Slashdot Mirror


Canadian High Court Says ISPs Don't Owe Royalties

canwaf writes "According to the CBC, and the other guys: In a 9-0 decision, Canada's highest court ruled, despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy, they are not liable for what people download. They continue in their decision that Internet access providers are not bound by federal copyright legislation. Coupled with an earlier story on Slashdot, this is a very good thing." Edward Scissorhands was one of many readers to link to the Globe and Mail's article, too.

486 comments

  1. Good precedent by mirko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope it won't be overruled by others who might qualify the infrastructure they provide as a medium, like the CDR which are taxed in France and other countries.

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:Good precedent by Zardoz44 · · Score: 1

      Other countries like Canada?

    2. Re:Good precedent by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is already a CD-R levy in Canada. It was created when the Copyright Act was rewritten to allow copying of any kind for personal use.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    3. Re:Good precedent by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Informative

      the highest court cannot be overruled.

    4. Re:Good precedent by THE+ROCK · · Score: 5, Informative

      I hope it won't be overruled by others who might qualify the infrastructure they provide as a medium, like the CDR which are taxed in France and other countries.

      It is pretty hard to overrule the SUPREME COURT.

      As it usually does, the Canadian Supreme Court has made a sensible ruling here.

      Speaking of CDRs, as a Canadian I pay levies (which are forwarded to the record companies) on all blank media that I purchase, so as far as I'm concerned I'm ALREADY paying for my right to copy music, even if it comes from the internet. Its a relief that my ISP won't be forced to contribute to that racket as well.

      Don't forget that most of that money winds up going to Bryan Adams and Celine Dion anyway (I'll remind everyone here that the Canadian government has already apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions, so please lets not start that discussion again!)

    5. Re:Good precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative


      Not "any kind". Only musical audio recordings (no spoken word is permitted), and only the person doing the copying is permitted to use the recording (so you can copy your friends shit, but he can't copy it and give it to you).

    6. Re:Good precedent by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      You are correct. My oversight.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    7. Re:Good precedent by mirko · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The title read "High" Court", not "Highest".

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    8. Re:Good precedent by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      I might point out that there are a *lot* of places (at least in my neck of the woods) that don't seem to collect the CDR levy. Including one rather large grocery store chain that thinks it's pretty Super....

    9. Re:Good precedent by Psymunn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually it doesn't. Bryan Adams works for an american label and has, for all intensive purposes, been disowned by the Canadian government.
      But yes. It still strikes a chord with me every time i have to backup a virus strewn windows computer onto CDs that, because i'm reformatting YET AGAIN, I'm indirectly financing Chad Kruger (who makes shitty music, and more money then me). It's almost as if these people are getting payed every time windows fucks up. Hm...

      --
      The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
    10. Re:Good precedent by Eccles · · Score: 1

      "High Court" means Supreme Court, passed down from English tradition, I b'leeve. Regardless, the first article linked says Supreme Court.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    11. Re:Good precedent by reidbold · · Score: 1

      It's paid on wholesale items, not by the consumer.

      So the cost is hidden.

      --
      -Reid
    12. Re:Good precedent by Seek_1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yup, it sure looks like Bryan Adams has been disowned by the Canadian Government. ;)

    13. Re:Good precedent by Boiled+Frog · · Score: 1

      London Drugs splits out the levy so it is paid at the till. I haven't seen any other retailers do this but there might be some.

    14. Re:Good precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hey, it's 'for all INTENTS AND PURPOSES', fucknozzle. Lurn tuh speel, m'kay?

    15. Re:Good precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The levy you're referring too is collected on CDs used to record audio material.

      Those bulk data CDs that you're likely talking about have no levy that I'm aware of. IMO.

    16. Re:Good precedent by GrassMunk · · Score: 1

      which is great cause when you download a song you are creating the copy yourself. The Canadian RIAA shot themselves in the foot with that levy.

    17. Re:Good precedent by Elecore · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you pay for everything. I was in Staples the other day, and noticed "Audio CD-Rs" that cost stupidly more than the normal data CDs sitting right beside them. Yes, I'm in Canada.

    18. Re:Good precedent by Bill+Hayden · · Score: 3, Funny
      for all intensive purposes

      Allow me to introduce myself: I am the grammar nazi. Your remark was cringe-inducing, so I felt compelled to mention that you really, truly meant to write "for all intents and purposes".

      --
      Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
    19. Re:Good precedent by reidbold · · Score: 2, Insightful
      --
      -Reid
    20. Re:Good precedent by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

      While, of course, completly ignoring payoffs to smaller bands who actually need it. At least all 9 judges in that court of theirs has the sense to tell the RIAA to go fuck themselves; in the US our judges are on crack and can't quite grasp what the country is about as they rule our constitutional rights away. Frankly, I think canadians like to try appeasement first, just like the British, and if that doesn't work, then they say something like "guy, what are you trying to pull here, eh?" and get all angry. I don't particularily like the idea that they're charging on blank media, since that is also levying people who have nothing to do with piracy. Then again, we're also talking about a country that, when outlawing smoking around children, used the law to keep kids out of donut shops.

    21. Re:Good precedent by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      Oh no it's not....

      Try going to buy CDRs at a place that does charge the levy. At London Drugs, for example (who by the way is is actively campaigning to have said levy repealed). You'll see them ring up the CDs, then ring up the levy as a separate item, just like when you buy a bottle of pop and they throw the deposit on after.

      Besides, do the math: The current CD levy is 21 cents per disk, or $21 per hundred. There's one place in town I buy 100 CD-Rs for $19.99. You're telling me this place is losing $1.01 in levy cost, plus the cost of the stack of blanks for the sheer joy of supplying me with my blank CDs? No....

    22. Re:Good precedent by GTarrant · · Score: 1
      Actually, unlike in the United States (where overruling many fundamental Supreme Court decisions would require amending the Constitution), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (similar to our Constitution) does grant the government/Parliament the ability to overrule the Supreme Court of Canada without meddling with the Charter itself, through the use of the "notwithstanding clause." In essence, it gives the option for the government to pretty much overrule any court ruling that it does not like or agree with, much more easily than it could amend the Charter.

      It is rarely, if ever, used. In fact, one of the big issues in the recent Canadian election was whether or not the Conservatives (who ended up as the Opposition, I think) would have used the clause to overrule a number of recent judgments. While the leader of the party (Harper) wouldn't say yes or no, other party bigwigs seemed eager to talk about how quickly they'd move to strip away rights using the Clause. I think it was one of the things that cost them election momentum.

      T.

    23. Re:Good precedent by Kyosuke77 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "The Canadian RIAA shot themselves in the foot with that levy."

      I assume you mean the CRIA.

      I wouldn't say they shot themselves in the foot, though. The organizations that collect on this levy reap about $24 million between them each year.

      --
      GET THEM INSIDE THE VAULT!
    24. Re:Good precedent by Kyosuke77 · · Score: 1
      "'Audio CD-Rs' that cost stupidly more than the normal data CDs"

      Yes, they do, and here's why.

      --
      GET THEM INSIDE THE VAULT!
    25. Re:Good precedent by reidbold · · Score: 1

      Well it's possible that London drugs imports the cd's themselves. Then yes, they could charge the levy at the register. But the levy is on wholesale cost, not retail.

      The cheapest i've seen 100 cd's is about 35 bucks at price club (price costo or whatever it's called now). And the levy is built into that price.

      --
      -Reid
    26. Re:Good precedent by sparks · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's lucky there are two different kinds of CDs really - what if you could record audio on the data ones? People would just buy the data CDs and avoid paying the levy! That would be awful!

    27. Re:Good precedent by smacktits · · Score: 1

      I am the grammar nazi.

      Should that not be "I am the Grammar Nazi"?

    28. Re:Good precedent by Boiled+Frog · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of that. That's why I don't buy my CD-R's at London Drugs.

      Last time that I went to London Drugs, they had a sign explaining why it was more fair to break out the levy so that you are aware of the amount that the copyright levy is.

      However, I think this is disingenuous. I think that it is a marketing ploy to allow them to advertise lower prices for their CD-R's.

    29. Re:Good precedent by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 1

      Just got back from my favourite blank media retailer (west-end TO).

      100 CDR - $20.99
      50 DVD-R - $29.99

      Now, the CDR should have the $0.21 (proposed increase to $0.59) levy built into the price (but pretty clearly don't) and the proposed (none currently in place) levy for DVD-R is $2.25 (IIRC).
      No point, except that legal media is going to get expensive pretty damned quick!

    30. Re:Good precedent by jesseraf · · Score: 1

      Although it may not entirely applicable to this case, your assertion that:

      It is pretty hard to overrule the SUPREME COURT.

      is incorrect. In certain circumstances Legislation (Federal or Provincal) can make use of the "notwithstanding clause" located in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. IANAL, so I'm not sure how applicable it is in this case, but I thought I'd point out that the notwithstanding clause can and has been used before in legislation that is thought to be in violation of the charter.

      Check out this

    31. Re:Good precedent by Niebieski · · Score: 1

      The highest court can't be overruled, but new legislation can make this decision irrelevant. This ruling is only based on existing legislation.

    32. Re:Good precedent by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1
      The ruling is based on existing legislation, but the effects of the ruling are applicable on a broader level.

      If the Supreme Court says "Law X's claim Y is not kosher," then that's that on the issue, short of the court declaring otherwise in a later ruling, or playing with the constitution and the like, which is effectively impossible in Canada.

      If new legislation trying to reimpose the original law is passed, the Supreme Court can just say "piss off" again, and SCAMP Canada is left right back on square one.

      -PS

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    33. Re:Good precedent by mentokthemindtaker · · Score: 1
      Then again, we're also talking about a country that, when outlawing smoking around children, used the law to keep kids out of donut shops.
      Source please.
    34. Re:Good precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what he means to say is that for purposes which are a little less intensive, that he hasn't been disowned.

    35. Re:Good precedent by sabernet · · Score: 1

      It's already been decided that DVD-Rs will not have the levy in place as for 100 CDs for 20.99, that must be shady, I have yet to see any below 35-ish$

    36. Re:Good precedent by Cheffo+Jeffo · · Score: 1

      Hadn't heard that about the DVD-Rs (but makes sense given the wording of the legislation).

      As for the CDR's ... definitely shady ... that's why I make the drive and pay cash ...

    37. Re:Good precedent by sabernet · · Score: 1

      "As for the CDR's ... definitely shady ... that's why I make the drive and pay cash ..."

      fair 'nuf:P

    38. Re:Good precedent by sabernet · · Score: 1

      source??
      If anything, anti-smoking legislation in Canada forces people to smoke outside of donut shops at least 10 feet away(or something like that, there is a distance limit).
      Heck, in more and more provinces and cities, smoking in bars is outlawed(NB for one; Halifax, NS to an extent)

    39. Re:Good precedent by sabernet · · Score: 1

      note: I am certainly not backing the Conservatives(shudder)

      however, it should be noted that the liberals created the notwithstanding clause...(NDP all the way:P)

    40. Re:Good precedent by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      So: 1) Sepreme court rules downloading and burning legal 2) Govt of Canada passed cd-r levy to pay artists for lost works. We can conclude that you are neither legally wrong or morally corrupt. Download and burn away!

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    41. Re:Good precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately for us there is a levy on data CDs also, albeit less than for the dedicated *audio* CDs

    42. Re:Good precedent by HermanZA · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, not as simple as that. The court system in canada is a bit weird. The provinces generally accept the rulings from the Supreme Court, although they do not really have to. The provincial Courts of Queen's Bench is legally equal in stature to the Supreme Court. It is theoretically possible to be found guilty in Ottawa and not guilty in Alberta and then you'll be fine provided that you stay in Alberta. Because Canada is a Commonwealth member, the ultimate court would be the Law Lords in London UK, although it has to be an extremely exceptional thing to ever go there - about once in 100 years - if that often.

    43. Re:Good precedent by sbermunk · · Score: 1

      London drugs adds the levy at the register purposely to make their point about it being unfair. Unfortunately their inventory system doesn't have the ability to show the levy separately on the shelf/display price-tag... or else they would show it there also.

    44. Re:Good precedent by Omega+Leader-(P12) · · Score: 1

      I know a place in Hamilton $19.95/100. They have a chain of stores (5 in different markets across Ontario) always near the university and don't appear too shady. They do a lot of business with mid sized corporations.

    45. Re:Good precedent by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      Me thinks our Queen could do it.

    46. Re:Good precedent by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Speaking of CDRs, as a Canadian I pay levies (which are forwarded to the record companies) on all blank media that I purchase"

      Some goes to record companies, but most goes to artists, composers and performers.

      One one level, it makes little difference, as you've already forked out the cash. But, if you (like so many Slashdotters) happen to kneel at the shrine of "record companies bad, artists good" it's an important distinction.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    47. Re:Good precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should that not be "I am the Grammar Nazi"?

      Only if it is a title and not just a description.

    48. Re:Good precedent by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know if I count as a source, but the province where I live has enacted some anti-smoking laws that prohibit tobaco retailers from even DISPLAYING cigarettes in places where underage buyers can see them. There have been convienience stores (in particular, a Klien's location on Vic and Sask drive in case any /.'ers are in the same town as me) that have decided to display smokes and ban kids. It's not out of the realm of possibilities that a Timmy Ho's has decided to do the same thing.

      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    49. Re:Good precedent by belmolis · · Score: 1

      The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was indeed once the court of ultimate appeal for Canada, but ceased to be for criminal cases in 1933 and for civil cases in 1949. Since 1949 the Supreme Court of Canada has been the highest court for all cases. Indeed, most Commonwealth countries have now eliminated appeals to the JCPC. The provincial courts are now subject to decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada - they are not legal equals. Here is a chart of the current system. By way of example, in the important aboriginal rights case, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

    50. Re:Good precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait.. you're telling me that there are TWO KINDS OF CDRS?! You mean I'm not supposed to write audio to "DATA" CDS?! Fuck, I just wasted $15 on that spindle of 50 CDs!!

    51. Re:Good precedent by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Still the best to come from Canada since Rush.
      give em a hand folks.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  2. I couldn't pass this up... by Mz6 · · Score: 1, Funny
    "Edward Scissorhands was one of many readers to link to the Globe and Mail's article, too."

    My goodness, how does he type? Must be why we couldn't just accept the story he submitted. Probably had words mispelled and everything... we understand.

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:I couldn't pass this up... by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      My goodness, how does he type? Must be why we couldn't just accept the story he submitted. Probably had words mispelled and everything... we understand.

      Don't you remember how skilled Edward is with his fingers? I bet he would have no problem typing at >800 characters per minute, if only they gave him a steel keyboard.

  3. so they don't owe the queen? by iomanip · · Score: 5, Funny

    are royalties treated different in a monarchy?

    1. Re:so they don't owe the queen? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The monarchy is more symbolic then anything, parliment and prime minister still hold all the power.

    2. Re:so they don't owe the queen? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      Well the Queen is represented in Canada by the Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson.

      And she has a pret-ty big expense account (canadaonline.about.com/b/a/067960.htm)

    3. Re:so they don't owe the queen? by iomanip · · Score: 0

      Yeah, thanks for ruining my pun.

    4. Re:so they don't owe the queen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      She does still have powers though.

      Remember when Mulroney wanted to pass the GST and phoned the Queen to have new senators seats appointed so he could fill them and push through his bill?

      But you're right, she's good for selling quait teacups with her picture, thats pretty much it.

      Proasted anon as mod

    5. Re:so they don't owe the queen? by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Actually, if I'm not mistaken (and I concede that I may be)... the position of Prime Minister is, interestingly, not defined by law... the Prime Minister is simply the leader of the ruling party. There does not have to be one if the party wished to structure itself differently.

  4. Good news by xyvimur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good to hear that at least some people - and this time lawyers - have some reasonable ways of thinking.

    1. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could it be the deep pockets of the defendants: Bell, AOL, and Sprint are the reason for the good news? The plaintif was SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) a relatively small, poor group of artists. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good decision, but I'm just saying it helps to have billionnaire multinational corporations fighting for your rights. Or are they really fighting for their right to charge you $50/mo so you can download stuff for "free"?

    2. Re:Good news by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      I've called the Supreme Court of Canada many names, but Lackeys-of-the-Music-Industry isn't one of 'em.

    3. Re:Good news by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good decision, but I'm just saying it helps to have billionnaire multinational corporations fighting for your rights. Or are they really fighting for their right to charge you $50/mo so you can download stuff for "free"?

      Good point. Though I'd like to point out that broadband is canada is much cheaper than it is in the USA. 3.0/640K DSL for CDN$35/month, no caps, limits, or threatening letters when you go over your 'unlimited' quota. (I don't work for this company and I am not their customer either. But my friends who live in DSL capable areas like them.)

    4. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet access is far cheaper in Canada than the US. I get a 5000/800 connection for CAN$45 / month = US$32 / month.

      Since you can't download "for free" in the US, how does your argument make any sense whatsoever.

    5. Re:Good news by abysmilliard · · Score: 3, Informative

      SOCAN isn't poor. SOCAN has LOTS and LOTS of cash.

      The reason being that every artist and label in the country pays into them, and they charg for radio play of members' music pretty much everywhere.

      In fact, I remember a lawsuit with a local restaurant who was playing CDs over the stereo system and got the stick from SOCAN because he wasn't paying his royalties (not that there was much sympathy in the community for him, since that guy was a raging asshole).

      I could be wrong on the details, but I'm sure that SOCAN has a lot of agreements that allow them to pull in the cash. Not on the scale of American record industry groups, granted, but in Canadian terms, they ain't broke.

      Here's a link to their "Tariff" system, which details how they charge whom, and where: SOCAN Tariffs

    6. Re:Good news by Vip · · Score: 2, Informative

      Telus, a big ISP in Canada, specifically advertises by saying "Download music for free!" Not only that, but for signing up, you get a free MP3 player.

      Yes, the "billionaire corp" is "really fighting for their right to charge you $24.95/mo so you can download stuff for 'free'".

      Vip

    7. Re:Good news by iantri · · Score: 1
      The plaintif was SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) a relatively small, poor group of artists

      Err.. SOCAN is the Canadian RIAA. They also lost an earlier demand for the names of file sharers. Their pockets are plenty deep.

    8. Re:Good news by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Why does the (claimed) size of SOCAN matter when they are wrong? As a creator I believe that fellow creators should get paid when they are due, but what SOCAN is asking for is not due to them at all.

      From an article written earlier today:

      Rather than paying a mandatory levy on blank media, those customers that wish simplified access to and the ability to "share" music outside of their home with their friends should (along with their friends) subscribe to appropriate collectives and pay a yearly fee to do so. This would, for instance, authorize non-commercial P2P distribution of the most standards compliant version of a file (standard file formats like MPEG/MP3, OGG, etc, rather than non-standard DRM files). This proposal was also promoted by EFF in the USA, and Canada has a head-start in that many of the required collectives are already formed if only they modernized their thinking.

      The collectives have not yet offered this obvious option. They have gone to great lengths to avoid taking the obvious easy route, including trying to create a mandatory levy on ISPs which the Supreme Court recently rejected.

      While the recording industry continues to claim that Internet users are infringing their rights it should be remembered that the ball has always been in their court to remedy the problem. No legislative changes are required for them to move forward with modern business models, and end the "cold war" they started with music fans.

  5. This is a good thing by TEMM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am glad that this ruling came so quickly after the ruling that ISP's are not required by law to produce the names of people on their networks who are suspected filesharers.

    1. Re:This is a good thing by WinnipegDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      As a Canadian, I just want to tell you how these rulings all effect me and my family and friends: I buy lots of music, movies and software. Lots. More than lots.

      I download music and movies and (very occasionally) games without fear of reprisal, since the Supreme Court here actually interprets our law correctly, by reading both the letter and the spirit of the law.

      One supports the other. If a movie/song is terrible, I delete it. If it's good, I buy it, and often, other movies/songs by the same artists. If you track my spending habits, my downloading is directly linked to my spending. I'm the same way with books, I hit the library and if I read something I know I want to read again, I buy it.

      I know this is a rant, but I hope the rest of the world realizes that THIS IS HOW COPYRIGHTS SHOULD WORK!

    2. Re:This is a good thing by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly - would you buy a car without test-driving it? Absolutely not. Expecting people to fork out tens of dollars on something that could very well turn out to be unstomachable crap is asking a lot. Letting us get our media in a convenient way means we can properly determine whether we like a particular piece. If we do, we're inclined to buy it. What's wrong with that? The only losers are those who rely on people not being able to see how crap their movie/album is before going to see/buy it. They need that money, as they damn well know no-one's going to spend a single cent on seeing/buying it if they knew what rubbish it was.

    3. Re:This is a good thing by Honest+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I could not agree more and I've been saying the same thing for years in as many places as possible.

      As Americans, we have to be a tad more cautious about what we 'share' but doesn't really effect our downloading (while running peerguardian, to make sure downloads don't come from the riaa/mpaa lol).

      Joking aside though - when I have downloaded in the past it was directly tied to what I bought later. I simply wont buy music/movies I have not downloaded and I simply will not pay $20 for a cd that two years from now I can buy at $9 on the discount rack. This also comes into play with our economy right now - being in this recession (they call it what they want but until they can sustain their family on less than $20,000/yr I don't even hear the words coming out of their unknowledgeable mouths) it's directly effected how people buy things in this Country and 'yes' sales are down (and will stay down) in some segments of music/movies - whooptie doo - when everyone's working and happy, they spend more money....

      Anyway - I'm glad the will of the People is heard in Canada on this issue.. Too bad the pockets are lined too thickly here in the US for the common people to be heard anymore.

      -Peace!

    4. Re:This is a good thing by Borg453b · · Score: 2, Funny

      But how can I sell you shit, when you know its shit?

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    5. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get too comfy. The NDP supports WIPO. That road could lead to a Canadian DMCA.

      Wouldn't be a big deal normally, but they could have greater influence in a minority gov't. Lets hope they focus on things they understand, like health care.

    6. Re:This is a good thing by Fizzleboink · · Score: 1

      But you have to give the car back after test-driving it. Your analogy would work if after downloading the music, you have to delete it after a couple of listens.

    7. Re:This is a good thing by Toresica · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      But how can I sell you shit, when you know its shit?

      Easy, don't tell us it's shit. Bill Gates is making a fortune doing that!

      Wouldn't be a big deal normally, but they could have greater influence in a minority gov't. Lets hope they focus on things they understand, like health care.

      Yes, but Paul Martin announced that he could do without a formal coalition.

      One supports the other. If a movie/song is terrible, I delete it. If it's good, I buy it, and often, other movies/songs by the same artists. If you track my spending habits, my downloading is directly linked to my spending. I'm the same way with books, I hit the library and if I read something I know I want to read again, I buy it.

      That's what borrowing from your friends is for. Where do you find out about these movies, songs, and books, if not from your friends?

    8. Re:This is a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On the other hand, once I have seen a downloaded movie, I rarely want to buy DVD of it. I usually don't watch a movie more than a couple of times, even if it's a good one.

    9. Re:This is a good thing by olrik666 · · Score: 1


      "Exactly - would you buy a car without test-driving it? Absolutely not. Expecting people to fork out tens of dollars on something that could very well turn out to be unstomachable crap is asking a lot."

      Well, your test drive won't tell you much more than how the car "feels" overall (handling, acceleration, braking) and its looks. The car you actually end up buying could very well be a lemon and the whole line can have reliability problems.

      As for "test driving" music, films or books, I sometimes rely on people called "critics". Then I decide if I take the plunge.

    10. Re:This is a good thing by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Exactly - would you buy a car without test-driving it? Absolutely not. Expecting people to fork out tens of dollars on something that could very well turn out to be unstomachable crap is asking a lot.

      Just to play devil's advocate here, I'm sure you do this all the time when you go to a restaurant you haven't been to before. It's easy to drop $15 or $20 on a meal and not know whether it's good. Not many places will offer you a sample of that prime rib steak you're about to order.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    11. Re:This is a good thing by nacturation · · Score: 1

      This also comes into play with our economy right now - being in this recession (they call it what they want but until they can sustain their family on less than $20,000/yr I don't even hear the words coming out of their unknowledgeable mouths)

      So if the economy weren't in a recession you *could* sustain your family on $20,000 a year? I don't understand this logic.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    12. Re:This is a good thing by WinnipegDragon · · Score: 1
      Canadian DMCA would never happen. They would have to overturn the Copyright Act in it's entirety.

      Besides, 19 seats out of 308 might be enough to withold a majority vote, but it is not nearly enough to push through something of their own agenda. Unless it's on the Liberal's agenda, the NDP really have no say of importance.

    13. Re:This is a good thing by sabernet · · Score: 1

      As for "test driving" music, films or books, I sometimes rely on people called "critics". Then I decide if I take the plunge.
      The last time I agreed with Roeper, I shot myself in the foot to repent my sins

    14. Re:This is a good thing by sabernet · · Score: 1

      that is your problem

      why are DVD sales up if the buyer could just:

      Ilegally:
      download the movie

      Legally:
      Watch it in theatres
      Rent it at Blockbuster

    15. Re:This is a good thing by olrik666 · · Score: 1

      "The last time I agreed with Roeper, I shot myself in the foot to repent my sins."

      LOL!

      First of all, you can't "win them all", so to speak. Second of all, you pretty much have to rely on consensus.
      Here's a couple of sites that can help you make a decision :

      Rotten Tomatoes
      and
      Marquee

    16. Re:This is a good thing by rocca · · Score: 1

      Or what if you could test-drive that car forever and never have to return it. Would you go back and drop $30,000 on it?

    17. Re:This is a good thing by dave420 · · Score: 1

      krispy kreme give you free donuts! my point stands... ;)

  6. Why waste the time? by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just don't see why this needed to be decided on. Telcos aren't responsible for people who discuss illegal activities. How would an ISP?

    ISPs are just carriers and they shouldn't have even had to waste the Court's time to show that.

    1. Re:Why waste the time? by xyvimur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well... recently we can observe many strange precedents, especially in the US.
      Most of us know that it's obvious, unfortunatelly there are groups which want to convince people that ISP are responsible.

    2. Re:Why waste the time? by Boiled+Frog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the copyright holders disagree with you (and the ISPs). They wanted the ISPs to pay but the ISPs didn't want to. In any dispute like this, the courts will get involved. Fortunately, they sided with the ISPs.

    3. Re:Why waste the time? by vijaya_chandra · · Score: 1

      Not that I would support it,
      but if there existed applications similar to squid or some p2p caching apps for the telephone networks, I am dead sure there would have been some or the other discussions like this regarding telcos as well

    4. Re:Why waste the time? by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Telcos aren't responsible for people who discuss illegal activities. How would an ISP?

      Because (in the US at least) ISP are not defined by the law to be Common Carriers.

      A Common Carrier is required to carry whatever content is provided on a non-discriminatory basis. That means they don't get to drop something just because they don't like it (as ISP's routinely do with SPAM and such). But because they have to carry it (even if it may be illegal) they can't be held responsible for doing so.

      This ruling could be read as a move toward common carrier-like status for ISP's. That could be good for people who want to pass MP3's around, bad for people who want SPAMers to not be able to fill their inbox with crud.

      However, if the ruling had gone the other way, we might well have seen ISP's get a certified right to block SPAM, MP3's, and anything else they didn't like, including HTTP requests to competing search engines, and VoIP packets where the ISP isn't getting a cut of the call toll.

      It's an interesting ruling, but the roulette wheel is still spinning, and the ball is still bouncing.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    5. Re:Why waste the time? by Bishop · · Score: 1

      This case was not a waste of time. This is how Bristish style legal systems are supposed to work.

    6. Re:Why waste the time? by pegr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A Common Carrier is required to carry whatever content is provided on a non-discriminatory basis. That means they don't get to drop something just because they don't like it (as ISP's routinely do with SPAM and such). But because they have to carry it (even if it may be illegal) they can't be held responsible for doing so.

      But unlike telcos, ISPs provide more than a wire. They provide services, such as email and DNS. Using your logic, I could see that an ISP, as a common carrier, would have to carry the spam, but as a service provider could then very well not deliver it. It's mildly similar to call-blocking features sold by the telcos. Sound reasonable?

    7. Re:Why waste the time? by BishopBerkeley · · Score: 1

      Exactly. After all, nobody ever holds the phone company liable for all the gambling that happens over its lines. In fact, the law specifically fingers the individual using the phone linne for gambling as the culprit, and not the phone co. So, why should ISPs be treated differently?

      Alas, this probably means that the interested parties (like RIAA) are willing to go after anyone with money, or they are willing to shut down a medium they can't control. Or they don't want to live with. What a shame.

      --
      "...who search the reason of things
      Are those who bring the most sorrow on themselves." --Euripides, The Medea
    8. Re:Why waste the time? by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

      Wellll.... the music industry took the ISPs to court, that's why it had to be decided on. There is a difference of opinion; ya can't settle things; you go to court. Things finally ended up at the SC. The SC could have just said they wouldn't hear the case but this is better. There is a definitive ruling.

    9. Re:Why waste the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      strange precedents or strange presidents?

    10. Re:Why waste the time? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "ISPs are just carriers and they shouldn't have even had to waste the Court's time to show that."

      They had to rule that ISPs were just carriers. Don't forget how versatile the net is. It isn't the least bit surprising that they had to have discussions about it. They don't see it as 1s and 0's like we do.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    11. Re:Why waste the time? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Exactly, given that many spammers have more explicit language and imagery than an obscene phone call.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    12. Re:Why waste the time? by Seek_1 · · Score: 1

      I believe the problem here is that you're trying to use logic in an argument with a Musician's Lobbyist group...

    13. Re:Why waste the time? by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      It's not a "Musicians' Lobbyist Group", it's a Recording Labels Lobbyist Group.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    14. Re:Why waste the time? by Toresica · · Score: 1

      ISPs are just carriers and they shouldn't have even had to waste the Court's time to show that.

      Why not? What else are the Supreme Court going to do all day? :p

    15. Re:Why waste the time? by Eraser_ · · Score: 1

      Take your idea a step further, Telcos, with common carrier status, only filter what you ask and often pay them to filter. Same with ISP's. Make it a checkbox when you sign up: Would you like us to filter SPAM for FREE*? Who would say no?

      A lot of people look at ISPs as "routing to the internet", wether they know it or not. They want their Hotmail and their eBay and their MSN homepage. Telephone calls are the same way, they want their wife, their husband, or their friends to pickup when they key in the address. Same thing, different protocol.

      *Disclaimer on how spam filtering isn't 100% effective, etc etc.

    16. Re:Why waste the time? by johnos · · Score: 1

      The point here is not what they can choose to carry, but what they could be required not to carry. The significance of this ruling is that CRIA (our RIAA) can't bring suit to force ISPs to filter content. That may have no bearing on the government passing a law on the matter, but I'd rather deal with my MP than a battery of corporate lawyers.

    17. Re:Why waste the time? by way2trivial · · Score: 1

      ISPs provide more than a wire. They provide services, such as email and DNS
      email=Voicemail
      dns=directory information

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    18. Re:Why waste the time? by Atticka · · Score: 0

      Or, block spammers much like Telus is blocking direct dials because of modem hijacking.

      same cure, different disease.

      --
      No sig here...
  7. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The US supreme court found the atmosphere, specifically oxygena and nitrogen responsible for copyright violations since the atmosphere is the medium through which pirated music is heard.

    The atmosphere's lawyer, Moria, had no comment, but whooshed out of the courthouse with a whistling sound.

    1. Re:In other news by DaShiz · · Score: 1

      am i the only one who sees this as mistaken interest. 1st you cant use napster because it allows people to misappropriately download or share files even though some are considered acceptable. now you can do the same for isp's. sounds like this seems entirely unfare on terms of relational or equity law.

    2. Re:In other news by kabocox · · Score: 1

      The US supreme court found the atmosphere, specifically oxygena and nitrogen responsible for copyright violations since the atmosphere is the medium through which pirated music is heard.

      The atmosphere's lawyer, Moria, had no comment, but whooshed out of the courthouse with a whistling sound


      In other news, all RIAA personnel have died because oxygen was removed from their presence. On a side note, atmosphere is considering removing its presence from any RIAA music source.

      The surviving RIAA musics were thrilled until told that no one would hear their music in a vacuum.

    3. Re:In other news by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      I believe the diffrence is intent, design and quantity.

      Intent:
      ISPs: Music files? Whats that?
      Napster: It's not clear if the RIAA made this argument or not.
      On one side Napster did originally say you'll be able to download your favoret artsist.
      But it seams to me they expected the artsist to sign on the idea rather than to actually premote piracy.
      However it dosen't look that way to the corts (or many Napster users)

      Design:
      ISP: Download music? Well if you want to know how do a search on the Internet the information is there somewhere.
      Napster: Download music, Thats all we do.

      Quantity:
      ISP: Let me check, Web searches on Google for porn, Bunch of Slashdotters, AIM clinets, Oh here. a Napster user.. I think.
      Napster: Ok now just how do I find ubplublished freely available artwork amoung the Brittny Spears soungs?

      --
      I don't actually exist.
  8. Well, good and bad. by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The ISPs are in a good position to help in such cases, and may very well be essential to law enforcement in other areas as well. The problem with such a ruling is that sometimes you need to put some stress on a company to get any positive response from them with regards to things like spam.

    On the other hand, if prosecuting copyright violations becomes too difficult to be worth it maybe a better system will ensue?

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  9. Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by b0r0din · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's see: Pros
    1) Not hated by the world
    2) Speak mostly English
    3) Hockey
    4) Weaker music industry lobby.
    5) Lower Crime Rate
    6) No Bushes

    Cons:
    1) Cold
    2) Curling
    3) French-speaking People
    4) French-speaking People

    Not much of a decision here.

    1. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...but you forgot the most important pro. Tim Horton's coffee.

    2. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by tod_miller · · Score: 1

      Pro's

      7) They love the Queen of England
      8) Terrence and Phillip
      9) Celine Dion
      10) Cool flag

      I love Canada! and Canadians! I know a couple too.

      French and French speaking people aren't that bad, they lend you anime CD's if you are nice. :-)

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    3. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the French are awesome. They even get their own political party (the Bloc Quebecois) to make things difficult in Parliament for the rest of the country. Don't believe me? Ask the government executive in Alberta who's being forced to learn to speak French or lose his job.

    4. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pros
      1) Except for the US and Canada. ;-)
      2) Depends on where you are. Eastern Canada has some STRANGE dialects
      3) Yup. Can't argue with that.
      4) Makes me want to go buy a flag.
      5) That's mainly because everyone is too busy getting munchies to bother with much crime
      6) Oh, we have plenty of bushes. We just don't have any of the George W. variety.

      Cons:
      1) It's only a little chilly 10 months of the year.
      2) It's better than football.
      3) Stay out of the east
      4) Come live in the west, and you too can shake your fist at the east.

      So says this Canuck anyways.

    5. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Let's see: Pros
      1) Not hated by the world
      2) Speak mostly English
      3) Hockey
      4) Weaker music industry lobby.
      5) Lower Crime Rate
      6) No Bushes

      You forgot
      0) Real Beer

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    6. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      And the animal that represents Canada is not on the endangered species list.

    7. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, curling is associated with English-speaking People.

      So, your Cons list should look like that:

      Cons:
      1) Cold
      2) Curling
      3) English-Speaking People playing curling

    8. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by canwaf · · Score: 5, Funny
      9) Celine Dion


      You have got to be kidding? I apologize on a weekly basis on behalf of Canada for allowing Celine Dion to wreak havoc on the world.
    9. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      3) French-speaking People
      4) French-speaking People


      What's wrong with French Speaking people !?!?!

      I would give my life to be with one like that

    10. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You've obviously never been to Quebec. The women are unbelievable, and overall people are generally down-to-earth and cool. Montreal and QC are beautiful old cities.

      And I repeat: incredible women. If you're an American, you've never seen anything like it. Forget about the obese nightmares you're used to (I just watched "Supersize Me" - good LORD!)

      And curling is hilarious. How is it a con?

    11. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah. Up here in Canada, we have some really nice beaver. We have more beaver than we know what do with. They get into our homes, our places of business... And we have to chase them out.

      So when you're chasing beaver, nothing refreshes you better than a nice cold Molson Canadian.

    12. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Space+Coyote · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dude, have you _been_ to Montreal in the summer? Learn to speak some French, it's worth it for the ladies :)

      --
      ___
      Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
    13. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thanks for reminding me the Monty Python joke:
      American beer is like making love in a canoe: it's fucking close to water!

    14. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most anglos would agree that it's not the French Canadians that we have issues with ... it's their continual separatist whining. Sick to death of it. Shut up already.

      Now, Poutine for all!

    15. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Dr.Zong · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I wish I had mod points +1 funny ;)

      --

      Party?!? What kind of party is this? Where's the damn keg?
      Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit
    16. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      I'd like to correct point 4 slightly: the music industry lobby isn't stronger, our laws and courts are just stronger.

      I suppose that semantically, those are almost equivalent, though.

    17. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by tod_miller · · Score: 1

      > I apologize on a weekly basis on behalf of Canada for allowing Celine Dion to wreak havoc on the world.

      I forgot, there is no sarcasm modifier :-)

      Doesn't Terrence impregnate her at one point? :-)

      "Oh Phillip you farted!"

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    18. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a 'French' French, who happens to be bilingual, I have found the grand-parent comment very funny. French people are often on their american-belgian-swiss bashing, but it doesn't matter. It's just a joke. It's like saying all americans are fat and stupid: it's completely false, but it's funny.
      And if you happen to come to Paris, try Arkham Comics, 22 Souflot Street, the best american comics shop in France!

    19. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      I wish I had a copy of the video to go with it. ;-) I'll see if I can find a copy of it when I get home, and throw it on the web for ya. =)

    20. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by the_weasel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Don't apologize. We had to put her somewhere, and lok at the nice prison the built for her in the middle of the desert.

      Sometimes preserving the integrity of Canadian culture means you have to sabotage american culture.

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    21. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Jason+Hood · · Score: 1

      I dunno. I have been to Toronto, Montreal and various parts of NS for years. In all three I was treated like scum by french speaking people while patronizing shops, restaruants and parks. It was very similar to my experiences in France where if you were on fire and someone had a bucket of water intended for some flowers, the flowers would get seniority over you. It wasnt just me, its the people I travel with all over the world with too.

      No offense, I would rather visit or live in countries where foreigners are welcomed such as Australia, GB, Germany, US, Spain, Mexico, Brazil and places like that.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
    22. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but French Canadians are extremely nice people

      You've never lived in Quebec have you? Unless you also happen to be a French Canadian, I'd say this statement was only true for about 70% on the French Canadians: The other 30% have a chip on their shoulder as far as English Canadian's go (and to be fair, even get on the nerves of other French Canadians most of the time).

    23. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by the_weasel · · Score: 0

      Nice spelling, maybe next time I should read my post over before submitting it.

      "LOOK at the nice prison THEY built for her"

      sorry about that

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    24. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Ah, but we have temperate summers (in southwestern Ontario anyway), nobody in their right mind really watches curling, and you can ignore the Quebecers. Some of them want to separate anyway ;^)

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    25. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by RedK · · Score: 1

      C'est quoi qu'il y a de mal a parler français ?

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    26. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Chemical+Boy · · Score: 0

      "Canadians don't tolerate racism is any form, so I don't think we want you up here"

      HAHAHA...

      Seriously though... He was talking about French Speaking people. Not any particular ethnic group.

    27. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Lain1488 · · Score: 1

      VA CHIER, comprends tu ca en francais ?
      looser.

    28. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by xutopia · · Score: 1
      I have to disagree with:

      "It's like saying all americans are fat and stupid: it's completely false, but it's funny."

      If there weren't any fat and stupid Americans that statement would be *completely* false. Since there are lots of fat and stupid Americans the statement is somewhat true, therefore not *completely false*.

      Also, I don't take account of the skinny but stupid or the fat but intelligent which also make up part of the American population. If anything the statement is a generalization and if anything it ain't funny but sad.

    29. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by forgetmenot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blah blah blah blah...
      Apparently you don't watch the CBC. French bashing and Anglophone bashing is 30% of the humour on our STATE-SPONSORED television network. Canadians don't tolerate racism? Apparently we tolerate people with no sense of humour though. I wonder which is worse.

      BTW.. I would appreciate it if in the future you didn't presume to speak on behalf of me.

    30. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Cruciform · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      7) I don't love the Queen of England. In fact the Royal Family is the upper-class equivalent of inbred trailer trash.

      8) I never understood why two Canadian characters had silly British accents. But it's Southpark so you have to love them.

      9) Celine Dion??? Jeez, you'd think that by now foreign relations with the US would have collapsed when they realized we exiled her to Las Vegas.

      10) Very cool flag. Except that the Marijuana Party try to smoke it when there's a shortage.

    31. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by dhalgren99 · · Score: 1

      No Doot Aboot It, Eh? ;-)

    32. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by gnucurry · · Score: 1
      I don't think that last comment is funny, but racist and mean-spiritired. Making fun of a minority

      I think he was kind of making a joke. In all seriousness, when I meet a (Parisian) French person, I treat that person as if it were any other human being, and then I find out it is unbearably rude and thinks I'm stupid.

      I don't dislike French people, only the ones I've gotten to know

    33. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Forgot three things:
      7) Free health care
      8) Polite people
      9) Chicks can go around topless.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    34. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, who needs French in MTL during the holidays? Everytime I visit I tap a different American college student. Chicks from Penn State are *easy* :)

    35. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by machineghost · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh yeah, foreigners are completely welcome here in the US. Unless they are muslim. Or look muslim. Or don't look muslim, but speak Arabic. Or even something that sounds Arabic. Or they do none of the above but wear a turban. Or they're French.

      Or they are Indian visiting Silicon Valley. Or Mexican or Latin American visiting, well any of the southern states. Or...

      I could go on, but I think I've beaten my point in to the ground. For a country made almost entirely of immigrants (seeing as how we did such a good job of clearing out the locals) you'd think we'd be a tolerant people. But then you'd turn on a talk radio station, and realize you were quite wrong.

    36. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curling = the best chance for a geek to make it to the Olympics. Most 'world-class' curlers are middle-aged women. Why? Because no one else even bothers. It's like that joke on the Simpsons about making it on the Canadian basketball team, except it's actually true.

    37. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      If we don't tolerate any form of racism then why is Quebec allowed to enforce a law that REQUIRES all signs to be predominately French, and all English or other lettering be smaller.

      French pride is one thing. Quashing freedom of speech is another.

      If the owner of a Chinese grocery moves into my neighborhood and wants to make ALL of his signs Chinese, that is his choice. He may be catering to the needs of recent immigrants who haven't been able to adapt to English. There are many senior citizens who come to Canada and find it very hard to learn the language.

      If his choice of language doesn't infringe on MY rights, then the government should butt out. After all, if I took issue with it, I could shop somewhere else.

    38. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by legojenn · · Score: 1

      Take that back. Tim Horton's not tasteless sludge! It's sludge that tastes awful and wreaks havoc on your body.

      --
      I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
    39. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by chaoaretasty · · Score: 1

      Well sounds like they're the only ones who like the queen, most of the people in England either don't like or don't care.

    40. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #9 only applies to Ontario and it is an optional clause not a required one unfortunately.

    41. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by drodver · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm busy that week.

    42. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Canadian, and I agree. I've been treated like dirt everytime I've ever been to Quebec and France, even with my earnest attempts at French (which went over WAY better in France than Quebec... Quebecers are just too proud of their slang dialect to humour an anglo's Parisian). Quebec doesn't have a bad rep across the entire continent for no reason. Now when I visit Montreal I don't even try to accomodate the locals and end up getting treated a lot better and have more fun.

    43. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also have a great number of individuals who don't hesitate to take any opportunity to put on their politically correct cowboy suit and mount their high horse. This group, rather than gently point out a differing viewpoint, unholster their PC shotgun and blast away.

      Rest assured, Canadians aren't all as arrogant as the parent poster and wouldn't presume to speak for all Canadians.

      In fact, this ranter seems pretty intolerant, just the thing he/she/it was blasting away at. I've found that you never change another person's viewpiont by ranting at them.

    44. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Arguments on the quality of beer aside, Canadian beer is available in the US, so that's not really an issue.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    45. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Statements like this bug me.

      • Americans can go on their...
      • ...but French Canadians are...
      • ...I happen to also like Parisians...
      • ...Canadians don't tolerate...
      • ...I don't think we want...

      And finally....

      • ...but grouping them all together is the very definition of stereotyping.

      But then I happen to think that identifying one's self with a nation is right up there with identifying one's self with a race... speaking collectively on behalf of your nation is right up there with speaking collectively on behalf of your race... and excluding or condemning people based on their nation, is right up there with excluding or condemning people based on their race.

      I'm being far too harsh though... I know, you were probably just making an off-the-cuff comment to defend francophone Canadians and it came out wrong. People use "we" and "them" to describe a nation or race all too casually.

    46. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

      Learn to speak some French, it's worth
      it for the ladies :)


      You must be new here...

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    47. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by chaoaretasty · · Score: 1

      Every country has similar generalisations attatched to them, and let's be honest, they aren't exactly the most offensive things ever uttered are they? Most people would be able to take something like that as not serious if you tried to insult someone like that you'd just get laughed at. but it can be useful to add a bit of humour n a situation that isn't being serious, I mean anything that lists curling as bad has to be a joke.

    48. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      " Yeah...but you forgot the most important pro. Tim Horton's coffee. [timhortons.com]"

      FYI: Tim Hortons, the ultimate icon of Canadian culture and ideals, was bought out by Wendy's.

    49. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      il n'y a qu'un "o" dans "loser" - sinon ca veut dire "moins serré"

    50. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't be somewhat true. True is an absolute. Completely false is also redundant. In order to prove that the phrase "all americans are fat and stupid" is false only one smart and/or skinny person needs to be found.

      I would think that a slashdotter would know that.

    51. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by iantri · · Score: 1

      Cons: 1) Not really -- most Canadian live very close to the American border (something like 75% within 300km). In Southern Ontario, the climate is actually a little more moderate than American cities on the opposite site of the Great Lakes, like Buffalo.

    52. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that very interesting. I happen to work and live with and near Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Scientologists, etc. There are many Indians, Mexicans, Cubanos, Puerto Ricans, Russians, Brazilians, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, etc.

      Talk radio hardly is representative of the American population. Most of us are actually nothing like that.

    53. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Pantheraleo2k3 · · Score: 1

      Obvious karma whore, but according to my 8th grade French that would mean "Why is there a problem speaking French?" And the answer probably lies in the Quebec Referendum 1995. Most of the nuttiness from Quebec is concentrated in the Parti Quebecois, which in 1995 tried to seperate from Canada. Then again, there are nice people, and there are the nutcases. You've got them south of the border, where they're called the Religious Right. Quebec Referendum 1995

    54. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      " No Doot Aboot It, Eh? ;-)"

      (Note: We only put the accent on when Americans are around. They think they're laughing at us, but in reality it's us laughing at them for being so damn gullible and easily amused. If they get tired of that, we weird them out with bagged milk. ;-)

    55. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Actually, Canada has been known to export a lot of its very finest beaver, especially to Hollywood: Natasha Henstridge, Pam Anderson, Carrie Anne-Moss among many others are prime examples of top-notch
      Canadian pelts that have ended up, well, er, south of the border.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    56. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Jason+Hood · · Score: 1

      I have never had any problems while visiting in the US. Two of my co-workers are Muslim, and have an Arabic accent. They have been treated very kindly. We mainly visit the midwest, maybe that has something to do with it I dont know. No country is entirely accepting to visitors, especially large ones.

      If you dont like your country (the US) then move. Nothing is stopping you?

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
    57. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Learn to speak some French, it's worth it for the ladies :)"

      Anybody remember that episode of Married with Children where Bud got a bunch of attractive women to attend his party because he said Al and Jefferson were gay?

      Sorry about the OT, your comment just reminded me of that episode.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    58. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Rainier+Wolfecastle · · Score: 1

      Dude, if I had mod-points today, you'd be one richer. Montreal in summer is the most happening place on the planet. /stuck in London

    59. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people don't care for us when we stress for strongly typed languages X-(

    60. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by cellocgw · · Score: 2, Funny

      Making fun of a minority for humor is just about the most base form of comedy there is, congratulations. Americans can go on their stupid as hell (Parisian) French bashing crusade all they want, but French Canadians are extremely nice people who are extremely progressive (and so on)
      OK, in the interests of fair play, ya know why the Newfies were in favor of Quebec separatism? If Quebec leaves Canada, it cuts 3 hours off their drive to Toronto.
      See, you can pick on any province in Canada with minimal effort. Just as can be done w/ any region of the US.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    61. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot another big CON
      Nickelback
      and also punting on 3rd down.

    62. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Bushes? Then whats the use! oh wait you meant george Bush..

    63. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by merdark · · Score: 1

      Hmm. If 90% of the people of a particular country hated you, and continually made fun of you, would YOU like people from that country?

      I sure wouldn't. If you go to a foreign country, at least make an effort to speak their language and respect their culture. You'll find you're treated much better.

      P.S. The US does not treat foreigners well, even when in foreign countries. And if you are from the middle-east or even near middle east, you may as well tattoo the word terrorist on your forehead.

    64. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Is it true that your country's name is actually spelled CND, and when some south-of-the-Canadian-border type asked how to spell it, you people told him "C, eh? N, eh? D, eh?"

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    65. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by RoundTop-VJAS · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it isn't.

      You only think it is. The reality is that molson canadian and some of the other big canadian beers have a deal with labatts (AFAIR) in the US to bottle under their name, and still only put in wuzzy american amounts of alcohol.

      True beers START at 5%.

      --
      RoundTop

    66. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by goodster · · Score: 1

      And it's addictive!

    67. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by arth1 · · Score: 1
      Arguments on the quality of beer aside, Canadian beer is available in the US, so that's not really an issue.

      Carbonated bottled/canned/tanked beer is like TV dinners -- it can keep you alive, but won't make you smack your lips, like a real draught.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    68. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Heath care isn't free, its paid for out of your taxes.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    69. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natasha Henstridge: Too plasticky, tranny looking.
      Pam Anderson: Good lord man, have you no taste? Do you know what has been plunging in and out of that? Hepatitis, man!
      Carrie Anne-Moss: Good body; the face, no way. Michael Jackson's nose.
      Now, Kathleen Robertson, I'd hit it.

    70. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "incredible women"

      OK, now try talking to them.

    71. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by nostriluu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the reasons we are not hated by the world is we are not so intolerant and in fact appreciate different cultures. Partially because we support diverse culture within our country(admittedly officially only two, but there are historical reasons for that and its a start).

      I certainly enjoy visiting Quebec and having French friends for a bit of diversity. So with your shallow comments I'd just as soon you stay out of the country.

      The whole anti French thing is more than a bit tired and really counter productive.

    72. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by machineghost · · Score: 0

      http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=7 31 I've thought about Canada, but I'm afraid my fragile Californian physique could not withstand the arctic temperatures up there :-) Besides, I believe in changing things from within, not running from problems.

    73. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but at a collective cost that's lower than the US'. But I won't bother trying to compare our 2 health care systems.... history will speak for itself on that one once the US finally joins the other 1st world nations w/ universal health care.

    74. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "True beers START at 5%."

      Yup...that's why I brew my own. Makes just about ANY commercial beer seem like lightly colored water.

      "You know....we find your American beer a lot like making love in a canoe...."

      "Making love in a canoe...?"

      "Yes....it's f*cking close to water...."

      With apologies to the Python Boys...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    75. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by thomasdelbert · · Score: 1

      Mod parent "Troll!" he called Curling a "Con"!

      - Thomas;

      --
      ___ This sig is in boldface to emphasize its importance!
    76. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by slipstick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoa there.

      We don't all "love" the Queen of England. I don't even personally know her, why would I "love" her. In fact I think most people simply tolerate her as a necessary celebrity although there is a sizeable portion of Brits here who still are Monarchists. Something I will NEVER understand. Monarchy by definition is discrimination as it's defined by the idea that there is someone who's "better" than the rest of us simply by birth.

      Oh, and you can keep Celine Dion in Las Vegas for all I care.

      --
      Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
    77. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Methuseus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's close enough to free for me. I'd gladly aprove a tax hike here in the US if I could get some health care without some Nazi employer finally deciding I'm worth it, even though I've been working 50 hour weeks for the past year....

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    78. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Brettt_Maverick · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As per your cons, then you should move to Vancouver or parts thereabouts, where you trade cold for rain, curling for cannabis, French-speaking people for fewer French-speaking people, and Celine Dion for Sarah McLachlan.

      Although, in all fairness, it's only cold during the winter, the summers are glorious. Curling is just like bowling except (gasp) a team sport and more moving. There are even special shoes! And, like everyone else, most of the French speaking people are wonderful and intelligent people. And a lot of them speak English. Often better than most Anglophones speak French.

      You forgot "Insane Taxation" from your cons. Small price to pay, IMHO.

    79. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by WarDancer · · Score: 1

      49.4 % of Quebec voters voted yes in 1995. So saying it's about nut cases is exagerating, I would rather say it's not understanding a very large segment of the Quebec population. This was again confirmed by the very large vote for the bloc quebecois during the federal election monday while the consertives (religious right) had most of the votes/seats in the west compared to no seats in the whole province of Quebec.

    80. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Toresica · · Score: 1

      Toronto doesn't have very many french people, so I don't know what you're talking about.
      From what I see after a year of university in Southern Ontario, they don't seem to like Quebec much. ("Some of us would be quite happy to elect a Bloc Quebecois MP to get rid of them sooner", etc)...so maybe you would have been treated better if you hadn't even tried to speak french?

      Please, I'm sure you've just run into a bad bunch of people, don't give up on the country yet! Or visit somewhere out west, where they have no/very little use for French.

    81. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Toresica · · Score: 1

      In order to prove that the phrase "all americans are fat and stupid" is false only one smart and/or skinny person needs to be found.

      Yes, exactly... please tell us when you find one.

    82. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      *cough* Lower crime rate? Right...just take a few more tokes.

      Figure it out yourself, and you get to see that all of Canada's major cities would rank in America's top 20 most Dangrous cities to live in.

      Enjoy, and leave the 'you have the right to defend yourself' south of the border. Liberal propaganda is a wonderful thing...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    83. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Toresica · · Score: 1

      Even so you're not allowed to drink it until you turn 21. Maybe not that much of a difference for those of you who are 21 or older, but those of us who are 18/19/20 really appreciate those three extra years of drunkenness. :)

    84. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Cons:
      1) Cold
      2) Curling
      3) French-speaking People
      4) French-speaking People


      Don't worry. You get used to the curling.

    85. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by The+Hobo · · Score: 1

      Obligatory...

      Move to Canada... for Great Justice!!

      (And French-speaking people aren't so bad, I'm one of them! *waits to be modded down*)

      --
      There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
    86. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      2) Depends on where you are. Eastern Canada has some STRANGE dialects

      Depends on where you are in Eastern Canada. Most of the population of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and PEI speak with what I would call the "newscaster norm" accent (i.e., no accent).

    87. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Cons: higher taxes.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    88. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Funny

      0) Real Beer

      Please, people! Stop arguing over whether moose piss or horse piss tastes better and just agree that it's all ungulate piss.

    89. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      emphasis mine
      Cons:
      1) Cold
      2) Curling
      3) French-speaking People
      4) French-speaking People

      Curling a con!?!?
      Okay buddy, now it's personal, you've just earned yourself a meeting with a 20 kg hunk of granite!!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    90. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by smacktits · · Score: 1

      I'm on holiday from Scotland, staying just up the road from you in Hamilton. Can we say "boring"?

      Of course, it doesn't help that my girlfriend's mother is the queen of bitches ;(

    91. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by SilentOne · · Score: 1

      It applies out here in BC as well.

    92. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's not free, just substantially cheaper. By spreading the risk across the largest possible population, you lower the cost to individuals. That's how insurance works.

      Also, you have a system where a healthy populus is good for the people (less tax money taken out) instead of good for the companies (the threat of being sick or injured allows companies to raise rates).

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    93. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by why-is-it · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You forgot "Insane Taxation"

      Compared to whom? Take a look at what people pay in Western Eupope, and tell me what you think then.

      Feh!

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    94. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Maybe, maybe not. It also puts me into a pool of people with significant health problems, as opposed to the healthy pool I'm in now.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    95. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Dr.Zong · · Score: 1

      Never, ever seen the chasing beaver one before, but in the course of trying to find it, many funny memories came back from all those other ones...

      Chasing Beaver
      Other good Molson Commercials

      What a good start to the long weekend! Cheers!

      --

      Party?!? What kind of party is this? Where's the damn keg?
      Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit
    96. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I saw that!

      -- girlfriend's mother

    97. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by GedConk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, that is the "standard" reasoning of english Canadians. I live in Hull and work with a lot of english speakers (Hull/Ottawa being separated only by a river very easily crossed) and most of them view things that way.

      As a french Canadian that comes from Laval, I have a very different view on this. First, a quck history course: Once upon a time, north america was split between english and french. Then came the USA and a couple of wars that ended up with the english beating the french. So, at the time, Canada was a british colony occupying former french territories. Then the colony became a country. During all those years, lots of measures were taken to minimise the french speakers influence like having 50/50 representation when there was more french than english speakers to change that to rep by pop when english speakers became the majority. Up until the 1960's, it was nearly impossible to be successful IN Quebec, where the vast majority of the population was french speaking, unless you were an english speaker. For most of that time, the french culture was mostly preserved by the "traditionnalist" approach of the church that kept our economy mostly agricultural based with lots of farmers in small french villages.

      Then, in the 60's, something changed. We call it the "Revolution Tranquille" or quiet revolution. Quebec people achieved a LOT in very short time. They introduced public schools, nationalised electricity, voted laws to protect the french language and the french speakers. The Quebec people were at last PROUD people, not the victims of a conquest trying to survive assimilation.

      Of course, this new nationalism didn't please the rest of Canada, and it is still true today. But, and quebecers and Canadians alike are responsible for this, everyone blew this out of proportions. Instead of embrassing this "double culture", the english and french continued to fight, up to this day.

      Canada is a vast country and many parts have largely different views on how it should be ruled.
      Out in the west, they view the Quebec nationalism as a plague. In Quebec, many view the english as oppressors. In fact, it is an indication of something fundamentally wrong with the country.

      What is fundamentally wrong with the country is that Ottawa refuses to see the truth that Quebec is NOT identical to the other provinces. It is not better or worse, it is different. Here we don't speak english, we speak french. We don't drink molson canadian, we drink laurentide (although that might have changed since i looked). We don't celebrate Canada's national holyday, we celebrate the St-Jean-Baptiste (Most people are moving July 1st, since it's a holyday and they don't care about celebrations). We totally abhorre the monarchy stuff. We are more social-democrats than anyone else on the continent. We have a distinct culture. Most see themselves as Québécois fist, Canadians 2nd. Even in the worst years, about 40% of the population say they are fed up with Canada and want to separate. We have a different school system (CÉGEPs being the prime example). I could go on forever.

      As I said, WE ARE NOT BETTER OR WORSE, we simply want to be acknoledged for what we are: 7 Millions french speakers in an ocean of over 300 Millions of english speakers. In order to protect the french language, the government HAS to pass laws, otherwise, it will soon be like before the 60's all over again. In case you didn't know, all over Canada, the french minorities are diseappearing, except in Quebec. I just look at Ontarians living in places like Orléans and assimilation is the first word I can think of. The Harris government has not been kind to them and right now there are a lot of consequences to that.

      So, with all this ranting, do I have a solution ? Yes and no. Yes only if everyone can stop fighting and agree that the Canadian model is painfully outdated and needs a thourough review. In particular, give Quebec or any province for that matter the opportunity to opt-out of any federal program with compen

    98. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by why-is-it · · Score: 1
      Figure it out yourself, and you get to see that all of Canada's major cities would rank in America's top 20 most Dangrous cities to live in.

      Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

      It is absurd to suggest that any of Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver would have similar crime rates to the largest five US cities.

      Show us some statistics to prove your point, if you have one.

      Liberal propaganda is a wonderful thing

      I hate to break it to you, but all political parties spew propaganda. Since you have provided no proof of your claims, I think we can consider your statements to be propaganda as well...

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    99. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants in Canada for the year 2002: 1.85
      source: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/031001/d031001 a.htm

      Homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants in the US for the year 2002: 5.6
      source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreporte d/02-table02.html

      Violent crime rates are harder to compare because the definition is not the same in each country.

    100. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Asterisk · · Score: 1

      It's not free, just substantially cheaper.

      I've heard that it also costs somewhat marginally less.

    101. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

      BTW.. I would appreciate it if in the future you didn't presume to speak on behalf of me.

      Where exactly did I do that?

      When I said most Canadians don't tolerate racism? (That was the only generalization I made about the Canadian populace)

      When I said maybe he shouldn't move up here?

      How is that speaking for you?

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    102. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, let's talk about all the great Canadian music we have:

      Neil Young
      Joni Mitchell
      Sloan
      The Tragically Hip
      The Inbreds
      Thrush Hermit
      Joel Plaskett
      The Super Friendz
      The Flashing Lights
      Jale
      Eric's Trip
      Voivod
      Destroyer
      The New Pornographers
      The Guess Who
      Bachman-Turner Overdrive ...

      anyone I missed?

      Goweropolis

    103. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by gogoguez3000 · · Score: 1

      Just move to The Great Northwest. Oregon has a higher brewery count than Germany fer Christ's sake. Remember Bud isn't a beer it's just well water from somewhere outside of St. Louis. Also we won't tax you like you have nothing better to do with your money.

    104. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by gogoguez3000 · · Score: 1

      You should just move to The Great Northwest. Oregon has more breweries than Germany fer Christ's sake. Remember Bud isn't beer it's jsut well water from somewhere outside of St. Louis. Also we won't tax you like you have nother better to do with your money. How's that health care system doing anyway???

    105. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

      Rewritten for your approval:

      As an 'English' Canadian, who happens to be bilingual, I don't think that last comment is funny, but racist and mean-spiritired. Making fun of a minority for humor is just about the most base form of comedy there is, congratulations. [Those Americans who currently are supporting the bashing of France, and by that I mean the majority who recently identified France as an ENEMY rather than an ally in a scientific poll, and I also mean the collective U.S. Congress who voted to change the name of French Fries in their cafeteria to Freeedom Fries, and I refer also to those who routinely post on this site in a negative way about the French (both Parisian and Quebecois), including the great-grandparent of this post] can go on their stupid as hell (Parisian) French bashing crusade all they want, but [The majority of those who have French as a native tongue and reside in Quebec that I have met and whom everyone I know has met and whom I have read about and have any knowledge of through my experiences, including my parents who emigrated there and my Sister who was born there] are extremely nice people who are extremely progressive (I happen to also like Parisians having spent last summer there, but that is another point). Of course there are a few bad apples in the Quebequois, like in any group (Jacques Parizeau I am talking to you) but grouping them all together is the very definition of stereotyping.

      [Those in Canada who support Multi-culturalrism, which is a majority of the populace, including those residing in the Country's largest city Toronto, which is the most enthnically diverse city on the planet (including New York)], don't tolerate racism is any form, so I don't _THINK_ [The Majority of Canadian People mentioned above] want you up here, no offense.

      I get your point though. I just got mad when someone made a cheap and EASY joke at the expense of the French Canadians. That crap has been going on too long on this site and elsewhere (usually directed at France) and I am getting sick of it.

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    106. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by glenstar · · Score: 1
      anyone I missed?

      Yes... nearly the entire 80's catalog from nettwerk (Skinny Puppy, Grapes of Wrath, etc...), Chixdiggit (cheesy porn-punk rock at its best)... oh, and Bryan Adams.

    107. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm watching CBC and SRC and your 30% is coming from your cul. I can't recall the last time I heard a joke about bilingualism...

      ho wait yes it was 2 weeks when ago when a Harper's MP questioned the official languages... was pretty funny!

      Go Parti Bleue

    108. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      While you provide lots of interesting information, and I don't begrudge you the desire to preserve your french culture and heritage, nothing gives you the right to tell someone else what language they must use.

      No one should be able to step on your rights for speaking or writing French, but if someone chooses English, Arabic, Hebrew, etc. as their primary method of communication, be it at work or in signs, the government should not be able to restrict the use of that language.

      Accepting that Quebec is "different" has nothing to do with basic rights. I don't care if you talk backwards and shave your eyebrows, and put up signs in invisible ink. It's your choice to do so. And denying that choice to others is no better than how the French have been treated in the past.

    109. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I've pretty much had it with handholding people through life. Stand up on your own two feet, and look up the facts yourself. You can think it's absurd, but hey...what do I know.

      What do they call it...asymmetrical dysfunction? The belief that a PoV is propaganda when one doesn't provide the facts. I will say it once more, look it up for yourself...I will not hold your hand, I will not walk you through it either, prove it or disprove it yourself.

      Just because I'm making a PoV statement once more without proving facts, crime is up in the UK since they banned guns, the same in South Africa and Australia.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    110. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tim Hortons, the ultimate icon of Canadian culture and ideals...

      ROFL... oh, man that's a good one. Ultimate icon of culture and ideals. Yeah. A fucking donut shop represents the ideals that every Canadian aspires to, right? That's a good one... do you always do standup comedy here?

      McDonalds, the ultimate icon of American culture and ideals...

    111. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by hocrap · · Score: 1

      They want french+any_other_language on the sign.

      I don't think they are forcing you to speak the language of moliere only.

      big difference.

      I would ask you read the parent post again. He's right on. The NDP offered an opt-out program for Canada. I would vote for that.

    112. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Figure it out yourself, and you get to see that all of Canada's major cities would rank in America's top 20 most Dangrous cities to live in.

      Difference being, much like comparing the US to Britain (or Australia), in the latter countries you get robbed or maybe beaten up, in the US you get shot.

    113. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by GedConk · · Score: 1

      First, there are many english speakers in Montreal and Hull. They work and live in english. I don't have a problem with that and no one should.
      Saying it is impossible to live in english in quebec is pure bullshit. English speakers have schools, newspapers, tv channels, universities, etc. You want to play the latest videogame or see the new movie in english. There is absolutely no problem. You want service in english from the provincial government ? You can have it.
      Is it so freaking hard to provide service in the language of the local majority ??? I mean, movie companies were making a big fuss over having to translate their movies so that a french release would be available at the same time. Videogames are still moslty english-only. The french-only speakers are screwed. They either have to learn english or not understand.
      They HAD to make laws to force businesses to use french signs because the (mainly english speaking) businessmen didn't give a shit about the french speakers. Don't believe me ? Just take a walk downtown montreal and read some signs from old buildings. 100% English. We are not going back to this. Even if this means we have to force everyone to provide french signs and french services. You CAN have an english sign, as long as it is also in french. So, i don't see how we infringe on anyone's rights.
      As for the language of communication, you will find that Montreal is a very multi-ethnic city. You can hear french, english, Chinese, arabic, etc. We encourage everyone to learn french and use it as a common language here in our province. There is nothing wrong with that. As I said earlier, for us, it is a matter of survival.
      As for the government not restricting the language, Just try to obtain service in Arabic or Hebrew from your municipality or any part of the government for that matter. In Quebec, the government has to be more proactive because the sheer volume of english people surrounding us geographically and culturally would win by default. Not because the french want to give up their language, but because assimilation is insidious. First, we become bilingual, which is good. It broadens the horizons, expands your possibilities, etc. If we can stay there, good. But the danger is that services, business, life in general is more and more english speaking. PEople will use english, for convenience, and over a couple of generations, all notions of speaking french will have diseappeared. This is what is happening now outside Quebec. I personnally know some franco-ontarians that, for no apparent reason, only speak english to one another. I KNOW they are french. I know they speak french. Still, it is normal to them to speak to one another in english. It doesn't seem to make sense but it is happening. Remember that pre 1960 Quebec remained francophone because of the very strong presence of the church. the church can longer assume that role, since the government has assumed the role of the culture protector.
      My feeling is that it is mainly miscommunication that is causing trouble with the rest of Canada. Quebecers have come to assume that all the other provinces are acting against Quebec because they hate us. The rest of Canada sees Quebec as the whining, spoiled brat of the country.
      I for one have absolutely nothing against Canada. I love this country for it's great achievements and it's More Equal USA Minus The Arrogance TM approach (ouch, the flames are coming for that one , but keep in mind this is a personnal view . Also, please note that many americans are great people. I do not agree with your government, it's my right :P). People need to start talking to each other instead of spreading FUD all over the place.
      Anyway, it is not going to happen. Everyone love their little wars on the size of the letters on a sign. In the end, this is what will cause the demise of Canada. I predict that unless the liberals get their head out of their ass and realize that 54 bloquistes out of 75 seats is a clear message for change, the PQ will come in strong next elec

    114. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by sbermunk · · Score: 1

      Well, the stats show that gun-related deaths are 10 times per capita in the US what they are in Canada...
      I'll stay here in Canada thanks.

    115. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldnt come to canada, we just elected another fraudulous french prime minister.

    116. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      link to the molson commercial:

      http://fuckineh.com/view/view.asp?type=mov&id= 38

    117. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by PeteQC · · Score: 1

      Well, since the time I told everybody with my sig that Montreal IS the best place in the world.

      --
      Montreal - Best city to live in!
    118. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put things in perspective, Canada spends ~10% of GDP on healthcare (both private and public funding) and "insures" everyone. The US spends ~15% of GDP and only insures ~70% of the populace. I'll let the reader draw his own conclusions.

    119. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      As an 'English' Canadian, who happens to be bilingual, I don't think that last comment is funny, but racist and mean-spiritired. Making fun of a minority for humor is just about the most base form of comedy there is, congratulations.

      Why is it any less racist to "make fun of" a majority ?

    120. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Hatta · · Score: 1
      Don't foreget:
      17) the pot is better and cheaper
      18) you don't get burned at the stake for smoking it
      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    121. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      By spreading the risk across the largest possible population, you lower the cost to individuals. That's how insurance works.

      That may be how insurance works, but that's not why health care in Canada is cheaper. It's cheaper because the hospitals aren't allowed to set the prices.

      Guess what price you're willing to pay when you show up an emergancy ward? If you let the hospital charge whatever they want, you'll end up with truely ludicrous numbers because the people who show up at their doorsteps HAVE to pay. That's why the American health system is so pricey.

    122. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by aastanna · · Score: 1

      OK, I looked it up, and you are completly wrong. Compare the crime rates in the US's 30 worst cities, the crime rates in the US's 30 best cities, and this list containing Canadian cities and select US cities.

      You'll find that the worst Canadian city would still rank in the top 10 of best US cities (somewhere between NY and Boston), and Toronto would rank as the safest on the list of US best (if it was included).

      Sorry I had to handhold you though life, but you're only allowed to be either arrogent or wrong. When you're both it's just annoying.

    123. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Thanks man. I haven't seen those in a while. =)

      But a happy long weekend to you too. (even though I have to work on Friday...)

    124. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by tod_miller · · Score: 1

      That is inbred palace trash thank you. :-) I never noticed they had english accents! I thought all Canadians spoke like that! :-)

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    125. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by tod_miller · · Score: 1

      11) They don't 'get' British humour / sarcasm ;-)

      --
      #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    126. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by cdsr · · Score: 1

      I am an english Canadian whose history in Canada dates back from one to five generations depending on which tree you follow. Most of my ancestry is English on one side and Scottish on the other.

      What is my culture exactly? I've never worn a kilt, I can't stand tea and I don't even know exactly what a "crumpet" is. I apparently say "aboot" instead of "about" and "eh" slips in every now and then; other than that I have no accent compared to the people on CBC or CNN.

      Have I lost my culture? I live in a Canadian city. I am a white male. In that city I am a cultural minority and close to a visible minority. I have used Royal Bank and TD ATMs that are in Mandarin by default. I have seen signs in Mandarin, Korean, Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, Italian, Polish and Greek ONLY. ZERO english. In this city I have lived in an apartment surrounded by probably 100 000 Chinese people.

      Does anyone complain about the signs or ATMs? Probably, as there are racists everywhere, but I've never heard anyone complain or even find it unusual. Nobody is persecuted or prosecuted for the language they display in their window or on their signs, that would be as abhorrent to me as apparently the Queen is to you.

      England and Scotland mean something to me, I've never been there but I will go someday -- but we've been gone for a long long time. I know what my clan tartan looks like and I know the clan motto... sometimes my mom cooks roast beef and Yorkshire pudding on Sundays. Does France and their culture mean more than that to you? The vast majority of Canadians I know would answer "no" to that question about their own heritage.

      On the same Sunday my mom cooks Yorkshire pudding I might have gone down Spadina and bought Bok Choi at the market for a stir fry, then maybe gone out for a drink with the guys I met at school from Qatar or Ghana or New Zealand, maybe go to a bar in Little Portugal to watch the finals of Euro 2004 which has the city humming almost as much as a hockey playoff game, which is saying A LOT.

      So have I lost MY culture? Of course I have. And that's what makes Toronto the greatest city in the world. I keep the parts I like from my own traditional culture and take parts I like from other cultures. I've lost my culture but I've gained a much better one.

      So maybe you are right, we don't understand Quebec; your fear of integration. I'm sorry but integration is the future, your culture probably will die just as ours did long ago. Call it cultural evolution, hopefully you'll find it an improvement as I did... evolution is rarely wrong.

      Welcome to Canada in the 21st century by the way.

      Salut.

    127. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      In Southern Ontario, the climate is actually a little more moderate than American cities on the opposite site of the Great Lakes, like Buffalo.

      Now that's what I call a backhanded compliment! That's like telling a woman a place is a better place to meet guys than San Francisco's Castro district...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    128. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by NaugaHunter · · Score: 1

      "Now, now. The Canadian government has apologized for Brian Adams on numerous occasions."

      --
      R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    129. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #7 is a con. Socialist healthcare is close to useless healthcare.

    130. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      Well put :)

    131. Re:Maybe I should move to Canada, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd exempt Nova Scotia from that... a LOT of Nova Scotians have a serious problem with "ow" sounds:

      'Couch' becomes 'coach', 'out' becomes 'oat', etc.

      Then there's the south shore...

      However, that said, Canadians do for the most part speak something closer to real English than Americans.

  10. ok, so the ISP thing didn't work... by x0n · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, what else can they sue?

    CDR/CDRW discs: they facilitate recording pirated music;

    Sound Card manufacturers: they facilitate ripping;

    Loudspeaker makers: we can hear pirated music through this equipment.

    My ears -- yes! sue my ears. They faciliate hearing this music!

    Emm, I'm digging now, ehh; why not sew my lips shut too. I can whistle a tune without paying royalties.

    See where this is going? DO YOU? DOOO YOU???

    - Oisin

    --

    PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    1. Re:ok, so the ISP thing didn't work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They sort of already did.

      We pay a tariff on each blank cd we buy of a couple of cents.

      Personally, since they make money off of "pirated" music, I feel it legitimizes it. They can't have it both ways.

    2. Re:ok, so the ISP thing didn't work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CDR/CDRW discs: they facilitate recording pirated music;

      They already have a chunk of that.

    3. Re:ok, so the ISP thing didn't work... by laigle · · Score: 1

      Oh please.

      Your ears have no money, it's the headphone makers they need to sue! Those guys are rolling in cash, and think how many pirated songs are listened to on their merchandise. Plus I hear they keep their money in banks, and terrorists keep their money in banks too, so they must be in league with the terrorists!

    4. Re:ok, so the ISP thing didn't work... by scaaven · · Score: 1

      Careful! If Orrin Hatch gets word of this there might be a constitutional ammendment to sever all American's ears.

      --
      I know I'm going to be modded up on this
    5. Re:ok, so the ISP thing didn't work... by Jardine · · Score: 1

      We pay a tariff on each blank cd we buy of a couple of cents.

      Personally, since they make money off of "pirated" music, I feel it legitimizes it. They can't have it both ways.


      It's 21 cents per CDR/RW in Canada. And the same law that brought the 21 cent levy also made it legal to make personal copies of music in Canada. Copying a CD you borrowed from a friend is not in any way pirating in Canada, it is legal.

    6. Re:ok, so the ISP thing didn't work... by ispeters · · Score: 1

      AFAIK Canadians pay a tax of sorts to the local recording industry on the purchase of every medium capable of recording music (hard drive, CD-RWs, etc.). It's a certain number of cents per megabyte, or something. I think someone told me once that the medium has to be empty to be subject to the tax, though, so selling iPods with a song on them would exempt them from the tax. Not sure if that's true....

      Ian

  11. Terrible! by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Funny

    In a 9-0 decision, Canada's highest court ruled, despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy, they are not liable for what people download. ...this is a very good thing."

    Good? This is horrible!

    How am I to continue my suit against paper-makers and ink producers on behalf of book publishers?

    Oh, wait, I can still do that in the "Land of the Free", the United States.

    (It's the land of the free for corporations -- they can get away with anything. It's the land of the fee for taxpayers.)

  12. Dear RIAA by tod_miller · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please find enclosed all the tapes I made during the 90's of my favourite music, and a handy list of radio stations that I taped them off. You may now sue their asses, as they provided the means for me to infringe upon your copyrights.

    The music is watermarked with a primitive technology called a 'jingle' that will help you identify which station it was.

    Sincerely

    Tod

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  13. Eh? by Guitar+Wizard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had always wondered what Canada is up to...they seemed to be a very neutral and uneventful country to me for a long time. I later found out that they make a lot of modem hardware for one, but more importantly, it looks like Canada is good at preserving certain rights. Like the one in this article -- internet privacy, essentially...not to mention bud is basically legal there! Go Canada!

    --
    Two freaks, no foes. It takes absolutely nothing to make some people angry.
    1. Re:Eh? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Funny
      I had always wondered what Canada is up to...they seemed to be a very neutral and uneventful country to me for a long time.
      That's just because they hibernate eleven months out of the year.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guitar Wizard: "I just looked North...and there it was? Was it there all the time! Wow!"

      Americans: "Tell us more of this mysterious 'Canada'."

    3. Re:Eh? by Shakezoola · · Score: 1

      Canada is also home for some of the highest quality wood in the world for making pool cues (among other things). That, and Carrie-Anne Moss is hot.

    4. Re:Eh? by Ubergrendle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a proud Canadian I'm the first to trumpet our successes to whoever will listen. But...

      In all honesty, the US was a much more open a free-market society until the last few years. Aside from the absolute hard-right turn taken under the Bush administration, the aggressive nature and consolidation of media companies in the last 5-7 years has really put a chill on the US society IMHO. Note: I realise that this started under Clinton too.

      For me, there are a few significant events where the rule of law were circuvmented, or big business exercised a strong influence over the legislative bodies in recent times. These are having profound negative effects on American life and commerce.

      1. Microsoft anti-trust. Found guilty, but government backs off on any significant penalty. IBM never got off so lightly, and the results were the PC revolution.
      2. Consolidation of media ownership. Especially regarding radio. Less diversity = less room for competing opinions. More big business = more big business attitudes reflected in editorial biases.
      3. Abuse of copyright/patent system. Think EOLAS, think SCO, think Mosano, etc. Combined with a culture of litigation, this really makes you wonder if the US is unconciously abandoning its heritage of innovation. The money is compensating for this pull downwards, but will this always be the case?

      Unequivocally the US leads the North American economy...Canada has, to a great extent, benefited from this for years. But sometimes we wake up, look in the mirror, and wonder "What the hell are the neighbours doing now???". I think that, lately, our values expressed in our judicial and legislative system are more in line with what Americans expect than their political leadership have provided.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    5. Re:Eh? by akorvemaker · · Score: 1
      you can drink once you hit 19

      or 18 in a number of provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, others?)

    6. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sure glad you yanks continue to fall for our propaganda.... whatever keeps out your unwashed, gun-toting, uninsured masses. Brrrr! Sure is cold up here in July :)

    7. Re:Eh? by akorvemaker · · Score: 1
      they make a lot of modem hardware

      Not to mention video cards and IMAX movie technology.

    8. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We call it "Slumbtober".

    9. Re:Eh? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      I later found out that they make a lot of modem hardware for one

      Ever heard of ATI video cards?

    10. Re:Eh? by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      I think that, lately, our values expressed in our judicial and legislative system are more in line with what Americans expect than their political leadership have provided.
      If Bush gets re-elected, prepare for a mass exodus of Americans to Canada. I'm sure not going to get drafted into Bush's World War 3!
      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  14. Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    How about the artists? If it weren't for them none of this shamefully pirating would ever be possible.

    1. Re:Well.... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      Your suggestion of suing artists implies that they have "rights" under their recording contracts.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    2. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely wrong about this. True artists don't care about making money from their art; they do it because the feel compelled to make art. Any true artist will tell you that the art they create, and the act of creating it, is who they are, and that it's something that they would do anyway, paid ot not.

      Remember, music was around long before there was this idea of copyright, and it will be around for a long time after copyright is gone.

  15. Double dipping attempt.. by grub · · Score: 5, Informative


    In .ca we already pay a "tax"on blank CDs which goes to the recording industry. They're trying to double dip for more loot.
    Screw 'em

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Double dipping attempt.. by Techguy666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now if the Supreme Court did say, "sure, charge a tariff on the ISPs", would this have meant that we, as Canadians, would not only have the right to make copies of CDs or download them on to our iPaqs, but that we would also then gain the right to upload and download them from the Internet?? All music, all the time, no music industry to bother us!

      That, too, would have been an interesting situation.

      Either way, the Supreme Court of Canada rocks my world. They actually have clue.
      It's good news on the eve of Canada Day.

    2. Re:Double dipping attempt.. by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Informative

      same in the USA, except only on "music" CD-R's

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Double dipping attempt.. by bigberk · · Score: 1

      No kidding, greedy industry. And can you imagine the nonsense of collecting royalties through ISPs? I write mostly free/open source software, and I demand that it be distributed freely. In fact, for a lot of my freeware I specifically say that no third party may collect fees for the distribution of my intellectual property without express written permission from me.

      So if the industry starts collecting royalties from ISP customers, then they will be violating my license agreements and will either owe me some of the money, or be stealing my intellectual property.

  16. Its sad by Terragen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A decision so obvious as this really needs to be appreciated. Whats next? Are we going to jail FORD execs as accessories because they provided the means for the getaway for some bank robbers?

    Well at least intelligent rulings like this are a step in the right direction.

    1. Re:Its sad by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Haven't you seen "The Corporation"?

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
  17. This was brought forward by SOCAN ... by debest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... the same folks who are responsible for us Canadians paying a levy on every CD-R, cassette, MP3 player, and (if they have their way) every friggen hard drive we buy! Glad to see they lost this battle.

    It's a lobby for the Canadian recording artists. They are supposed to be compensated for illegal copying, in exchange for a much more lenient definition of "legal" copying in our laws than in the USA.

    Of course, like all Canadian programs, it ends up creating a huge government-paid organization to police this whole subsidy. Can't really say if this is better or worse than clogging up the courts, as is the case in the States.

    --
    Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    1. Re:This was brought forward by SOCAN ... by iantri · · Score: 1
      No.

      They are not asking for money on every hard drive bought -- they are asking money for non-removable storage build into MP3 players -- currently, $5 for 10GB.

      Here is the complete list of levies.

    2. Re:This was brought forward by SOCAN ... by iantri · · Score: 1

      Argh! Slashdot broke my greater than signs!

      MP3 player levies:

      $5 for <1GB. $15 for <10GB. $25 for >10GB.

    3. Re:This was brought forward by SOCAN ... by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

      [SOCAN is] a lobby for the Canadian recording artists.

      It's also interesting to note that SOCAN wanted royalties on all downloads. Though there are a number of Canadian performers, it's fair to say that the majority of downloads is likely material that is not Canadian in origin. In other words, SOCAN, not content with leeching Canadians on every media purchase, wanted to leech off the entire world. I'm delighted that the court has treated the leeches with the response they deserve - the direct application of a lighed cigarette.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    4. Re:This was brought forward by SOCAN ... by MikeyVB · · Score: 1

      ... the same folks who are responsible for us Canadians paying a levy on every CD-R, cassette, MP3 player, and (if they have their way) every friggen hard drive we buy! Glad to see they lost this battle.

      Dude. In France this is already the case! Read this one of many stories on how Apple owes the French Government for their iPod sales - since iPods have hard drives in them...

      The "tax"?

      "...capacity of 10, 20 and 40Gb, Apple should pay a levy of 10, 15 and 20euro respectively"

      5euro = $6USD = $8CAD

    5. Re:This was brought forward by SOCAN ... by debest · · Score: 1

      Yes, but SOCAN originally asked for much more, they were only granted the levies you quote.

      I think that I heard that a 20GB Creative Nomad would have been taxed for $420 under their initial proposal. Until they stop asking for ludicrous sums, I will hold them in scorn.

      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    6. Re:This was brought forward by SOCAN ... by iantri · · Score: 1
      That's right -- an iPod would have had an $850 levy.

      Thankfully, the copyright board is saner.

  18. Some harsh mods this morning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's pretty funny... Thanks.

  19. It's so logical by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Canada's highest court ruled, despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy, they are not liable for what people download.

    Just like gun manufacturers provide the means for killing but are not liable for what people do.

    Can anybody explain though why the courts overturned the request from the music industry to have the ISPs turn over customer's identities? I agree that was a Good (TM) development, but it doesn't seem to fit into my gun analogy.

    If the gun was used in a crime, law enforcement could force the company/dealers to turn over gun/owner/buyer information. Maybe it's because it's not law enforcement requesting the information, but deep-pocketed private parties seeking it.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:It's so logical by NeoDragon · · Score: 1

      IIRC I believe it had something to do with the Privacy Act that came into effect at the beginning of 2004.
      Basically companies are not allowed to distribute any information they obtain on customers, so outside forces could not compel them to do so.
      Again, my memory is a little fuzzy on this.

    2. Re:It's so logical by canwaf · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you don't have gun manufacturers suing criminals for misusing their product.

    3. Re:It's so logical by sage2k6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well......First of all, does downloading kill people directly? NO! There's your fundamental difference.

      And of course, gun companies, to sell more guns, would likely encourage people to buy guns for "self protection" (ie, kill others before they kill you)...... Have you seen an ISP encouraging people to "illegally" download music to drive business?

      --

      -----
      "If everything seems to be going well, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on." - Murphy's Law
    4. Re:It's so logical by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can anybody explain though why the courts overturned the request from the music industry to have the ISPs turn over customer's identities? I agree that was a Good (TM) development, but it doesn't seem to fit into my gun analogy.

      No, it does fit. Your prejudice is what prevents you from seeing it immediately. (See below.)

      If the gun was used in a crime, law enforcement could force the company/dealers to turn over gun/owner/buyer information.

      This is the prejudice. You're assuming that because someone made a file avaliable, that a crime was committed, where in reality, that is not so clear. The judge said as much in the ruling.

      It's not the case that the 'gun' was used in the crime, but that the courts weren't convinced that a crime occurred at all. The CRIA said "ISPs are hiding people who are illegally trading our files!", and the court responded with "no, they're protecting the identity of people who are trading files, but it's entirely possible that trading is not illegal - prove that, and then we'll talk."

    5. Re:It's so logical by burnsy99 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, it wasn't the Privacy Act (PIPEDA), because there is an exception in it that says a court order overrules any consent to disclose rules. What it was is that (1) the judge said the file sharers did nothing wrong (he'll get overruled on appeal though, where they'll find that uploading but not downloading is illegal) and (2) the evidence tying the P2P user names to the ISP accounts was garbage (wrong affiant, not clearly tying IP addresses to users etc.).

    6. Re:It's so logical by khendron · · Score: 1

      I think where your analogy falls down is the fact that when a gun is used in a crime, it is fairly obvious that a crime was committed (e.g., dead bodies, stolen goods, eyewitnesses). SOCAN approached the ISPs demanding the names of customers, but couldn't prove that a crime had been committed. Best they could say was that the customers in question had files available for download, which in Canada is not illegal.

      --
      Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
    7. Re:It's so logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even more reasonable than that. The courts never ruled whether sharing files was illegal. They merely said that the ISPs were not legally required to give up personal information just so someone can fish for evidence of wrong-doing.

      In the case in question, several people were accused of distributing music files. The court ruled that the act of putting the files in an accessible location did not amount to distributing them. The analogy used was that of a library. Just because a library makes music available doesn't mean that it is distributing it.

      Now, it is possible that the original files were obtained in a way that infringes copyright. But there was no evidence presented about that. It is possible that people were infringing copyright by making copies of the available files. But that's hard to prove. Just because someone downloads a file it doesn't mean that they are infringing on the copyright. Clicking on a link does not mean you are infringing. It depends on what you do with the resultant file.

      So what the court ruled was that you can't force the ISPs to reveal the names of the people involved unless you can prove that infringement occurred. But it's a catch-22. How can you prove that infringement occurred unless you can observe the person you suspect? Still, I think it was the right ruling.

      Of course, IANAL.

    8. Re:It's so logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If, however, the police went to the Judge and demanded that the registrar turn over every gun owner's information in the county because most of them have been fired and one of them was definitely involved in a crime, the judge would balk at the idea.

      And if the police suggested that gun owners all be required to spend a year in jail to "even out" the potential social cost of gun crimes, they'd get laughed out of court. And, hey look, they were.

      Faith in the system is a warm, reassuring feeling. Now if only it was my system...

  20. Nice! by beef+curtains · · Score: 0

    Wow...Canadian High Court's been cranking out some pretty common-sense-adhering rulings as far as technology goes.

    Maybe this will compel the record industry to take a long, hard look at their current business model and realize it's no longer compatible with today's entertainment market.

    Either that or it will send their lawyers scurrying to look for new lawsuit angles. Only time will tell.

    --
    Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
    1. Re:Nice! by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe this will compel the record industry to take a long, hard look at their current business model and realize it's no longer compatible with today's entertainment market.

      Got news for you - the entertainment industry already knows that. That's why they're filing these lawsuits.

      The music industry had a stranglehold on music distribution, which gave them the ability to abuse artists as much as they want ("You don't want to sign this contract? Fine, you'll never be able to make money from your music.")

      The internet changed all that. It's now becoming possible for an independent band to market their music to a worldwide audience.. and so now the music industry has competition, and they're desperately trying to extend the life of their business model as long as possible.

    2. Re:Nice! by temojen · · Score: 1

      Not all of them have been common sense.

  21. Ears by mfh · · Score: 1, Funny

    > My ears -- yes! sue my ears. They faciliate hearing this music!

    Now that you mention it, in the States, your ears would be sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement, along with the rest of your body, if you downloaded pirated music. In Canada, however, your ears could not be sued because it's legal to download pirated music, just illegal to distribute it to other people. No word out on Torrent files, as they do both by default. My guess would be that in Canada you could not be held liable for downloading with torrents, as you can't disable uploading, AFAIK.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Ears by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you use the proper client you can disable uploading. Of course, other people's clients are not motivated to send you blocks if you don't send them any, but you will likely still download at least smaller files (like mp3 albums) eventually.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Ears by the_weasel · · Score: 1

      Therefore, singing in the shower is infringement. Better not tell my wife - she might turn me in to make it stop.

      No wait, I'm safe! I only sing 19th century Italian opera. No infringement there. Phew. (Sorry honey)

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    3. Re:Ears by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      as you can't disable uploading,
      Hmmmm I would tend to think this one differntly, if distributing is illegal and you use a program that you know distrubutes I don't think you'd get much protection from the law. Just because you can't run it off doesn't make it okay....

      I would post an analogy but I a) hate them and b) can't think of one
      IMHO

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
  22. Exactly. by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Well... recently we can observe many strange precedents, especially in the US...

    Well, this may sound like a troll, but it's basically true: Here in the US, most laws and court cases involving business are not decided on logic and right and wrong, they are decided on which lobyists have greased the right palms and preformed the best fellatio.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Exactly. by mattkinabrewmindspri · · Score: 1, Informative

      Funny? I don't think he was joking.

    2. Re:Exactly. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Here in the US, most laws and court cases involving business are not decided on logic and right and wrong

      Time to make a run for the border!

      they are decided on which lobyists have greased the right palms and preformed the best fellatio.

      I'm sure there are some cunning linguists out there, too.

    3. Re:Exactly. by gnucurry · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      which lobyists have greased the right palms and preformed the best fellatio.

      Hmmm... Maybe I should consider lobbying....

      (the palm-greasing, you wierdo)

    4. Re:Exactly. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      And who's the softest target. These people want to win litigation. They don't want to be deemed "correct" in a court. They just want to walk away with a buttload of cash. The US legal system is an absolute, utter farce. I'd be deeply ashamed if it ruled my life.

    5. Re:Exactly. by Methuseus · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're absolutely right. The people with the most money (media companies) want to attack those with less (ISPs and private citizens). That way they can get even more money and have less and less chance to have someone compete against them.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    6. Re:Exactly. by mgahs · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...greased the right palms and preformed the best fellatio.

      I'm left-handed, you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would u have to greese and fellate ... OR surely

    8. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm left-handed, you insensitive clod!

      But it feels like someone else is doing, er, IT, when you use the other hand...

    9. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's certainly true. If decisions were made based on logic and morality, business wouldn't need to use lobbyists to defend themselves.

    10. Re:Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm... seems to me that "making a run for the border" is a time-honoured yank tradition when times get tough.

  23. This is so retarded. by syrrys · · Score: 2, Funny

    Suing an ISP for being an accomplice to piracy is like suing a car manufacturer because someone ran you over in one of their cars, or suing a gun manufacturer for getting shot with one of their guns....it's all very, very retarded! How can any self-respecting lawyer....oops, wait a sec.....nevermind.

    --
    "Patience is not a virtue, it's a waste of time."
  24. But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by philntc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How then, does the logic follow, that maintaining a "levy" is a reasonable? Why do recording artists deserve a pay-back for my disk imaging activity?

    Does this happen anywhere other than Canada?

    1. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by RobinH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How then, does the logic follow, that maintaining a "levy" is a reasonable? Why do recording artists deserve a pay-back for my disk imaging activity?

      You could argue that the government shouldn't tax gas to pay for the roads, because then they're unfairly taxing people who have gas lawn mowers, snowmobiles, jet ski's etc.

      However, both of these methods of taxation are based on the idea that your privacy is more important than 100% fair taxation. For instance, I heard that in some northern U.S. state they were discussing installing GPS tracking units in vehicles to charge people based on how far they drive their vehicles, because that was a fairer way to charge a usage tax. But, who wants the government tracking their movements?

      Similarly, the idea with the CD levy is to allow copying for personal use, but charge a fee to copiers of copyrighted work, and use that to pay the artists. To fairly implement this tax, it would mean you'd have to track each person and what they're copying. You run into the same issue - privacy. There is obviously a tradeoff, and I'm glad that the Canadian government seems to continually place privacy as a higher priority. I'm willing to pay a price to keep my privacy.

      The other alternative is to ban all copying, even for personal use, remove the levy, and try to get the police to enforce an unenforceable law. That doesn't look to sweet either.

      If you're going to complain about the levy, then at least come up with a workable alternative that doesn't screw somebody else.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    2. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by ioErr · · Score: 2

      Does this happen anywhere other than Canada?

      Sweden, France, and probably most of the EU.

    3. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by iantri · · Score: 1

      Yes -- in your own country, assuming you are American.

    4. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in Canada, there is Taxed gas, and Untaxed gas. The untaxed gas (used for all marine engines, lawnmowers, farm equipment, etc.) has a red dye in it; if you get caught with red dye in your car's gas tank (a car licensed to drive on public roadways), you can face serious fines. Only gas used for vehicles that are used on public roads is taxed.

    5. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by iantri · · Score: 1
      Damned HTML typo.

      Yes -- in your own country, assuming you are American.

    6. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by RobinH · · Score: 1

      At least in Canada, there is Taxed gas, and Untaxed gas. The untaxed gas (used for all marine engines, lawnmowers, farm equipment, etc.) has a red dye in it; if you get caught with red dye in your car's gas tank (a car licensed to drive on public roadways), you can face serious fines. Only gas used for vehicles that are used on public roads is taxed.

      I did not know that. Where would one buy this "untaxed gas"? I don't see a Red Dye pump at my local gas station.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    7. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by greed · · Score: 1
      Where would one buy this "untaxed gas"? I don't see a Red Dye pump at my local gas station.

      Try your local farmer's co-op, or a marina. Not sure about the marina. Some farms will have their own tanks and pumps, so they just get the tanker to pop by every now and then. Put in a call to your local refinery or distribution centre if you want to set things up that way.

    8. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by philntc · · Score: 1

      This is a huge debate, and I don't think your analogies are related, but i'll bite.

      Ok. So your argument is that the recording industry is entitled to levied fees because it some how compensates an infringement on their intellectual property.

      No doubt, the industry enjoyed some fairly invincible protection due to the infeasibility of copying and distribution. The reality today, of course, is that they are no longer able to enforce their collection regime on the micro-copier (a "pirate" if they are unauthorized). It seems the logic of the media tax was to rectify the fact that the pirate MUST use some sort of media to achieve a reproduction. Therefore, the pirate would be forced to pay no matter what.

      However, this levy punishes ALL users of the said media. Whether for copyright infringement or not. This is simply unfair to non-infringing users. In fact, it is a direct theft of fees unrelated to the intent of the levy.

      Therefore I ask again, Why do I have to pay the recording artists a levy on the media that I use to image my harddrive?

      By your analogy above, it would be similar to taxing the GPS car that drives around in a circle on its own property, and consumes none of the 'public' common roads.

      The levy is wrong. A workable alternative is that the recording industry find a business model that makes money without government involvement or legislation. For example, the good old days of selling media only at the performance venue. The recording industry has no more right and entitlement to a robust business model than any other industry.

    9. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by RobinH · · Score: 1

      A workable alternative is that the recording industry find a business model that makes money without government involvement or legislation. For example, the good old days of selling media only at the performance venue.

      In this ingenious business model of yours, wouldn't the song still get copied and distributed on the internet? All that does is make the supply of legal copies artificially lower, so anyone who doesn't want to go to the show to buy a CD will just download the song off the internet.

      The only workable alternative I can see is if the recording industry embraces the electronic distribution of songs, and adds some value in the process.

      I'm not supporting the levy, but I am pointing out that at least it's a non-intrusive way to do it. If I have to sign onto some server on the internet to make a copy of my music, and there's a database keeping track of how many and which songs I've copied, I'd say that's too intrusive for my taste.

      This is simply unfair to non-infringing users. In fact, it is a direct theft of fees unrelated to the intent of the levy.

      Do I have to go over with you what constitutes theft? Since we're not forced to buy the media, and thus are not forced to pay the levy, it's not theft, any more than copying songs is theft of an artist's work.

      There are ways to get out of paying the levy. Order the media from a different country. Since you're the one importing it, and it's not for resale, you don't have to charge yourself the levy.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    10. Re:But Taxing Recordable Media is OK? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      It's called Marked Gas, if you need enough of it, you can have it delivered by the fuel companies into tanks on your property ... your typical 400 or so gallon tank up on a stand, with a lined berm around it.

      At one time, they would give you the packet of red dye to add to the fuel yourself, but I think there must have actually been one canadian somewhere that couldnt be trusted, and some law got changed over it so that the delivery guy must ensure that it has been marked.

      The gold exploration company for whom i worked for several years fueled all their work vehicles with it on the understanding that the vehicles were to remain on the mine property.

      And I swear they never eeeevvvver left the property. reallllllly.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  25. Al Gore by SammysIsland · · Score: 3, Funny
    I hear Al Gore invented the internet, so it is he who should be held responsible for all of this pirating!

    Awsome!

    1. Re:Al Gore by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      That was why he wanted to be president, so he could fix things up for us all on this front.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  26. I wonder... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful
    if this means that Canadian ISP's are now in a position such that spammers can bring suit for infringing on their privacy if the ISP's try to prevent spamming.

    Common Carrier means non-discriminatory, usually. If some content is restricted, and other content is not restricted, you stop being a common carrier.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:I wonder... by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Interesting
      if all the ISPs are doing is providing a SPAM filtering service for their customers, then they've only got to make it an opt-in service for it to be non-discriminatory... the mail carriers have a postal preference service when it comes to junk mail, the phone companies operate a do not call list that cold callers are supposed to respect... both of these require the customer to opt-in.

      I would also expect the ISPs to include other ISPs amongst their customers, so they could get those to opt-in to bulk filtering of email being passed on to them and vice-versa opt-in to receiving filtered mail from other ISPs

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this means that Canadian ISP's are now in a position such that spammers can bring suit for infringing on their privacy if the ISP's try to prevent spamming.

      Please explain this, and maybe you can also enlighten us as to the color of the sky in your world.

      How does not delivering something infringe on anyone's privacy?

    3. Re:I wonder... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It's not actually about privacy. It's about being a Common Carrier. As opposed to a Content Provider.

      No telling how Canada works. In the USA, being a Common Carrier exempts you from being liable for what you are "carrying". That is, it's not YOUR fault that someone else committed a crime using your service. The phone company is an example, of course - you may not sue the phone company if you receive an obscene phone call, or a threatening phone call.

      However, a Common Carrier cannot discriminate. It may charge a fee for service, but may not refuse to take anyone's coin for that service. If it chooses to say "we do not accept money from people who do X", then they stop being a Common Carrier, and become a Content Provider. Which leaves them open for suits for content. So, as an example, they could be sued by a mother whose ten-year old downloades some porn.

      Being sued for content doesn't apply to Common Carriers. They have neither control over nor interest in the "content" accessed with their service. But, in order to remain Common Carriers, they must not discriminate.

      Now, the first response pointed out, quite correctly, that opt-in spam-filtering is perfectly legitimate, even for a Common Carrier. That solves the spam issue quite nicely. But if they take it upon themselves to filter out spam sent to me (who hasn't opted in), then they are liable to being sued as a Content Provider (which means I could sue them for the spam I get, as well as the porn sites my daughter views).

      In the USA, at least, ISP's spent quite a lot of effort establishing themselves as Common Carriers, just to avoid the lawsuits implicit in being Content Providers. This Canadian ruling looks like Canada's Courts are affirming that ISP's are Common Carriers, with all the freedoms and limitations inherent in that position.

      Which is at it should be.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  27. Asking your opinion... by Bradee-oh! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, when I save up enough and close up the loose ends in my life here in California and decide to move to Canada, should I move to Toronto or Montreal?

    --
    "This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
    1. Re:Asking your opinion... by NeoDragon · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest avoiding eastern Canada all together. If you must go to a big city, Vancouver is much nicer (and english speaking). Personally I live right in the middle of the country, and like that more than either coast.

      That being said, if you can handle the french culture and language, go to Montreal, avoid Toronto like the plague.

    2. Re:Asking your opinion... by camkind · · Score: 1

      I'd say that Vancouver is the way to go. Beautiful scenery, all-you-can-eat sushi resaurants everywhere, and a very diverse population. Of course I've lived here all my life so I may be a bit biased.

    3. Re:Asking your opinion... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've lived in both cities for a number of years.

      I prefer Montreal for the vibes, but my friends in Toronto were more interesting.

      I'm also bilingual, but you don't have to be -- lots of English-only people live in Montreal too.

      I've visited the Maritimes; nice people, but unless you love drinking beer, the nightlife is pretty boring.

      Vancouver aint too shabby either. But BC is way overtaxed.

      Winnipeg is the coldest in winter, and in the summer is the national mosquito capital.

      I currently live in Ottawa, which is less interesting than bigger cities, but at least I'm only a 1.5 hour drive away from Montreal.

    4. Re:Asking your opinion... by sage2k6 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well......that depends on what you want to do up here. Montreal is your party town, best bars/pubs/clubs in Canada. Toronto...... best for business/work and just pure convenience. Vancouver has of course, no snow! but then the rain is not that much better (except for it does not rust your car).

      --

      -----
      "If everything seems to be going well, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on." - Murphy's Law
    5. Re:Asking your opinion... by dhalgren99 · · Score: 1

      Montreal. Better looking, nicer city. Toronto's too 'big city'. And dirty and more humid in summer. Mind you, we haven't really had a summer yet.

      Although Toronto has better chances of jobs...which isn't saying much to begin with.

      Things are just starting to pickup in this slugish market. :(

    6. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Depends on whether you like really hot summers *and* really cold winters (that would be Montreal).

      The humidity there in the summer is a killer. And the winter, well ... Brrr... But then again, Montreal is very trendy - lots of restaurants, clubs, great nightlife, etc.

      Toronto - I grew up there. Very cosmopolitan, not quite as much as Montreal though. Financial center of Canada. Winters aren't as bad, summers are pretty warm but without the humidity.

      Nice thing about TO is that there are places to go if you want to get out of the city - little sub-urban areas within an hours drive or so. When I lived in Montreal, I felt trapped - it was so bloody far to drive to go anywhere *else*.

      Don't forget Vancouver though, which is where I now reside. Very moderate winters (snow is rare), close to the mountains, great summers. Lots to see and do.

    7. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am also in the middle of the country, in the city which is more or less at the geographical center of Canada (Thunder Bay Ontario)

    8. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ottawa. It's clean, lots to do, relatively close to Montreal, couple hours drive from Toronto.

      avoid toronto.

    9. Re:Asking your opinion... by NeoDragon · · Score: 1

      Well seeing that Landmark, Manitoba is the Longnitudinal centre of Canada, and that is less than 30 minutes from Winnipeg (where I live), I would have to say Thunder Bay (being another 7 hours east) is not really that close to the centre of Canada.

    10. Re:Asking your opinion... by addie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a Canadian who has lived in both cities:

      Move to Toronto if:
      1) You have money
      2) You enjoy money
      3) You like hearing people talk about money

      Move to Montreal if:
      1) For you, money is secondary to living
      2) You speak at least a bit of French
      3) You like looking at gorgeous women
      4) You enjoy a good party
      5) You aren't offended by stripclubs, prostitutes, foul language, or loud noises...
      6) You want to see diversity and eccentricity, not conformity and safety

      It's pretty obvious which one I'd choose...

    11. Re:Asking your opinion... by temojen · · Score: 1

      Vancouver or Victoria. or if you prefer small towns, Ladysmith or Duncan.

    12. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you hate Toronto? Get mugged there once or something? Or do you just hate cities that businesses congregate in? I've got plenty of cousins across the country, many who have a pathological hatred of Toronto. And in every case, for them it comes down to Toronto being full of "snobs" and "ethnics".

    13. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Just keep in mind that a lot of contests/free give-aways in North America aren't valid in Quebec (something about a local law that indicates all rules have to be in French as well, which a lot of companies don't comply with).

      Toronto is OK - I lived there for 4 years, presently living a bit north of there. If you're going somewhere that's on a subway/streetcar route, it's very easy to get around. Also a fair number of green spaces if you know where to look. Otherwise, a LOT of car traffic - watch out if you're a pedestrian. Lots of concerts, shows, and clubs of different types. Lots of different cultures in different parts of the city. Lots of "boutique" stores.

    14. Re:Asking your opinion... by Marc+Desrochers · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? A 30 minute drive in just about any direction from downtown Montreal and you are in the country. The city is an island, take a bridge, or the tunnel.

    15. Re:Asking your opinion... by DenOfEarth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have to pipe in on this one. If you're thinking of going to Montreal, then for sure, go to montreal. But if you're thinking of toronto, there are other places that might be more palatable. Vancouver springs to mind right away, but if you're wanting to live somewhere that's a bit cheaper, I recommend Calgary.

      Perhaps I'm biased having lived my whole life here, but Calgary's a growing city, has been growing like mad for years, and will be continuing to do so for a while. There's beautiful mountains nearby, with all the hiking, skiing, climbing, camping, mountain-biking you can imagine, and the climate here ain't so bad. A lot might not like it since it's so dry, but the dry cold isn't so bad in the winter, especially since it's sunny for ten out of twelve months of the year.

      There, done...at least one plug for Alberta.

    16. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Montreal because of the French chicks.

    17. Re:Asking your opinion... by subtillus · · Score: 1

      we've got hoes

    18. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "but if you're wanting to live somewhere that's a bit cheaper, I recommend Calgary."

      I've spent some time in Calgary, and for my money, if you're willing to settle for Calgary, you might as well try Winnipeg instead. It's much cheaper to live in Winnipeg, and it's pretty much the same as Calgary, but not quite so redneck.

    19. Re:Asking your opinion... by irix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My opinions ... yours may vary ...

      Toronto is a sprawling metropolis ... I prefer to live somewhere where the countryside or the cottage isn't a 3+ hour drive though congested traffic.

      Montreal has the cultural variety, but you have to live in Quebec and put up with the bullshit laws protecting "Quebec culture" and the sepratists. Nice place to visit, wouldn't want to live there.

      Vancouver is also a beautiful city, but you have to put up with the left-wing provinicial and city politics, which means getting worked over by the tax man, photo radar, etc. Again a nice place to visit, but wouldn't want to live there.

      I'd live in Calgary without hesitation ... the city isn't so big but it is a growth region and you are close to the mountains.

      Lastly I'll plug Ottawa since that is where I live. Only about a million people, but a 2 hour car ride from Montreal and a 4 hour car ride from Toronto if you feel like doing something different on the weekend. Ottawa has some of that big-city feel, but you don't have to drive through 18 layers of suburbia before you get to the country.

      --

      Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
    20. Re:Asking your opinion... by MKalus · · Score: 1

      Well,

      yeah that's how Toronto is on the surface, but there is a very active scene here as well.

      I have been to both, and though I think I would like Montreal better, Toronto is a very livable city (especially by North American standards).

      Not all is golden and shiny here but neither is Montreal, and at least nobody here gives the city money to stay in Canada ;)

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    21. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've been all over the US and Europe and can honestly say Toronto is one of the best places in the world in which to live. It's growing at at an incredible pace and with that growth we're seeing our share of problems like increases in pollution and crime rates. At the same time, when benchmarked against all other major cities of the world with a population in the area of 5 million, Toronto is amazingly safe and clean. In general, our taxes are higher than in the US, but this is offset by higher average incomes. The good news is we see real/tangible benefits for the tax dollars we pay and enjoy a standard of living you simply don't see anywhere in the rest of the world. "Cottage country" (as we call it) is about an hour outside of the metro area and has some of the most beautiful summer camping, fishing,boating,lakes and beaches you'll ever enjoy. Toronto nightlife is a blast and there's ALWAYS something interesting happening. Other reasons to check out T-O in the summer: Wasaga beach, Queens Quey, the Islands, Niagra region, Canada's Wonderland, CN Tower, Skydome, Wooden Sticks/Angus Glen and the Docks nightclub. (www.thedocks.com/)

    22. Re:Asking your opinion... by N0decam · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's just me, but I find Calgary to be way overrated. You get a lot of the inconveniences of a big city, but few of the advantages of being a true world center.

      Unless you're into oil and gas, in which case, it's a pretty good place to go.

      If you're in any other industry though, you're probably better off going anywhere else - somewhere smaller (Saskatoon, Regina?) if you don't like big city life, or somewhere more cosmopolitan like Montreal or Vancouver if that's your desire.

      Admittedly, I might be biased, as I've never really "touristed" in Calgary like I have in Vancouver and Montreal.

    23. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, its pretty obvious...

      TORONTO!

      i have no problem with the gorgeous women, the strippers, and the rest of it....

      its the french that bugs me.

      all the rest can be found anywhere in canada, or the world for that matter. try vancouver.

    24. Re:Asking your opinion... by Psycho77 · · Score: 1

      Some points to mention about Quebec too (Montréal). (I cant tell for Toronto) - You can go in bar when you reach 18 years old. - Bar open early (nothing like 10h00pm or 11h00pm like in others provinces) and close at 3h00am (unlike 1h00am) - Stripclubs contact dance are 10$ (CAD mind you) - You can buy beers almost everywhere (no need to go at a liquor store). You just go take a walk outside to get your beers. - If you don't speak french you can just go live in some english areas. This might be tricky for your job thought, depend of what you do. Most french speakers usually speak a "decent" english because they work require it. (Of course a lots of peoples have to call outside the province/country often, etc). And its not rare to see peoples speaking english only anyway. Everything you buy come in both language too.

    25. Re:Asking your opinion... by DenOfEarth · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think Calgary's actually a really touristy type city anyways. In fact, on the outside, it seems like a terribly boring place, but having watched it grow over the years, it's nice to see things like:

      • Calgary Stampede (yeh, been around for a while, but still cool to go out to the pub and see thousands of people out having a good time)
      • Calgary Folk Festival
      • Calgary Jazz Festival (nothing compared to Montreal's, but whatever)
      • An International Film Festival
      • Now a regular stop for the Cirque de Soleil
      • The Ship and Anchor (have to be here to check it out, cool pub).
      • etc. etc.

      Add into that the fact that I can get a really good apartment right in the heart of downtown for less than 900 CAD$ a month, and it turns out things are pretty good to me. Also, like mentioned in previous post, the mountains nearby can be a big bonus that places like montreal and toronto don't have, if you're into that sort of thing.

    26. Re:Asking your opinion... by amokk · · Score: 1
      One thing about Calgary is that the nightlife sucks. If you don't like going to clubs and drinking every single day, you are basically left with few options. Some of them include:

      • Dennys
      • Humptys
      • Blackfoot Diner
      • Random Chinese Owned Bubble-tea Cafe
      • Boston Pizza


      That's it
      Nothing else.

      This city closes at 10:00, sometimes 11:00
      --
      I think, therefore I am an Atheist.
    27. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toronto has never placed very high on the Top cities to live in list. Vancouver has ranked in the top 3 consistently....taking #1 more than once. Toronto doesn't have any mountains either....the highest point in all of Ontario is only about 600m above sea level....my house in Vancouver is higher than that...

    28. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of folks in Vancouver are high and it has nothing to do with mountains.

    29. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the criteria,.. Toronto ranks pretty well in terms of economic growth: (http://www.lasalle.com/news/ccr1.omm) This obviously translates into lots of jobs and financial security for it's population. But if you dont want a job and just want to smoke phat blunts all day, Vancouver is your town!

    30. Re:Asking your opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha ha drunkin duncan watch out for the natives under the bridge.

  28. Copyright Infringement!! by interactive_civilian · · Score: 3, Funny
    the noble AC said:
    The atmosphere's lawyer, Moria, had no comment, but whooshed out of the courthouse with a whistling sound.
    At which point the RIAA immediately started proceedings for a new lawsuit as the tune being whistled infringed on one of their client's copyrights.
    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  29. ISP is a median by Jpauls104 · · Score: 1

    An individuals house could be a median for friends and family to download illegal files... Therefore that individual cannot be held responsible for anyone elses actions. Therefore, how can they sue a households owner for the childs copyright infringment.

    1. Re:ISP is a median by clonebarkins · · Score: 1

      An individuals house could be a median for friends and family to download illegal files... Therefore that individual cannot be held responsible for anyone elses actions. Therefore, how can they sue a households owner for the childs copyright infringment.

      Because the relationship between ISP and paying customer is not the same as the relationship between a kid and his or her parent(s). Parents are legally responsible for their children, while ISPs are not (and should not be) responsible for what their customers do with a product (in this case, bandwidth).

      It's the same argument as a lot of other things: Should the maker of a hammer be responsible for a customer who beats his wife over the head with it? Should car manufacturers be responsible for drunk drivers? Should gun makers be held responsible for a postal worker's rampage? Of course not.

      --

      "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

    2. Re:ISP is a median by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't -- they sue the child's ward. This is the person who is legally responsible for the child's actions until they reach the age of majority, and it is usually a parent (or both). If your friends snuck over and used your computer for infringing purposes, this argument might have a case... however, if you wilfully let them come over and use your computer specifically for that purpose, you would be an acessory. If you're over the age of majority, you get the full force of the law applied to you -- if you're under the age of majority, your ward does. "Households" are not sued, people (and corporations because they are given the rights of individuals) are sued.

  30. Shania Twain by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1
    you forgot the most important reason.

    the ONLY reason to watch CMT

  31. Same in USA by wurp · · Score: 2, Informative

    We pay the same 'tax' on blank music CDs in the US. Per the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, if you use digital audio equipment and audio CDs to copy borrowed music CDs that is not a violation of copyright. The trade-off is that you pay a fee to the RIAA on every audio cd and piece of digital audio recording equipment. Of course, they don't tell you this - they just let you pay the fee on audio CDs and leave digital audio recording equipment essentially unavailable, so they get their tax and can still sue you for copying music CDs.

    1. Re:Same in USA by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      These taxes/levies should essentially nullify any legal action by the RIAA, or they should be removed.

      Anyone that is sued by the RIAA should be able to present a receipt for blank CDs to the courts and have the case thrown out.

    2. Re:Same in USA by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "The trade-off is that you pay a fee to the RIAA on every audio cd and piece of digital audio recording equipment."

      The majority of the tarrif on blank audio CD-Rs in the US goes to artists, composers and performers. A small slice of the pie goes to record companies, as they tend to hold or co-hold copyrights on recordings. None goes to the RIAA.

      "Of course, they don't tell you this - they just let you pay the fee on audio CDs and leave digital audio recording equipment essentially unavailable, so they get their tax and can still sue you for copying music CDs."

      Who's "they" ? The RIAA? They see none of this money. If you would like to learn more about the tarrif, this spells it out.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  32. Big Glass of STFU by groupthink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think its worth taking note this wasn't any kind of split decision on the court's part. No decension among the ranks, 9-0 is a strong decision.

    1. Re:Big Glass of STFU by fishwallop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The decision was 9-0 on whether ISPs should pay royalties for (C) music they transfer, but was 8-1 on an interesting issue regarding when a communication originates in Canada. The majority decides that a communication that originates outside of Canada can be considered to be made "in Canada". Justice LeBel's dissent focusses on the privacy implications of this decision. If an American server has to pay Canadian royalties for serving Canadian music to Canadians, it probably can't be anonymous (at the very least it would have to use some sort of geographic location algorithm). This means that the operator is effectively forced to collect your personal information. The alternative rule, that all and only servers in Canada with music on them are liable for royalties, for all of its other flaws, is much better for consumer privacy.

  33. The Supreme Court by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 0
    in a very controversial 5 to 4 ruling held that the RIAA has a right to sue any individual not in a coma, if they do not agree to have anti-copying devices installed. Troy McClure, the lawyer for the RIAA had this to say:
    • For too long now, every man woman and child on the planet has been illegally STEALING our copyrighted works.
    • Every man woman and child with this device creates a perfect copy of an artists work when they hear a song. This leads to billions upon billions of illegal copies. This device, also known as "The Brain" is responsible for really bad stuff. Now, we will be able to limit this EVIL device's useage by installing our anti-pirating device known as the TIN FOIL HAT to prevent this illegal pirating. If this "BRAIN" can no longer hear our music, then it cannot make copies!

  34. Sometimes customers do not understand by p0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We had an incident where a customer called our support staff asking us to block pr0n for them, and blamed us for not doing so earlier. Apparently her son got a glimpse of some nasty popups while he was browsing. We had to go through a tough time explaining to her that it is the customers responsibilty to install parental control software to prevent such unwanted trouble. It shock us to hear from her that, 'even cable TV operators block ugly shows!'. Imagine!

    --
    This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
  35. Marijuana not legal in Canada - yet by DeadVulcan · · Score: 3, Informative

    not to mention bud is basically legal there!

    If by "basically legal" you mean "in practice," then you're basically right. The police tend not to make much effort to prosecute for marijuana possession in Canada.

    This is way off-topic, but I want to dispel a misconception. Conan O'Brien once mentioned on his talk show that "Canada's parliament is considering legalizing marijuana..." This was so inaccurate as to be totally incorrect. In fact, at the time, there was a senate committee report that recommended that parliament consider decriminalizing marijuana.

    So it wasn't parliament, by which one typically means the House of Commons (the elected lower house), it was the Senate (the unelected upper house). And it wasn't even the whole Senate, but just a committee. They weren't "considering," it was just a report that made a recommendation. And nobody was talking of legalization, just decriminalization, the difference being that it's still not legal, but you just wouldn't get thrown in jail, nor will you get a criminal record for possession - just a fine, rather like a traffic violation.

    Some time later, a decriminalization bill was proposed in the House of Commons, but I believe it was dropped when the election was called about a month ago, so there has been no movement by the government in terms of actual legislation. So marijuana possession is, officially, still quite illegal here.

    But we actually have the funny single-platform Marijuana Party fighting for legalization here in Canada, so who knows... Maybe someday it will be legal.

    --
    Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
    Power in the hands of the accountable.
    1. Re:Marijuana not legal in Canada - yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      not to mention bud is basically legal there!

      And for the benefit of those who may not know, the quality of BC Bud is also amongst the highest in the world. It's no coincidence that the central feature of the Canadian flag is a leaf...

    2. Re:Marijuana not legal in Canada - yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately all of this is moot. Canada has no option to do anything with changing the status of Marijuana as the good 'ol USA would shit a fucking brick if they did.

      Hell they are already up in arms about BC and their "bud problem".

      Sadly the USA doesn't get it.

    3. Re:Marijuana not legal in Canada - yet by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1
      If by "basically legal" you mean "in practice," then you're basically right. The police tend not to make much effort to prosecute for marijuana possession in Canada.

      Anyone who's been out of doors on July 1 will probably understand the extent to which that goes.

      Speaking from my own chunk of the country in Halifax, a lot of the local drug scene gets together on Canada Day to celebrate Cannabis Day. They gather by the scores or hundreds in the commons and, well, do what they do best.

      Cops won't touch 'em.

      It's happened several years in a row, and I'm fairly certain it's fairly widespread across the country. Granted, I'm gonna be on the other side of town tomorrow, so I don't have to end up dealing with the second-hand effects of a whole lot of people trying their darndest to hotbox several acres of park.

      -PS

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Marijuana not legal in Canada - yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we actually have the funny single-platform Marijuana Party fighting for legalization here in Canada, so who knows... Maybe someday it will be legal.

      The recent election gives this issue a bit of a boost. Although the Conservatives gained quite a few seats, the Liberals are more likely to side with the NDP. To get the NDP's support on the issues they want, they may have to support the NDP on what the NDP wants. We may see some talk about proportional representation and marijuana.

    5. Re:Marijuana not legal in Canada - yet by Hamstaus · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I moderate "-1, Fool"
  36. Just another reason to move to Candada by iisageek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    America is shifting from a country to a big company. we no longer do what is right, but rather what is more profitable for "America" (the governemnt). I.E. Open source does not draw in as much money as large corprations do, thus there is a highr lobby to keep coprarations working verses working on new and better technology to inprove mandkind. What we need is to take a tip from our neighbor to the north, people are happier and have access to better tech because Candada isn't appeasing coprations that are hellbent on sucking out ever last dime from consumers (well with the music industry: EX-Consumers) that they can.

    1. Re:Just another reason to move to Candada by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The only thing keeping open source out of the workplace is open source. once it's reached suitable maturity, and can offer the same functionality for less, people will switch. It's not there yet. Soon, but not yet.

    2. Re:Just another reason to move to Candada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. A big socialist company whining about it's entitlements, I might add.

  37. I'm glad I co-locate in CA by phildog · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have a server I co-locate up in Canada. I live in Northern Virginia, I've never seen their facility, just shipped off my shiny Dell one day and waited for my IP address to arrive.

    I think I'll use that box to do all my bittorrent downloads from here on out. Not sure if the privacy laws in the great white north will protect an expat like myself, but I figure my odds are somewhat better to NOT get sued up there.

    --
    slashsearch.org - slashdot search. powered by google.
  38. Intent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is relevant: http://www.eff.org/IP/Apple_Complaint.php

    If we start accusing people of crimes for aiding the ability for another to perform a crime, we might as well throw everyone on the planet in jail. How many people does a terrorist interact with in his/her life? Is the father at fault for teaching the kid about money, whereupon the kid learns knowledge about how to abuse the system to become rich? How can possibly prove that the father had "intent" to teach the son how to do something illegal? You can't. That's why the person is the one who is blamed for their own action in breaking the law (as well as any obvious people who contributed directly to the act.)

    Further, what is blamed of a person is the action they take, not anything which leads up to the action (even the person's own thinking.) Recall the lesson to be learned by the movie/book Minority Report: though a person may show all the signs which establish intent to perform a crime, that does not mean they are guilty until they actually perform a crime. I may walk down the street and think about having sex with a woman I see walking next to me, but it's not rape until I actually go up and try to rape her.

    The problem here is that the Internet is designed for free speach, not for law or copywrite enforcement. ISPs are being targeted becuase they have a means to enforce laws. But enforcing law is not the responsiblity of an ISP. ISPs neither have the physical means to enforce copywrite nor the mandate to do so. Let the FBI create a Net Force division a la Tom Clancy, and do their own copywrite enforcement. Attacking ISPs (or universities, or any other group other then a law enforcement group) is not the answer.

  39. Where have you been? by zuvembi · · Score: 1

    Emm, I'm digging now, ehh; why not sew my lips shut too. I can whistle a tune without paying royalties.

    Wrong bucko! You get in the line with those law breaking litte tarts! There won't be anyone singing any songs around here without paying up. And we're expecting a check from your next Birthday party too!

  40. Common Sense by XiticiX · · Score: 1

    Wow, common sense prevails in Canada yet again! Imagine that.

    --
    All is prevelant in the world...
  41. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll



    The state government is sued because the roads they provide allow people to speed.

  42. Copyright violation never hurt anyone? by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At the end of this dispute 3000 lay dead, a man was exiled and a saint was borne.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  43. Score 5??? by buanderie · · Score: 1

    I've read most of the replies about this post and specially about the funny cons about French-speaking People. I've gone through a range of feeling from frustation to some understanding but my overall feeling is that it's really sad to see this kind of comment get a score of 5... I wrongly tought /. had some sort of international opening rather than being an American only site...

    1. Re:Score 5??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think Americans are the only ones who have had problems with the French?

    2. Re:Score 5??? by buanderie · · Score: 1

      So, if there is more than more country who hates French-speaking people it becomes fine to comment about that? I'm really currious... What is that minimum number of countries to make offending comments acceptable...

    3. Re:Score 5??? by buanderie · · Score: 1

      So, if there is more than more country who hates French-speaking people it becomes fine to comment about that? I'm really currious... What is that minimum number of countries to make offending comments acceptable...

  44. I'll Bite by temojen · · Score: 1

    Let's see: Pros
    1) Not hated by the world
    2) Speak mostly English
    3) Hockey
    4) Weaker music industry lobby. -- Nope... Supreme court with brains & integrity, except when it comes to finance law.
    5) Lower Crime Rate
    6) No Bushes -- Ah... That's where Steven Harper comes in.

    Cons:
    1) Cold -- Move to Nanaimo, Cowichan Valley, or the Gulf Islands then. It's a similar climate to Oregon (sheltered by the mountains on Vancouver Island, but not enough to not be warmed by the Japan Current.
    2) Curling -- People curl? not anyone I know
    3) French-speaking People -- Why do you care what language someone else speaks? If you don't like hearing other languages, you won't like any place in Canada. There are tons of people here who speak Korean, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Hindi, Punjabi, Arabic, Russian... you get the idea...
    4) French-speaking People

    1. Re:I'll Bite by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Why do you care what language someone else speaks?

      I don't know. Why?

      BTW: I got the opportunity to speak to an ex-Quebec business operator who was an anglophone. He explained his employees wanted to learn proper English, and when the language police (!) came to *force* them to speak French (it's the law) they refused. In the end he had to boot the guy out and enjoy a hefty fine to protect his worker's human right to speak the language of their choice. He quit doing business there shortly after, along with plenty of other people who wanted to do business in a language other than French.

      And you wonder why the French are so hated in Canada...

      >There are tons of people here who speak Korean, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Hindi, Punjabi, Arabic, Russian...

      Not in Quebec unless they enjoy doing it from the inside of a jail cell. Well, that is, if they plan to speak that inside a business.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    2. Re:I'll Bite by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree with your comment about French-speaking people. The poster in question must not live in a city, or if s/he does must not live, work, or pass through a multi-ethnic area. I can't imagine anyone who hates the fact that so many people speak French liking most cities in the US. Take a drive from where I live to Chicago (about 50-60 miles). I pass through ethnic areas where the major language is English, SPanish, German, Polish, etc, etc. Probably some Chinese and other languages as well. And that's in about an hour to 90 minutes of driving.

      The US just really isn't good for intolerant people unless they live in the richer suburbs, small towns, or a good amount of the southern states (yes, that is a sort of stereotype).

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    3. Re:I'll Bite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's f***ing bulsh*t.

      Nobody going to jail for speaking a language other than french in Quebec. Neither do they lose their jobs.

      The only job where you have to be BILINGUAL or french speaking are the government jobs or those company dealing with the government.

      Now try to get a job outside of Quebec if you are a french speaking only Canadian despite the fact that french is one of the two official language in Canada.

    4. Re:I'll Bite by Karhgath · · Score: 1

      That's mostly BS.

      The "Loi 101" (Law 101) that tries protect the french langauge (whether you agree with it or not) doesn't force people to speak french.

      Also, there are no Language Police or anything like that.

      However, the laws does put some restrictions:
      Public display(ads, etc.) must be in french. It can also be both in french and english, provided that the french font is X%(10-15 I think) larger than the english font, so that it's predominantly french. Also, public channels(hotline, support line, websites, etc.) must have a french version.

      Also, the government (or companies under governmental control, like Hydro Quebec) must use french as an official language, which only means that accounting and such is in french. It can also be in english, provided that a french version is also done. It doesn't mean everyone must speak french.

      Actually, there are a lot of english only companies, they just have to advertise in french and provide support in french, so only an handful of person actually need to be bilingual.

      Like I said, there is no 'language police', but people can complain to the govt about a company advertising/having a sign only in english, and the company can be fined.

      This is probably not exhaustive, but I think it shows that it's not draconian like you said.

      I do not personally agree with the law(and I'm french, but I find it stupid, especially the "the font must be X% bigger in french" part) but I reckon that it's at least a somewhat good attempt to try to protect our language and culture in a sea of english speaking people, I wasn't able to find another one.

      And, BTW, like anything(religion, race, language, etc.), some people always act badly and are filled with hate, but don't let them fool you, the french speaking people are usually friendly toward other canadians and americans, and if you come downtown or in the west part of Montreal(which is the english speaking community), 90%+ of the people will speak english anyway so you won't have a problem. Heck, the whole west island is english only, not many speaks french there.

    5. Re:I'll Bite by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Also, there are no Language Police or anything like that.

      Oh? Who are they? Perhaps you'd like to explain why the EFF call them language police?

      The official name is "Inspector". Inspector is a term for a police officer that inspects crimes. Therefore, an inspector working for the French Language Office (the translation) would be a "Police Inspector for the French Language Office", or, in short "Language Police Officer".

      Here's a little article on what I'm talking about.

      "...in their zeal to defend French, the old guard's language police punish violators of Quebec's stringent language laws--for example, English on business signs is permitted but only if the lettering is one-third the size of the French letters--with fines and other threats against business activity."

      "A Greek immigrant had a van on which he advertised his business--'Bill's Plumbing and Heating.' The language law forbids English on any vehicle whose owner pursues his trade exclusively in Quebec. His truck and tools were seized and auctioned off by the language police because he would not pay the fine imposed for putting "Bill's Plumbing" on the side of his truck. A mason making gravestones was also attacked because the epitaphs were not bilingual."

      Emphasis mine.

      >Like I said, there is no 'language police', but people can complain to the govt about a company advertising/having a sign only in english, and the company can be fined.

      Then, exactly _who_ confiscated that man's gravestones, and the other man's truck? Do you expect they were willingly handed over?

      Clearly, there are police enforcing this law. Making them... (drumroll)... language police. This is in the same line as a police officer checking meters is a "meter maid", and a police officer metering your speed on a road is a "road pirate".

      >I do not personally agree with the law(and I'm french, but I find it stupid, especially the "the font must be X% bigger in french" part) but I reckon that it's at least a somewhat good attempt to try to protect our language and culture in a sea of english speaking people, I wasn't able to find another one.

      Perhaps we should just hole up english speakers in internment camps until they learn to speak the "right" language.

      And you would wonder why people hate the French.

      >And, BTW, like anything(religion, race, language, etc.), some people always act badly and are filled with hate, but don't let them fool you, the french speaking people are usually friendly toward other canadians and americans, and if you come downtown or in the west part of Montreal(which is the english speaking community), 90%+ of the people will speak english anyway so you won't have a problem. Heck, the whole west island is english only, not many speaks french there.

      That's exciting. This person from Quebec actually explained how most of the Anglophones in the west island moved out because they couldn't work with the new laws (which, BTW, consistently violate Canada's Charter of Rights -- Quebec has to, every 5 years, pass themselves an exemption to the rights the rest of Canada enjoys), and that now, when he vists where his business and home was, he feels like an unwanted stranger.

      If the Canadian French are so welcoming towards visitors, why do they consistently choose to almost uniformly elect the Bloc Quebecois, a party dedicated to the hatred of all that is Canadian and English? A party that has, on numerous occasions, attempted to separate Quebec from Canada? A party that managed to convince 49.97% of Quebecers that the English and Canadians were ruining their lives?

      Fuck Quebec and their decision to continue to implement language police.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    6. Re:I'll Bite by Karhgath · · Score: 1

      I won't try to argue about the language police. If you break the law and don't want to pay the small fine, then too bad. The fine isn't that big, and it's not that hard to comply. Why does everyone works with that without problems but there is always a self-righteous group that wants to fight it? There are always 2-3 public cases like these that are beaten and debated to death. Like I said, I would personally not mind, but it's not the case for everyone, especially not the law.

      Heck, I find the american constitution, especially the part about firearms to be totally stupid. I cannot understand why you want to have guns and stuff, it's just totally criptic for me and I believe it's dangerous for the lives of other and against the charter of rights. Does that means it's a stupid thing? No. I respect our southern neighbors for it and understand that it's a cultural thing, with the revolution, founding fathers and all. Our language law has the same exact root. We have language police, the US has the NRA and laws defending this ideal. The right to bear arms, the right to live ina french province. I personally find our much less dangerous but that's just me.

      The thing is, except in Montreal, most people speak french and often doesn't even speak english. We're a province whose the official language is French, but we're lost in a sea of english speaking people. It's hard for a canadian or american to understand, but we're a minority who happens to have a whole province to itself. How do you want to preserve a culture? It's pretty hard as it is, but I agree the penalties for the 101 law is usually way too draconian.

      As for your personal attacks, they are quite vain I believe. What most people don't understand is that we don't hate english speaking people, or their culture or whatever. Heck, I work in english all day, read english books, watch movies in english, etc. There's a minority that does hate you, as there's a minority of racist, nazi, KKK, etc. in every culture anyway.

      We don't mind the rest of Canada, however, we believe we could rule ourselves better as a nation. It's not that we hate them, it's that we believe that they cannot rule fairly for us and our specific needs. I'm not that seperatist, but I can understand why some people are, especially when you check history and see how shafted we've been in the past.

      Also, don't bring the Bloc into it, beside being a seperatist, its a left group that many people, english people, outside Quebec would vote for if they had candidates outside Quebec and dropped the seperatist part.

      We could say the same of the Prairies, who voted about 80%+ Conservative. Should we hate them too because they don't vote Liberals? Heck, there was even a movement for the seperation of the west a couple of years ago. Should they be lapidated because they voted en masse for another party?

      Also, about the West Island "mov[ing] out because they couldn't work with the new laws". They still are govern by the same laws wherever they are, so I don't understand this argument.

      You see, people gather in communities. We, the french speaking people living in a greater english Canada, band together and try to defend our common interests, whatever they are, because we believe some of the laws and politics are not for our best interests.

      Then, english people living among us band together in small english communities for exactly the same motives. You cannot say, without being biased, that it's different. I approve of people gathering in communities and cultures(greek, jewish, etc.) to be stronger and defend their interests. Heck, Montreal is extremely multicultural, it's incredible. I live in one of the most multi-ethnic part of Montreal (Cotes-des-neiges) and I'm a white middle aged man and feel at home, having all kinds of restaurants and cultural events around me.

      It just happens that we are(Quebec) a lot bigger than most communities and have a province and a governement(provincial) to ourselves. Heck, our territory is 3 times as big

    7. Re:I'll Bite by shepd · · Score: 1

      >I won't try to argue about the language police. If you break the law and don't want to pay the small fine, then too bad.

      So, even though the laws are totally unethical, because the results of breaking them aren't too serious (in your opinion), it doesn't matter?

      What if we were to fine people $50 for practicing Falun Gong in public? That'd be ok because the fine is petty, right?

      >It's hard for a canadian or american to understand

      Bingo. I always knew people from Quebec didn't believe themselves to be Canadian.

      You know what? I just hope to hell the BQ gets this separation over with. When you are forced to learn English because Canada and the US (your ONLY local trading partners) won't speak French, you'll understand the word "co-operation". Your province, and the BQ, have been reminded on serveral occasions, that Quebec would be unable to sustain it's first world status without trade with the rest of the world (especially Canada and the US).

      >We're a province whose the official language is French, but we're lost in a sea of english speaking people.

      You don't even realise how insulting that is, do you?

      How about this one, for Germany:

      "We're a country where the official race is Aryan, but we're lost in a sea of Jews"

      Good Lord.

      >Also, don't bring the Bloc into it, beside being a seperatist, its a left group that many people, english people, outside Quebec would vote for if they had candidates outside Quebec and dropped the seperatist part.

      Why shouldn't I? About 85% of your people support the Bloc (I'm too lazy to do the math, look up the provincial numbers at Elections Canada yourself -- they're probably higher). The Bloc's objective is to remove Quebec from Canada at any cost. The numbers are official.

      >We could say the same of the Prairies, who voted about 80%+ Conservative. Should we hate them too because they don't vote Liberals?

      Does the Conservative party want to separate the Praries from Canada? Do they force people to speak languages they don't choose too? Are they going to voilate the very foundation of the country, it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

      Hell no.

      >You see, people gather in communities.

      Hitler called them "ghettos". Use the right terms. [I really don't give a shit about Godwin at this point -- You're using the EXACT type of terminology you'd find in "Mein Kampf"]

      >We, the french speaking people living in a greater english Canada, band together and try to defend our common interests, whatever they are, because we believe some of the laws and politics are not for our best interests.

      WHAT LAWS AND POLITICS? WTF? What the hell laws are preventing a French person from celebrating their language and culture outside of Quebec?

      The fact you are a Xenophobic race of people is saddening, and is the very reason your culture cannot survive. If you aren't willing to spread out and teach through example why the Quebecois culture is so very valid, then nobody will ever understand. If you continue to make your province one where anyone from outside that wishes to revel in it's culture cannot without feeling like an outsider, nobody will understand.

      It's up to YOUR province to make the first step. We've left the door WIDE OPEN.

      >Then, english people living among us band together in small english communities for exactly the same motives.

      They're AFRAID of you! Or have you forgotten the FLQ?

      Here are the conditions that the ruling authorities must fulfil in order to save the life of the representative of the ancient racist and colonialist British system.

      >You cannot say, without being biased, that it's different.

      WTF? Within the lifetimes of most people using slashdot, representatives of YOUR culture KIDNAPPED, KILLED, AND

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  45. Fact?? by smagruder · · Score: 4, Interesting
    despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy

    This is like saying "despite the fact that air provides the means for shouting an obscenity"

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  46. Common Carrier ISPs make a ton of sense by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But unlike telcos, ISPs provide more than a wire. They provide services, such as email and DNS. Using your logic, I could see that an ISP, as a common carrier, would have to carry the spam, but as a service provider could then very well not deliver it. It's mildly similar to call-blocking features sold by the telcos. Sound reasonable?

    It actually is simpler than that.

    Define ISPs as common carriers (after all, in 99.999% of the cases that is effectively what they are, and any other course leads to a madhouse of government regulation and oversight).

    Define SPAM to be illegal, just as SPAM faxes are illegal, and just as obscene and threatening phone calls are illegal.

    Then, place enforcement where it belongs, with the authorities (who can require cooperation from ISPs), not the ISPs themselves, who should be in the business of providing connectivity and services, not enforcing the law.

    Those services, as you correctly point out, would (and already do) logically include mail filtering software of varying quality.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Common Carrier ISPs make a ton of sense by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      "SPAM" is a brand name. The word you're looking for is "spam".

    2. Re:Common Carrier ISPs make a ton of sense by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Define ISPs as common carriers...

      That's the clearly obvious solution. I think most slashdotters would agree in an instant.

      Be advised that there are segments of the industry who have vowed to never allow this to happen (again, at least in the US). They use language like "...nationalizing the infrastructure we've built with private investment..." and other such arguments. Their logic follows the general train of thought that, since (for example) the cable company paid to put down the wires, they should be able to decide what gets carried, what doesn't, and how much it costs to move a particular packet from the latter category into the former.

      These industry players are all currently swearing (on their mothers graves) that they would never use their control of their infrastructure to enforce policies which are favorable to their own bottom line at the expense of competitors. But when you look at the feature set of enterprise networking equipment being offered by all the major manufacturers, you'll find nothing sells without the ability to selectively block certain ports, certain channels, etc. based on policy.

      Expect the plesantness to continue until consolidation leaves us with one player owning more that 50% of the access, at which point the gloves will come off as far as the FCC will allow.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  47. Rightfully So... by megarich · · Score: 0

    At least some court has their senses about them. With that same type of logic guns would of been outlawed decades ago. I mean after all, its not the person who uses the gun that's the killer, its the person who sold and provided the gun...

    Well that's only true if you have a gigillion dollars and congress in your back pocket...

  48. Winnipeg - more than cold and mosquitos by FlyingOrca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to put in my 0.0149346 USD on Winnipeg as a place to live. I've lived or spent time in most of Canada's big cities, and Winnipeg often gets an undeservedly bad rap (see parent for example). I'm not a native Winnipegger (hell, I'm not even a native Canadian, I'm a refugee from down south), but I've lived here off and on for almost 30 years.

    True, the winters can be cold. And true, the mosquitos are a pain in the ass. But we have more than enough to make Winnipeg "the best kept secret in Canada".

    As a musician, one of the chief attractions for me is our vibrant music scene. Ditto for other arts, including several world-class dance companies, a great theatre scene, and some truly excellent galleries. The film industry is booming because the city is clean, inexpensive, and rich with talent.

    Winnipeg enjoys gorgeous summer weather, more sunshine than most other cities, a high proportion of greenspace and some lovely parks. We arguably boast the world's best per capita selection of restaurants. Fishing, hunting, and other outdoor activities are world-class. We have museums (soon to include the new international human rights museum at The Forks) and a wealth of historic architecture.

    Best of all, Winnipeg is a multicultural bonanza, much like Toronto albeit in a more cozy fashion. Perhaps it is the Manitoba tradition of welcoming immigrants that has made this city and province the open, inviting, friendly place it is today. All I know is that people who move here - however much they initially dread it - are soon loath to leave, and those who move away find themselves coming back. Ask them why, and they'll say, "The people."

    Now, as a selfish isolationist, I really shouldn't be saying all this, because I don't WANT any more people moving here. But I do think it's sometimes important to reply to people who don't know anything about Winnipeg beyond... cold and mosquitos. ;-)

    Cheers!

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    1. Re:Winnipeg - more than cold and mosquitos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Very few cities with bad reps deserve it, especially when spouted off by guys in Van or Tor who've never left their burbs (both lovely cities, BTW).

  49. Parisians by junkgoof · · Score: 1

    I went to Paris a couple of years ago, and expected rudeness. Everyone I met was friendly and excessively polite, but then I spoke French to them. From what I saw the rudeness came not with language, but with long-windedness. Most people I spoke to wanted to be able to FINISH THEIR SENTENCES and when tourists cut them off in mid word and asked something else the Parisian got testy. Language is taken seriously in Paris. People try to not only say what they have to say, but to say it in an interesting way, and they don't like being cut off after three words.

    Waiters and other service employees tend to expect some respect, too. Serious hierarchical stuff within companies, but not with the public.

    --
    You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
  50. Good news for now by bigberk · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Good news for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Heritage Committee, in their report just last month, outlined their plans for ratifying WIPO and wants to change the laws governing ISP responsibility.

      On a happy note at least the Heritage Minister so anxious to sell the average Canadian out (Helene Scherrer) is out of a job (courtesy of the Bloc Quebecois and a recent election -- who says two wrongs can't make a right?). I'm sure the one-sided laws will get pushed through anyway, but at least Canadians have this much satisfaction.

    2. Re:Good news for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lumping of the NDP in as a willing coalition partner for the Liberal Parties desire to enact Canadian WIPO support is utter nonsense.

      Check out the NDP platform http://ndp.ca/platform and see for yourself.

  51. No, royalties are treated the same as ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    they are under the totalitarian system south of their border.

  52. Language laws by junkgoof · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Quebec language laws vary between emotional reaction to finally not being treated as second class citizens by other Quebeckers, and an attempt to keep the culture looking strong. Most language protection in Quebec has been of the foot-shooting variety (translated movies trash the local industry now that translation is mandated, French speakers can no longer have their kids learn English or other languages at school, while the provincial premirer sends his kids to boarding school in England), but some of it (requiring French instruction manuals, street signs, even store signs) makes a lot of sense.

    Quebecers were a persecuted minority for a few centuries (some think they still are, I would disagree) and you have to expect payback to go a little far. Compared to most colonized areas (India, South and Central America, Africa, Caribean etc.) Quebec is doing just fine. I was happy to live their as an English-speaker (though I speak reasonable French) and I expect to go back soon. It takes a few generations (at least) to get over being mistreated by another culture (not to mention the catholic church which has dropped way down in Quebec priorities).

    --
    You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
    1. Re:Language laws by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      but some of it (requiring French instruction manuals, street signs, even store signs) makes a lot of sense.

      I'm a little surprised that the provincial government hasn't been sued into oblivion by the families of people who have died in traffic accients because the signs are only in French.

    2. Re:Language laws by junkgoof · · Score: 1

      Street signs are generally pictorial. There was a nut on the fringe who said he was going to go through signs that say "stop," even though stop is a French word, but generally safety over language.

      For that matter I think it is legal to have other languages on signs as long as French "predominates." I don't know how much the laws are enforced by now (used to be serious). They have a bureau to report language law violations, and the number of complaints is fairly high (a few hundred/month or year or something), but the number of complainants is pretty steady, same 5 or 6 guys. It's not a dead issue, but most people are content with the current situation.

      --
      You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
  53. Van and Tor both lovely! by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

    Agreed. I had the good fortune of living on the Toronto Islands for a few years as a child, and they were absolutly idyllic. My brother lives in downtown TO now, and I really enjoy visiting.

    Vancouver is a city with which I fall more in love every time I visit; I'm headed back in August. I've even toyed with the notion of moving there, but I'm pretty settled in Winnipeg and I think I'd miss the scene here a little too much. Still, there's something to be said for mountains, trees, ocean, and no screens on the windows. Cheers!

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  54. Invade Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's time to invade^H^H^H^H^H^Hassist Canada and liberate them from the tyranny of copyright pirates, and introduce draconian^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hemocratic laws and constitution to protect American^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Canadian interest.

  55. Re:Java Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to forget coders...
    James Gosling (Java)
    Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD)
    BioWare (Neverwinter)

  56. Re:Canadian Exports... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Speaking of Canadian Exports....saw Rush in Houston last weekend. Man..what a great show. For 3 older guys, they still sounded great...played a nice long show, and best of all, you could tell they still enjoyed doing it....not just going through the motions for the paycheck.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  57. stereotypes by junkgoof · · Score: 1

    On the other hand traditions, history, and notions of politeness tend to vary by country. Countries have different laws (like pseudolegal drugs in Holland that also impact culture), and different expectations. Some of these traditions, laws, and so forth lead to generalizations and stereotypes some of which are correct and some that are not. This is quite different from racial stereotyping which tends to be meaningless as shared genes don't appear to have a whole lot of impact on intelligence, personality, behavior etc.

    I think there is a distinction in there, but I guess it is a pretty fine one. Stereotype only in ways that won't piss people off?

    --
    You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
    1. Re:stereotypes by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      The problem with stereotyping by country is that, in larger countries (and even most small ones) different areas of the same country have vastly different cultures depending on geography, local laws, racial makeup, mean income, etc.

      So, he is wrong in stereotyping all Americans, as well as all Canadians in saying that Canadians hate Americans. I know there are people in each group that hate the other group as much as this person seems trying to get across. But this is not the norm.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    2. Re:stereotypes by junkgoof · · Score: 1

      True. But many European countries are smaller and more homogeneous than others. The US and Canada are large and varied. Now there's a stereotype...

      --
      You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
  58. Told ya so by serutan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have to admit, I saw this coming. The RIAA and others may be able to extort money by writing scary letters, but when it finally comes down to a courtroom there's no way this would hold up. Making ISPs liable for network traffic would be like making FedEx and UPS liable for the content of the boxes they ship. It's a ridiculous idea. I personally think attorneys who cooperate in filing suits with such obvious lack of merit should be prosecuted themselves for wasting the public's money, and should risk losing their license to practice law.

  59. Re:Canadian Exports... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you like your fossil-rockers pretentious and repetitive, huh? Good. You can keep 'em!

  60. Re:Canadian Exports... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Nope...just prefer my music to be well written, and performed LIVE....not lip sync'ed to tunes written and played by a machine....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  61. Land of the fee... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Home of the wage slave.

  62. Mouse about the house. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you can pronounce "There's a mouse about the house" like "There's a moose aboot the hoose" then you'll fit in there perfectly, hoser. Now take off.

  63. Canada does have TWO seasons... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's just because they hibernate eleven months out of the year

    ...winter and July.

  64. Re:Just another reason to move to Candada [sic] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, we won't let you in until you can at least spell "Canada" properly.

  65. On levies and changes to the Copyright Act by EraseEraseMe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Email sent to Heritage Minister and Prime Minister:

    Honourable Ms. Scherrer;

    I have heard your recent comments about seeking to change the Copyright Act.
    I would urge you to consider very carefully what steps are taken in any changes to this act. As the act stands, Canadians pay a levy on
    recordable media, money from which specifically goes to the music industry in compensation for supposed lost revenues.

    As such if the law is changed, I would also expect any media levies to be immediately lifted, as the proper method for handling any cases
    of copyright infringement would then fall to the music industry and the legal system of Canada, and not to a discriminatory levy applied
    to the majority of law-abiding citizens.

    Beyond this, the issue of whether revenues are lost at all is entirely debatable, as you can see in this story from the Washington Post
    citing a study done by two university researchers specializing in economics:
    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story& u=/washpost/ 20040330/tc_washpost/a34300_2004mar29

    This issue of copyright is a very important one to me because those countries that address the issue properly stand to be at the
    fore-front of the information economy. Limiting information flow to prop up business models that simply are no longer feasible is not the
    way to go about this.

    Thank you for your time.
    Me

    Response received

    On behalf of Ms. Hélène Chalifour Scherrer, Minister of Canadian
    Heritage, thank you for your correspondence regarding potential changes to
    the Copyright Act and expressing your views regarding the private copying
    levy on blank audio recording media.

    Ms. Chalifour Scherrer appreciates your advising her of your views
    and has noted your comments with respect to these matters. Policy
    developments abroad encouraged the establishment of private copying levies
    for the benefit of authors, performers and producers of sound recordings
    long before Canada decided to establish such mechanisms. The private
    copying levy has been promoted as the only efficient mechanism to offset
    increasing reproduction capacity made available through developments in
    consumer electronics.

    The levy on blank audio recording media was developed to apply
    generally on all media ordinarily used by consumers to copy music for their
    private use. Accordingly, the law governing the levy was drafted to give
    the Copyright Board of Canada, a specialized tribunal, the authority and
    discretion necessary to accurately evaluate the appropriate portion of
    music copied onto some of the media used by consumers for any digital data.

    It should be noted that the Government is not involved in the
    collection, administration or distribution of the levy; these tasks are
    carried out by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC). Detailed
    information on the levy is outlined on the CPCC Web site at
    http://cpcc.ca/english/about.htm and the Copyright Board Web site at
    http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/index.html.

    Information and updates on the copyright reform process, including
    issues on file sharing and the private copying levy, are available on the
    Department of Canadian Heritage Web site at
    http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb /ind ex_e.cfm.

    I trust that this information is useful. Please accept our best
    wishes.

    So, essentially, go ask THOSE people..

    --
    "Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
    1. Re:On levies and changes to the Copyright Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ms. Chalifour Scherrer has lost her seat on Monday night and is now looking for a new job.

    2. Re:On levies and changes to the Copyright Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, all I got was a "thank you for your comments" form letter. (I was a little less 'understanding' than you were, and included (along with the link you provided) links to Janis Ian's writings on downloadable music, as well as the MacAddict article showing that the music industry's profits increased during Napster's heyday.

      I did, however CC my MP (opposition member Rahim Jaffer), and I got a hand-written response from one of his staff telling me that he enjoyed reading my thoughts and would pass my letter on to their Heritage critic, who was following this.

    3. Re:On levies and changes to the Copyright Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting


      Having worked with some of these people, I can tell you this:

      1)The Heritage Minister's staffers rarely contribute much time to things outside of their queen bee's schedule. I'm suprised you got that much, even if it was passing the buck. Deputy Minister level is where people get listened to.

      2)If you send correspondence from outside of an MP's own riding, I *guarantee* most of it will end up in the circular file. They routinely get snail-spammed from every nut job in the country, and simply cannot deal with everyone else's mail. (Seriously, the things that come across a staffer's desk are un-freaking-believeable) If it looks like spam, it's tossed at the peon level. Same for e-mails.

      3) The record lobbyists have been making regular visits to the Hill for years now. Greasing a few palms with sweet backstage tickets of your choice can change an opinion faster than 10 years worth of letter writing to a starstruck turnip farmer/M.P. from Cape Breton.

      4) Jaffer? Handwritten? Please. Look at HIS party's radical right-wing history. If Dubya has an inbred, racist, bible-thumping cousin in Canada, he's in Jaffer's party. As for the scripting, handwritten notes are polite ways of advertising computer illiteracy in Canada. And free music - for as long as that will last under wanna-b Republicans - is not much of a trade off for scrapping the Constitution.

      You want to get some attention? Call your MP, at home or in Ottawa, and BOOK some face time with them in the form of a courtesy call. It's free, and you just might reache them.

  66. A note about celine dion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was travelling in a car, and was ill, and the driver put on Celine Dion. I went from being just "ill" to being sick to my stomach. No joke.

    When you have a headache, her voice is the equivalent of a mini-nuke exploding behind your eyes.

    I can't figure out how the girl is so popular and rich. Simply amazing. Whoever her agent is, I would hire him/her.

  67. squid for telephone networks by in10d · · Score: 1

    Proxy for phone networks? great.

    The usual smalltalk would be cached, thus allowing faster response and connect times for unique conversations.

    For example, mother-in-law would be treated as a huge page with many static elements.

  68. Actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translating stuff into french isn't very hard, and it would be worth the promotional value. What discourages most companies from running contests in Quebec is that their provencial government demands a huge cut of the prizes (iirc, 20% of the total value of all the prizes must be paid _upfront_ by the contest-holders).

  69. Lobbies by p3d0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just goes to show that Canadian big-business lobby groups don't have as much money as their American counterparts.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  70. I disagree. by DavidChristopher · · Score: 1

    email = voicemail. DNS = the phone book/Canada 411. search engine = yellow pages. My voicemail is provided by Bell, and if for whatever reason they widthheld a message, it would mean that they had parsed that message. This is a violation of my privacy and simply not permitted. This is no different than email.

    --
    http://www.bistolas.net
  71. I don't understand this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a 9-0 decision, Canada's highest court ruled, despite the fact that ISPs provide the means for piracy, they are not liable for what people download.

    If it is legal to copy music off the net, is it still piracy? The legality implies that no copyright law is broken, does it not?

  72. Maybe They Should Have Ruled The Other Way? by nightwing2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I agree with the ruling, but just think...

    If You could set up an ISP with an pay-per-download, and reach a court-mandated agreement with the local group representing all copyright holders, then - voila! Manadatory licensing.

    Consider that SOCAN wanted the ruling enforced world-wide. The converse suggestion would be then that if someone anywhere in the world downloaded from your source, then they now have a legal copy - royalties all neatly paid.

    I wonder how much per song SOCAN wanted? $1 Can. = 74cents US. Could probably wipe ITunes and the rest off the map.

    1. Re:Maybe They Should Have Ruled The Other Way? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't have been paying music royalties: Just a fee to the music companies to offset their "damages" of people potentially using the ISP to download their music. So they could still sue you for copying their music, even though you'd be paying a fee to the record industry to cover damages of people copying music. Just as they can sue you for copying music onto CD-R's, even though you've paid them a share of the CD-R purchase.
      Inexcusably fascist and unfair, you say? Well, yeah. But in favor of the multi-billion dollar record industry, so don't expect to see TV ads rallying them to stop suing their way to free lunches.

  73. *sigh* by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a Canadian and a (former) beer-making hobbyist, I must say this on-going thing of Americans not having 'real beer' is sill. This whole thing boils down to two main differences:

    1) Alcohol by volume (used in Canada) and alcohol by weight (used in the US) make it look like Canadian beer has a higher true alcohol content. Do the conversion and they are the same. 4% ABW is almost the same as 5% ABV.

    2) How much hops and how roasted the grains that are used in the beer. Since Budweiser uses a lot of rice as a filler and goes light on the hops, it's a less 'in your face' taste that many North Americans prefer.

    Canadian beers are simply using more hops and probably less rice. As you move across the pond to Europe, who have been producing awesome beers for hundreds of years, you'll discover the move is to the folowing:

    a) Much more darker roasted barley (with use of rice not being in favour or downright forbidden) leading to a darker more robust flavour

    b) Much more liberal use of hops at the various stages of brewing to add bitterness and other elements.

    So it's more like the choice between dark-roast coffee or medium-roast coffee here in North America. It boils down to a preference and what you grew up with. Me, I think Starbucks is lousy compared to Tim Horton's.

    Admittedly, if you're accustomed to some of these more robust beers an American ale comes across as a little thin, you'll also find not a lot of North Americans can handle really spicy food either since it's alien to them.

    Just think of mainstream US beer as "McBeer" and you'll begin to understand why it seems so downplayed. It's marketed to the masses and it sells.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  74. Pull my finger... by asbestos_tophat · · Score: 0
    Pull my finger...


    The sound now has been declared as my work of F-art...


    Will the copyright act protect my personal property?


    =o)

  75. Even better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Governor General is the Head of State, is the Commander-in-Chief, can dissolve Parliament (which forces an election), and is responsible for ensuring that gov't keeps working and if it stops she can give power to the Opposition (i.e., the leader of the Opposition can be the Prime Minister) or force a general election. She also *must* sign bills into law to become law.

    Of course, these powers are rarely used and have certain rules, conditions, + customs/traditions on when they can and cannot be used.

    Hardly a useless post. In the British system, the Governor General/Queen is a check-and-balance on a Parliament that doesn't work or one that has gone haywire.

    The U.S. has no such equivalent. Also, the Canadian constitution dictates the purpose and roles of the Governor General, Parliament and the Courts so any violation of that also enables appropriate "check-and-balance" actions to happen.

    1. Re:Even better... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand that.

      My point, though, is: when was the last time any of these powers were used?

      The Governer General is a rubber stamp.

      Yes, she could be a defence against, as you say, a government gone haywire.. but that's about it.

    2. Re:Even better... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      the Governor General/Queen is a check-and-balance on a Parliament that doesn't work or one that has gone haywire. The U.S. has no such equivalent.

      Yes it does. It's called the second ammendment.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    3. Re:Even better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia the Governor General dismissed the Federal Labor Whitlam government in 1975 - not Canadian and nearly 30 years ago, and also done with considerable controversy. But an example.

      http://www.caslon.com.au/constitutionprofile9.ht m

    4. Re:Even better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... it's called the Second Amendment (learn to spell)

  76. Hardly unfair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forget that this is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. The Napster rulings, etc. were in the U.S.! Big difference of jurisdiction.

  77. You are correct, and then some... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wouldn't have been piracy, even if it was illegal. You can rest assured that the word 'piracy' is the wrong word.

    According to the Canadian Copyright board, 'piracy' can only be used to describe large-scale, for-profit copyright infringement - so even if it was illegal to download songs, it wouldn't be piracy, because it's not for profit.

  78. Gimme a F, Gimme a U, Gimme a D !!!!! by GedConk · · Score: 1

    What's that spells ????
    FUD
    enough said...

  79. # 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pros: No Jews. ...

    What? You offended?

  80. Actually by phorm · · Score: 1

    If you host your own server off a local ISP, I've yet to see them block SPAM coming to said server. Common carrier applies because they're providing the "line" to you. However, if you're using an ISP's mail account, then it's more than just the connection service, you're using their storage, etc etc so they can filter it.

    1. Re:Actually by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
      If you host your own server off a local ISP, I've yet to see them block SPAM coming to said server.

      As far as receiving mail, thats close enough to correct. But sending mail is a bit different. In my experience, if you "host your own server off a local ISP", you are either paying for "business-class" service or are sitting behind a port-25 (SMTP) block and smart-hosting off the ISP's mail server. You likely can't send mail directly. If you can, there are many who would label you a SPAMmer simply because you can.

      Common carrier applies because they're providing the "line" to you.

      I think that's a reality we'd both like to see, but it just ain't so. Common Carrier has a specific legal meaning which both requires the carrier to carry...um...commonly (if you've paid the fare, they must service you.) as well as protects the carrier in performance of those duties. Phone companies get it because regulatory agencies have granted it to them. Airlines get it, too, for the same reason. We like it because it means we get to compete with everyone else on the same level playing field. The carriers actually hate it (usually), because it means they can't offer up-market service to their most profitable customers. The times when they don't hate it is when they're being sued by someone for the service they provide. Then they love it because they can claim a regulatory-agency-provided immunity from liability. Canadian ISP's are not common carriers, which is why they had to get a Court to rule them non-liable.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    2. Re:Actually by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >However, if you're using an ISP's mail account,
      >then it's more than just the connection service,
      >you're using their storage, etc etc so they can
      >filter it.

      DO you by that mean that they should also be responsible if the do not filter? WOuld you similary claim someone that rent houses to pepople should be responsible if they don't "filter" items brought into the house that could, for example be illegal or involved in illegal activities?

    3. Re:Actually by phorm · · Score: 1

      No, of course not. But the landlord is allowed to check in on the house (giving notice), or from the outside of the grounds. He's also allowed to kick your butt out if he catches you doing something wrong.

      And in the case of the ISP, there can be hundreds of customers... not only would it be an annoyance but it would be very difficult to do so efficiently without impacting service. They shouldn't be allowed to check your email, but monitoring your connection if bandwidth spikes etc wouldn't be unthinkable.

  81. Cold weather by phorm · · Score: 1

    I'd just like to point out...

    Here in the West (BC), winter isn't quite as cold as the East. I've been to some eastern provinces and hit -41c.

    However, summers are DAMN hot sometimes here too. We've currently hit highs of up to 41c (106F), which with is a brain-baking temperature in the dry climate. Forest fires are also abundant.


    So in summary, bring a nice thick jacket for winter, but don't forget your SPF40 and a few sleeveless shirts.

  82. Yes, and no by phorm · · Score: 1

    If you own an original copy of a CD/DVD/etc, it's legal to download. If you don't, it's not legal

    However, in Canada, it's much harder to get caught as you have certain rights which are upheld stronger than in the US

  83. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  84. Nope! by Psymunn · · Score: 1

    Your remark was cringe-inducing, so I felt compelled to mention that you really, truly meant to write "for all intents and purposes".

    Nope. I was refering, of course, only to the purposes that where intensive. Intensive purposes are a sub domain of the 'intents and purposes' super set. I suppose, that when the Canadian government is feeling more laid back, they whip out a couple of old records and head bang to 'summer of '69.' Just because my statment would have been more accurate and/or more logical using your wording, does not mean it is at all what i meant. What i believe you really, truly meant to say instead of 'grammar nazi' is 'silly person who peruses the internet for grammatical errors and smells like pooh (and why am i punching myself).'
    Keep fighting the good fight my friend. If you have nothing relevant to say, might as well spell check the largest body of bad grammer and speling available to man.
    As a side note, any grammatical errors, misuse of tense, spilling of salt, odd numbering of sentences, or a blatant reversal of 'i' and 'e' after the letter 'c' where entirely intentional and, in a post-modernist-sort-of-a-way help get across what ever message you interpreted which, to you is probably the right one because... well that's what postmodernists do.
    Now go back to seperating the diffrent coloured skittles into diffrent bags. Thank you
    "Its they're wey off spelin' butt eye height it!"

    --
    The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
  85. Canadian Constitution. by schon · · Score: 1

    playing with the constitution and the like, which is effectively impossible in Canada.

    Wrong. Section 33 (the 'notwithstanding' clause) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Canadian constitution) allows the government to override court decisions it doesn't like (even those of the supreme court.)

    It's not easy to do, the government would likely catch hell over it, and there is an automatic 5 year sunset clause for any invocation of Section 33, but it's far from impossible.

    1. Re:Canadian Constitution. by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Only certain constitutionally-based court decisions can be over-ridden by legislation in Canada. The "Notwithstanding Clause", the relevant portion of which I quote, applies only to sections 2 and 7-15 of the Charter. These are the sections that protect civil liberties, roughly equivalent to the American Bill of Rights. Legislation cannot, for example, over-ride the right to vote since this is guaranteed in section 3, which is not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause. In my opinion the Notwithstanding Clause is an embarassment and should be removed, but it isn't as broad as parent suggests.

      33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
    2. Re:Canadian Constitution. by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1
      Bzzzt.

      You cannot amend the Constitution via the Notwithstanding Clause; there is a very specific formula for doing so, and the clause is only applicable to certain parts of the Charter, intended for use of things like the Emergency Powers Act or any law passed in Quebec these days.

      Incidentally, the Charter is not the Canadian constitution anyway.

      -PS

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
  86. NO PHOTO RADAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that ended years ago FYI.

  87. Hormel abuse alert! :) by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    That means they don't get to drop something just because they don't like it (as ISP's routinely do with SPAM and such).

    Geeze, the one spelling (all-caps) that Hormel has reserved for itself, and you insist on using it inappropriately! Get it straight! Unsolicited commercial email and the like may be spam or Spam or even sP4m, but is never SPAM! SPAM is the trademark for a tinned meat product. ISPs don't routinely do anything with SPAM, but they may routinely filter or block spam.

    1. Re:Hormel abuse alert! :) by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
      ...Hormel(sic) has reserved for itself...

      If I had meant SPAM(TM) I would have written it as SPAM(TM), just like if I were referring to a certain operating system rather than a glass-covered hole in a wall I would be obligated to write Windows(TM).

      If I am discussing a trademarked product and I fail to acknowledge the trademark, the owner of that trademark can rightly claim to be suffering an infringment, and they are obligated to protect their trademark or risk losing their trademark protection.

      Likewise, I cannot refer to any spiced-ham product as SPAM(TM) unless I'm referring to the one produced by Hormel(R) nor can I use the word "windows" to discuss an operating system product unless it's the one produced in Redmond, and then I should acknowledge the trademark.

      But if I am discussing the glass portals on my home, I need not avoid calling them windows.

      I am curious as to the thought process behind ceeding a word (like SPAM) to trademarked ownership of some corporation outside the context of their trademark scope. When we rag on Windows(TM) we are rightly obligated to use the (TM) symbol. Microsoft(R) has no claim to that word outside the operating system context, and Hormel(R) has no claim to the word SPAM outside the realm of spiced ham.

      Now please excuse me, I'm darned hungry.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  88. NDP *IS* pushing for WIPO ratification! by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 1

    It is you that needs to read the NDP reply to the questions. The platform did not speak about this issue at all, but their reply did directly.

    The NDP and the Bloc gave strong support for WIPO ratification and importing the USA DMCA. The Liberals did not offer that support, the Greens opposed it, and the Conservatives offered no reply at all.

    If you are an NDP supporter than read their reply, and start to talk to fellow party members to ensure they get educated on this. Currently the NDP look anti-technology, anti-Internet.

  89. Please join digital-copyright.ca by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 1


    If you are writing letters to MPs about digital copyright reform, please join the Digital Copyright Canada forum so that we can pool resources. If we all work together, we can ensure that Canadian policy on this is sane.

  90. Incorrect interpretation of Canadian c law... by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 1
    In Canada the private copying regime applies to any private uses of music, including receiving the music from the Internet unauthorized by the copyright holder. It does not matter whether you own an original copy or not. In fact, without the private copying regime it is believed to be illegal for you to transfer the music to another medium/etc.

    Please read about the private copying regime. As to the legality of music "sharing", there is much misinformation about this as I wrote in a larger article earlier today.

    If CRIA had offered any evidence of unauthorized music uploading, a basic requirement in a music copyright case in Canada, then they would likely have won the case. The recording industry made "downloading" legal, they don't need a "making available" right (which the industry would likely abuse to stop musicians from distributing their own work, creating additional layers of authorization requirements), and they didn't provide evidence of "uploading". The failure of CRIA in this case is entirely the fault of CRIA, and not a hole in the copyright act.
  91. Like the EU, there are illegal software patents... by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 1

    I did a report for Industry Canada on A Review of Software Patent Issues.

    There are also discussions of patents on the Digital Copyright Canada forum.

  92. DMCA/WIPO opposes personal property.. by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 1
    From a longer article written earlier today:

    I believe that any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses, VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen and not a third party. I believe that being in control of these tools for lawful purposes is part of the ownership rights associated with these tools, and consider the revoking of this control to be a form of theft.
  93. What you are doing is not legal. by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 1
    Copyright law is as bad as tax law. When you receive music for private use, that is covered by the Private Copying regime in our copyright act.

    When you send (upload) music, or when you exchange anything that is not music (like movies), this is not covered and thus what you are doing is copyright infringement under the copyright act.

    Many people misinterpreted the recent federal court decision with CRIA vs 29 music "sharing" Canadians. As I wrote in a longer article earlier today:

    There has been much hype about a recent court case involving Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), with the recording industry invalidly claiming there is a hole in the copyright act. If you read the decision by the Honourable Mr. Justice von Finkenstein you will note that there is no hole in the copyright act, but if there is one it is the private copying regime which CRIA asked for in the first place.

    If CRIA had offered any evidence of unauthorized music uploading, a basic requirement in a music copyright case in Canada, then they would likely have won the case. The recording industry made "downloading" legal, they don't need a "making available" right (which the industry would likely abuse to stop musicians from distributing their own work, creating additional layers of authorization requirements), and they didn't provide evidence of "uploading". The failure of CRIA in this case is entirely the fault of CRIA, and not a hole in the copyright act.
  94. Don't get too comfy... by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 1

    The only way that Canada will not get a DMCA, something pushed for by the all-party Heritage Committee (the committee reviewing the copyright act), is if Canadians speak clearly and loudly against it. The group to work with to do that currently is the Digital Copyright Canada forum.

  95. For the Ignorant by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For those of you who decided to speak before becoming informed ...

    the music industry wanted to impose a fee on ISP's because they felt the ISP's were a part of the pirating problem. The music industry would have received money from every single internet subscriber whether or not the user was pirating music.

    The ISP's argued that they are the conduit for internet traffic, and do not / can not / should not control what their customers are doing with their bandwidth. ... They do not support pirating, it just happens that the files get transferred through their pipes.

    The case was a blatant money grab scam by the music industry.

    For them to be in the right, you would also have to argue that:

    -- the phone company controls what people say to each other on phone lines.
    -- The post office controls what people write in letters to each other.
    -- the paper boy controls what stories are in the newspaper you read.
    -- and on and on and on.

    It was such a scam! The music industry deserves to be punished for such a blatant mis-interpretation of reality.

    It was nothing less than the music industry trying to create a stream of income from something that has absolutely nothing to do with how they make and sell music, and it would have had people paying them even if they never downloaded a song. ... and even if you want to side with the music industry just a little bit, the government already decided that sharing mp3's is not copyright infringement in Canada.

    Thanks to scummy actions like this, I vow to never spend a dime ever again on music where that dime would go to the record companies. I may by used CD's, I may pursue the legal downloads, but I won't buy a new CD again.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  96. Idiot Mods Make me sad by BayBlade · · Score: 1

    Its not like the parent or ANYTHING in this thread is on topic, and frankly, its funny.

    --

    The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.