Slashdot Mirror

I posted this on another forum this afternoon.. Though I should paste it here as well.. ---- So, after doing some reading, I learned that our government is back at the Copyright Reform table yet again trying to pass a bill very similar in nature to America's DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The long and short of it is if this is passed we're going to lose a lot of the freedoms we enjoy with our media today. I suggest you read the proposed changes at the following website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01157e.html - Recap version http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3570473&Mode=1&Language=E&File=48 - Entire bill Once you've done so, I'm going to bet that you will be angry that our government would heavily favor the big media corporations so heavily in this bill while taking away the rights that we currently enjoy like copying a DVD we own for personal use, etc. I strongly advise you write your MP if you do not support this bill after reading about it. If you need to know who that is or find their contact info, visit the following website: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC The following is the letter I've written. You can feel free to send it, or come up with your own. But I urge you to do something and make your voices heard if you do not support this bill. ------- Greetings, I am usually not one to make waves when it comes to political issues, however this one effects me personally and just about every technology using Canadian. After reading through the "Copyright Reform Process - Fact Sheets" (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01157e.html) I have several issues with your proposals. Below I am going to go through each section of the "Fact Sheet" and state my issues with them. With regards to Format Shifting (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01158e.html): "With respect to audiovisual material such as films, the format-shifting provision would apply only to videocassettes and would not allow you to make copies of material stored on other media, such as DVDs." This scares me. Looking at this statement, if I understand it correctly, and taking it for face value means that I could not take a DVD that I have purchased and put it on my iPod or other digital media players without breaking the law. It would mean that I'd have to purchase another copy of said film (that I had already purchased on DVD) for the media player of my choice. Having to buy the same thing multiple times does not bode well with me. I work hard for what I own, and do not believe that the laws of this country should dictate how I use it. "You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make a copy." This is 100% flawed. 99.9% of commercially produced DVDs have a digital protection on them called CSS and an increasing number of audio discs have content protection on them as well. If I wanted to make a backup of media that I own, that means that I would have to break some kind of Digital Rights Management (DRM) to do so, thus making me a criminal under the law. With regards to the Private Copying Of Music (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01160e.html): On this page, you mention: "What could be copied? -- You could make a copy of music you have accessed legally onto devices you own and onto media to use with these devices. However, you could not copy music you have borrowed or rented." Further down the page you mention: "You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make the copy." I'm looking at the last ten CDs I've purchased and eight of them mention they have some form of anti-piracy measures on them. So, ev

You can't expect someone to actually believe you would go out and spend money on the games after you just claimed there was no reason to spend money on them when you could just copy them.

Of course not. It's not like there's any data to suggest that people who share lots of files also buy more files.

And realistically, the time you spent playing the game you copied is less time for you to play other games,

Because I'm somehow not entitled to spend my time as I see fit? Time I spend masturbating is less time for me to play games. Should the ESA be able to tax my spooge now?

And you're not ethically entitled to have other people's work.

Here's the thing. Any transaction between consenting adults is ethical. Period. If Alice uses her computer to copy Bob's ROMs, that transaction is between Bob and Alice and no one else. Any third party trying to intervene needs to mind their own business.

CA2163739C also expired

There's a summary of the proposal here: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01142e.html

Other items which are not protected by copyright include:
        * names or slogans;
        * short phrases and most titles;
        * methods, such as a method of teaching or sculpting, etc.;
        * plots or characters; and
        * factual information.

Facts, ideas and news are all considered part of the public domain, that is, they are everyone's property.

(This applies to Canada)

You need to look up "official mark". Although handled through the trademark office an official mark has enhanced protection unter the law. Official marks can be granted for things you can't get a trademark for and the exact wording does not need to be registered. And this is a trademark issue that has nothing to do with copyright. The right to copy money falled under the criminal code. A case could be made for protection as an registered industrial design though.

Having said that, according to the (govt) strategis database there are 123 hits for trademarks with "cent" in them.

The questions are: is the likeness of the penny similar enough to warrent infringement. Courts so far seem to want things to be very very close. They could lose on that point. Is "one cent" protected? If it is it hasn't been enforced in the past, not that this matters a whole lot as far as an official mark is concerned.

See
1) http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/cipo/trademarks/search/tmSearch.do?language=eng

2) 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act

This case could go either way. And they might or might not be reversed by a higher court. There is no federal court ruling on this and lower course have been inconsistant. It's a distractive strategy IMO to piss off the Toronto poeple.

Thanks for the tip, but at $475 per five litres, it would be cheaper to build a faraday cage, or buy a new, more powerful router and start an inevitable arms race that will eventually lead to violations of CPC-2-0-03. (Hint, since I build and repair transceivers for a living, I'll probably win ^>^ )

Check the window stickers in any new Big 3 car. Like the new Ford Fusion (giant gaping holes between the body panels and all)? It's made in Mexico. Focus SVT? Made in Mexico until last year. Dodge Ram? Made in Mexico. Chrysler product with a (recent) Hemi or the "Phoenix" V6? Mexican made.

FWIW, here's a list of Canadian motor vehicle plants:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/auto-auto.nsf/ en/am00767e.html

Your answer is here:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/mc-mc.nsf/en/l m01094e.html

How does automatic temperature compensation affect the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel?

In a Government of Canada discussion of the Canadian copyright act, I found this:

"Infringement of the author's moral right occurs only if the work is... used in association with a product, service, cause or institution that prejudices the author's reputation or honour."

It'd be a stretch, yes. However, one can imagine a judge at least taking into consideration the arguments of someone who was a member of a strict religious community who was facing shame or banishment from community members because they had created something which was being "used for the Devil's work" by a store that opened on Sunday. The judge might or might not grant the request, but they'd consider it.

According to this site http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/prog s/pda-cpb/faq-info/index_e.cfm
Canada only signed the Berne convention in 1998 and now we have to update our laws to be in line with the Berne convention as well as WIPO agreements. I guess this is part of the reason for all the BS coming out about Canada being a haven for pirates etc.
This is the site http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/e n/Home to discuss upcoming copyright reforms.

You can copy music from a friend if you put it on a medium which has the levy, because then you have paid royalties. It may be the case that you can download, given the same condition. See A Guide to Copyrights: Copyright Protection.

Yup! Though previously when I've mentioned this to ./ before figuring it out, it was ignored by askslashdot and help emails, or I was told I have no idea what I'm talking about by people who "obviously know more about SA's networks" than I do.

IPv6 as mentioned by the poster up top won't solve issues like this. Paying $10/GB of traffic per month is the problem, not address space. Oh and despite what Telkom tells you, it's not that there's too much traffic for their poor transoceanic cables. Currently, just 25 percent of the SAT-3/WASC/SAFE capacity is being used. This is due to incompetence in negotiating reasonable peering agreements. Oh and I've priced the cost to lay a new line from the west coast of SA to say, Florida with AT&T laying the cable. It's about R4bn. Telkom makes more than that in profit per year, they could afford more capacity (and more is coming to the continent anyway), but since that's not the problem it won't solve anything. They just keep using it as an excuse to charge the 2nd highest rate for broadband in the world and pretend they're not still a government-owned monopoly.

While Eskom has built a second fiberoptic net (which has been lying idle a couple years now, thanks ICASA!) to service the local infrastructure, I think they'll still run into the same issues at the international gateways.

Primary Allocation - When a service is granted primary allocation, its users do not have to worry about causing interference to users of a secondary allocation in the same band. On the other hand, if there are two primary allocations in the same frequency band, they must share and must work out arrangements so as not to cause each other interference.

Secondary Allocation - A service that has a secondary allocation, must accept interference from, and cannot cause interference to, users of a service having a primary allocation in the same band.

License Exempt - Are Devices that are usually very low power, may not interfere with users of any licensed service, and must accept interference from users of any licensed service.

Take guess What section garage door openers are licensed under.

Garage door openers operate around 360MHz. From the Canadian Table of Frequency Allocations. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst. nsf/vwapj/cane2006-e.pdf/$FILE/cane2006-e.pdf

5.254 The bands 235-322 MHz and 335.4-399.9 MHz may be used by the mobile-satellite service, subject to agreement obtained under No. 9.21, on condition that stations in this service do not cause harmful interference to those of other services operating or planned to be operated in accordance with the Table of Frequency Allocations except for the additional allocation made in footnote No. 5.256A. (WRC-03

C12 (CAN-03) The band 360-400 MHz is designated for Mobile Aeronautical Telemetry Service (MATS) applications. The Government of Canada has priority on the use of this band. Access to spectrum by other entities for MATS may be permitted subject to coordination with the Government of Canada systems.

C13 (CAN-03) The bands 305-320 MHz and 345-360 MHz are designated for Wireless Communication Service (WCS) applications under the fixed and mobile service allocations. Use of these bands is subject to domestic spectrum utilization policy.

If the manufacturer wanted to avoid this problem they could run the opener in one of the ISM bands. * 900 MHz band (33.3 cm wavelength) * 1.8 GHz Band (16.7 cm wavelength) * 2.4 GHz band (12.5 cm wavelength) * 5.8 GHz band (5.2 cm wavelength) http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051 500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/pdf/47c fr15.247.pdf

and you've chosen early heart attack. The link between red meat and heart disease is pretty strong.

The same way you imply that fat people are lazy slobs who can't control their appetites reflects back on you because you can't control your desire for red meat. There are reasons why our population is so fat and being judgemental about it won't cure the problem. It turns out that it isn't a particularly easy problem to solve but I think the tide is turning. The food industry is presenting us with a lot more healthy alternatives these days. For instance the market for organic food is increasing at over ten percent per year. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.n sf/en/gr112100e.html

that's wrong. canada does have a fair use. it's called "fair dealing"

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd _protect-e.html#6

I know this is a bit late, but maybe somebody who would otherwise be confused of their rights will see this and take notice.

Only 31 percent said they thought it was illegal to copy a CD borrowed from a friend who had purchased it.

In Canada I would expect to find that < 5% of teens think that it is illegal to copy a CD borrowed from a friend who had purchased it because it is legal to do so there. The Government of Canada operates a business and consumer information website that (among other things) presents a fairly understandable breakdown of what copyright is and what rights it grants consumers and artists.

Not infringement:

...

• borrowing a musical tape from a friend to copy onto a blank tape for private use (a royalty payment to the owner of the song rights has been paid when the blank tape was purchased).

Source: CIPO - A Guide to Copyright

I've been unable to find a really concise and understandable breakdown of copyrights in America that wasn't run by the BSA, RIAA, etc. Why hasn't the government taken it on themselves to inform citizens of their rights rather than leaving it to the recording industry cartel to tell us what wish that they wish our rights were?

Canada has a small claims court system. That's always useful.

So is saying "This conversation is being recorded and anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. Please identify yourself. ... What is the exact name of the company with which you claim I have a contract ... ... Do you have a signed copy of the contract ... "

Canadian corporation lookup is here.

Just one question...anyone out there familiar with the current legality of crypto in Canada?

To my knowledge, it is legal to use crypto software in Canada. Here is an overview on Canada's Policy on Cryptography

Here is a copy of the overview (for those too lazy to click the above link):

Support for Electronic Commerce
* Canadians are free to develop, import and use whatever cryptography products they wish.
* The Government will not implement mandatory key recovery requirements or licensing regimes.
* The Government encourages industry to establish responsible practices, such as key recovery techniques for stored data.
* The Government will act as a model user of cryptography through the practices of the Government of Canada Public Key Infrastructure (GOC PKI).
* The Government encourages and supports industry-led accreditation of private sector certification authorities.

Export / International Agreements
* Canada will continue to implement cryptography export controls in keeping with the framework of the international Wassenaar Arrangement.
* Canada will take into consideration the export practices of other countries and the availability of comparable products when rendering export permit decisions.
* The export permit application process will be made more transparent and procedures will be streamlined to ensure the least regulatory intervention necessary.

Public Safety
The Government proposes amendments to the Criminal Code and other statutes as necessary to:
* criminalize the wrongful disclosure of keys;
* deter the use of encryption in the commission of a crime; = deter the use of cryptography to conceal evidence; and
* apply existing interception, search and seizure and assistance procedures to cryptographic situations and circumstances.

This is true in Canada as well: Office of Consumer Affairs.

...but here is a list of acronyms to get you excited about it.

What? But it makes perfect sense!

All we have to do is yEnc the H.264 stream, RAR is apart, make the PAR files, GPG each package, and verify the MD5 sums after it's been e-mailed to AES!

But since the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? Otherwise he could go MIA and we'll all end up on KP--oops, wrong argument.

I looked into this very carefully.

The levy essentially allows us Canadians to copy CDs at will.

Check the Canadian gov't (Industry Canada) page:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd _protect-e.html

under non-infringing uses:

"borrowing a musical tape from a friend to copy onto a blank tape for private use (a royalty payment to the owner of the song rights has been paid when the blank tape was purchased)."

If I want to borrow one of your music CDs and make a copy on a disc that the levy was paid on, I can do it LEGALLY, in Canada. It makes no difference that the artist is a U.S. artist, Canadian or otherwise. CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) absolutely hates that law.

It is due to Canadian Government policy/subsidies.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/cmb/welcomeic.nsf/0/8525677900 7b79ee8525697a00468c17?OpenDocument

I see this as a positive, because it helps keep the entire country well informed. The CBC (national government subsidised news and canadian tv channel) also broadcasts all shows online for free and maintains a massive archive of old shows (also free).

We also have crazy things like universal health care and good schools in even the poorest neighbourhoods. (due to education funding being divided at the provincial/federal level primarily based on number of students in school).

Yes, and the components that I've seen listed on the spec sheets of the machines sold by both Aldi and Lidl are pretty good - Seagate discs, Samsung memory, ASUS motherboards, Sony optical drives, etc. You'd be hard pressed to put together a machine of similar spec yourself, and that's excluding the software (which, given this is /. may actually have negative value) and warranty it all for 3 or 5 years as both Aldi and Lidl do. About the only concern with these machines is the quality of the phone support, but again, given this is /. ....

Interestingly, a German friend told me a few years back that Medion/Aldi had secured 11.6% of the PC market in Germany.

In Canada, there's a unit under Industry Canada called Measurement Canada.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inmc-mc.ns f/en/Home

If they say it's a pint, it has to be a pint. You can report a bar to this group and they will investigate, and cite if necessary (not listed on their site but was stated by a representative of theirs on a CBC Radio One show, I believe Quirks and Quarks).

> Sure, but Microsoft does not have a trademark on the word Windows, not in this nor any other domain.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/0791/trdp079157700e. html

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=pase f3.5.861

My quick search of the Austraian TM engine shows WINDOWS being TM'ed by MS.

Now perhaps by 'here' you meant Bolivia or something but you should be careful with your use of the absolute case!

100kg of aluminum costs around $200 at ~$2/kg. Looking at the graph on this page for Aluminum manufacturing costs, about 75% of the cost is raw materials and supplies (mostly the aluminum). So that's at least $50 net to fill up your "tank" assuming perfect effeciency in converting that aluminum.

Neglecting the costs of taking the recycled aluminum oxide out of your car and turning it back into Al rods, the maintaince costs for the fuel station, infrastructure costs to build all this, and so forth. Shipping costs will of course astronomically climb since metal can only be transfered in by train, truck or ship unlike cheap pipelines and is also no longer an easily moveable liquid. Nevermind the cost of your aluminum powered car itself, or the engineering difficulties inherent in moving a 100kg metal coil into your engine, this "upgrade" is already going to break the bank.

I think I'll leave the hydrogen production outside of the vehicle, thank you. Nice try, but no dice.

They represent less than 25% of the population but somehow every damn government we get seems to pander to them and pay them off.

From a statistical point of view, that's already better than pandering to the 9.9% of the population that is Alberta .

They are a have-not province. That alone is ridiculous. That means basically that they're a fcking welfare state, that makes our laws, takes our money and shits on our flag.

Now don't you get too american on us.

You can't get any government job of note without being bi-lingual which is BLATANT DISCRIMINATION!

Well, this worlks both ways. In Quebec, you also have to be bilingual to get a federal job of note even though the anglo population is small. But your frustation is understandable.

We shoulda shipped them back to france over a 100 years ago.

Like when Alberta did not even exist yet?

America got that part right. Speak english or get out.

I don't remember the americans doing that. You just get assimilated into the great melting pot although language laws have been creeping up in the last decades. The British did deport 10 to 12 thousand acadians between 1755-1762.

If the damn easterners vote in another corrupt liberal gov't after this last fiasco, Alberta will separate.

Quebec has been voting Bloc for the last ten years or so. You can't blame us for voting in the liberal government for that last decade. The Rest of Canada has been doing a great job at that without our help. It's not as if we liked Chrétien anyway.

We don't need Canada for anything. We have NO DEBT, billions in the bank, good healthcare and people that want to work.

And none of that is of your doing. I wonder how rich was Alberta before they started investing in the oil fields after the 1947 discovery of oil in Leduc (a french name by the way). Only because you're sitting on an oil field doesn't make you any better at administration or government (see the Middle East, not that i'm comparing Alberta to Saudi Arabia). Give me a pile of cash from oil and i'll make my province the richest.

damn french

You're funny.

On l9th August 1942 troops of the Canadian 2nd Division formed the bulk of the Dieppe Raid. Of the 5,000 Canadians who took part, only about 2,000 returned to England: nearly 1,000 had been killed and 2,000 taken prisoner.

Canada has sent many Satellites into space.

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/satellites/english/ind ex.html

Woah now, I think you're mixing RIM up with some other company...they did not at ALL start off with a vague idea...the company started out of a product. The guys that started the company were waterloo eng students, and the blackberry came out of a final year project they were working on for school. In fact, they had a product before the company was even an idea.

That's not true. I worked at RIM and the very first day we had a company history presentation. The CEO/founder never graduated. During his internship at General Motors he worked on some sort of a scrolling marquee information billboard project. When his internship was finished he was approached to come over and finish it - which he did and dropped out of school for. He later founded a company called Research In Motion which was supposed to develop prototypes of various techs and sell them to intereststed developers. Somewhere down the line they came up with the wireless pager idea and decided to go ahead and develop it themselves.

BTW, RIM has its share of stupid patents. Every think of clipping something to your belt? Behold the genius of mating a metal spring to plastic! Get ready to pay some royalties.

http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent_number=230 7290&language=EN

Fair use is alive and well in Canada.

I pay for the RIGHT to copy what ever the fuck I want on to whatever media I've been taxed on.

That IS my RIGHT and I could give a shit how many hairs they split. Sharing MY music with my GLOBAL friends is NO different then sahring with my friends down the street. The fact that they claim a physical product must change hands to be considered legitimate sharing is just splitting legal hairs. IMFO

And according to these same laws, every school in Canada should be charged under the same act they want to charge file sharers with whenever they play "records" at their school dances! Oh yeah... get your check books out kids! No more sock hops! Fuckin' idiots!

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd _protect-e.html#6

Examples of infringement

Infringement:

- reprinting an article without the copyright owner's permission;

- playing records at a dance without the copyright owners' permission;

- giving a public performance of a play without permission;

- photocopying articles for a class of students without permission; and

- taping your favourite band at a music concert without permission.

Not infringement:

- quoting a few lines of the article in a research paper (fair dealing);

- playing records at home;

- giving a public performance of a play by Shakespeare (no copyright exists/public domain);

- obtaining permission from the author and paying a fee to him or her (if requested) in order to use an article; and

- borrowing a musical tape from a friend to copy onto a blank tape for private use (a royalty payment to the owner of the song rights has been paid when the blank tape was purchased).

So FUCK THEM and my Karma! It shows how far behind these folks are... they still refer to music on tapes!

This does explain the issue quite well.
This, however, will not be the case for long.
If the lobbyists and legislators have their way, our Canadian copyright laws will soon be more in line with those of our American cousins (Oh, goody!).

The proposals are already drafted.

You can find out what is being proposed as amendments.
to the Copyright Act.
This is just 51 weeks after the date of the referenced C-net article. For Gov't, that's pretty damned quick.

It's actually the great distances that are between major Canadian cities that causes Canada to be a leader in communications globally. One of the major things that we've had to do as a country is to enable communication and cultural solidarity across sparsely populated areas. Innovation in the communication sector is something that has always been an important issue to Canadians, and to the Canadian Government. The mandate of Industry Canada is to help make Canadians more productive and competitive in the knowledge-based economy. Broadband being cheap and everywhere is a bit part of that, and has been for a decade.

• Copyright material
  
  Intellectual Property law in Canada permits the limited use of copyright material in two specific circumstances. The first is "Fair Use"; that is, for private study or research and for criticism, review or summary if the source and the author is identified. The second is under "Implied License"; that is, the copyright owner invites others to make use of the work in a certain way and thus a consent or license to use the work is implied. For example, by posting a copyright work to a server, there is/may be an implied license authorizing whatever reproduction is necessary for accessing and viewing.

Oops, the URL http://collections.ic.gc.ca/science/english/compsc i/index.html is http://collections.ic.gc.ca/science/english/compsc i/index.html

is to fight for them.

While you're at it, hop over to the CIPO site and check what other wonderful "initiatives" they have (hint: Patent Law Harmonization with the US).

Then head over to IPP and read their report on copyright reform, or hop over to other parts of strategis and read about the Copyright Reform Process

Canadians have taken their government for granted for far too long, it's time to remind them that they answer to the people, not the corporations.

Bug your Members of Parliament (find yours).
Bug the Senators too.

Be polite but firm, let them know that you consider the issue to be of extreme importance and it will be the main factor to influence your voting decisions (although senators are not elected, they do have party affiliations).

Unless you are proactive in these matters, don't be surprised if your fair use rights disappear.

is to fight for them.

While you're at it, hop over to the CIPO site and check what other wonderful "initiatives" they have (hint: Patent Law Harmonization with the US).

Then head over to IPP and read their report on copyright reform, or hop over to other parts of strategis and read about the Copyright Reform Process

Canadians have taken their government for granted for far too long, it's time to remind them that they answer to the people, not the corporations.

Bug your Members of Parliament (find yours).
Bug the Senators too.

Be polite but firm, let them know that you consider the issue to be of extreme importance and it will be the main factor to influence your voting decisions (although senators are not elected, they do have party affiliations).

Unless you are proactive in these matters, don't be surprised if your fair use rights disappear.

is to fight for them.

While you're at it, hop over to the CIPO site and check what other wonderful "initiatives" they have (hint: Patent Law Harmonization with the US).

Then head over to IPP and read their report on copyright reform, or hop over to other parts of strategis and read about the Copyright Reform Process

Canadians have taken their government for granted for far too long, it's time to remind them that they answer to the people, not the corporations.

Bug your Members of Parliament (find yours).
Bug the Senators too.

Be polite but firm, let them know that you consider the issue to be of extreme importance and it will be the main factor to influence your voting decisions (although senators are not elected, they do have party affiliations).

Unless you are proactive in these matters, don't be surprised if your fair use rights disappear.

is to fight for them.

While you're at it, hop over to the CIPO site and check what other wonderful "initiatives" they have (hint: Patent Law Harmonization with the US).

Then head over to IPP and read their report on copyright reform, or hop over to other parts of strategis and read about the Copyright Reform Process

Canadians have taken their government for granted for far too long, it's time to remind them that they answer to the people, not the corporations.

Bug your Members of Parliament (find yours).
Bug the Senators too.

Be polite but firm, let them know that you consider the issue to be of extreme importance and it will be the main factor to influence your voting decisions (although senators are not elected, they do have party affiliations).

Unless you are proactive in these matters, don't be surprised if your fair use rights disappear.

Lawful Access

Copyright Reform Process

I think this (filed in Canada) rules out the "two Vs separated by lines" theory:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/1243/trdp124330200e. html

CBAC Patenting Higher Life Forms

Unfortunately, patenting laws need to be enacted by the government...not the courts. So until the government gets its act in gear and picks one way or the other for sure as to how they want to run it, we'll have courts ruling on out-dated patent law.

After serious consideration by both men and their company boards, a merger was announced between Wendy's and Tim Hortons in 1995. This was a $425-million U.S. deal that left Ron Joyce the biggest shareholder of the third-largest hamburger chain in the United States. It also made Tim Hortons a division of the U.S.-based Wendy's chain. The merger left Tim Hortons a wholly owned subsidiary of Wendy's, although the two do retain separate management. As part of the deal, Tim Donut Ltd. was given 13.5% of Wendy's stock, worth about $300 million U.S., and Wendy's assumed $125 million U.S. of Tim Hortons' debt. In the end, the total deal was worth about $580 million Canadian.

I would think that if they then raised prices there would be more of and outcry and class-action suits.

Based on WHAT exactly? The right of a retailer to price however he wants to vs what? I'm sorry- but there's nothing actionable to file a class action lawsuit on. Any retailer with the money to back can use loss leaders to put others out of business and then raise their prices.

In many states(24) there are laws against preditary pricing. Furthermore the Sherman Anti-trust act (Federal Law) has been used in anti-competitive/preditary pricing cases. Therefore if preditary pricing were used to for competition out of business and then raising prices to compensate for selling at below cost/market values there would be criminal charges filed. From a criminal conviction a class-action lawsuit is a short step. Either way lawsuits will eat up a lot of money which means that prices are going to have to be all that much higher.

While researching for this reply I noted a large number of articles by economists both practicing and university professors that debunk predatory pricing as a means of eliminating rivals.

Examples:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
http://competition.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incb-bc. nsf/en/ct01491e.html

An interesting point about the majority of the predatory pricing laws is that the states where they are enforced prices are generally higher than states without/non-enforced laws. This in turn has lead to the general understanding that these laws do have a dampening effect on competition and result in higher prices for consumers.

Use of a loss-leader is generally used to draw new business, expand marketshare, etc. Also there needs to be a distinction between loss-leader on a few items drawing people into your store and making a profit on other items and predatory pricing which would suggest the sale below cost of all items that the competitor sells.

For whatever it's worth, Walmart has an extremely effective distribution system coupled with their huge sales market which gives them a lot of pull with suppliers, they are still making a profit on item sales and that by current definition in the Federal system means that they are not preditory pricing.

Of course, as I eluded to before this does not mean that Walmart could not be brought up under preditory pricing laws in several states... They have been in the past and no they don't win all their cases.

Only by comparing their local newspaper day-of-welfare-check advertisements between towns; New Wal*Mart stores ALWAYS have lower prices than well-established ones.

Prices may be lowered in new stores, I don't know personally. However, their "normal" prices seem to stay at a level below what other retailers were charging before Walmart entered the market. Thus it is a net gain for the consumer. If they do lower items I would expect that the prices are on loss leader items and are there to gain marketshare.

Anyway... I understand the loss of small-businesses that are not as efficent as Walmart. I generally don't shop at Walmart myself, but looking at the markets Walmart is in and how they handle their pricing, I still see lots of competitors that are still around even after Walmart has been in the market for over a decade. So the arguement that they practice preditory pricing needs facts/references that can be checked.

Your argument in the last paragraph is one against laws in general. It is directly equivalent to 'since no law works perfectly, we might as well have no laws at all.' Why don't you start your own country, give it a try, and let the rest of us know how well it works.

Some laws work better than others though, and this is usually due to their (necessarily) higher priority over others. Laws against murder and rape, although violated often enough, are also punished relatively severely and instances of these actions in-progress are typically given higher priority than most any other crime (e.g. which will a cop find more important: busting kids smoking weed, or a guy shooting up a coffee shop?).

Some things -- such as smoking weed or playing violent or sexually-graphic video games -- are far more socially-acceptable (and therefore, less-punished by law) than other things, again, such as murder or rape. That acceptability means that the public isn't as concerned w/ those issues, and thus, they're not as strongly enforced, leading to increased levels of breaking of that law (e.g. weed-smoking). Speed limits are another example. Again, it's a matter of priority.

All that said, there is one example in history of a nation without even a prison or a police force: Iceland.

Also, the U.S. started off as a nation with very few laws, and in many ways, we were better for it. In terms of foreign relations, the 1800s were relatively-peaceful (domestically, of course, the Civil War was not). Our economy grew by leaps and bounds compared to the 1900s and current economic growth (this can arguably be attributed to America's development from basically a third-world nation to a first-world nation, during which in most nations, such transitions involve more-rapid growth than at any other time). People were freer to do as they pleased; gambling was less frowned-upon, people could buy whatever medicines (snake oil or not) they pleased, and so forth.

The rise of the "my morals and religion must be shoved down everybody elses' throats" mentality of modern-day Republicans and the "steal from the rich to feed the poor and middle-class" Robin Hood socialist mentality of modern-day Democrats has worked in tandem to restrict such freedoms and growth.

I'm far from an advocate of anarchy and seriously doubt the Iceland example I cited could work in the U.S. (our culture has always been far too violent to be feasible), but the idea that we should restrict the rights of the many for the benefit of the few is abhorrent and dangerous where the issue doesn't involve force against those few (and somebody else's playing GTA certainly does not restrict your freedom not to play it or to disallow your children from playing it, just as somebody else's worship of Allah or Buddha doesn't restrict your freedom to worship God or be an athiest, because these are all negative rights).

You'll have to encrypt it before it leaves the client machine, store it only in encrypted form on the server, and decrypt it back on the client machine.

In other words, you're looking at more than a simple web application.

Now there are some things to be said in favour of hosting in the US, in that, should there be a 3rd-party intrusion, the civil penalties can bankrupt the perp. Unfortunately, as you seem to be aware, the govt will claim "eminent domain" when they're the one doing the B and E.

The first question you might want to ask yourself is, are you legally allowed to store medical information on servers outside your jurisdiction (in other words, are there any particular privacy laws in your locale that might come into play)?

For example, a strict interpretation of PIPEDA (the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act http://privacyforbusiness.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/i npfb-cee.nsf/en/hc00005e.html) requires that information be stored securely. A strict reading of this requirement would outlaw putting protected personal data on servers beyond the reach of the Act and subject to access by other governments or agencies.

As to your other question: The internet was designed to route around breaks and failures, so even if the US were to do a "Great Wall of China" thing, the rest of the world would continue to function.

We're thinking of hosting a site or 2 with a hosting company in the US ourselves, but I would be hesitant to put anything really sensitive in a jurisdiction outside my own - easier to sue the principals involved, etc., should the hosting company screw up security. International lawsuits are a real pain - just ask the victims of Bhopal.

If enough Canadians can convince their government to stand up to U.S. pressure to implement the broadcast flag, you may be able to import them from there. It can't hurt that ATI is a Canadian company.

There's an article about it in the Toronto Star: Mr. Minister, please protect the public interest.

Here are a few interesting parts:

[Industry Minister David] Emerson's strong backbone will be tested in the months ahead as he faces unrelenting U.S. pressure on two initiatives that would, if adopted, provide broadcasters with unprecedented control over television signals and severely curtail consumers' expectations with regard to their rights and personal privacy. ...

Given the controversy associated with the broadcast flag in the U.S., one would think that Canada would be wary about embarking on the same route. Accordingly, it came as a shock to many when an Industry Canada official recently indicated that Canada was likely to follow the U.S. lead by quickly implementing a similar system by July 2005. The official suggested that there was broadcaster support for the measure and that since the U.S. had adopted it, Canadians had little alternative but to follow suit.

While Canadian broadcasters may or may not support the broadcast flag (they have in fact been rather publicly silent on the matter), it is essential Canada craft its own policy by considering the privacy and copyright policies associated with the proposal.

Pre-judging the issue, as some in Minister Emerson's department appear to have done, is a dangerous course of action, that should be replaced immediately by a working group of all stakeholders, including the broader public interest, intent on studying the Canadian options. The suggestion Canada faces a Y2K-like deadline with respect to the broadcast flag appears as overblown as was the Y2K threat itself.

In light of the importance of the issues raised by the broadcast flag, it is heartening that Canada's new Industry Minister is a veteran of supporting Canadian interests in the face of U.S. pressure. When David Emerson salutes the flag on Canada Day 2005, one hopes that it is one with a maple leaf, not a broadcast flag emblazoned with red, white, and blue.

The Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry, can be contacted by email or by regular mail.

Original article from here.


BURN CRUDE PALM OIL TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY

The launch of Tenaga Nasional Berhad's (TNB) power plant, which uses crude palm oil as fuel, marks an important milestone in the country's power sector. Malaysia has started conducting feasibility study on burning palm oil diesel fuel in its power plants. Blended with medium fuel oil, the fuel mix has been successfully tested at the TNB Generation Sdn Bhd power station in Prai, Penang.

Palm oil, traditionally used for cooking and making soap, is the latest addition to the country's power source, though on a limited scale. This is in line with the government policy of introducing a fifth fuel policy; fifth fuel is meant to mean renewable energy. As of last year, 80 percent of the country's power supply was generated using gas, 10.6 percent hydroelectric, 6.6 percent coal and the remaining using medium fuel oil. In February this year, TNB was approached by the Malaysian Palm Oil Board to jointly conduct a study on the possibility of using palm oil to generate power. TNB's research arm, called TNB Research Sdn Bhd, took three weeks to complete its preliminary study. Starting from March 28, 2001, the national utility's power plant in Prai has been using palm oil to generate power, which was claimed to be the first in the world. (Background: In February, crude palm oil (CPO) prices hit a low of RM697 per ton with the buildup on palm oil stocks rising to 1.5 million tons. As a result, the Malaysian Palm Oil Board signed a memorandum of understanding with CPO producers for the supply of the produce at RM725 per ton. The CPO is then sold to TNB at RM700 per ton, with the board subsidizing the price difference).

Blended with a ratio of 20 percent crude palm oil and 80 percent of medium fuel oil, the mixture is burnt in a boiler and has a capacity of generating 120 megawatts of electricity.

The major advantage of using CPO is it results in less pollution, containing less than 0.05 percent sulfur dioxide during power generation, compared to three percent using medium fuel. Palm oil is also renewable and takes only between three to five years for plants to mature.

However, on the downside, CPO is not an economically-viable option. The gross heating value- the amount of electricity that can be generated- for palm oil is 40,000 kJ per kg, compared to 42,600 kJ per kg for medium fuel oil and 45,000 kJ per kg for diesel. Furthermore, CPO is 16 percent more expensive than using diesel and costs 38 percent more compared to medium fuel oil. Under the pilot project in Prai, the Finance Ministry will subsidize the difference in power generation cost.

Malaysian CPO will be sent to a United Kingdom-based research center, Power Generation, for further testing.

For further information on the Malaysian environmental market, please contact:

United States-Asia Environmental Partnership (US-AEP)
American Embassy
376 Jalan Tun Razak
50400 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Tel: 60-3-2168-5050 Fax: 60-3-248-4035
E-mail: usaep@po.jaring.my
Contact: Vivian How or Looi Chee-Choong
URL: http://www.usaep.org