Slashdot Mirror

I love it when Slashbots just start spouting off stuff about which thy have absolutely no clue. Where to begin....

Then terrorists started coming in through Canada because it was so easy.

Actually according to the head of Interpol, you're full of it and then some. Oh and who's this commie, UN-loving, left wing tree-hugger Nobel guy anyway? Turns out he was "a former law professor at New York University and one-time chief law enforcement officer for the U.S. Treasury Department". He must not have a clue, EH? Of course, another post already mentioned that the 9/11 terrorists had US Immigration visas, but pay no attention to that.

How reliable do you think it is for someone at the border to have to check each and every ID to make sure it matches one of the 50 valid formats that we have?

Actually, quite. If you've ever worked as a Customs/Immigration officer (which I have), you would know that border guards have access to a handly little book that gives minute details and colour pictures of every federal, provincial, territorial, and state-issued ID from North America. So it really isn't that hard to spot a fake card in practice (just ask any 18-year old Michiganian trying to come and drink in Canada with a fake ID).

Oh, I really liked this one too:

Get a passport so we'll know you have a right to come back without further hassle

Can't speak about the US here, but in Commie Canada, all citizens have the right to enter the country as they wish(see paragraph 6.1). Let me repeat - it is ILLEGAL for a Canadian citizen to be detained while entering Canada, unless there is an outstanding warrant for their arrest or they are contravening the Customs Act in some manner.

Your comments leave me to believe you were flamebaiting, but I in case you weren't, I had to take a swing at it.

If you can legally borrow something from a library, copy it for yourself, and then return it legally, why can't you legally copy things you *RENT* (movies, for instance). Why won't stores that sell software normally accept the software for refund (ie, exchange for same product only) if the package has been opened?

You're changing the subject, we're not talking about movies or software copying. The thread started by Sentry21 is about copying/ripping other peoples' CDs or MP3s.

The Canadian government charges a levy (tax) in all ridings (um, I don't know what Americans call a riding - a district?) on all blank audio recording media (blank CDs, iPod hard disks, whatever), which is distributed to musicians (more likely to musicians' labels and lawyers) through CRIA (the Canadian franchise of the RIAA). This makes sure that musicians are paid for their work (yeah, right), and makes copying/downloading/sharing of music a happy easy thing for all, and means that ordinary people doing home taping like they have been since, what, the sixties?, don't destroy the music industry. And they don't have to be called "pirates" and go around with a peg-leg and an eye patch saying "arrrr billy, have you ever tasted...."

YET, in spite of these two inalterable facts, the law is still being broken. Why? If you can show me anywhere in the Canada Copyright Act or anywhere else in the Canadian Criminal Code where this specific thing is covered, I'd sure like to know about it.

Well, if you had read the copyright act as I suggested, you would have found that Bill C-42 (1985/1997, the Copyright Act) Part VIII, Article 80, provides that:

"...the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of a musical work embodied in a sound recording... onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording [unless it] is done for the purpose of (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental; (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade; (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public."

N.B.!! This does not say that you must own (or "licence") a copy of the original media - you have the right, as a Canadian, to reproduce music for your own personal use, regardless of where you copy it from, since you pay the levy on the blank media you copy it on to. That pays for the music (that you probably wouldn't have paid for in the record store anyways). http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-3 9796

Because from where I'm standing it seems that the *ONLY* interpretation is that access to personal use copies must be lost when access to the work being copied is lost.

Well now you can stop being a loser, and start sharing all the music like you should:

sharing copies of music does not fall under personal and private use, so you have no right at all to make copies that are going to be shared unless the copyright holder gives you such permission.

As reported by the CBC:

"...on June 30, 2004, the Supreme Count [sic *] of Canada ruled that [...] 'No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service.'

[* although it's amusing to imagine von Finckenstein, the "Supreme Count" of Canada, making the ruling, most likely the CBC is here referring to the Supreme Court justice who pre

Ask and ye shall receive. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html

Advocating Genocide

Promotion of hatred

Ask and ye shall receive. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html

Advocating Genocide

Promotion of hatred

Ask and ye shall receive. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html

Advocating Genocide

Promotion of hatred

there is already legal precident in Canada stating that the Bible is hate speech...

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
...
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
...

Oh get down from your cross. That's such a tired old line of crap. You're not living in ancient Rome being fed to lions...you're actually by far the most politically powerful religion in the U.S. Even fake reporters busted for running gay prostitution sites try that old line.

now, we'd be perfectly happy for you to hate Jesus and want to screw each other in the butt all day long if you'd just let us say we think its wrong.. but then, that would be hate speach, wouldn't it?

What a complete and utter lie! You do realize that not explicitly making gay marriage illegal won't result in YOU having to marry a gay guy, don't you? You're church can go on refusing to perform gay marriages. But when you want to make it illegal for everyone, that is far beyond merely wanting to "say we think it's wrong."

there is already legal precident in Canada stating that the Bible is hate speech...

The link points to a law making it illegal to advocate genocide. A search of the page shows no hits for the words "bible" or "jesus". If you really think the bible advocates genocide...well...you're the one who has to sleep at night knowing that's your religion.

>You can keep believing otherwise if you like, of course ... right up until they take you to the camps.

I'm a born-again Jesus loving Bible reading libertarian...

and as a matter of fact, yes, me and others like me are quite ready and prepared to be the first ones taken to the camps... We are already seeing the signs and are determined to not change our thoughts.

now, we'd be perfectly happy for you to hate Jesus and want to screw each other in the butt all day long if you'd just let us say we think its wrong.. but then, that would be hate speach, wouldn't it?

there is already legal precident in Canada stating that the Bible is hate speech... we know its coming, we just don't stop loving Him and will let you know that He loves you too if you'd stop using the government to shut us up.

for all the hate you apparently have for the Pope - you _do_ know that he went to the jail of the man that attempted to kill him and forgave him... personally... not in some disattached global way...

he actually went to his jail cell, talked with him, and became friends with him... he also told everyone that he had forgiven him...

which is easier, to tell someone that shot you "you're forgiven"? or to shut up those that you disagree with?

I think Canada should ammend the criminal code such that a search warrant that specifies seizing data is effectively a subpoena for the passphrase as well. But there should be no way to subpoena a passphrase for a key that is only used for signing.

Other countries should have similar provisions, but I was thinking of Canada because that's where I am, and the government has the "Lawful Access" consultation process right now. It would lead to much less abuse than banning encryption or requireing backdoors, which is what the council of chiefs of police want.

• 42. (1) Every person who knowingly
• (2) Every person who knowingly
• (a) makes or possesses any plate that is specifically designed or adapted for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists
• is guilty of an offence and liable
• (c) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both, or
• (d) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
• (3) The court before which any proceedings under this section are taken may, on conviction, order that all copies of the work or other subject-matter that appear to it to be infringing copies, or all plates in the possession of the offender predominantly used for making infringing copies, be destroyed or delivered up to the owner of the copyright or otherwise dealt with as the court may think fit.

You dont enter any kind of contract when you buy a knife, you are only bound my felony law. It is NOT an agreement between you and the knife manufacturer to not stab anyone, it is a felony.

When buying a music CD, you dont enter in a contract. You signed nothing, and havent even stated to agree with anything. You are bound by copyright law, both in canada and in the USA.

In Canada, fair use includes copies for yourself, or copies of your friend's cds. In the usa it only includes the copies for yourself.

In the USA, no manufacturer/label can say 'this person cannot make fair use copies of this cd'. There is no law against it.

With the DMCA in the USA, you cannot circumvent encryption, etc, to make this fair use copy. This makes copying dvds for yourself illegal. No such law exists (yet) in canada.

Look here

and here

Making copies of my friend's CDs is infact legal. Downloading is a muddy area, but the court has ruled it legal. Here is a news story that talks about the ruling.

So does this mean that all the protected CD's we get from the US we can now be sued for ripping? How does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense, vis:

Moreover, the FAQ makes clear that "the circumvention of a TPM applied to copyright material will only be illegal if it is carried out with the objective of infringing copyright.

The concept of "Private Copying" (which is the term used in Canadian Copyright Act C-42) is not a copyright infringement. What you want to look at is Part VIII, ss 80, namely:

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Limitation

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

As such, if you defeat a copyright protection mechanism for the purpose of making a private copy, you'll be okay, as that copy won't be an infringing copy.

(For the record, IANAL -- I'm just a guy who has read over the Copyright Act on numerous occasions :) ).

Yaz.

• 15. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a performer has a copyright in the performer's performance, consisting of the
• sole right to do the following in relation to the performer's performance or any substantial part thereof:

• (b) if it is fixed,
• (i) to reproduce any fixation that was made without the performer's authorization

It doesn't matter. If someone doesn't have the right to give you a recording, you don't have the right to it. You can steal satellite signals as well, but nothing gives you a right to the programming until you pay for it.

"Did you read the law he cited?"

Yes I did. Did you? He quoted the first half of it. The very first part was "Subject to subsection (2)", which he completely omitted. Go look for yourself

A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.

Okay, time for a list of modchip uses:

- Playing unofficial/unlicensed software (ex: Game Enhancer, which was almost definately first developed with the help of a modchip, since absolutely ZERO Sony code or patents were used to complete the software)
- Using unofficial devices (ex: New max memory devices made by Datel)
- Cheating devices (ex: Game genie by Galoob)
- Playing backups
- Bypassing region protection

These are all locks placed on the device by the manufacturer in an attempt to stop the usage of third party items, such as:

1 - Third party discs not authorized by the console manufacturer
2 - Third party software not authorized by the console manufacturer
3 - Third party hardware not authorized by the console manufacturer
4 - Authorized software from the manufacturer that was not intended to be used in your country

As far as I know, in all three situations, doing those things is legal. It is legal for me to put Maxell media in an HP burner (item 1), it's legal for me to install Windows XP to a Mac (item 2), it's legal for me to use a non sony DV tape in my Sony DV camcorder (item 3), and it's legal for me to watch a PAL videotape in the USA (item 4).

Now, for some reason, the person who built the device decided for me they didn't like items 1 - 4. So they built the device not to allow this. Now this law says such locks are illegal. And since the actions were legal to start with, where's your beef?

That someone might do items 1 - 4 with an illegal intent? Yeah, they could. In fact, you could install a pirated Windows XP on a Mac using an emulator. Does that make the emulator illegal? You could copy a copyrighted gameboy game into a blank flash memory cartridge and play it on your gameboy. Does that make computer memory illegal?

This is no different than banning box cutters on airlines because you think a terrorist is going to slash your throat with one. You're using an (extremely poor) band-aid to cover up what is a societal problem that already has PLENTY of legal recourse against the act, and you are inconveniencing and embarassing people as you do it. It's nasty and wrong, and, quite honestly, it makes me, as an outsider, afraid to enter your country. It's no different than trying to ban chewing gum just because someone might stick it under a desk.

Canada is not a British colony. It was one and uses British common-law as its base. I am not a lawyer and I can't say which year Canada ceased to be a colony 1982, 1931, 1867, 1848-1849. I would assume a combinaton of the middle two. Anyow, you pick. Each of those years marked some sort of devolution of power to Canada to manage its own affairs. Nevertheless common-law is just that, common. Canadian courts do rely on foreign precedents and so do US courts. Use a search engine and enter the search criteria of: use of foreign precedents.

In any event, all federal laws pertaining to libel and this provincial law have been written or amended since 1982, so the issue of UK law applying to Canada is moot.

I am still shocked that an Ontario court would hear this case. If the Post had contracted banner ads to direct people with IPs known to be in Canada to their site and that article, then I could see how the plaintiff has could have standing in an Ontario court, but the action was performed in DC, for the DC/MA/North VA market, maybe the US market. I dunno, what are the US newspapers of record? Regardless, the libel occurred in the US. I agree with the mob; the case should be tried there.

Canada is not a British colony. It was one and uses British common-law as its base. I am not a lawyer and I can't say which year Canada ceased to be a colony 1982, 1931, 1867, 1848-1849. I would assume a combinaton of the middle two. Anyow, you pick. Each of those years marked some sort of devolution of power to Canada to manage its own affairs. Nevertheless common-law is just that, common. Canadian courts do rely on foreign precedents and so do US courts. Use a search engine and enter the search criteria of: use of foreign precedents.

In any event, all federal laws pertaining to libel and this provincial law have been written or amended since 1982, so the issue of UK law applying to Canada is moot.

I am still shocked that an Ontario court would hear this case. If the Post had contracted banner ads to direct people with IPs known to be in Canada to their site and that article, then I could see how the plaintiff has could have standing in an Ontario court, but the action was performed in DC, for the DC/MA/North VA market, maybe the US market. I dunno, what are the US newspapers of record? Regardless, the libel occurred in the US. I agree with the mob; the case should be tried there.

Well. I would guess that you're from Alberta. Here, read this and then come back and play with the literate folks, okie?

first, "I don't have anything to hide" is a bullshit excuse. There is a reason we have freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

Second, when Canada signs on to WIPO, then music sharing, etc... *will* be illegal.

The method for constitutional change in Canada is to rewrite it. That was my point, and that is the way it is, not FUD.

38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

They already have legislation that dictates what free speech is and isn't (veiled as 'hate speech' legislation).

For those that are curious, you can read the hate propaganda law here (it's short).

Personally, I see no reason to advocate genocide based on someone's colour, race, religion or ethnic origin (if I even would ever consider advocating genocide of all things, characteristics and/or beliefs a group are not the same thing as the actions of a group). I also see promoting hatred in public where such hatred will lead to a breach of the peace (riot) as a good idea. I don't want Falwell coming down here and trying to start a riot. I also see that promoting hatred in public communication, where that communication is not established to be true, nor in good faith someone is expressing an argument on a religious subject, nor is it relevant to the public interest and on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true, nor is in good faith pointing out--for the purposes of removal--matters tending to produce feelings of hatred, protects people from hatred.

I see it as protecting freedom in terms of protecting those in an identifiable group from others would advocate killing them.

I see it as keeping the peace in terms of not allowing people to publically incite a breach of the peace based on their views of an identifiable group.

I see it as protecting those from others who would publically encourage people to hate those in an identifiable group based on things that are untrue, irrelevant, and not a religious belief.

I see the penalties, the first being imprisonment up to five years, the other two being imprisonment of up to two years or a fine, as reasonable.

A handy FAQ for the tinfoil brigade.

Of special note:

Will Internet service providers be required to keep records of all their customers' web activity?

It is important to clarify that data retention is not being considered in the lawful access proposals. ISPs would only be required to preserve specific data when requested to do so through a preservation order and only for a specific period of time. The proposed amendments would not require ISPs to retain data relating to their customers' web activity.

Lawful Access

Copyright Reform Process

Thank you Micheal Geist, for blowing something this routine out of proportion.

Thankfully, Canada has one of the most online governments on the planet. Here's exactly what they, and the public that responded to the governement, had to say about the Lawful Access updates. Of particular note is the Privacy Commissioner's comments:

"# It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
# It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose.
# The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit derived.
# It must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose."

The law isn't going to pass if it doesn't meet those criteria, among others. I honestly don't see a problem. The only reason that this update is going through is to ensure that law enforcement have the same abilities, irregardless of the technology. They can already intercept telephone and fax communications lawfully, this just ensures tehy can do the same with TCP/IP traffic.

The private copying exemption (which is what makes downloading legal) and the establishment of the tariffs are both part of Part VIII of the Copyright Act, titled "Private Copying". To say that they're not directly related is just plain wrong. We pay the tariff, and in exchange we get the private copying exemption.

extradition .

But because he is a useful idiot of the Left, for whom emotions and intentions trump all facts and evidence in any argument, he did not feel the need to actually provide any data to support his views.

I, on the other hand, being a conservative, well-educated intellectual, did so. And here is what I found, from a Canadian government site:

The Copyright Act states that the fair dealing defence may be used only in the following cases: private study, research, criticism, review and newspaper summary.

... [T]he Canadian notion of fair dealing should be distinguished from the American concept of fair use, which has historically resulted in a broader application by American courts.

(Department of Canadian Heritage)

So commercial photographic reproduction of a sculpture is restricted in precisely the same way there as here, except that personal-use provisions are even less applicable. And it's no use appealing to the right to free speech in Canada, as there is no First Amendment there, and free speech can be restricted in any fashion that seems right to the government of the day.

Furthermore, Canadians have to pay a tax on blank audio tape and other recording media, which is not the case here.

There is no basis whatsoever to think that Canadians have greater rights in fair use of copyright, free speech, or freedom of the press than we enjoy in America. The evidence is quite the opposite.

Here again we see an example of a miserable malcontent leftist asshole who, in his eagerness to believe the worst about the USA, blindly accepts any slanderous accusation about America without regard to the facts. A stupid, ill-informed sheep, in other words.

--ccm

Every point of view? No I don't.

You still seem to be confusing the right to free speech with "being correct" or "being tolerant".

No, I don't. I recognize the limits of free speech, in the context of a free and democratic society. I also agree that people have the right to have wrong or outright false opinions, and they should be free to express them subject to reasonable limits. I feel that it is appropriate to draw the line against religious-based attacks on homosexuality. Why? Because it appears to be nothing more than thinly disguised hatred.

The underlying principle that attacking an innate characteristic of a group (i.e. gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation) is not the same as attacking the group itself, nor any particular members of that group does not hold itself up to scrutiny. The argument is easy to dispell via reductio ad absurdum.

There is nothing special about homosexuality that makes it worthy of being singled out, other than that doing so is still considered to be acceptible in some corners of society.

If you were to make a similar argument against a different minority group, the underlying bigotry would be immediately obvious.

Both are sexual sins condemned in the Bible.

They are hardly equivalent. It seems to me that you are trying to equate first degree murder with jaywalking. Sure, both are listed in the criminal code, but one is far more significant than the other.

Both were subject to death by stoning in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

Irrelevant. Many things that would result in summary execution a few thousand years ago today are not considered crimes today. Neither of your examples (homosexuality or adultry) are criminal (or civil) offenses.

I also often compare homosexual sex to pre-marital sex. Both are considered acceptable by our culture and both are considered sins by Christians.

Does the Bible specifically state that pre-marital sex is a sin? For that matter, does it specifically state that homosexuality is a sin? Many religions codified existing societal conventions and taboos into the religious framework.

It's also a useful comparison because it's easier for heterosexuals to relate to the temptations of premarital sex than it is for them to understand the difficulty Christian homosexuals have in rejecting their sexual desires.

Telling young people to wait until they are married until they have sex is not remotely similar to telling gay people that they can never have sex.

I critique a person's actions or decisions to act on those desires (inborne or otherwise) that are bad.

Fine, but who are you to state that homosexuality is bad? Before you start waving your Bible at me and saying "it's all in here", please take a look at that Bible. There are lots of words in there, approximately 774,000 apparently. How many words are spent talking about homosexuality in any form? Not that many. Condemning homosexuality does not appear to have been a primary concern of the author(s).

It all boils down to interpretation of course. I have not forgotten that you suggested that the Sermon on the Mount was not typical of the teachings of Christ! It is one of the very cornerstones of Christianity, and the act that got him into so much trouble with local religious authorities.

Beyond that, you are trivializing a really important aspect of human sexuality. You have reduced sexual orientation to the level of a perversion or fetish.

I don't know about you, but I have no interest and would not be capable of having sex with a member of my own gender. Gay people feel the same way about having sex with someone of the opposite gender.

It's not like they can be converted to heterosexuality, and it i

Here in Canada, "Child Pornography" is a similar bogeyman to "Terrorism" in the US.

I strongly urge you to read the relevant parts of our Criminal Code.
Particularly, PART V -Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct
and specifically Section 163.1.

For example, subsections (4.1) and (4.2) mean that you can spend 5 years in jail for clicking a link.

That, however, is not nearly enough for the OPP.
As part of their "Operation Snowball", the mere suspicion of posessing child pornography is grounds to denounce you as a paedophile in a public press conference.

Of course, that fact that you may be innocent is not enough to stop them from ruining your life. Don't believe me? Ask James LeCraw. Oh, sorry, you can't - he committed suicide, eight months after all charges against him were withdrawn.

Here in Canada, "Child Pornography" is a similar bogeyman to "Terrorism" in the US.

I strongly urge you to read the relevant parts of our Criminal Code.
Particularly, PART V -Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct
and specifically Section 163.1.

For example, subsections (4.1) and (4.2) mean that you can spend 5 years in jail for clicking a link.

That, however, is not nearly enough for the OPP.
As part of their "Operation Snowball", the mere suspicion of posessing child pornography is grounds to denounce you as a paedophile in a public press conference.

Of course, that fact that you may be innocent is not enough to stop them from ruining your life. Don't believe me? Ask James LeCraw. Oh, sorry, you can't - he committed suicide, eight months after all charges against him were withdrawn.

Here in Canada, "Child Pornography" is a similar bogeyman to "Terrorism" in the US.

I strongly urge you to read the relevant parts of our Criminal Code.
Particularly, PART V -Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct
and specifically Section 163.1.

For example, subsections (4.1) and (4.2) mean that you can spend 5 years in jail for clicking a link.

That, however, is not nearly enough for the OPP.
As part of their "Operation Snowball", the mere suspicion of posessing child pornography is grounds to denounce you as a paedophile in a public press conference.

Of course, that fact that you may be innocent is not enough to stop them from ruining your life. Don't believe me? Ask James LeCraw. Oh, sorry, you can't - he committed suicide, eight months after all charges against him were withdrawn.

> In order to make these photos someone has to be, possibly irreparably, harmed.
> That's why child pornography is illegal whereas simulated child pornography
> (animation, fiction, etc) is not.

Wrong.

In most jurisdictions your so called "simulated child pornography" is just as illegal as the "real" kind.

Quoted from the Canadian Criminal code, Part V, Section 163.1:

163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or

(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.

That's only the USA. Maybe the parent was a Canuckastanian. Here we actually value some things like consumer rights.

Unconvinced?

See Part 3, Section 30.6 of the Canadian Copyright Act for more information.

That's for computer programs, but there are similar laws for audio recordings as well.

This whole story is stupid. You americans think the whole world revolves around you. Well it doesn't. Of course shutting down SuprNova had no effect.

That's only the USA. Maybe the parent was a Canuckastanian. Here we actually value some things like consumer rights.

Unconvinced?

See Part 3, Section 30.6 of the Canadian Copyright Act for more information.

That's for computer programs, but there are similar laws for audio recordings as well.

This whole story is stupid. You americans think the whole world revolves around you. Well it doesn't. Of course shutting down SuprNova had no effect.

So Mr. Kempling is not a martyr for free speech? Who exactly do you think is entitled to free speech? Those who agree with you? As for the unequal power relationships... Student-Teacher isn't the only one you know. How about Boss-Employee?

And of course Christianity is not monolithic. That's why I didn't say it was a universal to all Christians. It is however the norm. Meaning that it's what the most Christians believe.

Red Herring - A statement or argument unrelated to the discussion. Since neither Mr. Kempler or myself advocated any crime you have introduced a Red Herring.

But the more disappointing part of your post is the end...

You would like me to tolerate your intolerance?

I'm not asking you to keep quiet, I'm demanding that you not attempt to silence people who express ideas you disapprove of or be an apologist for those who silence others. If you read the charter, you'd find that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms. Meaning that all other rights and freedoms are subject to it. (And the other fundamental freedoms). You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between your right to free expression and your non-existant right to shut other people up. Free speech means that you have to not only allow other people to express views that you find intollerant, you have also have a responsibility to defend their right to express their views.

I do believe in Fundamental Human Rights. The right to punish people for exercising their Fundamental Human Rights is not among them.

So Mr. Kempling is not a martyr for free speech? Who exactly do you think is entitled to free speech? Those who agree with you? As for the unequal power relationships... Student-Teacher isn't the only one you know. How about Boss-Employee?

And of course Christianity is not monolithic. That's why I didn't say it was a universal to all Christians. It is however the norm. Meaning that it's what the most Christians believe.

Red Herring - A statement or argument unrelated to the discussion. Since neither Mr. Kempler or myself advocated any crime you have introduced a Red Herring.

But the more disappointing part of your post is the end...

You would like me to tolerate your intolerance?

I'm not asking you to keep quiet, I'm demanding that you not attempt to silence people who express ideas you disapprove of or be an apologist for those who silence others. If you read the charter, you'd find that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms. Meaning that all other rights and freedoms are subject to it. (And the other fundamental freedoms). You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between your right to free expression and your non-existant right to shut other people up. Free speech means that you have to not only allow other people to express views that you find intollerant, you have also have a responsibility to defend their right to express their views.

I do believe in Fundamental Human Rights. The right to punish people for exercising their Fundamental Human Rights is not among them.

So Mr. Kempling is not a martyr for free speech? Who exactly do you think is entitled to free speech? Those who agree with you? As for the unequal power relationships... Student-Teacher isn't the only one you know. How about Boss-Employee?

And of course Christianity is not monolithic. That's why I didn't say it was a universal to all Christians. It is however the norm. Meaning that it's what the most Christians believe.

Red Herring - A statement or argument unrelated to the discussion. Since neither Mr. Kempler or myself advocated any crime you have introduced a Red Herring.

But the more disappointing part of your post is the end...

You would like me to tolerate your intolerance?

I'm not asking you to keep quiet, I'm demanding that you not attempt to silence people who express ideas you disapprove of or be an apologist for those who silence others. If you read the charter, you'd find that freedom of expression is one of the fundamental freedoms. Meaning that all other rights and freedoms are subject to it. (And the other fundamental freedoms). You seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between your right to free expression and your non-existant right to shut other people up. Free speech means that you have to not only allow other people to express views that you find intollerant, you have also have a responsibility to defend their right to express their views.

I do believe in Fundamental Human Rights. The right to punish people for exercising their Fundamental Human Rights is not among them.

If that is your view, I hope your chains are not bound too tightly... Maybe you should read Hobbes' Leviathan. In it Hobbs argues that no rational person would ever choose the sort of freedom you seem to be in favour of.

When people voluntarily choose to work together for the common good, it can hardly be considered slavery.

It's really quite simple. Public healthcare is demonstrably cheaper than a private system. Every layer of the private system requires profit and those costs are passed on to the consumer. There is always more demand than there is supply, and the demand curve is quite inelastic. So, there is little or no incentive for the providers to compete based on price.

As a percentage of GDP, the US spends more on healthcare than Canada does. But the quality of that healthcare appears to be lower. The infant mortality rate in the US is much higher than it is in Canada for example.

Yes, I have heard that the HMOs are pretty useless. Even so, there are more people in the US with no healthcare insurance than the entire population of Canada. I'm thinking we have found a better way, and it costs us less as an added bonus.

Care to identify any terrorists who entered the US via Canada?

Oh yes. So tight that no illegal immigrants from Mexico ever reach the US...

Reference? More likely a troll...

It all depends on what the goals of the terrorists are. If they want to bring chaos and anarchy to the entire world, you are right. But if their vendetta is focused against the US, perhaps not.

If they think of us at all, it would only be a means to that end.

That bastion of socialism the United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights some time ago. Our constitution and laws are interpreted according to our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's pretty straightforward to decide when an issue concerns human rights, since those rights have been clearly documented.

The Charter itself is a balancing act between different rights. As you correctly noted, one is free to express one's religion as long as it doesn't impinge on someone else's freedom.

If you're really interested, the leading Supreme Court of Canada case is R. v. Keegstra. As a counter-point, see R. v. Zundel, where the accused was acquitted of spreading falsehoods about the Holocaust because the relevant portions of the Criminal Code were found to be unconstitutional.

I don't think calling homosexuality a sin is bigoted, you may. So what--whould I be banned by law from making such a comment?

If you actually understood our laws, you would not say this. See, that wonderful Hate Propaganda part of the criminal code actually does not affect this. One of the defences for saying stuff like this is if you're expressing a religious opinion.

Read more about our laws before you shoot your mouth off. Start here.

Not true. In fact it's not even statements of hatred that get on the wrong side of the law.

Section 13 of the Human Rights Act makes it illegal to make any statement "that are likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt..." (Emphasis Added)

So if you make a statement that is likely to expose someone to contempt you are guilty of a crime. The act does not require any sort of communication that says something to the effect of "You should hate this person because of X" in order for a crime to have been committed.

"Digital sharing of copyrighted music in countries which put a tax on CD-Rs, MP3 players, etc. is effectively legal, since you're paying for the priviledge of doing so whether you actually are or not."

Not correct. There might be laws on the book of that country which allow copying under a certain set of circumstances, but the existence of a tarrif or levy does not in itself make piracy legal.

That's right, but in Canada there is a law on the books (the Copyright Act) which does make copying of music for private use legal. I don't understand why anyone would agree to a levy without this, but with it, a levy seems like a good compromise.

He said the Copyright Act clearly defines media that legally can be used for private duplication of copyrighted material and MP3 players no longer meet that criteria.

Sorry buddies, while this might mean you can't copy a disc from your friend, it certainly doesn't take away any rights I have to copy my CD to my own iPod. My music, my property, my right to do what I want with it (within my domain).

You don't have to take their word for it.

The Act does NOT clearly define which media can be used for private duplication; it contains the clause, "audio recording medium" means a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose, excluding any prescribed kind of recording medium.

The provision for private copying states only what may be copied onto an audio recording medium.

The section on levys applies to blank audio recording medium. That means medium to which no sounds have ever been fixed (emphasis mine).

But the important part is in the first definition, where it says, is of a kind ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose.

So because MP3 players are used to play music, they become audio recording media.

Actually, it looks like the judge is wrong. After all, the Act does not mention CDs, tapes, records, and so on either. It does this for the highly intelligent reason that it applies to the Right to Copy, and not the mechanics involved with any particular technology.

Yes, and that ruling suggests it is perfectly legal to "upload" files, which the Copyright Board of Canada previously believed was illegal(see p. 20), but downloading files via P2P has been legal since at least the 1998 update to the Copyright Act. Even the Copyright Board of Canada agreed that to be true.

They should have laughed, waved an RFC with example.com highlighted in yellow in the face of the Government and told them to shove it up their ass. When will people learn from this stupidity?

One problem. This isn't the USA. If the Canadian government deems something foreign to be obscene they may block its import. They may also block the printing of obscene material within Canada, although that happens a lot less than the former (which happens far too often).

No, your motive for doing it cannot be considered a defence in a trial. So "common carrier" isn't particularly applicable.

Although this wasn't word from a judge, Canadian ISPs know better than to toy with a government with the power to force them follow a blocklist. So, better to block one site on request for a while than everything.

* In Canada my downloading isn't illegal due to the levies I pay on my media.

Wrong. The levy (note: singular) does not make downloading music legal. It makes it legal to borrow a CD from a friend, and copy it. It must be a music CD (not comedy, sound effects, books-on-CD, or anything like that). You must do the copying yourself - you cannot have your friend copy his own CD for you. You cannot give away or sell your copy of the CD.

All these details are spelled out very clearly in the amendment to the Copyright Act that was part of the deal of the levy. However, those amendments didn't say anything at all about downloading. Don't believe me? read it for yourself. It's Section 8 of the Canada Copyright Act.

I think what you were referring to was the ambiguous legal status of downloading in Canada do to some conflicting rulings by federal supreme court judges. Presently, downloading is interpreted to be legal based on these favourable (to pirates) rulings, but it has nothing to do with the levy. The Levy and Section 8 of the copyright act go hand-in-hand. The legal status of downloading is merely based on precedence set by some rulings.

It doesn't really matter. We pay a fee on all blank media, and in exchange, we can freely download music, software, and movies - legally.

You ignorance regarding Canada is stunning:

1. Canada was NOT subdivided into provinces after its creation. In fact, the Canadian provinces negotiated the Canadian federation in much the same way the orginal 13 colonies (states) in America did:
Confederation

2. Candian provinces DO have their own courts. In fact, the province of Quebec has an entirely different system of law than all the other provinces. Quebec laws are based on the 'civil' rather than 'common' law.
Sources Of Canadian Law

3. Canadian Provinces do have their own sales tax and income taxes (except Alberta, where the oil money means they don't need it)!

4. Canadian provinces are responsible for the administration of schools, hospitals, etc.

Ratification of the WIPO Copyright treaty isn't going to change anything.

Canadian ISPs already receive takedown notices from the MPAA, MediaSentry, and BSA. I know, since I see them for the ISP that I work for. I also received forwarded copies from major upstream providers.

Canadian Copyright Act already prohibits copying for purposes of distribution. So until the Act, distributors (ISPs) can already be sued. Go read the Act at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

MediaSentry and the MPAA are hip to this alrady, and quote the Act when sending warnings to Canadian ISPs. If the WIPO Treaty is also ratified, it would just allow them to beaf up the language.

Yeah, in freakin' Canada, we freakin' paid the extortion, er, levy for the flippin' iPod, eh, and that means we have a legal right to move our paid-for copyrighted material wherever the heck we want, eh.