Slashdot Mirror

This ruling is good news (and in line with the Supreme Court's earlier rulings protecting individual privacy). But the fight is not over, trust me. The Heritage Committee, in their report just last month, outlined their plans for ratifying WIPO and wants to change the laws governing ISP responsibility.

Now parliament is out, an election was just held, and the same Liberal party is back in power (minority) with a loose coalition with the NDP party -- who quite strongly supports ratifying WIPO. So I fear that we're going to see Canadian government ratify WIPO, bringing in DMCA-like legislation into Canada. Check out the Digital Copyright Canada forums and get involved if these privacy rights concern you. There is also a national petition for user's rights that you can sign if you are concerned about all these 'special laws' for digital media. Remember that we live in a digital world, but the general public does not realize this. Placing strange restrictions on digital information is just hurting ourselves, and our own industries.

"I am of the opinion that our proposals/recommendations in the Interim Report do not regulate technology.

In addition, I disagree that ratification of the WIPO treaty regulates technology."

Take a look at the the user feed back during the Copyright Reform Process. Over 700 submissions all sorted by date and submitter.

Among the contributions who asked for specific legislation to ban circumvention technology were, the Canadian Independent Record Producers Association (CIPRA), which on page page 4 requested

"With regard to technological protection measures, it is the view of CIRPA that ... it is vital that new legislation be put in place to address the ... problems these devices cause ... copyright owners. In particular the effective defining and legislation of tamper proof rights management systems..."

AOL-TW Inc also called for DMCA type regulation of technology,

(b) that legal protection against the circumvention of technological protection measures be added to the law, whether contained within the Copyright Act or linked to it; (c) that such protection extend to the manufacture of and trafficking in circumvention devices and services, as well as the act of circumvention;

FWIW: The September 4th 2001 submission from "The Edifying Fellowship of Ook" is hilarious. I couldn't get past the first page with that funky old English font.

O, may this humble document meet the favour of the Departments and the Sub-Departments and the Molluffs and the Tree-Sloths even unto the fourteenth generation. ...

I was a bit surprised by what I read about the positions of the Liberals, Conservatives and especially the NDP. I would have hoped for a more civil-libertarian position from them.

Issues mentioned in the article that affect Cdns include copyright reform, a national ID card, anti-spam legislation, use of open source software by government, etc.

Canadians pay a levy on recordable media (incl blank CD's) which supposedly is collected to compensate artists for copying (as mentioned often on /. it's legal here! with some conditions) of their work. I know no-one who believes the artists will get the money.

re: the Canadian Heritage committee copyright report... MP Sarmite "Sam" Bulte is the 2-term Liberal candidate in MY riding & is campaigning hard for re-election. I had somehow forgotten that she chaired the Canadian Heritage committee; the report (referred to in article) has much in it that affects people in the tech / web sector. In particular, if I see her shaking hands outside the High Park TTC station again, I'll bring up some issues with her!

• e.g.
• ISP liability for copyrighted content;
• licencing schemes for copyrighted educational materials.
• names of ANY Cdn musicians who have received money from the levy I pay on DATA BACKUP MEDIA

Many groups are unhappy with the report's recommendations, including educators.

The report is available as PDF.

USians and other non-Cdns may find similarities & differences with your own countries' policies illuminating.

The WIPO Copyright Treaty was internationally developed back in a time when people, especially politicians, had no grasp of how digital data was an integral part of the modern world. The Internet, and copying of files, was seen as something awfully scary which threatened companies. Old white men fear change, and in 1996 the Internet looked like a pretty wild frontier. WIPO demands that digital data be treated specially, which IMHO is a big mistake. Everything we do these days relies on digital media and copying, an inherent action of computers and networks.

The WIPO was ratified in the United States to create the DMCA, which you all know and love. The similar EU laws, which are just as bent as the US's DMCA, also came from WIPO.

Now Canada is looking at bringing the WIPO, i.e. their own version of the DMCA, into Canadian copyright law. Terrible idea - visit this site if you want to learn more, and exert political pressure to stop this from happening.

This is the kind of lunatic laws you get when the recording industry lobbies government (hey, they got the cash!). Even in dear old Canada, where the courts protect our privacy through ISPs and uphold our right to freely copy media we own, the recording industry is lobbying government to change Canadian copyright law. If our government ratifies WIPO, as the industry is pushing them to do, we'll lose many of the media rights we enjoy (this will bring the DMCA into Canada). Please, visit our Digital Copyright Canada site, sign the Petition for Users' rights, and make digital freedom an election issue!

Recently (May 12) the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage issued a report on proposed changes to the Copyright Act, whose relevant recommendation is as follows:

RECOMMENDATION 3

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.

The Act would force ISPs to cut off access for uploaders after they have been identified by the CIRA. But the report does not specifically address the disclosure of customers' information (to the CIRA), nor does it address the download v.s. upload meme.

The EFC has not, AFAIK, commented on the report and the Toronto member of Parliament who chaired the committee, hasn't yet responded to my inquiries (will P2P or anti-circumvention be left legal?).

Recently (May 12) the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage issued a report on proposed changes to the Copyright Act, whose relevant recommendation is as follows:

RECOMMENDATION 3

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.

The Act would force ISPs to cut off access for uploaders after they have been identified by the CIRA. But the report does not specifically address the disclosure of customers' information (to the CIRA), nor does it address the download v.s. upload meme.

The EFC has not, AFAIK, commented on the report and the Toronto member of Parliament who chaired the committee, hasn't yet responded to my inquiries (will P2P or anti-circumvention be left legal?).

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base by the Institute of Medicine (1999)

One of the more controversial effects claimed for marijuana is the production of an "amotivational syndrome." This syndrome is not a medical diagnosis, but it has been used to describe young people who drop out of social activities and show little interest in school, work, or other goal-directed activity. When heavy marijuana use accompanies these symptoms, the drug is often cited as the cause, but no convincing data demonstrate a causal relationship between marijuana smoking and these behavioral characteristics. Sited from: Chait LD, Pierri J. 1992. Effects of smoked marijuana on human performance: A critical review. In: L Murphy and A Bartke, Editors, Marijuana/Cannabinoids: Neurobiology and Neurophysiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 387--424.)

Thirty years later [after the LeDain Commission], we assert that the studies done in the meantime have not confirmed the existence of the so-called amotivational syndrome and add that most studies rule out this syndrome as a consequence of the use of cannabis.

I said: "BTW, studies in the Netherlands showed that drug use did not increase with an easing supply."
You said: "I call BS on this one, unless they happened to all be junkies in the first place. Provide link to this study please. "

Linky linky:

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base by the Institute of Medicine (1999)

In 1976, the Netherlands adopted a policy of toleration for possession of up to 30 g of marijuana. There was little change in marijuana use during the seven years after the policy change, which suggests that the change itself had little effect.

While I believe NORML's stats are correct, you are justified in questioning them.

"Report of the Senate Special Comminttee on illegal drugs (2002)":

... permit persons over the age of 16 to procure cannabis and its derivatives at duly licensed distribution centre.

Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon (March 1972)

1. Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture.
2. Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit would no longer be an offense.

Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base by the Institute of Medicine (1999)

"The vast majority of evidence on harmful effects of marijuana is based on smoked marijuana, and, except for the psychoactive effects that can be reasonably attributed to THC, it is not possible to distinguish the drug effects from the effects of inhaling smoke from burning plant material. "

I'm not saying marijuana is harmless but studies place it's dangers less than alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. IMO it's not worth jailing someone for.

"mostly due to the half-assed case presented by the CRIA"

In fact the judge ultimately held that the Copyright Act permitted the behaviour. Apparently unlike the CRIA, the judge read the Copyright Act.

The real question is whether you and other Canadians will write to your MP's to ensure that the ratification of WIPO Copyright Treaty includes a section exhausting the right to "make available" under Article 6, for any "non commercial distribution" made "after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorization of the author" .

IF not, the latest Court ruling will be nullified by new copyright legistlation, thanks to our Liberal task master, and this committee.

If you want to learn more, I highly recommend this page by Laura J. Murray.

Socialist Country

Yes you're a troll, but Canada is a parliamentary democracy.

As for taxes, Canada's progressive tax system makes it a good place start a business

Canada is the most repressive developed nation in the world, from the perspective of free speech.

Does the DMCA mean anything to you? Guess what! We don't have an equivalent. (Yet...)

Their citizens haven't legal access to foreign media sources

I doubt you've ever been here. I get CNN, Al-Jazeera, Fox, PBS, and many more. In fact, most television stations here are not Canadian. I challenge you to find ANYTHING that would back up your statement.

...and they're subject to some of the most onerous speech restriction in the western world.

Actually, we do have more speech restrictions than Americans. I'd hardly call them onerous, though. At least, when it comes to hate speech. As I mentioned earlier, we don't have a DMCA to mess with other forms of speech. Here's the section of our Criminal Code that deals with the subject of hate speech.

Bill C-250, which some people on here have been wailing about, makes a single change to the Criminal Code: it adds "or sexual orientation." to subsection 4 of section 318.

Contrary to the beliefs of tinfoil hate (sic) people, this does not muzzle religion, because subsection 3 of section 319 states that "no person shall be convicted of an offence if, ... in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." It also does not prevent public debate over gay rights, because "no person shall be convicted of an offence if ... the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true." The only stipulation in there that might prevent opposing arguments is that a person's statements must be true.

This bills expands the definition of 'hate speech' to include sexual orientation. This little gem would literally make it a crime to criticize the morality of homosexuality. Lest there be any confusion, this is not about inciting violence against gays. No, the simple act of saying 'Homosexuality is wrong' will be a CRIME.

This legislation would very easily be the single most draconian attack on free speech the western world has ever seen. It would give license to those with a bone to pick to do such wonderful things as

- Making the Bible/Koran/Torah 'hate materials'.

- Target any sort of family and/or conservative websites (think : politically oriented ones) as hate sites, subject to shutdown.

- Prevent any sort of legitimate discussion of gay rights legislation because any opposition could be viewed as hate speech.

In any case, it's the real guillotine of free speech. It's up for a vote on April 20th (2 days hence).

Mod this bad boy up, it's scary as hell.

University of Toronto != Canadian Government

The University itself may have its own problems with censorship, but at least get the organization right.

>I thought TV Ontario was privatized by the Mike "The Knife" Harris?

Good question. I don't know if it was because the station is boring as hell and I haven't tuned into it for at least a decade (although I know it's still there).

If it is, that's great. Just the behemoth (CBC) to go, then. Well, there's still TeleFilm Canada and a few others, but you have to start somewhere.

>DirecTV isn't available in Canada anyway

Huh? Sure is! My meter picks up the signals strong and clear. The signals boom into Ontario far stronger than the "legit" ExpressVu does.

In fact, for the longest time, their 800 numbers were working in Canada. Odd, huh?

>Typically, an American company partners with a local Canadian company to enter the market, and even then, yes, the channels carried are limited by the CRTC and the channels themselves.

Yes. ExpressVu buys CRTC laws, too, you know. Of course, the "ethnic cleansing" laws of the CRTC are something that is hotly debated, and, in the eyes of most other countries (apart from Iran, Syria, and Iraq -- are there others still practicing ethnic cleansing of the airwaves?) are absolutely wrong.

Now the Liberals have created team Canada to assist small business with exports, and who have the Liberals named as chief of team Canada? Why, BCE chairman Lynton Wilson. Surprise. Surprise. And who has contributed over $70,000 to the Liberals in the past two years? BCE. Surprise. Surprise.

>Everytime a cable channel is carried in Canada, the original channel must pay extra for their new Canadian viewers to the studios & producers. Currently, the way American specialty channels get around this is by forcing the Canadian cable companies to negotiate with the studios directly. That way A&E can come to Canada, but they don't have to fork out an extra dime for airing rights of certain movies in Canada. Thus the occasional blackout.

Yes, that is known. Also what is known is that DirecTV was far more than interested in joining the Canadian market legally if it weren't for our ethnic cleansing laws. In fact, DirecTV has had "Possible Canadian Subscribers" on their subscribers list for years, happily. They are willing to deal with Canada, tonight, if it weren't for our total lack of interest in Free Speech for television stations.

Also, 4DTV systems have been available in Canada (and never prosecuted) for the longest time, carrying almost identical programming to DirecTV, but requiring a cumbersome, and, for most, outlawed 6 foot dish. Therefore, I feel quite confident in saying all the "deals" needed with the other channels have been worked out.

So, it isn't the footwork involved. It's the laws. Laws that ExpressVu buys. DirecTV would find it too hard to compete with a company which is largely owned by the political power of Canada.

Of course, let's not forget how the CRTC stole people's satellite dishes without even making them illegal. The CRTC is not a corporation to look up to in any manner.

If you didn't have access to cable tough, you can't watch anything. Well a lot of people didn't agree with their ruling. Who were they to tell people what they could watch on TV. So the CRTC decided to get a bunch of ole' boys together and round up these self proclaimed "illegal" dishes. After all its OK to steal other people property as long as the government does it right?

* - By ethnic cleansing I mean cleansing the airwaves of all ethnic programming for 35% - 50% of viewing time. Pretty simple use of the most obvious words describing the situation, really. For some government comment on the issue, check this out.

>I thought TV Ontario was privatized by the Mike "The Knife" Harris?

Good question. I don't know if it was because the station is boring as hell and I haven't tuned into it for at least a decade (although I know it's still there).

If it is, that's great. Just the behemoth (CBC) to go, then. Well, there's still TeleFilm Canada and a few others, but you have to start somewhere.

>DirecTV isn't available in Canada anyway

Huh? Sure is! My meter picks up the signals strong and clear. The signals boom into Ontario far stronger than the "legit" ExpressVu does.

In fact, for the longest time, their 800 numbers were working in Canada. Odd, huh?

>Typically, an American company partners with a local Canadian company to enter the market, and even then, yes, the channels carried are limited by the CRTC and the channels themselves.

Yes. ExpressVu buys CRTC laws, too, you know. Of course, the "ethnic cleansing" laws of the CRTC are something that is hotly debated, and, in the eyes of most other countries (apart from Iran, Syria, and Iraq -- are there others still practicing ethnic cleansing of the airwaves?) are absolutely wrong.

Now the Liberals have created team Canada to assist small business with exports, and who have the Liberals named as chief of team Canada? Why, BCE chairman Lynton Wilson. Surprise. Surprise. And who has contributed over $70,000 to the Liberals in the past two years? BCE. Surprise. Surprise.

>Everytime a cable channel is carried in Canada, the original channel must pay extra for their new Canadian viewers to the studios & producers. Currently, the way American specialty channels get around this is by forcing the Canadian cable companies to negotiate with the studios directly. That way A&E can come to Canada, but they don't have to fork out an extra dime for airing rights of certain movies in Canada. Thus the occasional blackout.

Yes, that is known. Also what is known is that DirecTV was far more than interested in joining the Canadian market legally if it weren't for our ethnic cleansing laws. In fact, DirecTV has had "Possible Canadian Subscribers" on their subscribers list for years, happily. They are willing to deal with Canada, tonight, if it weren't for our total lack of interest in Free Speech for television stations.

Also, 4DTV systems have been available in Canada (and never prosecuted) for the longest time, carrying almost identical programming to DirecTV, but requiring a cumbersome, and, for most, outlawed 6 foot dish. Therefore, I feel quite confident in saying all the "deals" needed with the other channels have been worked out.

So, it isn't the footwork involved. It's the laws. Laws that ExpressVu buys. DirecTV would find it too hard to compete with a company which is largely owned by the political power of Canada.

Of course, let's not forget how the CRTC stole people's satellite dishes without even making them illegal. The CRTC is not a corporation to look up to in any manner.

If you didn't have access to cable tough, you can't watch anything. Well a lot of people didn't agree with their ruling. Who were they to tell people what they could watch on TV. So the CRTC decided to get a bunch of ole' boys together and round up these self proclaimed "illegal" dishes. After all its OK to steal other people property as long as the government does it right?

* - By ethnic cleansing I mean cleansing the airwaves of all ethnic programming for 35% - 50% of viewing time. Pretty simple use of the most obvious words describing the situation, really. For some government comment on the issue, check this out.

>You just need some political backbone.

Backbone like this?

(2.1) Every person who contravenes paragraph 9(1)(c) or (d) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year , or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding $200,000 .

For those of you wondering, section 9 outlaws DirecTV in Canada. Those will be the punishments for paying for DirecTV. Yes, paying for it gets you that punishment.

You'll also note that the government will control what satellite receivers you can and can't use with that bill. Of couse, as it already notes, the only companies that will be allowed to have them are ExpressVu and StarChoice.

There's a reason Canada has a la carte. And that's because Canadian TV blows huge chunks and, depending on the channel (I'm looking at you CBC & TV Ontario), is socially funded already. Not to mention the fact that Bell ExpressVu basically own our government.

Backbone indeed.

Please, take the extra 30 secs, hit Print buy an envelope and send your comments to:

Hon. Helene Scherrer
Member of Parliment
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

(Contact Page)

No postage required. (If your letter prominately states that it is going to an MP, no postage is required)

"If a government does not like the current state of the law, well, of course they change it ! That's part of their job !"

Correct! And part of our job is to convince Ms. Scherrer that she should change her views if she wants to see her party re-elected.

Join www.criawatch.ca

Excellent! Why not also write your MP here and let them know what you think - and who you may or may not vote for, based on what they has to say?

You're right! We have an ill-informed Minister who will be seeking re-election shortly. Why not write her here and let her know what you think - and who you may or may not vote for, based on what she has to say?

You're right. We have an ill-informed Minister who will be seeking re-election shortly. Why not write her here and let her know what you think - and who you may or may not vote for, based on what she has to say?

You may also want to provide your online support to www.criawatch.ca.

As a Canadian, I have two words for you FUCK YOU.

I'm not sure I'd express it that way, but Ms. Scherrer's contact information is here. Why not drop her a note and tell her who you will not be voting for in the Federal election that is just a few weeks/months away?

Find em here

I've already emailed my MP to say just that. You can go here and enter your postal code to get your MP's email address.

• canada's senate functions superbly, especially in comparison to other national systems.

• there is no political in-fighting at senate, there are no axes to grind. the appointment process needs to be reformed but the senate is the smoothest operation in federal government

• west of manitoba the alliance won just two seats

• the tories left ontario in a shambles, it turns out all of their cost-cutting was just going into tax breaks for the rich, and now the middle-class is left with the tab and no services. smart. ndp governments have been extremely successful provincially

• canada's senate functions superbly, especially in comparison to other national systems.

• there is no political in-fighting at senate, there are no axes to grind. the appointment process needs to be reformed but the senate is the smoothest operation in federal government

• west of manitoba the alliance won just two seats

• the tories left ontario in a shambles, it turns out all of their cost-cutting was just going into tax breaks for the rich, and now the middle-class is left with the tab and no services. smart. ndp governments have been extremely successful provincially

• canada's senate functions superbly, especially in comparison to other national systems.

• there is no political in-fighting at senate, there are no axes to grind. the appointment process needs to be reformed but the senate is the smoothest operation in federal government

• west of manitoba the alliance won just two seats

• the tories left ontario in a shambles, it turns out all of their cost-cutting was just going into tax breaks for the rich, and now the middle-class is left with the tab and no services. smart. ndp governments have been extremely successful provincially

Which allegation in particular are you referring to? If it was something spoken in the House of Commons, he is protected by parliamentary privilege from any action or libel.

It's based on the 1919 Nickle Resolution (and not Trudeau at all, oops), and it's all very very debatable (Scroll down a little.) In practical terms, the government of Canada should be told and approve (which it probably won't). Tony Blair's government seen fit to ignore that. (I'm shocked.)

He's the elected leader of the party.

Rundown on Canada's government process, for those interested

(Some of my details may be wrong, been a while since I looked in depth to it)

Why does one group get to have its way with all digital media without respect for other groups? Why is it that musicians and songwriters deserve to impose a "guilty until proven innocent" handout? If they get that much, then what will happen when other groups ask for them? What about film producers and movie studios? What about software companies? What about print publishers? If you take all of these groups into consideration, given what is already charged, the average CD blank will end up with a $4 per blank tax.

Great. The deal is then that I will get all of my software, music and books from warez newsgroups, filesharing networks and wherever else I can.

Does this make any sense whatsoever? Because if these groups think they can tax all this blank media, they will utterly destroy retail sales of both original media and blanks and the incentive of the consumer to engage in purchases thereof. This will end up hurting the artists represented by the collective. They will also drive blank media into the underground where trucks haul this stuff into black markets. Who loses in this scheme? Everyone but the people who supposedly get these taxes.

I consult for a living in the video editing and commercial production field, and now I have to tell my clients to make an emergency purchase tomorrow of spindles of DVD-Rs, CD-Rs and any other media and stockpile them because of this ridiculous tax. My clients don't deal in pirated material, and often we have to license music, images and footage from the creators anyway. They will never be able to apply for the proceeds from these taxes because they'll never qualify.

Enough is enough. E-mail Claude Majeau at majeau.claude@cb-cda.gc.ca and let him know what you think of him and his band of thugs. Find the MP for your riding and tell them that the Canadian Copyright Board needs to be stopped before they destroy retail sales in Canada and end up fueling mass piracy and the black market for the sake of artists who should be paid based on the merits of their music, not because they have been somehow directly robbed.

These laws are actually against the Canadian constitution, however they are enforceable to do to what is called the notwithstanding clause in the consitution that essentially allows it be ignored. It was an attempt to appease Quebec to get them to agree to the constitution, but it didn't work out anyway.

While it might not seem so bad for them to want to support their culture, these kinds of laws have driven out many angliphones and marginalized other non-French speakers (aboriginals, Jews, etc.) Culture's evolve, and it's doubtful with so much support for these language laws that their culture would disappear without them anyway.

Democracy is ruled by the majority - if you're in the minority (in this case people who understand or care about computers), you don't matter. If 51% of a the US (or substantially less, if there are at least 3 major candidates for political offices) wants to enslave the other 49%, they can.

This is logical if 51% of the people had exactly the same opinions and views, and the other 49% held opposing opinions. In reality, though, we're all a complex mesh of opinions and perspectives. Everyone is a minority in the minority of their opinions, and a majority in a few, and there are few overlaps*.

Secondly, most democracies have basic fundamental rights as a sacred realm that the tyranny of the majority can't impose themselves into (generally). Of course then you get people who just don't get the point, so sure of the righteousness of their own platform, so they try to supercede silly things like basic rights misunderstanding the whole premise (such as the separation of church and statement, which plays out in the US all of the time). This sort of thing is happening in Canada: Our Supreme Court has declared that based upon our basic rights dictated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the government cannot dictate that marriage is a union of a man and a woman, and a marriage of man-man or woman-woman must be honoured in civic matters (which comes back to the whole church and state thing). How does the far right respond? By calling for the use of the Notwithstanding Clause, basically trumping basic rights and defeating the whole point.

Read the act more carefully. Back-ups of any and all digital media for personal use is absolutely covered.

I don't elect my senators! ;-)

Yes, it's true .

Being a Canadian citizen, who tends to engage in political discussion, this is not all that surprising.

After reading a couple of your other comments, I've come to the understanding that a police officer threatened you with arrest. Well, I know the reasons the cop cited for having you arrested were all bullshit though. They're valid laws, just not likely in the context of the situation you were in.

I imagine this is more a case of a police officer being an asshole, power tripping, and just bluffing. (essentially what most cops I deal with are like)

I've had numerous run-ins with police officers who cite all kinds of random garbage just to justify their argument.

But, there would be no chance in hell that cop would actually arrest you for discussing private vs socialized health care debates. He'd find some sort of other random bullshit by-law to fine you with, but very unlikely to arrest you. Unless you were causing some sort of scene on private property and you were asked to leave.

But just for those Canadians here who might be reading this, and even disagreeing with my comments, here's just something to look at:

CBC documentary on Jaggi Singh who was kidnapped multiple times by RCMP officers who were informed by CSIS.

Covert Entry: Spies, Lies and Crimes Inside Canada's Secret Service

Bill C-36 is essentially Canada's "USAPATRIOT act".

And just as a final note, I don't trust cops in Canada or in America. Plus I'm not trying to make this into a Canada vs. America pissing contest of who has more/less rights. I equally dislike all nation states. :-)

Instead of firing off that e-mail, why not click "print" and mail it using the regular postal service?

In Canada at least, sending a letter via regular post to any Member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, is free. Your letter is also far more likely to be read.

It is not combined with the blank recording media levy. The submitter was smokeing crack. Read Bill C-11. C-11 deals with internet rebroadcasting only. There is no Bill C-32 as referenced. We are only up to bill C-23 (there are many more private member bills starting at 200). In fact there is no pending legislation for a blank recording media levy.

The bill may or may not have passed (still trying to find some confirmation on the various government websites), but the actual hearing on the "proposed" amounts to be charged for the levies on blank media for the 2003-2004 period is just starting (tomorrow actually).

Whoa... Slashdot is giving folks the wrong impression. Bill C-32 was given royal assent (ie: became a law) in 1997!

The bill can be viewed online.
Use the dorky little right-arrow thing to read it.

What the MP meant was that copyright levies are already in place. This was done with C-32, and has been in effect for five years. What is new is that the Canadian Copyright Board is holding hearings on whether or not to increase the existing levies to the astronomical level which /. readers are acquianted. This is not a bill before parliament - it is a request before an unelected board of civil servants and "community leaders." Those hearings begin tomorrow.

So, in other words: CALM DOWN. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

But at least you elect your Senate

At least our Senator's can't be fresh out of Ivy League school and reflect the backroom ideology of the people we do elect. I'd rather this, than a 100+ year old bumbling idiot Senator from South Carolina, or those who Leak Intelligence Committee Reports.

Not Another Prime Minister from Quebec in Canada!

Better than a Red Neck from Ontario or British Columbia. Keep the french in, they add Style and Class to the country.

> > "And in case you hadn't heard, there are much
> > better (as decided by the UN) places to live and
> > work - primarily because of people with your
> > mindset."

From the looks of the article you pointed to, the US ranked sixth mostly because our life expectancy at the time was a hair under some of the others (and it looks like they were splitting hairs in at least the top ten). No mention of patriotic zealots.

"Ottawa is trying to figure out how to fix the way that the Canadian standard of living is only about 75% of the US without actually getting too involved in the US market"

Comments from a Canadian Parliament publication on the Canadian standard of living and the productivity gap. The table of contents of the whole thing can be found here. Needless to say, both of these topics have made the arguments for and against adopting either the US Dollar or a united North American currency in Canada to be more heated than it would be otherwise.

"You didn't answer my question, you just repeated it. Here, I'll post it again:

WHO keeps watch?"

My answer: ultimately, you do. If you have trouble understanding what a contract says when you read it or have difficulty trusting the other party, perhaps you should consider not signing it.

> > "And in case you hadn't heard, there are much
> > better (as decided by the UN) places to live and
> > work - primarily because of people with your
> > mindset."

From the looks of the article you pointed to, the US ranked sixth mostly because our life expectancy at the time was a hair under some of the others (and it looks like they were splitting hairs in at least the top ten). No mention of patriotic zealots.

"Ottawa is trying to figure out how to fix the way that the Canadian standard of living is only about 75% of the US without actually getting too involved in the US market"

Comments from a Canadian Parliament publication on the Canadian standard of living and the productivity gap. The table of contents of the whole thing can be found here. Needless to say, both of these topics have made the arguments for and against adopting either the US Dollar or a united North American currency in Canada to be more heated than it would be otherwise.

"You didn't answer my question, you just repeated it. Here, I'll post it again:

WHO keeps watch?"

My answer: ultimately, you do. If you have trouble understanding what a contract says when you read it or have difficulty trusting the other party, perhaps you should consider not signing it.

> > "And in case you hadn't heard, there are much
> > better (as decided by the UN) places to live and
> > work - primarily because of people with your
> > mindset."

From the looks of the article you pointed to, the US ranked sixth mostly because our life expectancy at the time was a hair under some of the others (and it looks like they were splitting hairs in at least the top ten). No mention of patriotic zealots.

"Ottawa is trying to figure out how to fix the way that the Canadian standard of living is only about 75% of the US without actually getting too involved in the US market"

Comments from a Canadian Parliament publication on the Canadian standard of living and the productivity gap. The table of contents of the whole thing can be found here. Needless to say, both of these topics have made the arguments for and against adopting either the US Dollar or a united North American currency in Canada to be more heated than it would be otherwise.

"You didn't answer my question, you just repeated it. Here, I'll post it again:

WHO keeps watch?"

My answer: ultimately, you do. If you have trouble understanding what a contract says when you read it or have difficulty trusting the other party, perhaps you should consider not signing it.

This is nothing new. See all the recent posturing from the drug czar over medical marijuana? It's not medicine, he says, (forgetting that the federal government supplies a handful of people substandard medicinal cannabis) and it's dangerous (for specific values of "dangerous") -- forgetting of course that just about ever other country (including Canada) has drawn the exact opposite conclusion.

Yet, if it is restricted to US research, he could argue (at least in the Clintonian sense) that it is a truthful statement. See, every study on cannabis has to pass through NIDA, and only studies that have a presupposed negative hypothesis are approved by NIDA. Those approved studies are then given legal access to the herb to study it.

Look at the knee jerk terrorism laws that were suggested after 9/11. Once the MPs looked at them seriously, cooler heads prevailed nothing happened. Same shit all over again.

Wrongo, boyo. C-36 and C-44 passed. C-42 was withdrawn in April, but our version of the USA PATRIOT Act was C-36.

I also suggest you read up on C-24, proposed in March 2001, passed in December.

Look at the knee jerk terrorism laws that were suggested after 9/11. Once the MPs looked at them seriously, cooler heads prevailed nothing happened. Same shit all over again.

Wrongo, boyo. C-36 and C-44 passed. C-42 was withdrawn in April, but our version of the USA PATRIOT Act was C-36.

I also suggest you read up on C-24, proposed in March 2001, passed in December.

Look at the knee jerk terrorism laws that were suggested after 9/11. Once the MPs looked at them seriously, cooler heads prevailed nothing happened. Same shit all over again.

Wrongo, boyo. C-36 and C-44 passed. C-42 was withdrawn in April, but our version of the USA PATRIOT Act was C-36.

I also suggest you read up on C-24, proposed in March 2001, passed in December.

The relevance of DMCA-invoking complaints is still under serious review under Canadian law. ISPs in Canada are not obliged to comply with DMCA take-down notices as they would be in the USA. For example, if a take-down notice is received regarding a website hosting material which violates copyright of a US company, the Canadian hosting company may have more to worry about in terms of their customer's rights than they would regarding the DMCA complaint.

This uncertain state of affairs in Canada is not for lack of effort on the part of the Department of Justice in Ottawa. They are seeking several bits of legislation which parallel what is happening in Australia. The Canadian DoJ is using the Aussies as a role model, and have been VERY VERY resistant to challenges to Bills (for example: Bill C-15A) which try to steer Canadian law towards the examples set by the European Union (very hands-off) and the USA (moderate compared to Australia and the EU). The DoJ clearly wants laws which will place responsibility on the shoulders of the ISPs. Even so, Canadian responsibility to comply with the DMCA is not clear at all, and there is no legal requirement (at present) to comply with a DMCA take-down notice for content hosted in Canada.