From our adventure to La Barriere park in the beautiful Saturday weather:

Just saw this article pop up on the BBC World news: Bands set for longer music rights. A little bit more research turns up this from the Times (London) and this from the Intl. Herald Tribune.

It looks as though the EU, ten years later, may be headed towards legislation similar to the United States’ “Sonny Bono” Copyright Term Extension Act.

The apparent impetus in the EU is that the the back catalogue of (particularly British artists’) recordings from the 50s and 60s will soon enter the public domain after its 50-year copyright expires, which leads to statements like this from Roger Daltry of The Who: “Thousands of musicians have no pensions and rely on royalties to support themselves.”

(Let’s not get started on the average lifestyle/spending habits of pop/rock stars.)

This same line is being used by a commissioner for trade in the EU who has been fielding interviews. Apparently copyright now is supposed to guarantee you income for the rest of your life? Not good, especially from the civil servants.

The end result of new legislation could be harmonization with the extended terms in the U.S. and other jurisdictions: life of the author + 70 years, or 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation, whichever is less) for corporate-authored works.

It looks like this debate has already played out in the UK, according to Lessig, but luckily they made the right decision. The issue will now be taken up by the EU when the French assume its presidency in the summer. Should be interesting to see if anything comes of this — hopefully not perpetual copyright.

In Addition: Ars Technica has some more editorialized coverage, including discussion of the fact that musicians implicitly agreed to this 50 year coverage back when they went into the studio, and seemed to think that it was worth their while at the time.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) released a report yesterday that placed Canada on the same “Priority Watch List” as China and Russia for “…the serious piracy problem [Canada] has allowed to develop just across our border….” It was big enough news to make it on CBC News.

At issue is the lack of implementation of stricter and more modern (read US-like) copyright laws (including DMCA-like implementation of the WIPO treaties, a “notice-and-takedown” ISP liability safe harbour provision, “clarification” of the private copying exception — which makes downloading technically legal in Canada, and increased statutory penalties for copyright infringers), as well as stronger enforcement efforts domestically and at the border.

All of the doom and gloom in this report indeed makes it seem like Canada was lumped in with Russia and China for good reason — we should start hoisting the skull and bones instead.

Ah, but take this report with quite a bit of salt.

Nancy Segal from Foreign Affair and International Trade had this to say in a parliamentary committee meeting:

In regard to the watch list, Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It’s driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.

I also recognize that the U.S. industry likes to compare anyone they have a problem with, concerning their IPR regime, to China and the other big violators, but we’re not on the same scale. This is not the same thing. If you aren’t on the watch list in some way, shape, or form, you may not be of importance. Most countries with significant commercial dealings are on the watch list.

A very thorough analysis of the IIPA report and its relation to Canada was blogged by William Patry. It’s a must read to gain a more balanced understanding of the the IIPA’s watchlist process, as well as where we actually stand from a copyright lawyer’s perspective (not a trade lobby group’s perspective). Indeed, Patry (to be clear, an American copyright lawyer) has this to say:

…[P]iracy (even as IIPA defines it), has existed for millennia, and the tools used to combat it have been traditional copyright rights and remedies. On this (and many other scores), Canada’s law is exemplary. I have not seen any proof that the U.S. TPM laws have led to a decrease in piracy within the U.S….

With all this salt required, you might want to make a big margarita… It would certainly make reading the IIPA’s report more pleasant.

One Less Starbucks (by JakeInVan)

An excellent photo by a Vancouverite of an explosion that ripped through a Starbucks early this morning in the 600 block of West Broadway. It’s pretty incredible — look at the Starbucks furniture, etc. littering the sidewalk.

A tale of 10 11 magazines:

5 6 I want to/should subscribe to:

• MIT’s Technology Review – General coverage of innovative new technology and its implications.
• SEED – Tagline: “Science is Culture”. Looking at the confluence of science and society.
• Make: – How to Make just about anything. I love the hacker spirit.
• The Economist – A witty and reasoned voice on politics, economics, current affairs, etc.
• 2600: The Hacker Quarterly – The other kind of hacker spirit, captured in an underground zine.
• Infiltration – Speaking of underground zines, this one is literally about being underground as an urban explorer. No longer in production, but I’m tempted to buy the back issues.

2 I already subscribe to (and intend to continue):

• Wired – Technology and culture are inseparable, and Wired finds some of the most interesting stories about this intertwinement.
• IEEE Spectrum – I receive this by virtue of my IEEE membership, but a great magazine all the same. Sort of like Popular Science for electrical engineers.

3 that I’ll never subscribe to again:

• Macworld – There are only so many times you can review a laser printer or Adobe Photoshop.
• MacAddict – I first got into MA in 1996. Then they changed the editorial team, the style and sense of humor, now even the name (MacLife). It’s a dumbed-down Macworld. Hello inkjet printers and iPhoto.
• Business 2.0 – I got a cheap deal on this one, but I’m really not interested in failing to become Google 2.0. Has since been 86′d by the publisher.

You might have noticed that I’m getting back in the blogging saddle again. It’s part of what I plan to write more about at a later date (and actually work towards as well) — taking an iterative approach to life. That is, instead of always trying to get it right the first time, just do something that will get you started in the right direction. Hence a small blog post or a few photos — creativity — as frequently as possible. It’s certainly easier than writing a treatise on your thoughts.

For the few who follow my blog, it’s probably no secret that I’ve become a huge fan of Lawrence Lessig. In his work on copyright and culture, and in his new shift to corruption, he has always been able to step back from the technical and the minutiae, and brilliantly and profoundly discuss the aspects of these subjects that truly affect our society/world/etc. He’s succeeded in doing just this for an important debate: Clinton or Obama.

Lessig just posted a new video on his website, in traditional “Lessig” presentation style, that discusses why Barack Obama should be the Democratic candidate on the US ballot this November. He’s not been shy about his endorsement of Obama, both in terms of his stance on technology, and also his desire to change the way government works to reduce the influence of lobbyists and other external entities on the decisions made by the government — corruption (again, Lessig’s new focus). In this latest treatment of the issue, he performs (what appears to an armchair analyst to be) a solid analysis of the qualitative differences between these candidates after acknowledging the negligible differences in their policy stances. He covers several issues, including character (moral courage w.r.t. the decision about the Iraq war), integrity (swiftboating and smear campaigning), and what they would actually do (discussing their use of the word “change”). However, my favorite part is near the end when he discusses how Obama as president would “inspire as he leads” — a quality that has been missing in a major American leader (heck, world leader) for some time.

Perhaps Obama seems all the more inspiring because of all of the badness we’ve seen in the last 7ish years. But, for what it’s worth from a ineligible-to-vote blogger on their soapbox, I think he’s the real deal and the best option for some much needed change in the US government. I shall be watching CNN anxiously tomorrow.

Check out the video, or go to Lessig’s original post for more.

Click To Play