The adventure to North Dakota to see the Democratic presidential candidates speak was a success. Obama was inspiring, and everyone in attendance was quite ecstatic. HRC spoke well too, and in great detail (for perhaps too long) — including “interesting” details on China, Saudi Arabia, and America as a moral leader in the world.

My transcriptions (granted a little out of context) from Hil’s speech (full speech video here):

…
When I say solutions, I mean declaring energy independence. I’d like us to issue a declaration of energy independence where we say once and for all that we are not going to be held hostage over the barrel of $112 oil. When President Bush took office, oil was $20 a barrel. I waited for him, after 9/11, to summon us to something greater than ourselves. What I was hoping for was a call to energy independence. All he had to do was look at who flew the planes into The World Trade Center and The Pentagon. When I am president, you will not see me holding hands with the Saudis, you will see me holding the Saudis accountable.
…

…
When I say solutions, I mean trade policies that work for American workers for a change. American families. We’re going to call a time out on trade deals until we have such new trade policies. I would appoint a trade prosecutor to make sure that other countries lived up to the agreements that they signed with us.

And we will finally get tough on China, because right now China’s products come here, and our jobs go there. We play by the rules, they manipulate their currency. What do we get in return? Tainted fish. Poisoned pet food. Lead-laced toys. Polluted pharmaceuticals. When I am president, we’re going to put an end to that. We’re going to tell the Chinese that they cannot do that to us anymore.
…

…
When I say solutions, I mean restoring America’s leadership and moral authority in the world.
…
It is important to recognize that if America does not lead, the world will lose its way. But you cannot be a leader if no one is following.
…
I will send an unmistakable message: that America leads once again by our values. That we know we are strongest when the world is admiring us.
…

Check out the photos here. More tagging, titles, and captions will follow.

Ambition.
Ambition’s a tricky thing.
It’s like riding a unicycle on a dental floss tightrope over a wilderness of razor blades.
Ambition can backfire.

After watching the primaries yesterday, with John McCain solidifying his nomination and ready to focus on the presidential campaign, the Democratic candidates ought to reconsider their personal ambition for the good of their country.

The current “civil war” between Democrats, without an end in sight, is surely the GOP’s dream come true. After all, the longer the Democratic Party remains fractured, the longer that McCain will have time to slag both candidates and strengthen his own party.

In an election where so many claim to want change, personal ambition will need to be set aside sooner than later, lest the unthinkable occur — another Republican president.

Around here, our ambition hurts more than it helps.

And in case you’re wondering, I know which candidate I’m hoping will concede and pledge their support.

Perhaps the problem is the Elections Alberta slogan:
“Vote… it’s inexcusably easy!”

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.

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

…Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions – everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.

— from Wikipedia, from Juvenal’s Satire X.

I hate to be that glass-half-empty guy, but it sounds about right for much of society’s relationship with its government these days. I suppose, as they say (to follow one cliché with another), “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

He would make a commercial that plays on the blind fear and hatred of some Americans. Or incites further anti-Muslim sentiment. Or perhaps even exploits the assassination of a Pakistani leadership hopeful to promote his agenda.

“In a world where the next crisis is a moment away, America needs a leader who’s ready.” Ready to use the fear of a nation to achieve his objectives?

Hat tip to Matt Good for blogging about this video.

From all that I’ve read about the execution of the DMCA, I hope that our own government takes a more reasoned and balanced approach in modifying and extending our existing copyright laws. Between the reduction of practical fair use “rights”, the abuse of takedown notices, and litigation for (in my opinion) excessive damages (successfully obtaining judgment for hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading a album or two worth of songs), the DMCA has some serious problems and upsets the balance between the rights of content producers and content consumers.

As fairly recently affirmed in Canada (and very recently discussed here), the rights provided by the “fair dealing” exception in the Copyright Act are part of maintaining this balance of rights between producers and consumers. As Chief Justice McLachlin noted, “[i]n order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, [the fair dealing exception] must not be interpreted restrictively.” So let us hope that this concept of balance is in our policymakers’ and MPs’ minds as they work on this bill. And let us be prepared to stand up for our fair dealing rights if such balance is not achieved in the proposed bill. Otherwise, we might end up with our own DMCA-esque law that caters to content providers without upholding the rights of consumers to use content in a fair and reasonable fashion.