Slashdot Mirror

Criteria for the Title “Royal”
The following criteria are applied by the Department of Canadian Heritage in studying requests and preparing the advice to the Governor General. An organization seeking the use of the title “royal” must:

• * be of pre-eminence in their field;
• * be of long standing (at least 25 years old);
• * be in a secure financial position;
• * be registered as a non-profit organization under the Income Tax Act;
• * have an artistic, scientific or philanthropic mandate (please note that, today, the title “royal” is only granted to sporting organizations on an exceptional basis); and
• * provide services on at least a regional basis.

http://canada.pch.gc.ca/eng/1445001063735

The RCMP do not have a "have an artistic, scientific or philanthropic mandate". In fact, they are the farthest thing from it, and are the single greatest and most malign threat to the Canadian public. They certainly are not preeminent in their field; they are the shame of Canada.

They are definitely not non-profit. They make tens of billions of dollars annually on the sale of cannabis.

Their history of damage to the Canadian people is a long one. The RCMP have a long history of abusing and exploiting the Canadian people, The native population especially so. It is time it ended.

So, no, they are not in the least bit entitled to the "Royal Title".

The RCMP answer to no one, certainly not the Canadian people. Without accountable law enforcement, democracy is meaningless.

Here in Canada, I am protected by the constitution since 1996 so, go fuck yourself homophobic hetero. Or is it that you didn't come out of the closet yet?

http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1355925591901/1355925767915

As a Canadian I say this: (as has been discussed many times before)

- What is Canadian identity? First of all we need to accept that we IDENTIFY very strongly with the US (culturally, economically, strategically). So denying it does not grant us identity, just makes us look like hypocrites. The strongest Canadian values we have are our (misunderstood) compassion and generosity. Many times I have witness how Canadians jump to help in times of need without hesitation and I recognized that as truly Canadian.

- There are way more important issues for the CRTC than being the cultural champion for our society (that is actually the job for Heritage Canada http://www.pch.gc.ca./ We have a pressing need for guaranteeing communication access to all Canadians (internet, phone, cell phone) as a competitive service and not serving special interests groups (Bell, Rogers, Shaw, etc). Monitoring profanity and violence is non existent in radio and some tv shows, surprising for a conservative government. More access to diverse cultural (and political) views from varying parts of the country.

So in essence, the same ridiculous quotes from the Harper government to distract Canadians from the real issues and convince them of the virtues of his schemes.

The CRTC isn't elected, but the CRTC reports to parliament via the Minister of Canadian Heritage (straight off the CRTC FAQ page), who is elected. So, write a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who at the moment is the Honourable James Moore, whose page in the capacity of minister is at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/minstr/moore/index-eng.cfm, complete with contact information. Also available in French, of course. On top of that, write your own MP and the CRTC itself with your concerns.

The amount of political pressure the government can apply to the CRTC is intentionally limited in some ways, but if the CRTC isn't doing their job, then the CRTC is ultimately accountable to parliament and will get called on it, especially if the opposition parties get a hold of it and push the issue.

All of this assumes that our parliamentary democracy is still working the way it is supposed to, something that the current government certainly isn't particularly known for. In a majority situation they'll probably be inclined to pay even less attention to it. In any case, sitting back and griping about it won't accomplish much. Talk to what representatives we do have access to.

i will assume you are proud of being canadian. but the queen is a person from another country

Not true. She is the Queen of Canada. This status was formally recognized in law by Canada's Royal Style and Titles Act.

The fact that the Queen doesn't regularly live in Canada is irrelvant to her status as Canada's head of state.
The fact that the Queen is also the queen of other countries is irrelevant to her status as Canada's head of state.

The people of Canada, through the democratic process of their elected representatives, have chosen on multiple occastions for Elizabeth II to be their queen and head of state.

so how is it possible to be proud of your national identity, when you are so subservient to another national identity

In case you didn't notice, the UK plays a great role in Canadian history. Much of Canadian law, policy, society and way of life is derived from the British experience (the same can be said for the USA).

And frankly, Canadians don't feel the slightest bit subservient to the UK. If anything, they feel subservient to the USA.

it would seem to me, canadians should call themselves british, or completely cauterize this ridiculous anachronistic subservience to a foreign power

The people who live in Canada were once called British, but that hasn't been the case for a very long time.
Canadians are not entitled to British passports (long ago, they were).
Canadians are not entitled to live permanently in the UK (long ago, they were).

There is no longer any link or control whatsoever in law between the government of the UK and Canada.

The final link was severed in 1982 when the UK formally granted Canada the power to amend their constitution. Prior to that Canada had to ask the UK to amend Canada's constitution.

Now, the monarch of Canada is Queen Elizabeth II. Coincidentally, she is also Queen of the UK. That is the only link.

And, in Canada's constitutional monarchy, the Queen is a purely symbolic role with no real power. Much like the UK. So the link is tenous at best.

Parkinson's Law, theorized by C. Northcote Parkinson, a British Royal Navy historian and author, explains this phenomenon by stating that "work expands to fill the time available for its completion" and in bureaucratic organizations, the number of people required to do the work will continually rise whether the actual volume of work stays the same, increases, decreases or disappears.

The question is how much do Canadian artists get handed from the government in the existing "tax the media" scheme? I'd warrant they don't get anything and that the government keeps track of what they collect and injects "money into supporting artists, including more money for the Canada Council for the Arts and the Canada Music Fund." (from TFA). I mean, what else could they do? Say I was a terrible artist (not too much of a stretch) and I put out a terrible album with nothing on it that anybody would want. Do I have my hand out for the MP3 tax? How much would the government give me? How would they determine that?

They can't. And they don't. This is a stupid idea based on another stupid idea.

Want to see what they do with the money?

• Canada Council for the Arts Nobody on the front page is under 50.
• Canada Music Fund They help you be successful as an artist. Oh the irony...

So they tax our media. Then they give it to bureaucratic organizations that consume themselves. And the indy rock band gets? You guessed it. The shaft. And we are proposing to extend this to new media. Excellent. Let me just get out my wallet...

The reason that things like file sharing are legal in Canada is specifically because Canadian copyright law *hasn't* changed.

Actually, Canadian copyright law has been changing constantly.

Our laws were written in the 1980's

Incorrect. 1988 was the first major overhaul since the law was written in 1924, however there have been a bunch of updates (in 1989, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2001 and 2007) to bring it to its current state - for example, when the 1988 law was enacted, the private copying right that we now enjoy (and that this thread is about) did not exist - it was illegal to copy any music without written permission, regardless of the reason. It wasn't until the amendment in 1997 that we gained the legal right to make private copies.

Canada is the only country to succesfully attack the White House, and there are still scorch marks on the walls of that hallowed building to commemorate it.

True, but they felt so bad about it afterwords that they apologized a lot and finally burned down their own Parliament buildings about a hundred years later.

Hockey is our national sport.

That's one of your national sports, and only for the past fifteen years. Before 1994 Canada's only national sport was Lacrosse, a game loosely based on an old First Nations game in which hundreds of participants would run around a field beating each other with long sticks while ignoring a small ball. Modern Ice Hockey is just a pale, polite shadow of Lacrosse.

With a name like "smallfurrycreature" you should know that Canada's national emblem is the beaver. Problem solved.

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. US copyright law for games

Copyright protects the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. For example, an idea for a board game would not be protected by copyright, but the expression of this idea in the form of written rules and playing instructions would be protected as a literary work. - Canadian Copyright Policy FAQ

You can take any existing game, rewrite the rules in your own words (while avoiding the use trademarks, e.g. "Scrabble") and publish it. That is your right. There's no law to stop you from creating your own Scrabble game just so long as it does not infringe on any of Hasbro's trademarks. The rules, method of play, and alphabet are not copyrightable.

If you want to let the Minister of Canadian Heritage know this is a bad idea here's where you can contact her
http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/min/verner/contact/index_e.cfm

Let her know you will voting against them at the next election if this is passed.
AK

If you want to submit your comments as "Concerned Global Citizens", the Canadian Copyright Policy Branch has a Web Form

I don't know if the Canadian government cares what citizens of other countries think, but I don't believe that we will ever get any real Copyright Reform until we convince our respective governments to stop being so myopically nationalistic.

Re: The name of Canada: It depends who you ask.

The name "Dominion Of Canada" is generally put forth as the long form of Canada's name. It's in the 1867 Constitution Act, but not the 1982 Constitution Act, nor the 1982 Canada Act. It's been used by the federal government to a greater or lesser degree throughout Canadian history, and according to the federal government, Canada's official name is still "The Dominion Of Canada":

http://www.pch.gc.ca/special/flag-drapeau/defi-cha llenge/reponses-answers_e.cfm

On the other hand, the CIA World Factbook says that there is no long name for the country of Canada, and I don't recall ever seeing/hearing the phrase used in any current context.

(FWIW: The CIA World Factbook gives "United States", not "America", as the short form of "United States of America". But that's the thing about colloquialisms...they're not "official", just widespread and commonly understood.)

I had no idea what the Canadian Heritage was, so I looked it up. Apparenty, its an official goverment branch that is responsible for national policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster cultural participation, active citizenship and participation in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among Canadians.

I think you missed the joke. July 1 is Canada Day, the closest thing that Canada has to our 4th of July. Much in the same way that Canadian Thanksgiving is in October rather than November.

The first Canadian Thanksgiving was celebrated on April 15, 1872 in thanks for the recovery of the future King Edward VII from a serious illness. The next Thanksgiving didn't occur until 1879 when it was celebrated on a Thursday in November.

As for it being celebrated in October, it has more to do with Canada having a shorter growing season and that celebrating the harvest makes more sense near the end of harvest season in october. The holiday did bounce around a lot, but I don't think that Armistice day was the sole reason for the move to october.

http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/jfa-ha/action _e.cfm

This always reminds me of the origins of "Canada". From http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/o5_e.cf m :

In 1535, two Indian Youths told Jacques Cartier about the route to "kanata." They were referring to the village of Stadacona; "kanata" was simply the Huron-Iroquois word for "village" or "settlement." But for want of another name, Cartier used "Canada" to refer not only to Stadacona (the site of present day Quebec City), but also to the entire area subject to its chief, Donnacona.

...

The first use of "Canada" as an official name came in 1791 when the Province of Quebec was divided into the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada. In 1841, the two Canadas were again united under one name, the Province of Canada. At the time of Confederation, the new country assumed the name of Canada.

As if we don't have enough horrid artist because of all the government funding of such? Good art does not come because it was funded. Paying for NEW art must remain a voluntary action for the public. Otherwise you end up creating a cottage industry that exists only to suck of wealth.

Welcome to the Canadian model of cultural identity:

"Financial support for these programs includes grants and contributions, bursaries, tax credits and other means."

Gradual decline in Canadian music sales.
Illegal downloads impacts CD sales.

Sales of CDs continue to decline, but overall music sales are climbing again, since the RIAA has finally embraced technology. All of this fully supports what the quoted survey is actually saying.

This happens when the economic model in use is fundamentally broken. People turn to the black market in large numbers. It isn't an ethical argument but a practical one.

The economical model is not broken. It works fine. It is based, at least partially, on human apathy and laziness. Joe Q. Consumer is going to tire of wasting his afternoons making tapes and burning CDs for his friends. You have to provide the media, the hardware, and the effort. The energy barrier has permitted the RIAA and MPAA to fight against stuff like VCRs, lose, and still make money. There's another difference, which is that when you buy a blank tape, you pay a royalty to the MPAA or RIAA, which is distributed to the industry as compensation for any illegal copying you may do.

There is no such royalty on hard drives (nor should there be). Suddenly, content can be stored on media whose primary purpose is not the storage of that specific media, and the model that is broken is not their business model (selling copies of CDs) but their compensation model for illegal activity. The reason you won your fair use rights is that the government agreed to make you pay a fee for blank tapes (this is oversimpifying it a lot, I realize, since you CAN buy blank tapes without paying that fee) to compensate the industry for any damage you do by being a naughty consumer.

Their business model works fine. What has broken down is the assumptions and agreements that settled the VCR/cassette tape case securing our fair use rights in the first place. The consumer started this by wantonly abusing those rights in the form of unmonitorable digital copies, and the industry is fighting back. I don't know how you can blame them for that.

It's obvious that people who commit copyright violation are criminals. So are people who jaywalk.

Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense until you do a lot of it (thousand and thousand of dollars worth). Jaywalking is also not a crime, so your analogy is ignorant and irrelevent..

So what? The only issue of interest is *why* so many people engage in the activity despite the penalties for doing so

Such as? What? You steal a CD from the local music store, they kick your ass out. They're not likely to call the cops. Trying to shoplift $15 of merchandise isn't worth it. You keep doing it week after week and you're going to end up arrested. You download a CD or two, and there's little reason to prosecute you for it. You've committed misdemeanor copyright infringement. Whoo hoo. You distribute thousands of copies of a song, and now you've commited criminal copyright infringement.

As far as I know, no amount of jaywalking will elevate your offense to criminal activity.

People download music illegally because they can, the risk of getting caught and prosecuted is miniscule, and it doesn't feel like you're doing anything wrong. We know we're doing something wrong when we shoplight, because we have to go through all this trouble to hide the product and sneak out. Now, shoplifting isn't a great analogy either. That's theft of physical property, and as I said in my OP, copyright infringement is not theft.

The law doesn't work.

No, it doesn't. Because the law is based on assumptions about human behavior that are no longer true. Namely, that the energy barrier prevents copyrigh

My lazy MP is too busy crusading against homosexuals to reply to my letter :-@

So I'll have to email him for a 3rd time, and if he doesn't reply it will just be good fodder to defeat him in the coming 2006 election.

DMCA for Canada is not acceptable
Written Friday March 25 2005

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; But in Summer send it to their constituency office I'd reason), 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.
[fix URL gap] 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.

3. Internet Search engines such as Google.ca, and Libraries must not be subject to penalties for providing direction to copyrighted materials.

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.

The current version of Bill C-60 suggests it could be illegal for anyone to provide copyrighted information through "information-location tools," which includes search engines like Google.ca. This anti-business, and anti-information clause, is very un-Canadian.

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 sup

The likely scenario is that some crotchety old bastard who doesn't even own a TV in the northern wastelands of Canada who was elected by his four neighbors, which live 100 miles away (giving him a solid 90% of the vote), was given a wet dream bill by a lobbyist going through the motions to receive his paycheck.

This bill won't likely pass before a long time, because the minority government will likely call elections next year, and there are more pressing concerns than kow-towing to big media.

DMCA for Canada is not acceptable
Written Friday March 25 2005

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; summer is approaching), 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

Comme il se doit, les documents du Gouvernement du Canada mentionnés ici sont aussi disponibles dans la langue de Molière. Voici les liens:
Fiche d'information:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/fiche_f.pdf
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/faq_f.pdf

As is usual for the Government of Canada, the documents mentionned in the post are also available in french. Here are the links: Backgrounder:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/fiche_f.pdf
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/faq_f.pdf

Comme il se doit, les documents du Gouvernement du Canada mentionnés ici sont aussi disponibles dans la langue de Molière. Voici les liens:
Fiche d'information:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/fiche_f.pdf
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/faq_f.pdf

As is usual for the Government of Canada, the documents mentionned in the post are also available in french. Here are the links: Backgrounder:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/fiche_f.pdf
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/faq_f.pdf

Comme il se doit, les documents du Gouvernement du Canada mentionnés ici sont aussi disponibles dans la langue de Molière. Voici les liens:
Fiche d'information:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/fiche_f.pdf
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/faq_f.pdf

As is usual for the Government of Canada, the documents mentionned in the post are also available in french. Here are the links: Backgrounder:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/fiche_f.pdf
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/faq_f.pdf

Comme il se doit, les documents du Gouvernement du Canada mentionnés ici sont aussi disponibles dans la langue de Molière. Voici les liens:
Fiche d'information:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/fiche_f.pdf
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/faq_f.pdf

As is usual for the Government of Canada, the documents mentionned in the post are also available in french. Here are the links: Backgrounder:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/fiche_f.pdf
FAQ:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/ref orm/faq_f.pdf

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

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

You seem quick to denounce the conservatives on this one. The corrupt canadian Liberals who are currently in power are the most in favour of such draconian IP laws because it caters to their constituents.. the canadian heritage minister, Liza Frulla seen recently at canada's juno awards (canadas grammy's) slumming for music industry donations.. luckily if an election were called today her seat would be in danger. Are the conservatives a worse choice than the NDP in this? no. The NDP are totally in favour of harsher IP law. (though jack layton is all in favour of file sharing..) Personally I voted conservative the last election (and feel vindicated doing so for the most part) because the (now) MP told me flat out that she would not support the DMCA based on the information she had on it, that it was bad for Canadian business and consumers. Also Stephen Harper at least owns an ipod. Prime Minister Paul Martin probably can't program his own VCR.. unless it gives monetary kickbacks.

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

The Ministers of Industry and Canadian Heritage are pleased to announce on behalf of the Government of Canada that the drafting of amendments to the Copyright Act to

The upper classes have produced this Vorta-eared fellow as an example of the best breeding. They sure know good breeding there! I imagine the results of this program will look like Chuck but with Austin Powers teeth. "Fancy a shag, Camilla?"

From the FAQ:

How does a "notice and notice" regime work? How will it help to curb the misuse of the Internet for infringing purposes?

Under the proposed "notice and notice" regime, an ISP will be required to forward any notice it receives from a copyright owner to a subscriber who is alleged to be engaging in infringing activities on-line. The ISP will also be required to retain, for a set period of time, information sufficient to identify the subscriber in question. Through this regime, rights holders will have a mechanism for alerting Internet users that their infringing activities have been detected. In the event that the impugned activities lead to litigation, the record-keeping requirement will better enable identification of the parties alleged to be involved.

So, as I understand it, ISPs are now required to be able identify their customers. Wouldn't preclude free, anonymous wireless hotspots, wouldn't it? Anonymity by paying in cash for dialup would go right out the window, too.

At least in a "notice and takedown" system, it's legal to offer anonymous Internet access...

Is that what this means? - "It would not be legal to circumvent, without authorization, a TPM applied to a sound recording, notwithstanding the exception for private copying."
Source (Government Statement on Proposals for Copyright Reform)

You might just want to wait before you load up the minivan...

Some fun snippets for you canuks who are celebrating a little early:

It will also be made clear that private copies of sound recordings cannot be uploaded or further distributed

Oops! No more legal P2P loophole.

Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however

Oops! No braking that annoying DRM for purpose of making a backup or otherwise private copy, like to a HD for easier playback.

ISPs can play a significant role to curb infringing activities of subscribers on those networks, however. The bill will also provide that they be required to forward notices of claims of infringement from rights holders to their subscribers (a "notice-and-notice" requirement).

Now if I'm not mistaken you are at least as badly off than us US (that's kind of an amusing phrase) citizens, where some large ISP's are at least fighting generic takedown notices!

Sure everyone, flee to Canada instead of fighting for your rights at home. Fucking cowards.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest, Instead of paying for a home in the No Longer Free North, consider please a donation to the EFF.

Copyright Reform FAQ

What FAQ is that from? I don't see any such statements in the government site's FAQ. You got an URL?

Can record companies (Canadian equiv. of [MPRI]{2}AA) sue p2p users sharing music and movies?

Currently no. Once this act is passed, yes they can. The ISP is obligated to maintain sufficent records to identify the subscriber for a period of time.

Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
Upon receipt of a notice, ISPs would also be required to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time. Rights holders would have the legal means to compel ISPs to comply with the regime.

AND
(FAQ)
This will clarify that the unauthorized posting or the peer-to-peer file-sharing of material on the Internet will constitute an infringement of copyright.

Can users copy records/movies for private use?

Currently yes. After this act is passed, yes BUT users are not allowed to legally bypass any restrictions (DRM) in order to do so. That becomes illegal.

Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
The Act's private copying regime provides for an exception to copyright that permits the making of a copy of a sound recording for private use

BUT... not everything is good: (from FAQ)
The bill will also contain legal protections for technological protection measures (encryptions, password requirements) and rights management systems containing information for the purpose of tracking uses of works. The removal of or tampering with such measures for the purpose of infringing copyright will itself constitute an infringement of copyright.

What this looks like is basically opening the door to lawsuits for record companies, making file sharing illegal and closing the door on consumers being able to turn off DRM to make a copy of a CD or movie for themselves.

How is this not DMCA?

Je n'ai comprend pas.

Can record companies (Canadian equiv. of [MPRI]{2}AA) sue p2p users sharing music and movies?

Currently no. Once this act is passed, yes they can. The ISP is obligated to maintain sufficent records to identify the subscriber for a period of time.

Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
Upon receipt of a notice, ISPs would also be required to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time. Rights holders would have the legal means to compel ISPs to comply with the regime.

AND
(FAQ)
This will clarify that the unauthorized posting or the peer-to-peer file-sharing of material on the Internet will constitute an infringement of copyright.

Can users copy records/movies for private use?

Currently yes. After this act is passed, yes BUT users are not allowed to legally bypass any restrictions (DRM) in order to do so. That becomes illegal.

Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
The Act's private copying regime provides for an exception to copyright that permits the making of a copy of a sound recording for private use

BUT... not everything is good: (from FAQ)
The bill will also contain legal protections for technological protection measures (encryptions, password requirements) and rights management systems containing information for the purpose of tracking uses of works. The removal of or tampering with such measures for the purpose of infringing copyright will itself constitute an infringement of copyright.

What this looks like is basically opening the door to lawsuits for record companies, making file sharing illegal and closing the door on consumers being able to turn off DRM to make a copy of a CD or movie for themselves.

How is this not DMCA?

Je n'ai comprend pas.

Can record companies (Canadian equiv. of [MPRI]{2}AA) sue p2p users sharing music and movies?

Currently no. Once this act is passed, yes they can. The ISP is obligated to maintain sufficent records to identify the subscriber for a period of time.

Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
Upon receipt of a notice, ISPs would also be required to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time. Rights holders would have the legal means to compel ISPs to comply with the regime.

AND
(FAQ)
This will clarify that the unauthorized posting or the peer-to-peer file-sharing of material on the Internet will constitute an infringement of copyright.

Can users copy records/movies for private use?

Currently yes. After this act is passed, yes BUT users are not allowed to legally bypass any restrictions (DRM) in order to do so. That becomes illegal.

Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
The Act's private copying regime provides for an exception to copyright that permits the making of a copy of a sound recording for private use

BUT... not everything is good: (from FAQ)
The bill will also contain legal protections for technological protection measures (encryptions, password requirements) and rights management systems containing information for the purpose of tracking uses of works. The removal of or tampering with such measures for the purpose of infringing copyright will itself constitute an infringement of copyright.

What this looks like is basically opening the door to lawsuits for record companies, making file sharing illegal and closing the door on consumers being able to turn off DRM to make a copy of a CD or movie for themselves.

How is this not DMCA?

Je n'ai comprend pas.

Can record companies (Canadian equiv. of [MPRI]{2}AA) sue p2p users sharing music and movies?

Currently no. Once this act is passed, yes they can. The ISP is obligated to maintain sufficent records to identify the subscriber for a period of time.

Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
Upon receipt of a notice, ISPs would also be required to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time. Rights holders would have the legal means to compel ISPs to comply with the regime.

AND
(FAQ)
This will clarify that the unauthorized posting or the peer-to-peer file-sharing of material on the Internet will constitute an infringement of copyright.

Can users copy records/movies for private use?

Currently yes. After this act is passed, yes BUT users are not allowed to legally bypass any restrictions (DRM) in order to do so. That becomes illegal.

Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
The Act's private copying regime provides for an exception to copyright that permits the making of a copy of a sound recording for private use

BUT... not everything is good: (from FAQ)
The bill will also contain legal protections for technological protection measures (encryptions, password requirements) and rights management systems containing information for the purpose of tracking uses of works. The removal of or tampering with such measures for the purpose of infringing copyright will itself constitute an infringement of copyright.

What this looks like is basically opening the door to lawsuits for record companies, making file sharing illegal and closing the door on consumers being able to turn off DRM to make a copy of a CD or movie for themselves.

How is this not DMCA?

Je n'ai comprend pas.

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

Wow. All four verses - I'm impressed.

Now let's have it in French :)

Just keeping the record straight:

Official Lyrics of O Canada!

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

National Anthem: O Canada

Actually, the French version provided was precisely correct. See, for example, the National Anthem Act. (Schedule 2 has the lyrics and score.)

However, the French and English versions of the Anthem don't actually say the same thing. Here is a translation of the French Anthem into English. Also available, a translation of the English Anthem into French.

From the parent's linked homepage and political commentary, I assume he's Canadian (Albertan, perhaps--correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm a little surprised that he didn't get exposed to our seperate but equal anthems at some point in school. I suppose bilingualism receives more attention in central and eastern Canada.

Actually, the French version provided was precisely correct. See, for example, the National Anthem Act. (Schedule 2 has the lyrics and score.)

However, the French and English versions of the Anthem don't actually say the same thing. Here is a translation of the French Anthem into English. Also available, a translation of the English Anthem into French.

From the parent's linked homepage and political commentary, I assume he's Canadian (Albertan, perhaps--correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm a little surprised that he didn't get exposed to our seperate but equal anthems at some point in school. I suppose bilingualism receives more attention in central and eastern Canada.

English Translation of the French Version of the National Anthem

O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.

Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.

That's one of the stupidest comments I've ever read. It is a complete coincidence you fool. You might be trying to be funny, but you'll need to try harder since your punchline is way off topic. The maple leaf has been around for more than 100 years as a symbol of Canada, and in any event, the seat of the Canadian population is in the East, where all the political decisions (such as the flag) are made. I wasn't around when it was made into the flag, but I believe the West (ie. BC and the prairies) was pretty pissed off about it.

More on the history of Canada's maple leaf here.