Slashdot Mirror

Look them up here

That's not at all true. See here (specifically, the section on Private Copying. "The act [of copying a musical work such as an audio CD...] 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." I do not need to already own the copyrighted material. The whole presumption of innocence doesn't make much sense as everyone prosecuted for a crime (that is, for a criminal act) is presumed innocent in Canada (also, in the U.S.).

The Canadian legal system has shown quite plainly that you do not need to own the CD. You are not infringing copyright. In fact, you don't even need to be making a copy onto an audio recording medium for which you have paid a levy, or for which a levy would normally be exacted.

There's much more than just bill C-32, of course. There's the clear statements of the Copyright Board of Canada and there's case law. I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong on this. It is possible that what you state may apply if this new legislation gets passed, however, but my reading shows that it would still be legal to make a copy of a CD for private use. I cannot immediately cite that, however.

Unfortunately, it is an amendment (ie, a legal version of a diff file to an existing act), and no consolidated version yet exists highlighting the changes.

One potentially nice provision in Section 40.2(1) - ISPs may be able to charge a fee for submitting their notice and for gathering / storing information about supposed infringement. Unfortunately, based on 40.2(2), this fee is zero until a regulation is made. Sadly, in Canada, regulations are not passed by Parliament, but are approved by cabinet - ie, solely by the executive The act is generally a framework, and regulations provide the details. .

Unfortunately, it is an amendment (ie, a legal version of a diff file to an existing act), and no consolidated version yet exists highlighting the changes.

One potentially nice provision in Section 40.2(1) - ISPs may be able to charge a fee for submitting their notice and for gathering / storing information about supposed infringement. Unfortunately, based on 40.2(2), this fee is zero until a regulation is made. Sadly, in Canada, regulations are not passed by Parliament, but are approved by cabinet - ie, solely by the executive The act is generally a framework, and regulations provide the details. .

List of Canadian MPs

Now let's see what happens when we secretly replace the word nanotechnology with eating fruit.

"The problem with eating fruit is that we don't really understand why much of it works, and we don't have any idea how the special properties it has will affect our bodies."

Um, yeah, except we've got, um, several years of observational data about what happens when people eat fruit. Not some much with the tiny synthetic molecules.

Nanotech is the "new" science. New does not immediately equal bad. It needs further research, yes, but most nanotech is just redefining what we already know. Take X and make it smaller. Observe.

Exactly. I don't think it's so crazy to request "good science first, mass-market consumer product after". This applies to gimmicky "supplements", to morning sickness drugs, to growth hormones for cows, and sure, to nanotech pants.

click on Find your Member of Parliament using your Postal Code

In the Alphabetical listing page, they list some members of parliament as being "Honourable" (Hon.) and others as not. I didn't realize that they (a) drew a distinction nor that (b) there is such a distinction to be drawn.

Put a voice to the words.

Use http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E&source=sm/this link to look up your MP by postal code, and then phone them.

Be polite, be courteous, but be firm. State, be it via voice mail or directly, that you are in opposition to the upcoming copyright legislation, and hope that your MP will vote in opposition to it.

(Whatever you do, don't state that "Although I didn't vote for your party...").

Indicate to them whether or not this is an issue your future vote will hinge on; that will get their attention, guaranteed.

You'll get more accomplished if you write a well-worded letter to your MP than from a rally. All rallies do are make people watching the news think that you're a bunch of whiners that are never happy with anything (which is largely true about protests). See PCU for my personal take on the whole affair.

Write your MP. We have a system, and the system doesn't work because no one uses it. Write your MP and tell them that you don't like this, and etc. etc. Write your MP, because they're the ones that are going to listen.

Please write your MP to stop this bad new law.

DMCA for Canada

Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary when parliament is in session), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform/ statement_e.cfm

Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
my name

click on Find your Member of Parliament using your Postal Code
Input your postal code
Write letter (no postage necessary)

Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform/ statement_e.cfm

Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
my name

Maybe you can use this, or post your own Australian version, modifying it to what applies in your laws being proposed, and write your Government Representative to voice your concerns at the loss of personal rights.

Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform/ statement_e.cfm

Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
my name

Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform/ statement_e.cfm

Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
my name

DMCA for Canada
Friday March 25, @09:31PM

Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.

Send your letter for free (no postage necessary), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. Look it up.

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

Background:

Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, libraries, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. Libraries and schools will be made to pay fees they can not afford to litigation-happy organizations like the Canadian Recording Industry Association.

Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
my name

I hear a lot of bullshit coming from people out there about how this "publication ban" is a suppression of freedom of speech and how "hypocritical" we are up here in Canada.

Well, fellow Canadian, I have some news for you! Up here in Canada, we do not have freedom of speech as a fundamental right. It is nowhere in the Canadian constitution that citizens of Canada have the right to free speech. In fact, there are laws in Canada that prohibit certain subjects in public. For example, you are not allowed to publically express your disatisfaction with gays and lesbians. Here is an example. This is all possible because of bill C-250 which was passed in Canada.

Section 2(b) of the Charter states that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." [www.constitutional-law.net]
But we do not have the right to free speech.

Of course, the arguement that the freedom of the press and other media of communication is the same as freedom of speech, the law is often bent both ways. This results in a tangible opression of speech. For example, if someone has done you an injustace, you can not publically tell people about it in Canada as you can be charged with slander in court.

Ok, Ok, I'm laying it on a little thick, but we don't have the same right to free speech as in the U.S. We have a different form of it. Maybe it's for the better, or maybe not. Our constitutions are quite a bit different, but we still enjoy the same high quality of life.

Write your MP!

Write every NDP MP (or Bloc, if you're in Quebec)! It's a minority government, remember.

Write as many Liberals, including backbenchers, as you can!

Your MP isn't the only one that matters, you need to reach a wide opposition. Make it clear that even if they don't represent your riding, you will hold their party accountable! Here is a full contact list of all 307 MPs, listed by party.

(Forget the Regressive Conservatives, they'll side with business on this.)

Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Find their email address, but write by paper mail too.

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pd a-cpb/reform/ statement_e.cfm

Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
my name

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.

If you don't know how to contact them, you can find them on this page. Remember that a written letter carries more weight than an email or a fax.

After reading the paper which much of his article was referring to he's blown things way out of proportion. Each issue lists multiple possible solutions, the options are provided by 3rd parties. The paper then recommends an option, the scary pro-CP options in his article have *gasp* not been recommended by the committee!

ISPs: recommended would need to do Notice & Take-down for copyright material stored on their facilities.

You need to look at this from the position of an individual in a minority group that has historically been oppressed. That is what the school board did, and that is why they suspended the teacher.

I thought that this particular example was a little extreme, but you leave me no alternative. Think about what the teacher wrote, and replace the word homosexual with black or woman or jew. Then tell me if you still think if his actions were appropriate for a teacher who worked in the public school system. Would his punishment be equally unjust?

They shouldn't!

Teachers are there to teach, not indoctrinate. Biases should be left at home.

There are lots of stupid things that are well within my rights to do. But if I choose to do something stupid, I must accept the responsibilities and consequences of my actions.

So, even though it was within his rights to publish an intolerant opinion, he should have known that it was incompatible with his position as a teacher in the public school system. He also should have known that the school board could not turn a blind eye to his actions and that there would be sanctions.

No, he is not. Head on over to Amnesty International if you want to read about people who are. I think you will find that his situation is trivial in comparison.

So what? Even if most Christians believe as you suggest, it alters nothing. If 100% of the heterosexual population believed that homosexuality was immoral and a sin, we would still be obliged to extend the same rights and privileges to gays and lesbians that are afforded to everyone else. It's a binary proposition, we either believe in human rights for all people, or we don't.

You are forgetting about the reasonable limits clause. Section 15 can be invoked (as per the reasonable Limits clause) to limit fundamental freedoms.

Reasonable limits. Section 15. Check it out. While it does not apply to this particular discussion, Section 318 and 319 of the criminal code *does* give the state the right to shut people up.

Have I suggested otherwise?

People are entirely free to make controversial statements. However, they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions - particularly if they are employed by a public institution. If that is unacceptable, than that person is entirely free to seek employment at some private institution that better reflects their opinions.

Life is not consequence free, no matter your religious convictions or the sincerity thereof.

The irony of the privacy attempt is that we already have our own PATRIOT act. It's just a PR stunt to makes the Canadian sheep feel warm and fuzzy inside. Check out bill C-36 below. Also check out the Canada-US relations site.. Lots of info bout economic/continent integration..

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/b ills/government/C-36/C-36_1/C-36TOCE.html/
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/menu-en.asp/

CBC is not run by the Canadian government. It's FUNDED by the Canadian government.

Personally I think we should cut all their funding since they run advertisements just like any other station.

If Canada wants to "solve" the problems of the Internet, it should be looking to find "Internet-native" solutions. Canada's Internet laws should treat copying as a feature, not a bug. It should empirically evaluate which sectors are negatively impacted by file-sharing (mounting evidence suggests that almost none of the entertainment industry's woes can be blamed on the net) and then solve those industries' problems with blanket licenses and other tools that don't seek to regulate copying, something that's impossible to do without breaking the Internet.

Solutions that approach the Internet as a problem are no solutions at all.

If Canada wants to "solve" the problems of the Internet, it should be looking to find "Internet-native" solutions. Canada's Internet laws should treat copying as a feature, not a bug. It should empirically evaluate which sectors are negatively impacted by file-sharing (mounting evidence suggests that almost none of the entertainment industry's woes can be blamed on the net) and then solve those industries' problems with blanket licenses and other tools that don't seek to regulate copying, something that's impossible to do without breaking the Internet.

Solutions that approach the Internet as a problem are no solutions at all.

If Canada wants to "solve" the problems of the Internet, it should be looking to find "Internet-native" solutions. Canada's Internet laws should treat copying as a feature, not a bug. It should empirically evaluate which sectors are negatively impacted by file-sharing (mounting evidence suggests that almost none of the entertainment industry's woes can be blamed on the net) and then solve those industries' problems with blanket licenses and other tools that don't seek to regulate copying, something that's impossible to do without breaking the Internet.

Solutions that approach the Internet as a problem are no solutions at all.

I don't see any big parties ( ... NDP) doing this, and that might be because they have realized that this doesn't win votes.

Actually, I talked to Jack Layton about this last year. The NDP doesn't have a policy on this because most of the executive didn't understand the issues in time to bring a motion to the last national convention. Without a motion passing at a national convention it can't be party policy. It can be constituency association or caucus policy, but not party policy. I forwarded him some information and contacts in the Ottawa civil service.

Subsequently, there was brief mention of Open Source and Intellectual Property issues in their election platform booklet. Few people read those booklets though; most just listen to sound-bites on Canwest/Global.

I've also talked to Jean Crowder about open source. She uses open source software almost exclusively, and wants to develop a policy on Open Source and intellectual property issues.

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.

The email address for the Heritage Committee
The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee)
The web site for the Heritage Committee (Gee, seems like all they care about is copyright. Nice doublespeak)
The list of members of the House of Commons, with contact information

The email address for the Heritage Committee
The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee)
The web site for the Heritage Committee (Gee, seems like all they care about is copyright. Nice doublespeak)
The list of members of the House of Commons, with contact information

The email address for the Heritage Committee
The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee)
The web site for the Heritage Committee (Gee, seems like all they care about is copyright. Nice doublespeak)
The list of members of the House of Commons, with contact information

The email address for the Heritage Committee
The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee)
The web site for the Heritage Committee (Gee, seems like all they care about is copyright. Nice doublespeak)
The list of members of the House of Commons, with contact information

According to the committee recommendations here , section B, the private copying provision will remain (as will the levy, likely). Here's the text of interest:

The Committee concludes, after considering the submissions and testimony of the witnesses, that the private copying regime does not prevent Canada's ratification of the WPPT. Analysis of the private copyright regime as a whole will continue as part of the copyright reform process.

So at least that part of "not breaking the law by copying songs" is not under immediate threat. It seems the provision raising most hackles with Slashdotters is the notice and takedown provision recommendation of section D. The DMCA in the US has clearly been abused by RIAA and others, causing us Canadians to be wary.

The Committee recommends that the Copyright Act be amended to provide that Internet service providers (ISPs) can be subject to liability for copyrighted material on their facilities. The Committee notes, however, that ISPs should be exempt from liability if they act as true "intermediaries," without actual or constructive knowledge of the transmitted content, and where they meet certain prescribed conditions. ISPs should be required to comply with a "notice and takedown" scheme that is compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with additional prescribed procedures to address other infringements.

It's clear that something in the arena was bound to happen to Canadian copyright law. IMHO we can encourage the legislators to do a better job than our American friends, by making the takedown procedures honour due process (courts must be involved to effect a takedown, none of these self-proclaimed infringement charges with extortion invoice), and get serious about the penalties for false notifications. If you're writing to your MP or the committee, you might get more traction if you speak about these facets directly than getting into a rant about WIPO and levies.

It seems possible, given the text above, that P2P network nodes (or end user computers, generally) would not be covered by the notice and takedown provision for ISPs, only material actually hosted by them. We might encourage the legislators to get specific about this interpretation as well.

For the lazy:

The email address for the Heritage Committee.

The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee).

The web site for the Heritage Committee.

The lists of members of the House of Commons.

Posting AC so feel free to increase visibility.

For the lazy:

The email address for the Heritage Committee.

The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee).

The web site for the Heritage Committee.

The lists of members of the House of Commons.

Posting AC so feel free to increase visibility.

For the lazy:

The email address for the Heritage Committee.

The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee).

The web site for the Heritage Committee.

The lists of members of the House of Commons.

Posting AC so feel free to increase visibility.

For the lazy:

The email address for the Heritage Committee.

The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee).

The web site for the Heritage Committee.

The lists of members of the House of Commons.

Posting AC so feel free to increase visibility.

The operative words here are "preparing to introduce". So far it is a declaration of intent by the minister, no such legislation has been introduced yet (as you can find out on the Canadian Parliament site.) Don't panic just yet.

Meanwhile, you can check the existing legislation on "Hate propaganda".
There is a good article explaining the issues, an overview of the applicable law, the relevant statutes and regulations of the criminal code and a recent amendment.

Also see the Internet Content-Related Liability Study on the applicability of the existing legislation to the internet.

The operative words here are "preparing to introduce". So far it is a declaration of intent by the minister, no such legislation has been introduced yet (as you can find out on the Canadian Parliament site.) Don't panic just yet.

Meanwhile, you can check the existing legislation on "Hate propaganda".
There is a good article explaining the issues, an overview of the applicable law, the relevant statutes and regulations of the criminal code and a recent amendment.

Also see the Internet Content-Related Liability Study on the applicability of the existing legislation to the internet.

>I'm oh-so-glad there's no DMCA in Canada.

Don't worry. Instead we're going to ban you from purchasing satellite equipment from any company except Bell Canada or Starchoice. Yep, that means we'll basically make it illegal for you to watch anything that's even unencrypted for free. Sorry 'bout that. Glad you voted for 'em, though, because I expect a boondoggle of cash to flow in here if I manage to bootleg up some receivers after the law passes.

It's not enough that we just ban US television, we have to ban TV from any country except Canada! YAY MULTICULTURALISM! Multiculturalism is about making sure nobody actually participates in their culture, I assume, after all.

Did I mention we already ban Superman comics, technically? [ ccc 163.(1)(b) ]

Yeah. GO CANADA! We rule!

Oh wait. Hmmm. Can someone remind me what the point is of laws that let you copy anything you like, as long as it's made by Bryan Adams or Celine Dion?

How long does it remain valid??

This long.

Uhh, get a clue? In democracies around the world, elections do happen on a regular schedule, usually every 4 years. The current governmnet just gets to schedule the exact date, e.g. here in germany the next election will be in september 2006, and the current government will schedule the exact date.

I wasn't talking about all democracies around the world--such a blanket statement would be absurd--merely those that do things in what I find to be an odd way. Canada, for example. Still, it seems to work for them so who am I to question?

Maybe you should take your own advice and "get a clue" as it were. You seem to be guilty of that crime Europeans love to accuse Americans of--that we think things everywhere else work (or should work) the same way they do at home.

You're not one of those triple-E freaks, are you?

I live a few blocks away from Canada'sParliament Hill and walked over at about midnight for a walk last night. I didn't see a single person for the first ten minutes. There was one area that had a few RCMP cars (probably their dispatch), but other than that there was virtually no security. I was literally within 10 feet of Centre Block's front door without being bothered in the slightest.

Now certainly Americans have a lot more cause to be cautious, but there's also an attitude here that excessive worry and planning for the worst just give you wrinkles.

Then again, if Canada were attacked we might feel differently.

I live a few blocks away from Canada'sParliament Hill and walked over at about midnight for a walk last night. I didn't see a single person for the first ten minutes. There was one area that had a few RCMP cars (probably their dispatch), but other than that there was virtually no security. I was literally within 10 feet of Centre Block's front door without being bothered in the slightest.

Now certainly Americans have a lot more cause to be cautious, but there's also an attitude here that excessive worry and planning for the worst just give you wrinkles.

Then again, if Canada were attacked we might feel differently.

Never have we had a prime minister who was not from either the Liberal or Conservative parties.

(The Unionist "party" mentioned on that page was a coalition of pro-conscription Liberals and Conservatives during the period of WWI.)

Well, you're right, the Prime Minister has typically been PC (Progressive Conservative) or Liberal - I did a quick check with the Parlimentary website, and it shows that the last non Liberal or Conservative PM was back in 1917 (Robert Borden of the Unionist party), although he was previously a conservative.

Still, at least the Canadian system does have the option of having a third party, should you choose to elect one (myself, back when I was living in Canada, I voted NDP, because that was the affiliation that my local member of Parliament had).

-- Joe

Under Bill C-12, it will soon be illegal in Canada to possess words describing teenage or child sexual activity that "would be" illegal - even if it's completely imaginary.

I'm very interested to see what happens to fantasy/SF authors who write about long-lived or short-lived species... what happens with an elf child who is 100 years old, but looks like a 12-year-old human? What about Kes from Star Trek: Voyager? She's damn well under 18, even if she looks like an adult - there's no exception for non-humans. What about time travel and relativity and suspended animation? The law requires us to be able to apply current Canadian law to all conceivable imaginary worlds. I just hope the first prosecutions aren't of anybody I know.