US continues to export freedom: Pressures Canada in piracy (We're #1!)

[giblets]

If laptops are getting confiscated because of suspicions of piracy, how the **** is anyone supposed to be able to find statistics on this? Any evidence is going to be anecdotal.

You seem to think people should provide find a link to a site that says x number of laptops have been confiscated due to suspicions of piracy even though authorities don't need a reason to confiscate a laptop. If there's that much info out there it should be easy for you to find the total number of laptops confiscated and demonstrate that almost all were confiscated for the purposes of counter-terrorism or something.

In other words my negative implies a positive... go ahead and demonstrate that all laptops that were confiscated were taken for reasons other than piracy.

[Ecofarm]

I don't want anecdotal evidence. I just want stats. Number of latops seized per year. I think it would also be easy to get the breakdown of reasons.


If you cannot provide any evidence that laptops have been confiscated from individuals for a few regular movies, then don't expect me to think this law is concerning them.


This law is for trafficers. That's obvious to anyone over the age of 20, or with an average mind of such.


To oppose the law is to oppose IPR, not to fight for the "little guy getting fkd"; give me a break. I oppose IPR in some instances and that is a reasonable position; however, the strawman position - founded in political hysteria - is not a valid position (given its total lack of evidence).


If we want to oppose IPR, in various contexts, we can have that discussion. But spare me the strawmanic hysteria of IPR being used to seize my laptop because I have Newhart's "Stop it" on my machine when I'm cruising to Canada. That sht doesn't happen, except in perhaps very rare cases of someone being intoxicated and an extreme butthole thus begging for 'tha man' to fk with them. Get real.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't want anecdotal evidence. I just want stats.

If laptops are getting confiscated because of suspicions of piracy, how the **** is anyone supposed to be able to find statistics on this? Any evidence is going to be anecdotal.

[giblets]

I don't want anecdotal evidence. I just want stats. Number of latops seized per year. I think it would also be easy to get the breakdown of reasons.


If you cannot provide any evidence that laptops have been confiscated from individuals for a few regular movies, then don't expect me to think this law is concerning them.

Dude, if it's so easy to find stats w/ a breakdown of reasons then you should be able to offer evidence that laptops aren't getting confiscated for piracy reasons.

[Asher]

Well, if no laptops are being seized from people with a few regular movies for personal use, then the law is obviously for something else and the OP claim is a strawman.

Like... I dunno... HUGE CACHES of this crap?

What is your major malfunction?

The QUOTE in the OP is from an official US government document.

What the **** strawman are you talking about?

[Ecofarm]

The strawman is that the law is used to seize laptops from individuals with a couple movies. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.


The law's purpose is certainly to stop trafficers. And it's probably more about prescription drugs and GM-seeds than movies.


But you take the smallest of concerns, then reduce it to basically innocent individuals in order to create a strawman - which is easily defeated - thus rendering the law purposeless.

[giblets]

The strawman is that the law is used to seize laptops from individuals with a couple movies. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.


The law's purpose is certainly to stop trafficers.

1. purpose of law ≠ consequences of law
2. neither side in this argument has evidence

And besides, why should someone's right to privacy be revoked because someone else is downloading music illegally...

[Ecofarm]

But the side making the claim should. Right?


Or are claims without evidence just fine? We all just make whatever claims we want and if people can't prove negatives then we are correct? Seriously?

[giblets]

But the side making the claim should. Right?


Or are claims without evidence just fine?

how are you not making any claims? and most negatives can be reworded as positives... can you prove the law won't be abused?

[Asher]

The strawman is that the law is used to seize laptops from individuals with a couple movies. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Where did that strawman come from?

Your 'strawman' call is a strawman.

[Ecofarm]

can you prove the law won't be abused?

I would never claim that any law is beyond abuse. Crafting laws that are beyond abuse is impossible. So?

Where did that strawman come from?

Your 'strawman' call is a strawman.

how dare Canada not seize laptops if the border guard may think your movie is pirated sans court order.

You seem to think that is the issue at hand. It's mostly because you have no idea with IPR entails beyond Hollywood, but that's ok... I only have a problem with you presenting your limited perception of the law as its primary pourpose, while lacking any evidence whatsoever that your idea of what is going on has ever occured to any meaningful extent.

[Wezil]

Presumably, the US does?

We're asking them to do something we don't?


Assuming the US is pressuring Canada to impliment laws that we already have (is that not a reasonable assumption?)... show me the evidence of laptop confiscation based on regular movie files per year.

If the US is asking Canada to do something that the US doesn't, then the whole thing is stupid.

No offence, but this whole argument is stupid.

Do you agree with and support implementation of our laws/policies or is this a one way street?

[giblets]

I would never claim that any law is beyond abuse. Crafting laws that are beyond abuse is impossible. So?

Now why should Canada be expected to infringe on the right to privacy? If people don't have legal protection against unreasonable search and seizure then their right has been taken away and they're subject to the whims of law enforcement officers...

If law enforcement will almost always respect people's privacy, then the right still exists in a de facto sense. But you haven't proven that they will...

[Asher]

You seem to think that is the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is this:

The United States encourages Canada to provide its border officials with the authority to seize suspected infringing materials without the need for a court order.

Such authority means a border guard can confiscate your laptop if he suspects it has pirated content on it. Simple.

[Ecofarm]

Police also have the authority to use deadly force. A cop might set you up, and then shoot you for his own gain. Therefore, police should not have the right to use deadly force?



C'mon dude, surely you can see plainly that pretending this law targets individuals with a few regular movies on their laptop is nothing more than scaremongering under the auspices of nationalism.


It's not so different than someone claiming that military tribunals will be used against misdemeanor offenders.



I think you got that Monty Python skit from Youtube!! We're taking your laptop!!

Fkn plz. Get real, tool.