Slashdot Mirror

There are two separate rulings (although only one was by a judge). Whether both of the rulings stand is still to be determined.

In December 2003, the Copyright Board of Canada issued a decision stating that downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal. This is not a court decision and not surprisingly, the Canadian Recording Industry Association disputes the decision. The board also noted that it believed uploading copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited by law.

Fast forward to April 2004. The CRIA is in court trying to force major Canadian Internet service providers to divulge the names of suspected copyright violators. Not only did federal judge Konrad von Finckenstein deny the request but went on to rule that placing copyrighted works in a shared directory is legal, akin to the photocopiers mentioned above. The CRIA does not agree with Finckenstein and has appealed his ruling.

To buy his argument you have to believe that placing a copyrighted work in shared directory doesn't amount to distribution. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying," Finckenstein wrote.

In response to the ruling, Helene Scherrer, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has promised to fix copyright law as quickly as possible. This may also push the government to ratify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties. According to the Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access, ratifying the treaties may double the levies already imposed on blank digital media.

• "O Canada" and "God Save The Queen" are in the public domain and may be used without having to obtain permission from the Government.

Yeah. Bloody French, can't even get the anthem right.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

In order to preserve and stimulate Canadian cultural achievement--art, music, performance--in the face of the American entertainment behemoth, the Canadian federal government in their infinite wisdom chose to enact a series of provisions back in the 1960s to regulate the amount of Canadian content on Canadian broadcast radio and television. So far, this sounds like Saudi Arabia--you must have Canadian content, not that dirty American stuff.

The difference lies in degree and application. On Canadian radio, 35% of content must be Canadian. On Canadian television stations, something like 60% (50% from 6pm to midnight) of content must be Canadian. Detailed rules are here; there's a pretty good summary here, too. The rest of the content can be American, European, Asian, Australian...whatever you wish. I can watch The Simpsons and The Wonderful World of Disney on our national broadcaster (the CBC).

There are also no moral or religious restrictions on the content--Canadian or otherwise--beyond basic obscenity statutes that often seem noticeably less restrictive than those in the United States.

And you know what? The system works. There are more and better-known Canadian recording artists and actors than ever before, likely in large part due to CanCon requirements. Sure, some of them would have been recognized without it, but as a program to encourage Canadian artists, this one (incredibly) has worked.

The notion that 'foreign stations are banned' is patently ridiculous. If my cable provider supplies HBO, or CNN, or TNN, or A&E, or the History Channel--they don't have to delete 60% of the material and replace it with CanCon. NBC, CBS, ABC--all appear on Canadian cable and satellite unaltered (unfortunately or otherwise) from the channels seen in American markets.

Censorship? I don't think so.

And "Cheers!" to John Ashcroft. How's your quaint little shut-down-the-adult-film-industry crusade going?

Or, if you want to let her know what you think personally, you can e-mail her here.

Her experience/resume doesn't seem to indicate that she might be well versed in the intricacies of the legal system regarding this issue:
Helene Scherrer, Minister of Canadian Heritage

What in gods name are you smoking? Canada was a free nation as of June 20, 1868 Why dont you do your history. Google Dominion day and you'll learn what i'm talking about. Or just look up. Or down. Either way the truth will come.

In fact, that's more or less the way Canada was actually named by Europeans. Check this out.

If you don't like American Culture, then don't partake of it. Create your own. Enjoy your own.

Stop blaming America for your problems.

One country you forgot to mention is Canada, which is attracting more and more filmmakers. The reason is that Canada provides a number of tax credits and incentives for production companies who film there and use Canadian labor. It's easy to spot movies filmed in Canada under the auspices of this program, as one of the requirements is that the Canadian government and the tax credit be mentioned in the movie credits. This mention is often the first thing that pops up when the movie ends, even before the cast (or "The Players," as many Canadian-filmed movies call them, that may also be a requirement).

I'm seeing this with ever-increasing frequency. It's just plain cheaper to film a movie in Canada than it is to do it in Hollywood; it's often cheaper than filming elsewhere in the U.S. as well, even for fairly low budget stuff. You can't beat the tax breaks. British Columbia (among other locations) is becoming sort of a mini-Hollywood in its own right.

Perhaps I should be opening a digital media store/mail-order outlet in Bellingham WA (just over the border from where I live in Vancouver). Considering some of the potential levy rates I've seen thrown around this could more than double the cost of digital media.

To make it even worse, the government has yet to pay out ANY of the money that has already been collected under the current levy. That's right... they collect the money to 'help the starving artists' and have yet to pay any of it out. If it wasn't the gov't it'd be fraud.

I think we need to remind our lovely Heritage Minister that if she has any plans to run for the Liberal leadership this is the sort of thing that might come back to haunt her, never mind the free flags or the GST she promised to resign over (resignations are forever my dear).

Q: When you pay the levy what do you get in return?

A: A license to copy music!

Seriously though, what exactly are we getting in exchange for the levy. Certainly not a warm fuzzy for Sheila Copps and Brian Adams (who needs this levy like he needs a boot to the head... err, scratch that, he needs a boot to the head ;-). So if we're not buying a license to copy music what are we buying?

You don't know much about the South West of England eh :) Probably 95% of the land is countryside, we have 2 huge national parks that are protected. We're not in any great danger of running out of natural habitats here yet.

In a related, though hardly usefull, point it's interesting to note the size of the United Kingdom 244,820 sq km and the size of Canada's national Parks 244,540.0 sq km.

I've not been to visit despite it only being 20 minutes away

That being said I live in Alberta which, among others has bits of Jasper, Banff & Wood Buffalo National Parks and of the three I've only visited 2. Well Banff, which is only a 3 hour drive, I've only driven through.

The winters in the early 40's were exceptionally cold, obviously there would have been more ice if the temperature is lower. This only shows that there were less ice during their recent journey, nothing more. Making blanket statements based on 2 observations is not good science. ;-)

Floating ice persists for decades. It persists long enough that the salt is squeezed out of it, and it goes fresh. Experience can tell you how many decades old the ice is, and how fresh it is, from the change in colours it transmits. Old ice appears blue.

The disappearance of ice from the passage is not a short-term, passing event. It is a deeply significant event. Larsen was a very experienced Arctic navigator. He commanded the St. Roch for almost twenty years. The ice conditions he encountered during the 1942-1944 passage were typical conditions of that period -- and hundreds of years prior.

Prior to her launch the RCMP, which provided the only Federal presence in Canada's north, used chartered vessels to supply far northern outposts, during the brief Arctic summer. The St Roch was purpose built for Arctic missions. Her hull was dish-shaped, and specially reinforced, so that rather than being crushed when frozen in, she would pop out of the encroaching ice, like a cork. Her hull was clad with an outer layer of some kind of Australian gumwood. The planks were about 6 cm thick, about 20 cm wide, with a gap of 1 cm between each plank. I can't remember the explanation, but this unusual construction detail was another adaptation to sailing in the Arctic.

I visited the Vancouver Maritime Museum, where the St Roch is on display, a couple of times. And I bought the companion book. It has very dramatic photos of showing the dangers of sailing in those waters. One photo shows a Hudson's Bay Company vessel being burst by the pressure of pack ice, a few hundred metres away from the St Roch.

Here is another biographical link to Henry Larsen.

Why am I going on is such detail about Larsen and the St Roch? Because those apologists who take every piece of evidence for global warming and dismiss it as a statistical anomaly, or just another harmless turn in a cycle we don't understand, really piss me off.

These are not statistical anomalies.

Yes, our planet's climate is a very complicated system. We aren't anywhere near to understanding it, or the full role human's play in changing it. But, even if some or all of the very clear evidence we are receiving of global warming are natural phenomenon, not caused by a side effect of our technological society, I can not agree to see them as harmless.

Viking Link

Sorry, somehow the above link didn't cut and paste correctly.
Try to see the Smithsonian exhibit when it's near you. Firsts are often disputed, but I think if you do enough research, you'll find:
First electronic computer (Atanasoff) despite ENIAC
First Laser (Gould) despite Townes Nobel Prize
First Settlement in America (Vikings) despite Columbus, Chinese. However the "skrallings" were already established in North America

Viking Link

Sorry, somehow the above link didn't cut and paste correctly.
Try to see the Smithsonian exhibit when it's near you. Firsts are often disputed, but I think if you do enough research, you'll find:
First electronic computer (Atanasoff) despite ENIAC
First Laser (Gould) despite Townes Nobel Prize
First Settlement in America (Vikings) despite Columbus, Chinese. However the "skrallings" were already established in North America

I totally disagree that the Canadian government should have exclusive rights to the Maple Leaf Flag; if they do own the trademark they certainly only enfroce it rarely (and then only for commercial use). Marks the government actively protects involve the flag, but also involve other things such as a stylised "Government of Canada" script or departmental names in that script. In any event, it would be in their best interests to make the flag freely available since it is one of the few unifying sybols of such a diverse and regionalised country, and the more it is used the more Canadians will feel part of Canada and not swallowed up by the USA. Considering the goverment had a fairly successful program promoting and giving away the Maple Leaf flag freely (real flags and graphics), I'd say they agree.

That being said, it appears that the site in question is still using a Maple Leaf Flag with the "Health Canada" department name beside it, in a script and style very similar to that actually used by Health Canada. The federal government is within their rights to go after a pro-smoking group that is displaying the Health Canada department logo in any manner.

I totally disagree that the Canadian government should have exclusive rights to the Maple Leaf Flag; if they do own the trademark they certainly only enfroce it rarely (and then only for commercial use). Marks the government actively protects involve the flag, but also involve other things such as a stylised "Government of Canada" script or departmental names in that script. In any event, it would be in their best interests to make the flag freely available since it is one of the few unifying sybols of such a diverse and regionalised country, and the more it is used the more Canadians will feel part of Canada and not swallowed up by the USA. Considering the goverment had a fairly successful program promoting and giving away the Maple Leaf flag freely (real flags and graphics), I'd say they agree.

That being said, it appears that the site in question is still using a Maple Leaf Flag with the "Health Canada" department name beside it, in a script and style very similar to that actually used by Health Canada. The federal government is within their rights to go after a pro-smoking group that is displaying the Health Canada department logo in any manner.

Can't someone submit "prior use"? ;-)

Flag info

"The maple leaf flag was raised for the first time at noon, February 15, 1965 during special ceremonies on Parliament Hill in Ottawa."

The Maple Leafs were around long before the flag was created (1965). Needless to say, A lot of Montreal Canadiens fans were pissed that they chose the Maple Leafs instead of the 'CH' :-)

http://www.pch.gc.ca/ceremonial-symb/images/canada _flag.gif

or in clickable form

Here's an article about the first transatlantic radio transmission from a member of a Newfoundland amateur radio club.

You should hope and pray that the RIAA manages to get a "blank media tax" -exactly- like the one we have here in Canada. Why? Because for that extra $.20 per blank CD-R, you get the right to copy CDs. You can borrow a friends CD collection, and make copies of all of them, and it is legal.

No, this is not some sort of urban legend. Yes, this is for real. Read it for yourself. Section 80 is what you want to take a close look at.

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

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

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

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

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

Does this apply to downloaded music? It's not certain. I'm sure that the new copyright reforms that are going on right now will address that (for better or for worse!)

Does this help out the "little guys" who don't get their fair share from that tax? Nope. But it does allow me to make perfectly legal copies of any CDs I can borrow.

Here is a link to the Department of Candaian Heritage's website that explains, briefly, the situation

There have been stories of evidence of Roman/Greek/Egyptian/whatever visitation to North America for quite a while. Other than L'Anse Aux Meadows in Newfoundland, which is probably a real viking settlement, most likely, the "evidence" is from ballast that was shovelled into the hulls of ships that travelled here much later.

Regardless if a few Egyptians found their way onto shore, say, in Ft. Lauderdale, or Vikings in Newfoundland, they didn't hang around very long, and had no cultural impact, so it's like they were never here anyway. Maybe enough to make you go "hmph. Well I'll be damned" like you would if you found a puppy under your wheelbarrow after a flood. You certainly won't be telling the puppy story 30 generations from now.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Canada has a small film industry, and I believe that most of the smaller companies cannot afford to license DVD's region codes to competition globally. This should be setting off fireworks in the federal culture office (Canadian Heritage), but hasn't seen to trigger a trickle of interest. In fact the only DVD I have from a Canadian production is not CSS encrypted (thus not region coded either).

The problem is, like in the DeCSS case, short- sighted people assume that any films will be both available and more common in VHS format, so DVDs don't really matter.

It is also a problem because Canadian retailers stock Region 1 (North Americian) DVD players, yet I do not know of any french language DVDs with Region 1 code, thus interefering with francophones who wish to buy a DVD player and watch french DVDs (which tend to be Region 2).

I am a Canadian lawyer, but I wouldn't practice in California or New York State on a bet (and I have standing job offers in both places).

If I am not mistaken, the Canadian Charter of Rights doesn't only apply to the governments (like the US constitution), but also private individuals, companies and institutions, right?

You get the political and legal system you deserve. Better a Canadian Supreme Court that I disagree with than a U.S. Supreme Court for sale.

This supreme court???

--

Heh. Yeah, right. Tell that to Sheila Copps, the bitch who helped to put it in place. It's to help more inept musicians saturate Canada's airwaves, while talented Canadian musicians - who will prosper on their own without government help - promptly pick up and move to greener pastures in the United States.

(See Alanis Morrissette, The Barenaked Ladies, Crash Test Dummies, Big Sugar, Maestro Fres Wes, SoulDecision, Choclair, Celine Dion, Sloan, ... Paul Anka?)

Meanwhile, it's yet another tax to help to "level the playing field" so that the untalented can saturate our airwaves. To, effectively, make up for the lesser talent and ability of, for example, The Tragically Hip.

I hope Sheila Copps gets inoperable colon cancer.

If I'm paying a tax that is auspiciously because I'm going to illegally copy something anyway, haven't I then paid for the right to copy it? Haven't I now paid the royalties that I owe, in order to make all the guilt-free CDs, for me and my friends, that I want to make? I think that could be a very interesting court challenge.

Oh yeah. Any luckier, and the Sunday afternoon tradition in Canada will be cutting up last week's Pravda for toilet paper.

I hate the levy ("it's not a tax, it's a levy," as a friend who wrote Shelia Copps about this was told..ha) but as I pay cents per CD-R (yeah, it's for computer equipment, not audio, you know) it's not much of an issue.

However, in exchange for the tax, you can make legal private copies of copyrighted works, according to this site:

"Until Parliament enacted An Act to amend the Copyright Act (Bill C-32), individuals who made copies of sound recordings of musical works for private use were liable to be found to have infringed copyright. Studies showed that the private copying of sound recordings was a widespread practice resulting in losses to copyright holders (composers, authors, performers and producers) in terms of lost sales of such sound recordings. The private copying provisions of Bill C-32, adopted in April 1997, changed this. The provisions, brought into force on March 19, 1998, essentially legalize the copying of sound recordings by individuals for private use, but in return establish a levy to compensate copyright holders."

So burn away, but remember that the levy applies to all CD-R media, and the money is doled out based on who makes the most in record sales (it is NOT split evenly amongst all artists). As as a friend of mine once pointed out, for every Linux distro that you burn, Celine Dion gets a penny.

Dunno about other commonwealth countries, but here in Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found here.