. Then, when you are ready to depart again, rinse and repeat.

What if all goods were like that? You use them while you have need of them and then they go back to be used by someone else. It’s kind of like a library of goods that can be checked out and used as needed. When you aren’t using it, someone else can instead. Certainly, there may be things you absolutely would like to keep in your possession, things that are of more use to you than others, but that would likely be a small number of aesthetic goods rather than practical goods.

This is the world we should really be striving for rather than trying to prop up an economy and sociopolitical structure that is thousands of years old and out of date in relation to the pace of technology. Then stupid little things like terrorism, copyright, trademark/patent law, civil rights issues wouldn’t be the tragic center of a never-ending struggle against those that own (capitalists) and those that are owned (everyone else).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The problem is property.

Socialist utopia sounds great and all, but I don’t think it’s a realistic goal until we’ve got Star Trek replicators and can finally treat physical objects like the Internet has allowed us to treat digital ones (although legislation and social mores are lagging worryingly behind reality). Sure, we’re getting there with 3D printing, but as long as there are still scarcities, economies will necessarily arise around access to them.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: The problem is property.

Scarcities are a fabrication of the capitalist system. Through technology and efficient design, unlike our current design that predicates on disposal goods and constant consumption, we can make most things abundant. It will take time and effort, but it won’t happen so long as profit remains the core driving force behind progress. The pursuit of profit will invariably produce goods that are designed to acquire more profit, regardless of whether it possess real utility or is actually a net detriment to us.

So the problem is finding a system under which to achieve the necessary transition from capitalism to post-scarcity.

It’s neither socialist nor a utopia.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The problem is property.

Making profit is simply a matter of convincing people that they want what you’re selling. Why else do we have the occupation know as a “marketer”? Their entire purpose is to convince you that you need that item. They don’t make things that provide food, shelter, medicine, etc. They’re just propagandists. Utility means it actually has to do something useful, even if it guts the profitability of an entire industry.

You don’t live in the real world. You live in a world that is designed to benefit a handful of people and it befits them to make you believe that it is reality.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The problem is property.

You don’t know how marketing works if you don’t know that all it takes to make a sale, thus profit, is to create a want or need in the mind of the prospective customer. Just go to Spencer’s gifts or Sharper Image stores and you’ll see exactly what I mean. They have useless crap that’s designed solely to capture revenue and nothing more.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: The problem is property.

Yes, but it’s not automated, nor is it as efficient as an automated system. The net benefit to an automated public transit system is that with humans out of the equation, in regards to operating vehicles, we will have no more collisions and be able to move people with mechanical precision that would actually get people to their destination at the same speeds we use now.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The problem is property.

Are you really that dense? You completely missed the point. We can make a car that drives better than any human can, it’s just a matter of finding a way to get the proper information about the surrounding environment and its position in it. Machines don’t get distracted. Machines don’t take risks. Machines don’t get impatient. Machines don’t do any of the stupid things a human would do behind the wheel of a vehicle. If you can get it sufficient information about its surroundings, it can and will outperform human drivers.

The human involvement in driving will be minuscule to the point that there is a statistically insignificant chance of collision. It’s as unlikely as a computer making a math error.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The problem is property.

No, it’s you who are missing the point. A computer can calculate the math it is feed and produce results within certain hardware tolerances but programming is all about feeding the computer the right equations and that is where the problems arise. As someone that tests ‘computers’ (really programs) for ‘math errors’ (bugs) for a living I find it hilarious that you believe it to be excessively unlikely that a ‘computer’ would do such a thing. Mistakes will be made, they will be different from the mistakes humans make. However, I’d have to agree that it could easily be made safer than human drivers.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The problem is property.

“The likelihood of a machine ever making a mistake, once ready for deployment, is minuscule and insignificant.”

True-Scotsman fallacy.

Maybe the point should be – if we use caution and automated safties and overrides the number of errors caused by bad human programming will be minimal. The macines will only deviate from the programming in miniscule cases (at least until the become self aware).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: The problem is property.

Yes, what if all goods were like that? It would be nice wouldn’t it? Yes it would be. I mean honestly consumables would “likely be a small number of aesthetic goods rather than practical goods.” Are you kidding me? Must be easy to find the problems in everything if you open with the assumption that ‘this sickness that is the desire to own things’ is always the problem. Seriously, what an unbelievably ignorant philosophical screed.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: The problem is property.

If all transportation is automated and publicly available, then nobody needs to own a car and we can build fewer cars while more people have access to transportation.

The ownership of property causes huge amounts of waste and mismanagement of resources. Many, many items we fill our homes with sit unused for long periods of time (Have you ever seen the inside of someone’s garage, packed with shit that’s only used once in a great while?). However, we hoard this stuff like pack rats so that they can be available to us at any time we desire.

Well, what if we had a repository of items that are seldom used that makes those items available when needed and are stored when they are not? Or, what if we had the capability to manufacture certain goods on the spot automatically when we need them and then return them for reclamation of the raw materials when we are done with them? You could 3D print some folding chairs when you have need of them and they could be broken down to their raw materials when they are no longer needed. Also, you could manufacture a device that you use regularly and then reclaim the raw materials from it when it becomes outdated or ceases to function.

When you realize that is not only feasible, but a good idea, you also realize that most forms of property are completely pointless and negates the scarcity of goods.

Anonymous Coward says:

The problem is property.

What we really need to be truly free is for everyone to have the independent ability to produce everything they need. That means each person can produce their own energy, food, and shelter easily and efficiently without the need to submit their labor to the will of an employer. It has to be designed from the ground-up to be focused on achieving efficiency, sustainability, and abundance. Once we establish that, we no longer need the idea of private property, of any kind. Once we get rid of this sickness that is the desire to own things, we have no need for a government. Our laws are seated in the need to protect property.

You’ve got to be out of your mind. Everyone is going to build their own home, farm and create their own energy????? Are they going to fabricate their own building material and farming equipment too? You have a distinguished history of saying really stupid shit, but this is one for the record book.

Gregg says:

Re: The problem is property.

“You’ve got to be out of your mind. Everyone is going to build their own home, farm and create their own energy????? Are they going to fabricate their own building material and farming equipment too? You have a distinguished history of saying really stupid shit, but this is one for the record book.”

It’s with in reason and attainable. There are many people today that produce their own food and energy, build their own homes, hold their own library of information and make their own tools. The idea isn’t too completely separate individuals from the “Free Market”, it’s to free them from slavery of Big Business controlling the government.

Keep in mind that most of the spending power that the public holds, is being funneled into a small group of big businesses and these business models are designed to trap people into dependency and politically (whether through legislation, courts or police) bully out alternatives. The best example is always the dependency on Oil for transportation and just about everything else, but in the last decade, cell phones and the internet is an excellent example now. How many people are stuck in contracts that are expensive to get out of? How many people purchase a song or a movie, only to find that they can’t play it on other devices and now, can not copy it to a different medium to use it on other devices? They can’t even sell it to someone else when they are done! They can’t even give it to their children!

The whole business model is designed to enslave people financially to their products and to bully out any alternatives (and don’t think for a minute they don’t!). This financial slavery reduces the public’s spending power and hence reduces the spending pool that new industries or products can pull from… unless there is a para-dime shift.

IP protection is the new “Oil” where companies on top want to stop all other competitors from inventing or growing because of fear of the Law. Fear of the law comes in the form of copyright infringement, patent protection or piracy claims, all to suit the needs of Big Business.

Becoming self sufficient is not a Socialist idea, it’s a “Free Market” idea and is completely Capitalist! Except the big boys on the heap don’t want people doing this at all. They are the ones calling it “Socialist” or “anti-Capitalist”. This rhetoric seems to sway a verbose list of “pocketed” politicians and their crony followers, but it’s not following everyone by far.

Complain all you want, in the end it’s the human race that is suffering and lagging behind what we could be, all for the sake of benefiting the “big Boys” profit over the common good for everyone.

Isn’t that what the people of the original 13 Colonies rebelled against? the Financial and political Slavery of some one else’s rules and capital? and I’m not talking about the Cylons.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: The problem is property.

You can free people from slavery of Big Business controlling the government (which is a function of how much power you invest in government by the way) without abandoning trade to the extent that would be necessary for it to even begin to make sense for each person to produce their own food, much less produce their own everything.

mr. smart @ss says:

Re: Re: The problem is property.

and do you know what we call those self-sufficient people? AMISH. If you eschew capitalism completely.you eschew the technology that came from capitalism. (steam engine, tv, internal combustion engine, light bulbs, etc.) there will always be scarcity. it’s a friggin law of NATURE(thermodynamics/chaos theory)

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.

That is a completely and total fallacy. Scarcity is a mechanism of capitalism and Malthusian economics. Resources are only scarce until you find a way to make them abundant. Have you ever heard of aluminum? Two or three centuries ago, it was more valuable than platinum and gold. Why? Because they lacked the technology to extract large quantities of it, so it was rare. Now, aluminum is everywhere and we actually use it for throw away items (e.g. soda cans).

So don’t pretend that scarcity is a constant and absolute fact, it’s not. Also, technology is not tied to capitalism. You should really look up the true definition of technology. Technology is any tool that solves a problem or increases the efficacy of a particular task. By that measure, a stick used to dig a hole is technology. We’ve been developing technology long before trade existed, long before capitalism existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology

Educate yourself.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: The problem is property.

You lack imagination. Technology would solve the issue. Machines would build the home (imagine gigantic 3D printers extruding structures from the ground up to meet the needs of the of the resident). The home would be designed to produce its own energy by utilizing surfaces exposed to the sun to generate energy (example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wHGh2eRbLE). Food would be produced hydroponically by machines using that energy source. Everything would be designed with efficiency and utility above all other ideals. We aren’t even close to achieving that at present. When it comes to wasteful and responsible, the choice is made by determining which is more profitable. If wasteful will win out almost every time if it generates more profit. We won’t even touch technologies that would gut an industry’s profitability (like abundant energy that can’t be metered vs. fossil fuel).

What I suggest is an infrastructure that distributes the means of production across the population and provides automation so that people can easily create what they need, on the spot, without being dependent (thus making them subservient) on those that control the means of production.

It’s not stupid. What’s stupid is to think that we could apply centuries old production methods to social models that don’t fit.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.

That’s bullshit. We are not on an island. We are on a planet in a universe that is full of raw materials. There are literally millions of asteroids floating around in our own solar system just waiting to be mined.

“Assume a can opener”? Fuck you. If it isn’t there, then it isn’t there and do you know what you do instead? You make a fucking can opener out of what you do have you jackass! If you lack a certain resource you don’t piss and moan like an impotent jerk, you find another solution.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The problem is property.

If you spent even one moment researching anything about the exploration of space you would realize that the amount of resources you have to expend far outweigh any value you would get from acquiring resources from off-planet.

This is why it will never be true that we can help the existing people escape global warming, etc. by colonizing other planets. It is mathematically impossible to move large numbers (even thousands) to other planets.

Mining and acquiring scarce resources from off-planet is nothing more than science fiction and a fool’s dream. If it is ever viable, it will only be viable to provide resources for efforts that are local to the mining and acquisition itself, not to bring back to earth.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The problem is property.

Actually, you’re wrong. I do spend time reading about it and there is a program that is planning a mission to capture asteroids from our solar system and tow them to earth for the chance to extract useful resources. It’s estimated to be about ten years off, but it is being looked into.

Currently it is out of our reach to transport humans to other planets. There’s no denying that. However, only a fool would make an absolute assertion that interplanetary travel will never happen. I’m no physicist, but I know enough that nothing is impossible until you have all the facts and we are infants in our understanding of our universe.

At one time we “knew” the earth was flat. That was proven wrong. At one time we “knew” that we were the center of the universe. Yet, given that, you can still claim that you know we will never be able to travel to other planets? How arrogant you must be. Today it may be beyond us, but it was also beyond us to go to the moon, yet we did. Who are you to make proclamations of what we can or can’t do?

Actually, it was estimated for 2025:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/asteroid-takeout-a-one-billionaire-mission-to-bring-a-500-ton-asteroid-to-high-earth-orbit-by-2025/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 The problem is property.

That same study to which you are referring also acknowledged that the scale would likely never reach that necessary to meet any of our existing needs or resource gaps. No matter how optimistic you are, you can’t change the basic math.

You can choose to ignore whatever fundamental laws of thermodynamics you want, but I’m betting on the laws.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 The problem is property.

Thermodynamics applies to a closed system. You keep repeating the word like you know what it means. This universe is not confirmed to be a closed system, due to quantum theory telling us that particles pop in and out of existence randomly. Empty space isn’t empty, it’s full of stuff. Not to mention the unconfirmed nature of black holes and white holes. Thermodynamics doesn’t even take dark matter/energy into account, which could also prove the law wrong.

Suffice to say, there’s a lot of things being studied that could prove thermodynamics wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 The problem is property.

And thus my point about “assume a can opener”. You are “solving” each and every problem by assuming away barriers to a potential solution.

Which is also why we will never agree. You assume that everyone else is wrong because they operate within known constraints. You choose to ignore those constraints. Neither is right or wrong, just a difference in fundamental assumptions.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 The problem is property.

I’m not assuming, I’m keeping an open mind to possibilities because history has taught me that what barriers we see today are likely to not exist tomorrow. You assume that those constraints are absolute and will never change, but I know better.

You give up too easily. There are a great many things people like you thought impossible that merely needed the right technology to come along, which it did. Now we can fly, communicate great distances, go to space, etc. You cite current constraints, but you ignore the abundant history of mankind breaking through those constraints over and over again. If there’s something we can’t do right now, it’s because we just don’t know enough about the problem to solve it. The first step to problem solving (and the first step in the scientific method): Understand the problem. If you don’t see a solution, then you don’t understand the problem (i.e. insufficient data). One path might be a dead end, but that doesn’t negate the possibility of another path that leads to a solution.

Everything I have suggested can be done, some of it is just beyond our technical means at this time, a lot of it is contingent on human kind letting go of our petty attachments to materialism and cease our wasteful design habits.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 The problem is property.

It’s great to have an open mind about solutions, but saying the equivalent of 2+2=4 isn’t a constraint because one day in the future we’ll make 2+2=whatever we want isn’t open mindedness.

There is a factor here you seem to ignore, which is time.

It is pointless to dismiss a current constraint by saying we’ll somehow circumvent the constraint via future research and discovery when that discovery might be 10,000 years from now. There are many problems we face where time is definitely against us.

Hooray, we don’t have scarcity! Oh wait, we ran out of resources long before we ever got to outer space. [sad face]

But, I’m sure you’ll just say that someday we’ll be able to circumvent time, and dismiss that too.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 The problem is property.

I’m not saying 2+2=4 is wrong, I’m saying that x+2=4 while we assume x=2, but x is not necessarily 2, and 4 might not be the correct answer. We need more data. Right now, x=2 as far as we can tell, but we may find out that x=2.003984657, and thus we find our original assessment was incorrect. Any decent scientific mind would enter the situation fully skeptical of what we think we know and assume that the constraints are a fact only until we find evidence that to the contrary.

Yes, we have issues that we must face right now, but we can do a lot to change that. Independent, distributed means of producing energy abundantly and sustainably would not be in the best interest of the energy industry, therefore they will never make it happen and would actually fight against its deployment. So would be the case with other industries.

“Hooray, we don’t have scarcity! Oh wait, we ran out of resources long before we ever got to outer space.”

That’s bullshit. We’re not going to run out of resources if we change our industry habits. We’re highly inefficient in our production and product design methods. We create wasteful products. We need to stop doing that. We need to make things universally recyclable. We have more than enough to support the number of people we already have or we’d already be dead.

Time cannot be changed. If you go back in time to change something, you create another universe parallel to the original. The original stays the same and you would exist in the new timeline.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 The problem is property.

Okay, we’re closer than I thought. You agree that:

a) you can run out of resources
b) Time is an immutable factor.

I agree that:

c) technology will continue to improve on and solve many of our current problems

It looks like the only thing we disagree on is whether or not we are likely to accomplish c) before a) occurs due to running out of b).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: The problem is property.

Yes, technology might solve the issue at some unknown point in the future but we aren’t even close to achieving that at present.

There’s one gaping hole in your theory of markets and that’s that the wasteful options often or even occasionally generate more profit. That’s simply not a good assumption when someone else can just as easily waste less and thereby turn a bigger profit than you. Waste is lost opportunity to profit. Minimizing wasted resources is the objective of profit seeking.

Gregg says:

Re: Re: Re: The problem is property.

Bureaucracy is the science of turning waste into profit.

People in the paste have had the capability to survive among their own families, clans or as an individual with the skills available to them. Believe it or not, but a skill is also technology. Man builds a fire, from fire he smelts ore, from ore he makes a hammer, from the hammer he makes a cart, from the cart he farms his food, for need of more food, he uses his hammer and makes a car….it goes on. Being self sufficient, doesn’t mean that we drop the hammer and head to the hills abandoning the current technology.

Becoming self sufficient means getting off the economical “Crack” and stop being slaves to big industry bullies. You can go home today and look into setting up cheap energy sources for your home, to power your electronics, your washers and stoves. You can look to build a green house and grow your own food. Harvest your own clean water. You get the drift. From these basic skills, where you don’t have an area covered, you trade with your neighbour of the family down the street.

My original point was to outline how much of big business has cornered people into purchasing fewer options for each type of technology. Why are most cars by far still gas dependent? Why aren’t all batteries rechargeable? Why are printer cartridges not refillable by default? And why are we letting companies sue the public or other companies for the smallest (and stupidest) grounds under IP protection. Round corners is not a patentable feature! $22,000 per song being shared is an outrageous offense to the public! 3 year contracts that can change with out approval by the client and costs the client extra money to get out of it, it totally unfair! Where are the politicians and courts for the people?

That’s the freedom we need and that’s something we have to stand up for and if you can defend big industry as to why the public is bullied, then I’d like to hear your argument.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...