Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Canadian Copyright Group Seeks To License the Net 149

An anonymous reader writes "A new Toronto Star article from Michael Geist not only describes why Canadian Ministers of Education are pushing a copyright proposal that will harm Internet access, but also reveals how a copyright group is seeking to create a new license for Internet content. Access Copyright, a copyright collective, wants to use a new international text standard to license everything from books to blogs. Geist outlines in his blog how Canadians can fight back against these bonehead proposals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Copyright Group Seeks To License the Net

Comments Filter:
  • by Audent ( 35893 ) <audent.ilovebiscuits@com> on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @02:56AM (#16042798) Homepage
    the interwebs are just a series of tubes, right...?

    There should be a test for politicians about the internet. It should involve:

    knowing the difference between the internet and the web;
    being able to explain why censoring the web is difficult if not impossible;
    why ISPs aren't liable for the content they host;
    and some other stuff.

    Actually, there should be an easier test - if you want to be a politician you should be BANNED FROM EVERY BECOMING ONE by law.

    Yeah.
    • by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @03:26AM (#16042911) Homepage Journal
      ``There should be a test for politicians about the internet. It should involve:

      knowing the difference between the internet and the web;
      being able to explain why censoring the web is difficult if not impossible;
      why ISPs aren't liable for the content they host;
      and some other stuff.''

      Right. The politicians have been brainwashing us long enough. It's time for us to start doing it to them!
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        "The politicians have been brainwashing us long enough. It's time for us to start doing it to them!"
        Are you wearing red tights? because you just became my hero...
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The 'tube' mentionings are getting a bit tiresome..

      A series of tubes _is_ an acceptable analogy. No, it's not an _exceptionally good_ analogy (literally speaking), but it is certainly not below average. It illustrates a number of aspects about how the internet in practice functions. Yes, certainly, you can say that 'a network of tubes requires every bit of tubing to be physically connected to every other bit, but the internet can also be transmitted wirelessly!' - but that's stretching it.

      FYI:
      http://www.bbc [bbc.co.uk]
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by arose ( 644256 )

        A series of tubes _is_ an acceptable analogy. No, it's not an _exceptionally good_ analogy (literally speaking), but it is certainly not below average.

        Except that when you download a "WHOLE BOOK!" my tube doesn't get clogged because I'm on the other side of the planet--a network of tubes is very different from a series of tubes. Aside from that I'd like to think that /.ers use "tubes" as a reference to the general stupidity of the tubes speech, not just the tubes analogy.

    • There's no chance.
      While stupidity is not mandatory to be a politician, it helps greatly.
      As we can see.

    • Actually, there should be an easier test - if you want to be a politician you should be BANNED FROM EVERY BECOMING ONE by law.

      Reminds of a quote from somewhere that he who has the ability to take power should in no way be allowed it.

    • Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
  • Mwaha! (Score:5, Funny)

    by omeg ( 907329 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @03:27AM (#16042914)
    "Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"

    "The same thing we do every night, Pinky: Try to license the internet!"
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by zoomshorts ( 137587 )
      Right after we invade Canada to assure them the same freedoms we Americans 'enjoy'?
      • by bky1701 ( 979071 )
        Eh, why not? Can't go worse then Iraq. At least the Canada doesn't know how to build donkey-bombs. So long as Bush is looking elsewhere, things are looking up at home. Excpet when it's him and only him. Gotta take the great white hunter (ie, Dicky boy) with him, too.
        • So this has been the plan all along?

          Make the whole world watch somewhere else and then just invade Canada. We've got Oil, Snow (going to be rare when the World heats up), Fresh Water, and the Hacker Hellstorm. Just FYI, we don't have Mule Bombs -- but watch out for our Ski-doos (if you catch my snow-drift).

          Fake Left, go Right. Kansas City Style. Gotcha.
        • by S.O.B. ( 136083 )
          At least the Canada doesn't know how to build donkey-bombs.

          Yeah, but watch out for our beaver-bombs.

          Frank and Gordon are working on them as we speak (inside joke for the Canucks in the audience).

          • by grcumb ( 781340 )

            At least the Canada doesn't know how to build donkey-bombs.

            Yeah, but watch out for our beaver-bombs.

            Beaver bombs? Why bother, when we've got the chicken cannon [wikipedia.org]. (Visual aid here [www3.cbc.ca].)

            We'll save the beaver for, uh, other uses. 8^)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @03:32AM (#16042933)
    Copyright laws are nothing more than a tool of the ruling class to keep freedom and autonomy away from the people. The stifling blockade of draconian laws behind which which the free transmission of ideas is presently locked down is one of the more noxious devices by which the capitalist system perverts human society.

    It is only the alienatied status of the modern worker that perpetuates the oppressive regime of copyright. The oppression of the ruling class that keeps workers in a constant state of anxiety, always burdened by financial worries, like Dickensian children chained to their machines, is what prevents creative workers from sharing their ideas freely, for the benefit of all.

    For society to be free from the constricting bonds of copyright, it will be necessary to strike at the heart of the capitalist system itself. Only when the lies and distortions of the ruling class are confronted and rejected, only when workers are in control of the means of production, their efforts at last engaged, harmonious, and justly compensated, only then will we see a world where all people are free to share, copy, and most of all create those products of the marvellous human imagination that promote, in that golden phrase, "promote the progress of science and useful arts."

    Until then, there's always usenet.
    • Gosh, and I thought it was part of the mechanism that allows me to charge for the stuff I write (e.g. http://www.examulator.com/tamer/ [examulator.com] ) Nice to know that I'm a member of the ruling classes though.
      • by ElleyKitten ( 715519 ) <kittensunrise@nOsPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @05:24AM (#16043245) Journal
        Gosh, and I thought it was part of the mechanism that allows me to charge for the stuff I write (e.g. http://www.examulator.com/tamer/ [examulator.com] ) Nice to know that I'm a member of the ruling classes though. No, you could still easily charge for stuff without copyright. Bookstores still charge for Shakespeare books, even though there's no copyright on that. What copyright does is prevent other publishers from taking your work and selling it without your permission or giving you any money. Shakespeare, being dead, doesn't mind, but you might.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Watson Ladd ( 955755 )
          For 200 years. Most works only last 10 years. So for 190 years no one is making money because no one can sell it. That's just wrong.
        • Bookstores still charge for Shakespeare books, even though there's no copyright on that

          Shakespeare will be copyrighted.

          You can't simply reprint the first folio in facsimile and have an edition that will be suitable for casual reading or performance: anyone familiar with Project Gutenberg runs head-on into this wall all the time.

      • Reposting with the tags correct:

        Gosh, and I thought it was part of the mechanism that allows me to charge for the stuff I write (e.g. http://www.examulator.com/tamer/ [examulator.com] ) Nice to know that I'm a member of the ruling classes though.

        No, you could still easily charge for stuff without copyright. Bookstores still charge for Shakespeare books, even though there's no copyright on that. What copyright does is prevent other publishers from taking your work and selling it without your permission or giving you an

        • by drsmithy ( 35869 )
          No, you could still easily charge for stuff without copyright. Bookstores still charge for Shakespeare books, even though there's no copyright on that. What copyright does is prevent other publishers from taking your work and selling it without your permission or giving you any money. Shakespeare, being dead, doesn't mind, but you might.

          Much as I dislike copyright, your analogy is broken. Books are quite difficult to reproduce and distribute, whereas software is trivial.

          • Much as I dislike copyright, your analogy is broken. Books are quite difficult to reproduce and distribute, whereas software is trivial.
            It wasn't an analogy. The person I was responding to wrote a book, and I don't think anyone in this thread or even the original topic was talking specifically about software. Incidentally, since his book is in PDF, it would be just as easy to reproduce and distribute his book as it would be to reproduce and distribute software.
            • by drsmithy ( 35869 )
              It wasn't an analogy. The person I was responding to wrote a book, and I don't think anyone in this thread or even the original topic was talking specifically about software. Incidentally, since his book is in PDF, it would be just as easy to reproduce and distribute his book as it would be to reproduce and distribute software.

              You said it wasn't copyright that allowed someone to "charge for stuff", and used the example of a bookshop selling books to support your argument. My point is this conclusion is wr

              • You said it wasn't copyright that allowed someone to "charge for stuff", and used the example of a bookshop selling books to support your argument. My point is this conclusion is wrong, because someone selling physical books is a vastly different prospect to someone trying to sell software, in a world without copyright.

                You would still have the right to charge for software in a world without copyright. It wouldn't be as practical, which is one reason why we have copyrights, but copyright is certainly not w

                • by drsmithy ( 35869 )
                  You would still have the right to charge for software in a world without copyright.

                  Of course you could. You have the "right"[0] to try and charge people for anything, if you want.

                  It wouldn't be as practical, which is one reason why we have copyrights, but copyright is certainly not what gives you the right to sell something. Copyright gives you exclusive distribution rights. There's a difference.

                  Copyright - more accurately the enforcement thereof - is what gives you the *ability* (ie: makes it "practic

                  • Copyright - more accurately the enforcement thereof - is what gives you the *ability* (ie: makes it "practical") to charge for things that could otherwise, easily, be obtained for free (or close enough to free).

                    If it *could* be obtained for free without copyright, then chances are it currently is obtainable for free with copyrights. Copyright doesn't enforce anything pricewise, and it's *really* not effective against stopping people from giving stuff away for free. Copyright is effective at stopping large

    • by hotdiggity ( 987032 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @04:29AM (#16043096)
      I've read this comment four times and still can't decide whether the poster is being ironic. My guess is yes, but then why are people modding it as interesting as opposed to funny? For the record, forgetting about the issues of DRM and stupid software patents, copyright by and large is good for code protection, protecting textbooks which take serious effort to develop, and so on. We can't force everyone to give ideas away. Some people may actually want to negotiate the compensation for their efforts if they specify the right to do so at the time of publication. This silly push by the Canadian government, if true, clearly crosses that line.

      Having said that, I'm pretty sure the Marxist post was ironic. In which case: hilarious! Rise up, ye proleteriat, and seize your rightful means of production! With your help we will recreate the glorious days of the Soviet Union, which only needed a few more years to shake the bugs out and acheive political perfection.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bky1701 ( 979071 )
        Just because something is meant to be ironic doesn't mean it can't end up being right. This is one of those cass irony backfired.
        • Only on slashdot can such a post get a +5 Insightful. I could extrapolate about the political leanings of the average moderator, which is really just a representative slice of slashdot itself, but... nah.
           
        • Then why don't you move to Cuba or North Korea, to enjoy the unrestricted free-flow of information that the dictatorship of the proletariet provides?

          I mean, ideologically Marxist societies exist. Shouldn't Cuba and North Korea have the greatest free flow of information in the world?

          And if you don't believe that Cuba and North Korea have the most free-flow of information, why not? Clearly they are the closest thing to Marx inspired socialism on the planet right now.
          • by Skreems ( 598317 )
            Neither of those countries are Marxist in the least.
            • Well, if Cuba is not Marxist, and North Korea is not Marxist... do you care to tell me what country, in all of history, was Marxist?
              • by Skreems ( 598317 )
                The USSR under Lenin was probably the closest. Thing is, any country that has a military dictatorship take over is not anywhere near a decent representative of Marxism. Hell, it wouldn't be a decent representative of capitalism either. Doesn't matter what the economic structure is, the repressive government is going to screw things up.
      • Having said that, I'm pretty sure the Marxist post was ironic. In which case: hilarious! Rise up, ye proleteriat, and seize your rightful means of production! With your help we will recreate the glorious days of the Soviet Union

        In Soviet Russia, copy right is wrong?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by orasio ( 188021 )
        We can't force everyone to give ideas away. Some people may actually want to negotiate the compensation for their efforts if they specify the right to do so at the time of publication.


        You have the wrong idea on the subject.
        Abolishing copyright would not be forcing anyone to do anything.
        Copyright has the intent of giving an incentive for people to give their works away (not their ideas, ideas are supposed to be free). When you release a copyrighted work, you are giving it to the public domain in that act. In
    • Ahem sorry to say this your stalinistic rethoric does not help there... the worst freedom of speech oppressions have happened in the so called eastern block.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Copyright laws are nothing more than a tool of the ruling class to keep freedom and autonomy away from the people.

      [...]

      For society to be free from the constricting bonds of copyright, it will be necessary to strike at the heart of the capitalist system itself.

      Help! Help! I'm being repressed! See the violence inherit in the system! See the violence inherit in the system!

      I'm not sure how this post got marked+4 Interesting, but it really smells of disillusioned communism. Copyright (and patents) were

      • I'm not sure how this post got marked+4 Interesting, but it really smells of disillusioned communism.

        Dude, you owe me a new keyboard.

        If you upgrade to Nose 3.6 Ultimate Edition, you can pick up on scents that are even more subtle than this one!

        The GP was pretty-obviously sarcasm.

    • by 0racle ( 667029 )
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system. HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
    • Copyright laws are nothing more than a tool of the ruling class to keep freedom and autonomy away from the people. The stifling blockade of draconian laws behind which which the free transmission of ideas is presently locked down is one of the more noxious devices by which the capitalist system perverts human society.

      I realize that you are being ironic and everything... But just in case some people don't pick up the sarcasm and agree with you:

      In every Marxist state, information is highly restricted. The la
    • Copyright laws are nothing more than a tool of the ruling class to keep freedom and autonomy away from the people. The stifling blockade of draconian laws behind which which the free transmission of ideas is presently locked down is one of the more noxious devices by which the capitalist system perverts human society.

      I'll ask you to name one - just one - significant author of lower or middle class origins from the classical to the modern era.

      A man who could live and write with freedom without a substantia

  • A new Toronto Star article from Michael Geist not only describes why Canadian Ministers of Education are pushing a copyright proposal that will harm Internet access, but also reveals how a copyright group is seeking to create a new license for Internet content. Access Copyright, a copyright collective, wants to use a new international text standard to license everything from books to blogs.

    ...Proving yet again, that this battle over "copyright" is nothing of the sort. It's a battle over control, and a l
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by denim ( 225087 ) *
      ...Proving yet again, that this battle over "copyright" is nothing of the sort. It's a battle over control, and a losing battle at that.

      Isn't that much of what politics is about?

      I really think this is likely to disappear again without a trace once people explain to the supporters of this measure just what the effect will be. The article seems to do a very good job of that.
    • Ah, don't these people just give you that warm feeling inside when you consider the fate of humanity, free speech and teh intarwebs.
  • At last... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Godwin O'Hitler ( 205945 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @03:38AM (#16042954) Journal
    ...a good example of the exception that proves the rule!

    "Second, the implication of the exception is that using publicly available Internet materials is not permitted unless one has prior authorization or qualifies for the exception. This suggests that millions of Canadians outside the education system who use Internet-based materials are somehow violating the law."
  • by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @03:39AM (#16042956) Homepage Journal
    This didn't become clear to me from the title or the scoop, but according to TFA, there are _two_ proposals; one by the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada that argues for an exception to copyright law that would allow schools to use online materials, and one by Access Copyright that aims to introduce a new licensing scheme for online content; basically, anyone can register works with AC, and AC can then license these to everybody.

    TFA then goes on to say that ACs proposal is definitely bad, but, contrary to what the scoop suggests, TFA is mainly about the CMEC proposal. What it says is that educational use of online materials is already permitted under current copyright law, and introducing an "exception" that specifically allows it is going to have the negative consequence of making it seem that other uses are not allowed (e.g. fair use at home).
    • by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @06:05AM (#16043372) Homepage
      Yep. Even the "better" of the two legislative proposals is a politics-style fair and balanced compromise. A compromise deal that recognizes both sides in the issue, and gives something to each side in the issue. Specifically:
      "Your half of the law will officially granting you part of what the courts have stated you already have, and in exchange our half of the law will grant us a half the stuff we want and can't get because legislators are listening to your complaints."

      A fair and balanced compromise. Both sides get something. And it makes it ok to ignore complaints against it because in a compromise both sides are supposed to be unhappy and complain. Anyone still complaining about it is being unreasonable and greedy and unwilling to compromise.

      This is exactly how the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) and the DMCA got passed in the US. Most people here are at least basically familiar with the DMCA, but few people have ever heard of the AHRA. One side of the AHRA granted the public a copyright exemption and protection for home recording and granted manufacturers a copyright exemption and protection against being sued for contributory infringment. Of course no one in the public had ever been sued for infringment for home recording and had no need of protection and home recording is clearly Fair Use and a "copyright exemption" "granting" something that is already Fair use is entirely redundant and worthless. And the Betamax ruling had just come out explicitly stated ing that manufacturers needed no exemption from contributory infringment simply for manufacturing a product that can record. And as a compromise for granting all of that, the RIAA got their half of the law imposing a specific DRM scheme (Serial copy management system - SCMS) in all new home digital audio recording devices. Oh wait, I almost forgot... the AHRA also imposses a signifigant TAX on all covered audio devices and all covered recording media (50% to be distributed to writers and 50% to be distributed to publishers), and this tax is imposed "in exchange" for "granting" the public home recording rights that they already had. Based on a quick Amazon.com search, this AHRA imposed media tax changes the price of a Memorex 52x Data CD-R Media 50-Pack Spindle from $6.40 into $16.45 for a Memorex 40x Music CD-R Media (50-Pack Spindle). AHRA "aduio" CDRs are taxed to be more than 2.5 times the price of a normal CDR. And "data" CDRs are forbidden to work in AHRA covered devices, devices with their own AHRA hardware tax.

      And what was the effect of the Audio Home Recording Act? It EXTERMINATED all new products and all new technology and all innovation in consumer audio for a decade.

      The new product and technology that prompted the AHRA was Digital Audio Tap (DAT). Most of you have probably never heard of DAT. DAT was basically an ordinary audio cassette tape with all of the quality and benefits of digital CDs. Back in 1992 DAT was hot new technology. The audiophile community was eager to get their hands on this new product and it was anticipated to become a mass market hit. But then the audiophile community started baying a few of these DRM crippled devices. They started recording themselves and their own bands. And then they discoved that the devices would not let them copy their own tapes. That they were in fact the copyright holder on these band recordings, and these crippled devices would not allow them to copy their own work - all in the name of preventing "copyright infringment". So the audiophile community was furious and despised the products. And the general consumer market rejected the products as well, and they totally flopped. Which is why most of you never heard of DAT.

      And then the recordable minidisk was developed. A fully recordable CD, and a perfect pocket size 2.5 inches in size. Again, an amazing new technology and product that should have been a HUGE market success. And again, a technology and product that was DRM crippled by the AHRA and thus exterminated by the AHRA. A
      • home recording is clearly Fair Use and a "copyright exemption" "granting" something that is already Fair use is entirely redundant and worthless.

        Well, there's your problem. It wasn't clearly fair use. In fact, since no use is categorically fair, it was unlikely to always be. In some instances it might be fair, and in others it might not be. It would depend on the circumstances around every instance of copying. Someone who made a copy of a song to avoid buying one would likely not be engaging in a fair use,
        • by Alsee ( 515537 )
          The AHRA [] doesn't actually include any exceptions

          I know you're a lawyer and I was about to take your word for it and assume that I just missremembered, but I just double checked and it is in there.

          1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

          No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording m

          • Oh, I knew you were thinking of 1008. But it's not an exception.

            Exceptions generally read like this: "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright...."

            But 1008 doesn't say that the actions it covers are not infringements of copyright. It says "[n]o action may be brought under this title" which is a different thing. Acts covered under 1008 are infringements, but the are not infringements for which you can be sued. The main outcome of this is that copies made
            • by Alsee ( 515537 )
              Interesting point and analysis of the "non-exception" nature of 1008. And of course the RIAA's typical covert manuvering in crafting copyright language.

              For a moment I thought the RIAA might have have getten too clever in their games and how it might bite them in the ass.... it crossed my mind that the DMCA lies under "this title", and therefore 1008 might be cleverly hijacked as a means to bypass the DMCA. However then I rejected the language. "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
  • Can you say RIAA? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @03:42AM (#16042971) Homepage Journal
    FTFA:

    ``Moreover, it is far better than a counter-proposal from Access Copyright that seeks to develop a new licensing system for the use of Internet-based content. According to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the copyright collective has asked the Ministry of Canadian Heritage for funding to become the Canadian collective for a new international standard that can be used to register any "textual work" from books to blogs. Armed with a collection of "registered" online text, Access Copyright will be positioned to create a new license for the use of Internet content.''

    So, AC wants you to register your work with them, so that they can then license it to everybody? That's what the record labels do, right?
    • No it's more like what music publishers and songwriters do through PRS/MCPS/ASCAP/BMI etc. Record labels don't really license their content much through collection agencies, you have to do a deal with each individual record label. Although the exception to this is people like PPL and SoundExchange but this is solely for public performace and broadcasting type stuff. I don't really see the problem with this, it would just make it easier to license textual information if you wanted to use someone elses stu
  • ...how a copyright group is seeking to create a new license for Internet content.

    Gosh! I wasn't aware the Internet was theirs to license. Silly me.

  • Every time I read about freedoms being curtailed in Canada, I wonder if I should have applied for emigrating there. Australia also does not seem to be much better.

    Is it worth the pain?
    • I don't see how any freedoms are being curtailed in that article. And Canadians have far more rights that Americans.
  • ...that people don't like the government fucking around with Internet access?

    TFA can't even find a good reason for the copyright...in fact, it spends half the time telling us why it's a shitty idea. I knew American laws were stupid, but, damn, we overflowed into Canada. Leave them to their ice hockey, dammit!

  • Why limit our choices on the web??? why???
  • The article didn't really say much clearly.

    There already is a limited education use exemption in Canadian Copyright law, saying it applies to blogs too sounds reasonable.
    I think it is acceptable for a teacher to print out or save a copy of a blog that they are discussing in class.
  • ... to reassign the top-level domains so that all web addresses end in .eh eh?
  • First the CRTC wanted to regulate the content on the web, now the Access Copyright folks want to licence the content on the web.

    The brilliance of the civil service mindset continues to astound me. My tax dollars at work ...
  • First, please stop referencing American law - Canada is still a foreign country.

    Second, the function of Access Copyright is pretty simple: it licences content on behalf of the creators so that it can be freely used within shcools. The idea, a simple one, is that when some teacher photocopies dozens of copies of your short story instead of buying text books you will still get some payment.

    Contary to common belief, especially among teachers, there no law natural or otherwise that allows them unfettered use of
    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

      "Contary to common belief, especially among teachers, there no law natural or otherwise that allows them unfettered use of other people's work."

      See here [cb-cda.gc.ca], under exceptions to Copyright infringement. That'd be enough to already do anything that anyone would reasonably want under the AC proposal.

      Access Copyright adds absolutely nothing to this except possibly wresting control of copyright from ACTUAL copyright holders.

  • ... because it might give the wrong idea to people.

    This is the first I've heard of this. I'm sure someone in the crowd can correct me if I'm wrong, but my basic interpretation of this seems to be:

    • it shouldn't be necessary
    • it might go against international law
    • it gives the impression that people who access this stuff already are doing so illegally
    • it might cause people to stop putting information up freely

    I'd kinda like to address each of these in turn:

    • it shouldn't be necessary Then what's the big de
    • BAH!!! He is a lawyer... *sigh* ... at any rate, the potential violation of international law still doesn't explain what the big deal is? The potential violation of international law takes up one measly line in his entire article... so I'm still at a bit of a loss

  • Piss off enough people with stupid stuff this and you get revolution.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.

Working...