Anti-DMCA Petition in Canadian Parliament

Matthew Skala writes "Last month we heard that the Canadian government is rejecting some of the worst features of the DMCA (more analysis here), but with Heritage Minister Liza Frulla parroting the media-cartel lobby with a promise to "give the tools to companies and authors to sue" and persuade children that downloading music for free is morally wrong even though it's presently legal in Canada, the battle is far from won. Yesterday, Member of Parliament Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster, NDP) introduced the first batch of signatures on Digital Copyright Canada's Petition for Users' Rights. This isn't just a Web click-through petition that politicians can freely ignore; more than a thousand real hardcopy signatures have already been collected from Canadian residents opposed to further expansion of copyright privileges, and the campaign is hoping for many more. Additional coverage on p2pnet.net."

Comments

Legal vs. moral

[October_30th]

Uh, what kind of an argument is that?

If something's legal, it doesn't mean it's also moral and conversely, doing the morally right thing might not be legal at the time.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[camkind]

As Rev. Lovejoy once said to Marge

"Once something has been approved by the Government, It's no longer immoral."

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, what you're ignoring or unaware of is that every piece of writable media sold in canada includes a tax that is specifically to pay for the music you will place on it.

So now that you've bought your shiny CD and paid for the music, what's immoral about putting music on it?

Perhaps you can say its immoral to put music on CDs, but then would it not also be immoral for the music cartels to get your tax money that you paid for putting music on CDs?

It seems whatever moral high ground you're standing on is made of sand. Better fix your position before you've got nothing left under your feet ;)

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Embedded2004]

Why is it immoral to download music? I pay for it when ever I purchase blank CDs, if they don't like it then stop taking my money when I buy blanks.

The only thing immoral is stealing my money when I buy blanks.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[maxpublic]

technically legal to steal the music up there

It isn't stealing in Canada, by definition. Your opinion does not make law.

Max

Re:Legal vs. moral

[satherto]

Actually it is moral to burn music for free in Canada, as we pay a surcharge on every blank CD, Cassette tape, and VCR tape to give to the artists. The reason it is legal and moral, is that the work has been paid for MANY times over due to the levy.

As has been stated many times, the levy goes to the copywrite holders (in Canada) not to the government.

It is (IMHO) that it is immoral to take our money and then try to convince us that we can't use what we have purchased.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[slyguy135]

But if something's legal, a government has no place to say it shouldn't be done... otherwise it would presumably be illegal!

Or maybe politicians don't care about such niceties?

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Ced_Ex]

I believe they stopped adding that blank media tax in. Which is why a month ago there was a drop of $30 off the price of an iPod.

The govt stopped the taxation because they determined that the money collected wasn't being distributed properly or something.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Ironsides]

What is legal is not always moral (hiring a prostitute to cheat on your significant other in vegas [where prostitution is legal], or cheating on your sig other in general [especially when maried]).

What is moral is not always legal (depends on your specific morals here [same above, but I hope we can agree on that one]).

Re:Legal vs. moral

[foobsr]

If something's legal, it doesn't mean it's also moral and conversely, doing the morally right thing might not be legal at the time.

ad 1) Concentration Camps were legal in Nazi-Germany

ad 2) It was illegal to kill Hitler (or at least try to)

Just for the type of argument, which of course is BS in the context given.

CC.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[EvilAlien]

This doesn't have anything to do with morality anyways... repeating something you heard is not theft. Making a copy of something is not theft. Taking property, i.e., a CD from store, car, or house, is theft.

Also note that just because a law labels something doesn't make it immoral. Defending yourself is never immoral, yet its illegal to use force to do so here in Canada. We can share music, but if somebody attacks you then you'd better hope the police respond to your cries for help.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Anonymous Coward]

If it really was thievery, that is.

To me, it's the equivalent of someone photocopying Dilbert from the news paper, and passing it out during business meetings, etc.

or someone taking the newspaper from the breakroom, photocopying Dilbert, and adding it to his Dilbert collection, perhaps even scanning it and leaving it on an obscure page in his website, for people he wants to have. Why is not important in this case.

I mention this because the issue of photocopied comic strips getting distributed in offices has come before the courts in the past, as has the RIAA/ASCAP/BMI suing companies where an employee has had a radio playing at a loud enough level for employees to hear, perhaps because the Muzak salesman was rebuffed...

If I take your CD collection, *THAT* is thievery.
If I reattribute my CD music collection as being of my own creation (music, lyrics, recording, etc.), *THAT* is thievery.

While the artists tend to have "copyright" for the music and lyrics of their works, the fact is that the recording distributor has been assigned copyright for the recordings. The artists do not have copyright possession on their recordings.

It's like people essentially advocating felony-level punishment for a mere +5MPH speeding violation. Yes, it's a "crime", but it's not a Crime. Too many people have lost sight of that.

Next time you're in a restaraunt for a birthday celebration, especially if it's a national chain, get the waitstaff to also sing "Happy Birthday" with you, in addition to whatever they have for a birthday act. Blammo, commercial performance of someone's copyrighted song.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Philosinfinity]

Good point, although I would be interested in your opinion on the normative claim. That is, should laws define and impose moral stipulations? or conversely, should all moral imperatives (depending on how you define them) be laws? or should laws have no correlation to morality?

Re:Legal vs. moral

[csimpkin]

Defending yourself is never immoral, yet its illegal to use force to do so here in Canada. We can share music, but if somebody attacks you then you'd better hope the police respond to your cries for help.

Is this really true?! Any info available online like cases where someone defending his or her self went to prison? Canada sounded like a pretty cool place to live unless this is true.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible to get a refund of the levy? It's supposed to be compensation for me storing bootleg copies of music on these media. What if I could prove that I did not and never will store any unauthorized copyright material on these discs?

If I burn my tax records for the last decade onto CDR, my accountant or a lawyer can certainly testify under oath to what's on the disc without disclosing the details. Further, it's a CDR, so assuming it's not multisession, I can't exactly add an MP3 to the disc later -- for kicks.

Assuming the levy is in place for the purposes it's alleged to be, then it should be possible to obtain a refund. Admittedly, it likely wouldn't be worth the effort, but I'd imagine a few people a year would actually apply for the refund on principle if it were possible.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Snocone]

I don't have any online references handy, but yes I can assure you this is most certainly true, and not just in theory, people get convicted for defending their property and/or using excessive force to defend their person on a regular basis. A recent example I know of personally is a fellow who came home to catch a burglar toting his expensive stereo kit out the window. As I would deem perfectly moral and reasonable, he tackled the guy to stop his stuff being carted off.

He now has a criminal record for assault, at least for seven years which is the earliest you can apply for a pardon.
Burglar walked. (well, suspended sentence to be exact, but unless he's unlucky enough to get caught again within a year, that's not a criminal record for employment/passport/etc. purposes.)

One you might be able to Google easily is a 74-year old in Ontario who bopped a 28-year old burglar approximately two and a half times his weight from behind with a fire poker without warning him. This was deemed by the constabulary and judiciary to be unreasonable force, since the burglar had not threatened the old guy with physical harm at that point; and the old coot did jail time while the thug walked. That particular one was so obviously insane to anyone with even the most tenuous grasp on reality that it made the news quite a bit.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Snocone]

Here's another firsthand story. A friend of mine came home with his wife one night. Wife goes out to the garage. He hears her scream. Runs out, finds thug rooting around the garage. Grabs a handy piece of pipe and advances threateningly. (Friend being some 220 pounds of solid muscle, that's pretty threatening.) Thug laughs, says "Ha ha, you can't touch me" and casually strolls on out.

They sold the house and moved to a more upscale area.

Personally, my conversation would have gone like this:

ME: Oh yes I can, because I'm in imminent fear of you using deadly force against me with that big knife in your hand.

THUG: Huh? I don't have any knife in my hand.

ME: By the time the police get here, you WILL.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[inaeldi]

They changed the levy charges, mainly on hard drive players, which is why the Ipod lowered in price. The levy on CDs has not changed, however.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Lord Pillage]

To me, H"appy Birthday" seems like it would be public domain ;)

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Dixie_Flatline]

While I think I agree with the core of what you're saying - we shouldn't be punished if we don't do anything wrong - your argument is specious.

It's not moral to burn music for free in Canada because of the tariff. If we put a tariff on bullets to pay grieving family members, it wouldn't suddenly make it moral to go out and shoot other people. The tariff doesn't really impact the morality of the situation at all. Compensating someone because you've stolen their property (which is ostensibly the rationale here) doesn't make stealing their stuff moral.

Worst of all, this tariff is handed out without - to my knowledge - any study of who is most impacted by the downloading of free music. I'm sure there are a lot of indy bands out there that haven't ever seen a penny from this program, despite probably deserving it more than a big name band or artist.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Travelsonic]

Compensating someone because you've stolen their property (which is ostensibly the rationale here) doesn't make stealing their stuff moral.

I feel that laws should follow morals, but morals should follow logic as well. When you download a sonmg anywhere, you make a copy, leaving the original with the user/website/FTP you downloaded it from. When I was taught the immorality of stealing, I was always taught using examples that involved taking something away and depriving them of whatever was stolen, and when the item was duplicated it was either copying, or plagiarism (when you claimed the work as your own). I was also taught through research that copyright infringement and theft were reconized under various laws here, in the U.K, in Canada, and possibly more countries. I feel now that I was the last of that generation to learn it in such an unmurky way, and this post shows it. IP can be duplicated, infringed upon, and fraudulently claimed as one's own, but I myself refeuse to believe it can be stoln based upon what I have been taught as a little child. Of course morals and opinions ARE subjective, so I won't respond in a way that attacks your viewpoint, but I am just expressing my own viewpoint, and I think I am doing it in time considering the number of people here who mis-undrstand whatever I get at.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Dixie_Flatline]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Part of what I was saying was that the view of the tariff is that you're stealing, and it's trying to compensate for that. Whether or not you think the action is moral, or classified as stealing isn't the issue - I'm just trying to show what perspective the law is taking.

If you don't think your actions are stealing, that's fine by me. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. :)

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Travelsonic]

If you don't think your actions are stealing, that's fine by me. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. :)

And I won't convince you otherwise on your viewpoints either. :)

Re:Legal vs. moral

[EvilAlien]

As Snocone details, it is absolutely true.

The good news is that a requirement to defend yourself with force happens in Canada much more rarely than in the US. Regardless, we don't have the right to have weapons, use weapons in self-defence, or many of the rights that many in the US take for granted. Property rights are also pretty tenuous here.

There are a lot of pluses to Canada, don't get me wrong... I live here by choice and I love my country. There is a hell of a lot of bullshit that you get with it though ;)

Re:Legal vs. moral

[iamnotanumber6]

i don't see why you would think that the rationale of the law is compensating someone because their property has been stolen. where do you get that?

the law just says that there's nothing wrong with private copying. and then there's a system to collect money so that the musicians also get paid. i don't see how that has anything to do with "stealing" - it's just a different economic system than direct purchasing, paying for things through taxes. there are lots of examples of that. like taxes on gasoline that pay for highway maintenance. is it immoral to use the roads "for free"?

well a better example is, when bands play in a bar, the bar makes payments to an agency that distributes it to songwriters. nobody thinks it's immoral for a band to play cover tunes in a bar, and certainly the fact that songwriters are being financially compensated for is part of why it's ok. libraries and schools make payments to copyright collectives to compensate authors for photocopying etc.; i don't think anyone thinks that schools making handouts for students is some kind of immoral theft that has to be compensated like some kind of "victims rights".

if someone gets shot to death, no amount of compensation can make up for that. it's immoral. but in this case, i don't see how there is any victim. people listen to music, musicians get paid - what's the problem?

now of course you have a point that there are surely problems with the way that the payments are handed out. but i think there are equally bad problems with the way artists get paid (i.e. screwed) under the record label contracts. i couldn't really say which is worse.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[iamnotanumber6]

no, it is not possible to get a refund, even if you prove you aren't using it for music. you pay 21 cents per blank CD-R, even if you use it to back up your hard drive or whatever. this pisses a lot of people off. it also leads to weird things like blank CDs that cost 24 cents each - i can't imagine how they can make a profit if 21 cents of that is the levy? and also, blank DVDs being cheaper than blank CDs, because there's no levy on DVDs.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[iamnotanumber6]

actually there's no levy on VCR tapes, or blank DVDs either. it's not allowed to copy movies, only music.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[iamnotanumber6]

"They" is the heritage minister, who is misinformed and is herself the one that needs to be educated. Many people are very surprised by her comments - that's why it's a news story.

The Canadian system works. People get music, musicians get money. There's no "thievery" involved.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[Dixie_Flatline]

The reason why I think this would be compensation for purported 'stealing' is because this was a measure specifically brought in to address piracy, and because it's levied against those that never use the media to copy music.

My first point is a matter of public record.

My second point is based on the erroneous assumption that anyone buying a CD that can be used to copy music is using it to copy music. My company buys thousands of blank CDs a year to put data on, but still pays the levy. If the levy were truly to provide an alternate means of revenue, then it wouldn't be necessary to charge people that don't copy music.

To use your analogy, I'm being charged money for being in a bar where there's no live music playing.

It's because of the lack of guarantee that an artist is being paid for music that wasn't explicitly purchased that both the levy (IMO) and the act are immoral. I'm all for paying artists - I buy music off the ITMS regularly and I don't download music from anywhere else anymore - but I'm also for only punishing those that deserve it.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[iamnotanumber6]

well i admit that your second point is a good one. it doesn't make sense that people who use blank CDs for computer backups etc., should have to pay a music-copying fee. and people who do copy music but just keep it on their hard drive, don't pay anything. there's a big flaw in the system in that sense. i'd even go so far as to say that taking the levy from people who don't copy music is a kind of theft.

but on the first point, i just can't see that home taping is or ever has been "stealing". if i make a CD and you steal it from me, i can't sell it to someone else. that's theft, and should be a crime. but if you copy it, and i can still sell it to someone else, and then you liked it so much you come back and buy a new one... well it's just not the same thing as theft. that kind of language has been promoted by the RIAA etc. to put fear into people. when i was visiting Croatia, there was an RIAA poster campaign saying "when you download music, you're downloading communism!". i mean, it's blatant propaganda, they are representatives of the Big Music Industry and say whatever they want to convince people to give them money.

on the surface copying might seem similar to stealing - i'm taking something i didn't pay for. but it's more complex than that. it's a complex economic system and it turns out that sharing-networks are actually beneficial to it. i think that home taping has always been compatible with musicians making money, and that it even increases their ability to do so. a lot of musicians feel that way.

unfortunately there's a long history of musicians - especially black musicians - getting screwed out of making a living from their music. and that's because of the music industry, not home taping.

there's certainly room for improvement in both systems, and debate about it is good. i'm just saying, think it through for yourself, and don't just blindly accept propaganda about "theft" and "piracy" (or "communism"!) from powerful industry lobby groups. or canadian heritage ministers for that matter...

Re:Legal vs. moral

[AtariAmarok]

"doesn't make stealing their stuff moral"

It is impossible to steal by burning music to a CD. You need a better choice of words that have at least some connection to what you are trying to say.

Re:Legal vs. moral

[mysticalreaper]

I would also like to add that even if the scenario is playing out as those who made the scenario would have us believe--This is, artists are fairly compensated for lost sales--that the reality is still divorced from this.

It is important to note that the tariff is delivered to COPYRIGHT HOLDERS. Pick up a CD, any CD, and examine who the copyright is owned by. Then pick up a book and do the same thing. Chances are that with the CD, the copyright holder is a corporation, a record company (after all, they are in the business of selling records, which they buy from the artists, then own themselves) and in the book, it's probably the author.

So now, in reality, my tariffs are not really ever going to Celine Dion, Nickelback, The Hip, or Avril, even though they are rich and probably their music is downloaded more than anyone. The reason is because they don't own the copyright, the record company does. Therefore, it's BMI, and Sony, and Vivendi that are getting the tariff. You may note that these companies have never authored a creative work, or enriched your lives in any way through the creation or performance of music. Humans create music, not corporations. (You may argue that corps are now considered people, but that's a seperate discussion)

Directly, legally, and with moral justfication, large record companies have found a way to convinced us to allow them to tax the public. I'm amazed that any goverment empolyee ever though this was a good idea. But corporations have become very good at lying, and i think we're really starting to see the effects of it.

(btw, i've based my argument in this post not on any personal or aquired knowledge of the process, (in fact, i'm not sure anyone has clear knowledge of the process, disturbing in itself) but merely by observing the facts in front of me. The rule says 'copyright holder' and the copyright holder is not the band, not the artist, but the record company, as is clear from the markings on the CD. So i assume that if they are doing what they say they are doing, the money goes to record companies, not artists. But i really wish i could find out if this is true, with, you know, evidence)

Re:Legal vs. moral

[droopus]

I'm amazed no one has mentioned this.. Has anyone heard of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) passed in the US in 1976 (amended in 1992) in response to cassette tapes? Why do you think TDK cassettes used to cost $5.99? Because there was a surcharge that went to the artists and songwriters to cover the revenue lost due to the obvious use of the cassette: to copy music off records. The same held true for VHS and Beta tapes.

It's still in force now. Go to Comp USA. Blank CDRs are like a nickel each. But! If you buy blank MUSIC CDRs, you will pay significantly more due to the surcharge still being levied due to the AHRA.

Teaching right from wrong

[TripMaster Monkey]

From the article:

She [Liza Frulla] said she wanted to make it her mission to persuade children that downloading music for free is wrong.

Mabye she could start up a hip, happening new ad campaign like the SPA's Don't Copy that Floppy.

Mabye it will be just as effective, too.

Mabye I'm a Chinese jet pilot.

Re:Teaching right from wrong

[01000011011101000111]

Even better - persuade all music ever released to carry a little black and white warning label saying "Parental Advisory - Listening prohibited" :)

Re:Teaching right from wrong

[October_30th]

I don't know where you live, but at least the MTV Nordic has been running "You wouldn't steal a purse, you would steal a car - why would you steal music?"-style ads for quite a long time now.

Re:Teaching right from wrong

[WillerZ]

They're saying stealing cars is OK? Cool.

Up next "Pinch my ride!"

Re:Teaching right from wrong

[AceCaseOR]

Wouldn't the proper term be, "Jack my Ride!"

Re:Teaching right from wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That "public service announcement" tries to compare apples with oranges. It's completely misleading and a complete lie.

Car = physical property
purse = physical propery
music = intellectual propery

A more accurate "public service announcement" would be "You wouldn't steal a purse, you would (sic) steal a car - why would you steal a CD?"

Re:Teaching right from wrong

[vistic]

that's awesome

I'm downloading the petition now.

[ahsile]

And plan to sign it, and have everyone I know sign it. I won't have my rights stepped on without a fight. Who knows, maybe parliment will even reject the WIPO changes.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[ShaniaTwain]

See this just doesnt seem right. Canadians are supposed to be passive and polite to a fault. Americans are supposed to be Freedom loving individuals that hate big government interfering in their life. Where am I? bizzaro world?

Ah well, at least the Canadians aren't burning down the white house anymore..

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[ahsile]

I've been reading too much about the DMCA act... it's poisoned my passiveness.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[nb caffeine]

British Troops burned the white house (canada wasnt a country in the war of 1812, still a british territory).

no, im not a history geek, just someone who thinks canada is funnier than it really is

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[SuiteSisterMary]

If you replace 'passive' with 'not antagonistic' then you have it right.

Oh, and I think the Republican attempt to have the *federal* executive and legislative branches overturn a *state* *judicial* matter gives lie to that other bit.

Man, a hundred years ago, an attempt like that would have seen armed citizens in the streets.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[maxpublic]

Ah well, at least the Canadians aren't burning down the white house anymore..

And this is a good thing???

Max

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[pilgrim23]

I am in the States but this brings to mind a recent incident: My son and I are fans of anime. There is one series we both enjoy that so far has only been available in the US in the form of "pirate" "fan-subs". For those not familiar with the Anime world, a fan-sub is a fan created, subtitled version of the anime. These were done strictly for fans and as the banner across the credits says: "NOT FOR COMMERCIAL RESALE". For this particular series we were always missing episode three. Well, the other day we were in a Sam Goodies store in the local mall and there it was. The whole series was now on DVD! I was happy it was out on a commercial release, and plunked down my money for DVD copies of episodes 1 through 4 including my long looked for #3! Get home, rip off shrink-wrap and the anti-theft device (don't you hate those things?) and what do I see but.....THE FAN SUB! only one difference from the "pirate" version: Someone had carefully removed the NOT FOR COMMERCIAL RELEASE banner. So now my choices is as clear as muddy water, and I am sure this applies to music as well as movies: I can do the moral thing and bye the commercial release of a pirate release of a pirate release of a commercial release or I can.....now wait a minute....

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Psyborgue]

No, you're in "Bush Country USA". Haven't you seen the t-shirts.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Psyborgue]

But now people have become too complacent. We have our fair and balanced TV reporting either one direction or the other. There are more than two political directions to take.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Kwil]

By that argument, it was also the British who fought for independance.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[AtariAmarok]

"You can have my linux box when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers"

Your proposal is acceptable.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Binestar]

By that argument, it was also the British who fought for independance.

And they sure did kick their own asses!

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Dun Malg]

MOOOOOO!

Patiently awaiting my karma windfall.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[nb caffeine]

Wrong. They were british troops in a british territory (like british troops in america).

Just because the british troops were here didnt make them american. IT was burned by the british. Besides, its easier to blame the brits, they are litterally hundreds of miles away.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[aardvarkjoe]

Are you absolutely sure that the "fansub" was really a fan-produced version? On occasion, the fansubs that you can get on the internet are actually just rips of a DVD from one of the Asian markets that happens to include English subs. Most of the reputable places that host fansubs try to weed those out, but if you downloaded them from usenet or IRC, that might have been what you ended up with.

Not saying that's neccessarily what happened here, but that would be my first guess given the situation you described. If you're really interested, you could contact the company that has the legitimate rights to distribute the show in the US, and ask whether the DVD you bought was legit or not.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[SuiteSisterMary]

I've always thought that America is simply too large and diverse a country to actually treat as a single entity.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[compro01]

there people who fought for your indenpendance would be the british colonists, who then later refered to themselves as americans when they won, as the british basically said "screw it. we can win this war, but it's gonna take too much time, money, and we'll have trouble with our major source of income." so, they told them they can go and make their own country, and allowed them to retain a resonable economic relation ship with them.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[compro01]

hmm. i was fairly sure (and my history teacher agrees) that it was actually a canadian milita that actually set the blaze, who then hightailed it back to canada. they lit it up as a reminder. "don't try that again".

and for the record, most US history books don't even mention that the war of 1812 ever happened.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[compro01]

and also, something i forgot in the last post, canada (in name anyway) came into being in 1792 i think. upper (british) and lower (french) canada. still a british colonly, but it was canada.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[compro01]

well, we can always come down there and burn it again. who knows? maybe we can get rid of bush in the fire!

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[LPetrazickis]

They were British troops recruited in Halifax. That makes them Canadian, because Halifax is part of modern Canada.

It's the same logic that lets Italians claim Julius Caesar, Greeks claim Alexander the Great, and Americans claim the Salem Witch Trials.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[pilgrim23]

My anime files are from various online sources but not IRC...I did indeed get some from the "reputable" sites, others from various P2P sources, and some from a friend's ftp service, and where HE got them is unknown. The series I am mentioning here had www.wellknownanimefangroup.com listed in the credits so I am pretty darn sure it is a real fan-sub.. Seeing that same credit on the "commercial" DVD was what made me disgusted.

Also, speaking as a formerly published, commercial musician, in order to get my stuff published back in the day, I needed to sign a "contract" that basically said I would not have personal rights to anything including my name as long as I was worth something..

Even though that was over two decades ago I am sure that were I to suddenly experience fame today, Weasels in Suits Lawyers) would be stopping by to try and take it from me.

The whole copyright issue from start to finish is a joke, a fraud and a lie.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Yaztromo]

British Troops burned the white house (canada wasnt a country in the war of 1812, still a british territory).

no, im not a history geek....

And boy, does it show.

At the time of the War of 1812, there were two territories with the name "Canada" in them -- Upper Canada, and Lower Canada. People who lived in those territories were known as "Canadians" (or, in the case of Lower Canada, "les Canadiens").

A group can be a people with having a nation. Ever hear of the Kurds? The Palestinians? The Welsh?

There was a Canada before Confederation, and the people who lived there were Canadians. Yes, they were British subjects (although their loyalties to the British crown certain varied -- Native Canadians and French Canadians also participated in the War, but generally held no special loyalty to the crown), but there is nothing preventing anyone from calling them "Canadians", and being perfectly understandable and correct when they do so.

Yaz.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[T-Ranger]

Technically, it was the British who burnt down the White House. And technically, it wasnt the White House. I don't know what colour it was before, but it was painted white after the fire to cover the chard black wood.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whitehouse burning aside (we only do that when nasty people try to invade from the south, 'mere matter of marching' bedamned), but Canadians have a very healthy skepticism of their politicians. It isn't hard to find Canadians (bitching) about their politicians, and while some of it falls on party lines, Canadians are suspicious of *all* of their politicians (of every stripe). It doesn't matter, if it's political, it's probably 'grubby' in some way. Given the current mess in Canada right now, it appears that politicians will soon have to wade through bleach in order to appear 'clean' to most Canadians. It also appears the former government will face crimminal charges, the current one will fall (after being in power for about 8 months). People here already look at politicians as a cross between a greasy used car dealer, and a drug-pushing pimp who also dabbles in kiddie porn. I know I don't want anything like the DMCA here, we are already paying a surcharge on blank media, reguardless of content, and if your song/movie doesn't suck, people will buy it. If it sucks, people won't buy it (and from what I've seen, they won't even download a poor quality copy of it either). As for the heritage minister, she should watch out for her job. Her subordinate had to resign becuase of the current political mess, and she could lose her job right quick if she tries to pull this stunt. She doesn't need to lose a lot of votes to get kicked out, and as it stands, any bill she presents will likely die in the queue before the current government falls (any day now). You have to remember that in the U.S. a government is voted in for 4 years. In Canada, the maximum is 5 years, but there is no minimum. So far, it looks like the current government will be 'in' less than a year (snap-election here we come).

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Guppy06]

"Canadians are supposed to be passive and polite to a fault. Americans are supposed to be Freedom loving individuals that hate big government interfering in their life."

Americans hate big government because we have a constant living example. Canadians take a more proactive stance on big government by now allowing one to happen in the first place.

Ironic that the ones that didn't revolt were the ones that seemed to get it right.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[AtariAmarok]

"Canadians take a more proactive stance on big government by now allowing one to happen in the first place."

Where did they do this? The South Seas? They must have ignored their own territory, because the Canadian government ended up a little bigger than the United States one.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[the arbiter]

Damn, I'm in exactly the same musician boat as you are. Former pro, no rights to anything I worked on in the past. The terms of the contract weren't merely onerous: We received 5% of NET revenue, with all production expenses to be repaid.

You do the math, dear reader. For every one million dollars of revenue received by the record company, we got $50,000, to be split four ways. And we had to repay the recording, production and artwork expenses (also note we couldn't shop around to get the best rates on these things, either...we had to use the facilities that the company mandated).

In my book, that's nothing but slavery.

I love the responses I get when I bring this up: "You shouldn't have signed a contract like that". You're right, I should have worked at McDonalds instead. FOR THE MUSICIAN, THE OPTION IS SIGN OR DON'T WORK. People don't understand. "Monopoly" is not a strong enough word for it, and neither is "stranglehold".

The artists are not getting ripped off from file sharing. We got ripped off a long time ago, and it wasn't by our listeners.

All copyright does is insure that I'll NEVER make any money off my work. That privilege belongs to the record company, which will own and profit from MY work for the rest of my life plus some number of years afterwards.

You tell me...is this fair? Is this how copyright is supposed to work? Because to me it looks like someone stole from me and it's perfectly legal.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[AtariAmarok]

"Damn, I'm in exactly the same musician boat as you are. Former pro, no rights to anything " Did you sing on "Chess" ?

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Lord Pillage]

Size in government doesn't matter as much as being an overbearing, not-listening-to-what-the-citizens-says-so-I'm-gon na-take-all-your-rights-away type of government.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[AtariAmarok]

Which government is it, then, that censors foreign satellite dish channels? (Hint: I've got Canadian friends who have an under-the-counter US satellite account so they can get banned dish channels)

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I love the responses I get when I bring this up: "You shouldn't have signed a contract like that". You're right, I should have worked at McDonalds instead. FOR THE MUSICIAN, THE OPTION IS SIGN OR DON'T WORK. People don't understand. "Monopoly" is not a strong enough word for it, and neither is "stranglehold".

Yes, you should have. You would still own your music and have more money to boot.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Lord Pillage]

Those channels are banned because Canada wishes to keep it's culture somewhat separate from the US. It's to protect our sovereignty from a valid threat that is the United States of America. It's such an overwhelming source of media information that these guards (censors if you will) are put in place so as to keep Canada as Canada.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[pipingguy]

At the time of the War of 1812, there were two territories with the name "Canada" in them -- Upper Canada, and Lower Canada. People who lived in those territories were known as "Canadians" (or, in the case of Lower Canada, "les Canadiens").

This is obviously Orwellian newspeak bullshit, as the "Lower Canadians" were living further north.

Or maybe the up/down appellation was class-related.

Hint: this is a joke.

Re:I'm downloading the petition now.

[Heretik]

They must have ignored their own territory, because the Canadian government ended up a little bigger than the United States one.

You cannot possibly be serious.. Is this what US republican propoganda makes you people believe or something?

Hint: The FBI, CIA, Secret Service, NSA, etc, etc, etc count as "government". The size of the US government is more comparable to whole damn population of Canada than Canada's government.

The NDP isn't in power.

[Tackhead]

...and is therefore irrelevant in a Parliamentary system. Unlike the States, where Representatives and Senators can attach riders, opposition parties in parliamentary systems typically have zero say in what goes into laws.

And this, being a petition, is even weaker than an amendment to a bill.

I've re-parsed and summarized the article:

> This isn't just a Web click-through petition that politicians can freely ignore; more than a thousand real hardcopy signatures have already been collected

...that the politicians can freely ignore.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[ahsile]

I think you may be confused, or maybe it's me. The way I'm reading this:

Liza, a member of the NDP, wants the WIPO changes ratified into Canadian law, making the Canadian equivalent of the DMCA.

The petition is to uphold the rights of the user as-is and also to uphold the decision of the superior court than downloading is not stealing.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[ytwang]

The NDP isn't irrelevant. The current government has a minority of seats, so if all the opposition parties vote against a proposed piece of legislation, then it won't pass.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[Ubergrendle]

Except we currently have a minority government, which means the Liberals have to tread very carefully to avoid losing the confidence of the house.

Also, given the latest sponsorship scandal (biggest scandal in Canadian politics in the last 10, maybe 20 years) the opposition parties will be looking for publically popular positions to use to 'gang up' on the ruling party.

This petition has some weight given its timing, and private member's bills have been known to successfully be passed...especially during minority governments.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[JustDisGuy]

"The NDP isn't in power...and is therefore irrelevant in a Parliamentary system"

Erm - WTF are you talking about? This isn't an "NDP" initiative, and even if it were our government is currently a MINORITY government, which gives all MP's, especially those sitting in opposition, significantly more power.

While I do not doubt that the politicians WILL ignore it, I think they do so at their peril. And just because I have no hope that they will lend credence to the petition does not mean I will not get everyone I know to sign it and send it to Parliament Hill in my MP's hands.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[deragon]

Correction. Liza is a liberal and the liberals are in power in Canada (minority government though).

References:

http://www.liberal.ca/bio_e.aspx?&id=24024
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/bio.asp?id=13

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[forgetmenot]

Except where the goverment is a minority one as in this case - not to mention one in dire straits currently due to a corruption scandal. In times like these, opposition parties have more clout as long as a) the issue matters to the general public, and b) they're not the NDP. Oh well. Maybe next time.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[Col. Blackwolf]

Not only that, but such a failure of a bill would cause an immediate state of non-confidence to be declared, forcing a new federal election. And generally pissing off everyone.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[gus2000]

Each party individually does not have the power to bring down the government. If the Conservatives and the Bloq voted together, that would be enough. Unfortunately for the NDP, they do not have enough votes to swing a non-confidence motion in one direction or the other. The only reason anyone cares about them is that the Liberals hope to take some of their voters in the next election (or simply have those voters stay home, almost as good a solution).

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[Abcd1234]

Assuming the PM didn't declare it a free vote, of course...

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[SerialEx13]

Why would the Liberals care about the NDP? When it came time for the budget they didn't care. Why would they bother when all they have to do is get the support of the tories to pass legislation?

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[peg0cjs]

Only failed confidence votes bring down the government (e.g. the budget). Free votes fail all the time, it just means that the piece of legislation dies.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[Deliveranc3]

They should ignore it.

By saying it is a problem, and voting against it (Which I'm sure they will. It's comming from some back bencher within the NDP not even their leading people.)

They send a big wake up call to the U.S. who will get heavy with Martin who's a putz and we'll get our currently good for us good for musicians system shut down and we'll be looking at lawsuits.

This MP needs to talk to some Canadian musicians.

This could probably all be settled by looking at her bank history, cough.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[optimus2861]

Also, given the latest sponsorship scandal (biggest scandal in Canadian politics in the last 10, maybe 20 years) the opposition parties will be looking for publically popular positions to use to 'gang up' on the ruling party.

And the Heritage Minister is tied into that fiasco -- her chief of staff, John Welch, was named in the Brault testimony, and has temporarily stepped down.

I don't think she, or anyone in the Liberal party, is going to have the time of day for anything other than trying to save their thieving, corrupt necks from electoral oblivion for the next six months or so. Copyright reform could very likely get shoved onto a back burner.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[compro01]

Copyright reform could very likely get shoved onto a back burner.

why not clear off the stove?

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[Kwil]

With significant backing against this Bill, the tories may see an opportunity (especially coinciding with the scandal) to take power themsevles.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[kalayq]

I just want to remind you that the NDP together with the PQ (similar political ideas) have more then enough seats to make a liberal bill pass, even if all the tories try and vote it down. So if the liberal party scratches the NDP/PQ's backs, then they will get some support on other bills.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[FHMyles]

I really doubt that any of the opposition parties will try to make a copyright reform petition an issue of confidence. If we see a premature general election, it will not be because of media user's rights, I promise you.

Re:The NDP isn't in power.

[Lord Pillage]

That scandal is a media farce. Much more money was wasted on the gun registry program, which does nothing. The media is just blowing this all out of scale.

They should focus on something that actually has some relevance to our lives. I have no idea what Quebec is p*ssed about. They have no reason to be. They ended up with a bunch of money into their economy and got to stay a part of Canada.

Canada Rocks

[ip_freely_2000]

Excepting for the political thieves involved in the Sponsorship scandal, sometimes we get things right. Canada has great fair-use laws and politicians seem to know we the voters like it that way.

Re:Canada Rocks

[ifwm]

So, does the word "sponsorship" carry the same connotation in Canada as "bribery"? Because if (ha as if there were any doubt) my government officials were on the take, I certainly wouldn't let them downplay it by calling it "sponsorship"

Re:Canada Rocks

[tim256]

It does sound like Canada has a much better government than the US. Here are some things I think make the Canadian govt. better.

1. Great fair-use laws and smarter politicians who don't work for the corporate machine.
2. Universal health care sounds nice, and if you want super good health care you can go south and pay extra.
3. Small military doesn't waste tons of money and people fighting wars in far away lands.
4. Resonable drinking age of 19, as the highway dept. funding is not controlled by M.A.D.
5. The Canadian govt. is not controlled by religious conservatives.

Here are some bad things about Canada.

1. It's full of Canadians.
2. It's gets really cold.
3. Lots of French people in Canada.

Re:Canada Rocks

[saforrest]

Lots of French people in Canada.

For God's sake, they've been here for four hundred years!

At this point they're about as French as English-speaking North America is British, no matter what Triumph the Insult Comic Dog says.

Re:Canada Rocks

[goates]

# Resonable drinking age of 19, as the highway dept. funding is not controlled by M.A.D.

Actually it's even better in some provinces as the drinking age is 18 in Alberta and Quebec.

Re:Canada Rocks

[OAB_X]

4. Resonable drinking age of 19, as the highway dept. funding is not controlled by M.A.D.

Its 18 in Quebec and Alberta, 19 elsewhere (like Ontario), and its M.A.D.D., not M.A.D.

Re:Canada Rocks

[dubbreak]

Here are some bad things about Canada.
ok I'm ready..

1. It's full of Canadians.
See your 5 reasons Canada is good, ok now imagine Canada full of americans, oops where'd all the good points go? I won't even bother with the case of the british currently occupying Canada, the deaths at the border crossings alone rules out that..

2. It's gets really cold.
It's about 53F here right now, give it a few weeks and it'll be >60F, warm enough for me (what's it like in the dakotas or maine right now?).

3. Lots of French people in Canada.
Actually very few, but we have way too many french-canadians (the french would not like any association with them, as do most canadians). Of course w/o them there would be no poutine, and that would be a very sad day.
Plus if there were no french-canadians we'd have to make fun of some minority group and that's racist.

Re:Canada Rocks

[AtariAmarok]

"1. It's full of Canadians"

I would not call Canada full anything population-wise. One of the notable things about the country is its vast size and smalll population, almost all of which lives very close to the southern (US) border.

Re:Canada Rocks

[udowish]

It does sound like (US) has a much better government than the Canada. Here are some things I think make the (US) govt. better. 1. Laws that continue to protect the privledged, lobby groups that are more powerful than the prez. 2. Sure and glad I am rich so I can afford a doctor, when my leg is broken I really need 5 MRI's 3. Large military make them empiralistic, not to mention killing thousands of my fellow Americans in far off lands. 4. Older drinking age, after all I can own a firearm when I am 16 but don't dare let me have a drink until 21. 5. The US gov is controlled by fenatics Here are some bad things about (US). 1. It's full of Yanks 2. It's gets really cold. 3. Lots of Hispanics, and Black people in (US).

Re:Canada Rocks

[topham]

The Canadian Military is always in a foreign country fighting a war. We call it peace keeping. Sometimes I'm not so sure.

Full of Canadians? could be worse, could be full of Americans.

Drinking age in Canada is 18, or 19, depending on the province. Where I live it is 18, where I used to live it is 19.

The way I figure it, if a country can send someone off to war, they should be legally allowed to drink in a pub.

Re:Canada Rocks

[radarsat1]

THANK YOU.
Finally someone points this out. I couldn't have said it better.
Quebec culture is really a thing of its own..

Re:Canada Rocks

[Colonel Angus]

Do you have a better strategy for the coming Canadian invasion of the U.S.?

Re:Canada Rocks

[dadragon]

And Manitoba. I'm from Saskatchewan, and I can go either way to drink at 18. (I'm 22, so the point is moot, but you get the idea)

Re:Canada Rocks

[goates]

Whoops, I knew I forgot one. Thanks.

Re:Canada Rocks

[EnderWiggin99]

Err... liberation.

Get it right, you fool! =)

Re:Canada Rocks

[pkhuong]

erhm erhm. Not all of us. Please don't start gratuitously generalising too. I've enough on my hands with "pure laine" québécois doing it ;)

(To anyone wondering about anglophone and francophone, yeah, both words were missing a letter each)

Re:Canada Rocks

[pipingguy]

I was about to say, "come and see it for yourself", but it appears you're already here.

Re:Canada Rocks

[pkhuong]

2. (quality) and 4. (e.g., it's 18 in Québec, 19 in Ontario, not sure about the rest) vary depending on the province.

Here...

[Anonymous Coward]

let me save you guys some time.

• Why cant the USA be more like Canada?
• Why do all the places with the best governments have the worst weather?
• You like Canada so much, go move there!

Enjoy.

I'm signing it and sending it to my MEP

[UlfGabe]

It's a good thing to stand up for what you believe in. It works out for the best, especially here in Canada where there are fewer people, so your vote counts just a bit more.

Signatures

[Shadow Wrought]

more than a thousand real hardcopy signatures have already been collected from Canadian residents

Shoot, that's half the country right there alrady opposed to it!

Re:Signatures

[Sebby]

No, the official population is 700. Someone's been stuffing extra ballots in.

Laws based on Morals.

[ShaniaTwain]

All laws should be based on morals. its the moral thing to do. otherwise the cavity of immorality will rot away the molars of our morals.

Re:Laws based on Morals.

[xander2032]

But who can say what's moral? There's so many different versions of "morality" that it's impossibe to pick just one.

Anyways... I find that morality seems to always infringe on a person's rights and freedoms. Some may say flag burning is immoral or that saying something insulting about our government is immoral.

So you see, you can't simply force a set of moral upon an entire population.

Morality is a personal choice. If someone chooses not to be moral, well there's no way you're going to force them to have a sense of morality.

Part of freedom is being free to choose, and in this case being free to choose what you think is moral and immoral.

Re:Laws based on Morals.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I find that morality seems to always infringe on a person's rights and freedoms.

I find also that my morals are always infringing on my own rights and freedoms. Which is weird, because they're my morals, so they're right, but also they're wrong.

> So you see, you can't simply force a set of moral upon an entire population.

Not simply. It takes a lot of weaponry and planning.

> Morality is a personal choice.

OK.

> If someone chooses not to be moral,
> well there's no way you're going to force them to have a sense of
> morality.

Wait. So morality exists, and people choose to be moral or immoral? If morality exists absolutely, then how can you force morality onto someone? They either choose to be moral, or not.

> Part of freedom is being free to choose

All of freedom is being free to choose. That's it.

> and in this case being free to choose what you think is moral and immoral.

So if I choose to have no sense of morality, then what have I chosen?

You're confusing me. Stop it.

Re:Laws based on Morals.

[Derekloffin]

I think we'd like to think laws should be based on morals, but really they aren't and nor can they be.

The reason for this is much of morality is the simply belief that X is right and Y is wrong intrisically. However, much of that can't be proven, and doesn't really hold up in a multicultural society where much of our beliefs of right and wrong can shift.

So, instead, laws are based usually on a lowest common point of morals which a large majority can agree on, plus some ethical considerations that say you can at least attempt some kind of proof that Y is wrong based on a larger principle.

Re:Laws based on Morals.

[rpresser]

> So you see, you can't simply force a set of moral upon an entire population.

Not simply. It takes a lot of weaponry and planning.

BWAHAHAHAHA! Funniest thing I've read all week!

Re:Laws based on Morals.

[nystire]

>> So you see, you can't simply force a set of moral upon an entire population. > Not simply. It takes a lot of weaponry and planning. Planning doesn't seem to be needed. But the weaponry is a must.

Re:Laws based on Morals.

[bcjim]

"[T]he philosopher Dan Dennett points out that the last thing we want in a soul is freedom to do anything it desires. If behavior were chosen by an utterly free will, then we _really_ couldn't hold people responsible for their actions. That entity would not be deterred by the threat of punishment, or be ashamed by the prospect of opprobrium, or even feel the twinge of guilt that might inhibit a sinful temptation in the future[...].

"Morality and law would be pointless. We could punish a wrongdoer, but it would be sheer spite, because it could have no predictable effect on the future behavior of the wrongdoer or of other people aware of the punishment."

Pinker, Steven. _The Blank Slate._ New York: Penguin, 2002. p. 177

Re:Laws based on Morals.

[MvD_Moscow]

There are no moral absolutes, everyone should build their own moral framework. You should be able to what ever you like as long as it doesn't hurt other people around and the environment we live in.

Virtue of a Parliamentary System of Democracy

[amigoro]

This is what the US lacks. In a Parliamentary System the Members of Parliament (MPs) try to do something every term to make sure that their name gets wide recognition so that they have to spend less money campaigning for relection.

I honestly don't think the MP in questions gives a damn about the rights of the listeneres. But at least he is doing something for whihc people would remember him, in a positive light.

British style Parliaments have their own problems, but I think Canada has quite successfully implemented that by using the PR system.

1000 Signatures...

[BJZQ8]

1000 signatures! Wow! We're at .003 percent of the population! Unfortunately, I believe the various pro-DMCA lobbies have a lot more weight in the form of dollars...a few million Canadian dollars still is a lot of money.

Re:1000 Signatures...

[nb caffeine]

last i checked, thats about 65 american dollars (or 2 euros)

Re:1000 Signatures...

[nb caffeine]

Yes, i know, thats why i said 2 euros. I guess it was supposed to be the template "exchange rate" joke about canada, then a weak dollar joke on the us. Guess i coulda had better execution.

wait, why the fuck and im replying to an AC? Waste of my time

Re:1000 Signatures...

[Jardine]

1000 signatures! Wow! We're at .003 percent of the population! Unfortunately, I believe the various pro-DMCA lobbies have a lot more weight in the form of dollars...a few million Canadian dollars still is a lot of money.

Something you should know about political contributions in Canada. There are strict limits on how much a company (or an individual) can contribute to politicians. Last I checked, it was something like $10,000 per party.

In theory, this is supposed to prevent politicians from being bought. It has flaws, but it does mean we don't end up with people like Senator Orrin Hatch in charge.

Re:1000 Signatures...

[ArtDent]

I work with 2500 other computer geeks. I wonder how many signatures I could gather.

Heck, how many could be collected in a day at any major Canadian university?

Election *might* be coming up

[Sebby]

Given the current scandal, there's the possibility of an election looming, so be sure to also pressure your MP, as well as signing that hand-written petition!

Canada Icon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it about time that Slashdot gets a 'Canada' Topic Icon? We have a USA one.

I mean, how many YRO stories involve Canada doing something we wish was happening here? Don't we get more 'Canada' stories than, say, 'Transmeta' stories or 'Geeks in Space' stories?

Re:Canada Icon?

[k0de]

Good idea. I'll start up a web site to gather signatures and we'll petition for one.

Re:Canada Icon?

[saforrest]

So what icon would be the Canadian icon? Farley Mowat in a tub of maple syrup?

Argh! Thanks for the visual. Really.

It will be a long time before I'll be able to eat pancakes again, I can assure you.

Re:Canada Icon?

[WillAffleckUW]

Isn't it about time that Slashdot gets a 'Canada' Topic Icon? We have a USA one.

How about an exploding Maple Leaf? I hear they forgot to tap the trees this year ...

Seriously, Canada is bigger than the USA, it has higher bandwidth, it produces more music, and it has more freedoms and the will to fight for them ... give Canada an icon on /.

Re:Canada Icon?

[kenp2002]

Isn't it about time that Slashdot gets a 'Canada' Topic Icon? We have a USA one. I mean, how many YRO stories involve Canada doing something we wish was happening here? Don't we get more 'Canada' stories than, say, 'Transmeta' stories or 'Geeks in Space' stories?

You hockey mongers!!! ;) !!! How dare you belittle all the other countries with such a selfish demand!!! What about:

Afghanistan Akrotiri Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Arctic Ocean Argentina Armenia Aruba Ashmore and Cartier Islands Atlantic Ocean Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas, The Bahrain Baker Island Bangladesh Barbados Bassas da India Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Clipperton Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Cook Islands Coral Sea Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dhekelia Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Europa Island Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern and Antarctic Lands Gabon Gambia, The Gaza Strip Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Glorioso Islands Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City) Honduras Hong Kong Howland Island Hungary Iceland India Indian Ocean Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Jan Mayen Japan Jarvis Island Jersey Johnston Atoll Jordan Juan de Nova Island Kazakhstan Kenya Kingman Reef Kiribati Korea, North Korea, South Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Man, Isle of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Midway Islands Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nauru Navassa Island Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pacific Ocean Pakistan Palau Palmyra Atoll Panama Papua New Guinea Paracel Islands Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Islands Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Southern Ocean Spain Spratly Islands Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan entry follows Zimbabwe Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tromelin Island Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands Wake Island Wallis and Futuna West Bank Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Taiwan European Union

How can you be sooooo selfish in demanding you own flag and ignoring all those other countries!!! EQUALITY FOR ALL!!!! ALL FLAGS OR NO FLAGS!!!

Re:Canada Icon?

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

What about them? All that matters is they are all 3rd World Countries.

NDP took opposite stand during election

[Proaxiom]

Peter Julian's stand is a little odd consider the NDP supported ratification of the WIPO treaty that mandates a ban on anti-circumvention technology.

In any case, no matter what Liz Frulla is saying to appease the lobby groups, if the legislation sticks to the proposed plan there should be no problem.

And what the article summary appears to have missed is that one of the things in the plan is to close the loophole that probably makes unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music legal in Canada.

This should go hand-in-hand with repealing the blank media levy, since it is supposed to be linked to the legalization of 'private copying', but no word on that yet.

Not that I'd expect it, though, the government has never met a tax dollar it didn't like.

Re:NDP took opposite stand during election

[Sebby]

Peter Julian's stand is a little odd consider the NDP supported ratification of the WIPO treaty that mandates a ban on anti-circumvention technology [cippic.ca].

He's a politician; it should be expected that he'd flip-flop to gain population support.

It's just up to us to support him when it works to our advantage, and support another when it doesn't.

Re:NDP took opposite stand during election

[roju]

This last election was tough for me. I considered IP to be one of my deal-maker issues, and only the Conservatives had a sane policy stance on it. The Liberals were pro-WIPO, the Greens were just confused, the NDP was super pro-WIPO, but the Conservatives were... conservative on the issue.

Unfortunately, the rabid CCRAP members ruled out the Conservatives as a sane vote, leaving me to pick and choose from parties with poor IP platforms.

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

[ortholattice]

[Frulla] said she wanted to make it her mission to persuade children that downloading music for free is wrong.

"Everything starts with the children," she said. "They're the ones who say `recycle' and `don't smoke.' The Internet is their world."

Ah, yes, the children, and all the terrible things that might happen to them if this isn't passed.

Re:Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

[McLuhanesque]

Actually, nearly 300 names on the NEXT batch of petitions that are about to be presented in the House WERE collected by, not quite a child, but a 15 year old, namely, my daughter. As part of her high school civics course, she got involved with Digital Copyright Canada and circulated the petition, singly collecting the most signatures of anyone in the campaign.

At a recent conference on copyright at University of Toronto's Faculty of Law, she buttonholed the former chair of the standing committee, Sarmite Bulte, and put the hard questions to her about ISP notice and takedown (now notice and notice), the extra levy to educational institutions, and the threat to innovation.

So the issue is not "please think of the children," but rather, "Please, the children are thinking!"

Re:Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

[Rob_Bryerton]

Actually, nearly 300 names on the NEXT batch of petitions that are about to be presented in the House WERE collected by, not quite a child, but a 15 year old, namely, my daughter.

Sounds like a great kid. Please pass along my "Thank you" to her.

Re:Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

[roju]

We should really be milking the "think of the children" viewpoint more. The pro-children viewpoint has to be the lenient-IP viewpoint.

It's not what the WIPO people want us to think, but it's the true. The more restrictive our IP laws become, the more we neuter our children. IP laws are like pollution - harmful to the children.

The more we strangle the public domain, the less that they have to build on in the future. The more restrictions we place on what they can do, the less job oppourtunities they'll be able to create.

It drives me nuts that people can be pro-draconian-IP and still tell us to "think of the children."

Kudos to your daughter. She still working on things? I can't recall any recent emails to the DCC list, though I'm about a week behind.

I hope America decides to butt in...

[Atroxodisse]

I hope the American lobby tries to butt in to get Canada to make more severe copyright laws because speaking as a Canadian, nothing makes us more stubborn than when America tries to make us do something we haven't made up our minds on. End result, no additional copyright laws.

Re:I hope America decides to butt in...

[udowish]

I agree there isn't anything more annoying than yankee trying to "nudge" a debated topic in Canada. Your are right there, I to hope they keep poking and making noise then the opposite will happen just to say "f off"

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not about copyright at all

[udowish]

I think your just pissed that what is happening in Canada is something you would LOVE to see in the US. Believe it or not the US IS NOT the best at everything dispite your (and others) claims that it is. It just grinds the yanks when someone can do something better than them. And Canada as a marginal nation..I think you better look at the toilet bowl you call them United States of American and re-evalute ignorant comments such as this one....

ok

[dynamo]

so it's a hardcopy petition that politicians can freely ignore. how is that different? Or do you have actual decent people as leaders up there in canada?

Re:ok

[Sebby]

Well, not the current leaders, but they're stuck between a rock and a hard place right now (the scandal), so they don't have much choice but to go with the flow if they want to maintain power.

A Noble Cause.... but useless nonetheless

[Xyleene]

I applaude the NDP's efforts but lets not get ahead of ourselves, they are the NDP. They have ~15 seats (not sure exactly the number) in a parlament with ~300! They dont have enough pull to move a chair, let alone get a bill passed. This is probably for political points with canada's left that are looking for a reason to not vote Liberal in the looming election. Ohwell... I'll probably have to start downloading music illigally soon. OhOh, but then it might be morally wrong! :-O Cheers

Re:A Noble Cause.... but useless nonetheless

[TomTraynor]

308 seats. Liberals have 135, Conservatives 99, Bloq 54, NDP 19 and other = 1.

It is a minority government. The Liberals at this time can't afford to piss off anyone as all it will take is to lose one confidence motion to be in another election. Also, the last thing they need is to have it noised about that there is another department, minister or Liberal MPP accepting money for favours.

It isn't stealing

[nuggz]

But we aren't stealing music.

Downloading, copying or taping off the radio is a legally permitted activity in many countries.

In Canada we even even have the blank media levy (tax) to pay the copyright holders for their work.

Next they'll tell us getting a tax refund is stealing from the government.

Re:It isn't stealing

[October_30th]

In Canada we even even have the blank media levy (tax) to pay the copyright holders for their work.

Yep. We have the same thing and IIRC the official line is that it doesn't entitle us to copy copyrighted material except for our own private use. It's not an excuse to burn copies of an audio CD to your friends outside the immediate family, for instance. That's copyright infringement.

Interestingly, our taxi companies also have to pay for the music if the drivers want to have a radio on while driving around with a customer. It's deemed as public performance. More recently, churches and kindergartens have also been asked to pay if they wish "to perform" (ie. sing) copyrighted hymns and songs for children. No, that's not a joke. They tried this already a few years ago but that caused a public uproar. This time they might be able to pull it off, though.

Re:It isn't stealing

[nuggz]

Same in Canada, but there is nothing to stop your friend from coming over, use your computer with your help to copy your CD for his personal use.

As long as they do it, and it is for their use, it's okay today at least.

I don't actually do this, most music isn't worth listening to.

Re:It isn't stealing

[October_30th]

Over here the privilege is limited to your family.

Re:Oh, sure, a Canada Icon. Next thing...

[udowish]

well can you blaim us?? we have been living under some false pretense that we ARE the best. Maybe the UN, EU are wrong, maybe we really arn't the best... Nah

Weather The NDP is in power or not...

[Wacky_Wookie]

Peter Julian is the Member Parliament (MP) for that area. So anyone who gets 25 or more signitures for there area must take their copy of the petition to their MP, weather their in "power" or not!

My MP (Jaff Brya Victoria-Becon Hill, [Libral]) happens to be a member of the ruling party, and ther more MP's whose contsituants ask their MP's to Present the petition to Parliament the stronger it looks!

Here is the Cool part: If I am correct, only 25 signitures are needed for each MP, so the more Rideings (Canadian for an MP's electoral district) who collect signitures, the better!

Copied from MY OWN AC post cus I forgot to turn cookies on in Firefox!

Bring down the government

[nuggz]

Our current governing party is useless. They have no backbone, vision or plan.
I would rather have ANY of the opposition parties in power, they at least have an idea of what they want, will honestly and clearly state it, and work towards it.

The liberals keep changing depending on the public opinion poll of the day. Which is a sad way to govern.

Re:Bring down the government

[compro01]

well, i am canadian, and as long as the vote isn't before augest, i will be voting. i keep track of politics most of the time up here, unlike most my age.

presently, the liberals are on shakey ground with the sponsership scandal (and the inquirery is a joke. they've so far spent $100 million to figure out where about $60 million went).

the conservitives (party to beat if/when the liberals go down) have a bad history (they made most of the national debt, which the liberals have been paying off for over a decade), and looks like more of the same (their budget makes no sense. how do you lower taxes, increse funding and have things still balance? they seem to insisting that 2+2=3). but they are getting power as most people zone out once they hear "tax cuts".

the NDP hasn't got a shot in hell of getting into power. it's that simple. they're a good party and they do a good job here in saskatchewan, they don't have a hope on the national level.

so, i'll be voting liberal. lesser of all the evils. sure, they've ignored the west for years, but they have done tremendious good for the country. and i'm willing to give the new guy (paul martin) a fair shot at it. he's better than the alternitives.

Re:Bring down the government

[nuggz]

I'll be voting Conservative as the lesser of two evils. My views sit somewhere between them.

After the fiasco of blantant lies with the Ontario Liberals, and the general lack of direction with the Federal Liberals I don't really see any chance for progress.

Most of all I want a clear government that says what they will do, then does it. Did the Liberals scrap the GST? Decide when they'd admit to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan AND Iraq?

Re:Bring down the government

[Lord Pillage]

Did the Liberals scrap the GST?

No, they didn't. People have learned to live with it. It's not so bad. We're paying off all the debt Mulroney (a conservative) piled up with the revenue.

Decide when they'd admit to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan AND Iraq?

No, because they shouldn't admit soldiers to Iraq. It would just make us Canadians a possible target and it would lose Canadian lives for a pointless cause posed by witchhunters (eg. Bush) in the states. Why would we want to follow in their idiocy?

Re:Bring down the government

[Lord Pillage]

Maybe there wouldn't be so many terrorists if the "global citizens" (typical american arrogance, assuming everyong wants their "help") stopped invaded countries under false pretenses.

Re:Bring down the government

[nuggz]

Yes lets do stuff, then deny it when it becomes politically convenient.

Lots of good strong ethics there.

Re:Bring down the government

[Bullfish]

Maybe so, but the conservative alliance will never get elected until they lose the so-cons and the NDP, well, they are politically speaking, an animated corpse

Re:Bring down the government

[Lord Pillage]

Saddam was a ruthless leader. Does that mean you can kill innocent people just to get at him? It's heartless people like you that make people suffer. And I guess you never heard the mentioning of WMDs (that would be weapons of mass destruction in case you haven't)?? Talk about my false pretenses all you want; you're only lying to yourself.

Re:Bring down the government

[compro01]

i call right, wrong, bad on the war in Iraq.

right idea. saddam needed to be removed from power

wrong motives (oil)

bad implimentation. while i can't think of a better idea, the war in iraq isn't real great. what 1.2 billion a day in costs? also IMO, we are pushing democrasy on them pretty fast, going from a tyranical police state to democrasy is a little sudden. they need some transition period. gradually introduce freedoms. it prevents the conservitive religious elements from making too much noise about the sudden changes, and thus calling on the terrorists to blow shit up.

Ive done it

[crabpeople]

Just printed off the petition, passed it around the department to sign and then gave it to the shipping department to mail out.

Total time: 25 minutes
Cost to me: 50cents (postage)

Feeling empowered istead of victimized: Priceless

theres some laws you cant buy, for everything else theres internet petitions

Re:Ive done it

[OAB_X]

You could always mail it to the MP who is introducing the singatures to parliment postage free at:

House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A6

Its not how the organizers want it, but it will work, maybe.

Re:Ive done it

[Beardo the Bearded]

Canada Post delivers mail to your MP for free. Send them whatever you want, whenever you want, for free. I'm not sure if that includes packages.

Re:Ive done it

[Rac3r5]

man.. if I had some mod points.. I would have given u +5 funny points.. :p

Re:Ive done it

[Just Some Guy]

25 minutes spending dicking around instead of working: $8.00

Postage: $0.50

Employees dumb enough to brag about their slackness on Slashdot so that you can conveniently round them up and fire them: priceless

There are some forms of misbehavior you can't punish. For everything else, there's Human Resources.

Correction

[AtariAmarok]

" What they said is that while it is technically legal to steal the music up there"

You should have said that it was technically impossible to steal music by downloading copies of files up there... and anywhere. It is copyright infringement. It is not forgery, theft, fraud, theft, rape, or murder. It isn't even GTA.

"and the relevant peer groups' opinion of music thievery as perfectly acceptable."

I defy you to find one message in Slashdot, usenet, or the whole wide world web that justifies music thievery. Can you meet the challenge?

Off-topic but needs to be said

[PChemGuy]

I am a Canadian living in the US. I'm really tired of seeing comments like this from people on both sides of the border. For Americans, Canada is not the simple nation that some of you view it to be. It is also not the crime-free utopia that I hear about all the time. For most Canadians, you don't know half as much about the US as you think you do. The US is a much better country than prevailing attitudes would have you believe.

We could all learn a lot more about each other if we got rid of these attitudes and spent a little time getting to know one another's countries.

Re:Off-topic but needs to be said

[udowish]

You don't need to tell me that, I have lived in the US for 5 years I doubt the original post author can claim he has lived in Canada...

Re:Off-topic but needs to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here. I've lived in various parts of the US for months at a time for work projects, and I meet people all the time who don't even know where Canada is, let alone ANYTHING about its culture or people.

Meanwhile, there is a real trend in Canada to label anyone who criticizes American policies or actions as "anti-American" and it sickens me. American political decisions often have far reaching effects in Canada, but the US government never considers this when they make them (as is their right), but when Canada makes decisions that may affect the USA (such as legalizing marijuana, not supporting missile defence, etc) it is attacked by the Conservative elite as being "anti-American". It seems almost as if the millionaires who run our government really dont think Canada should be allowed to make its own decisions.

Re:Off-topic but needs to be said

[gobbo]

I don't think your post is off-topic, since this story is partly about the difference between two systems.

We could all learn a lot more about each other if we got rid of these attitudes and spent a little time getting to know one another's countries.

As other posters have noted, us Canucks mostly live within a couple of hours of the border. We flinch everytime the US dollar goes up or down, and an hour's lineup at the border can threaten bankruptcy to many. Many of us have relatives across the border. We grew up on USA's broadcast and print media. We're indoctrinated with USisms, and (consciously or not) resent it, resist it, and argue over it.

You couldn't really have a show lampooning Canadian ignorance of the USA, but it is a no-brainer to do the reverse (a pretty popular show, too).

Essentially, Canadians know way more than Americans about the other side of the border, care more, and are subject to what happens down there. This is natural due to simple demographic pressures, but it is also due to a near-colonial relationship... thus the resentments.

Yes, we're more liberal in some respects than most States, but not in all respects. There's a greater emphasis on the commons and public interest, and it shows up in the laws. Sometimes it works out, like in fair use, and sometimes it's maddeningly misdirected or backwards. It's still parliament under a monarchy, after all.

I agree, the US is a much better country than prevailing attitudes would have you believe...for some. Really, a tour through downtown Detroit, parts of Chicago, etc. is an education on the American System. Then again, most canucks have never seen a reservation in their lives, and know little about our own racist legacies.

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[AtariAmarok]

"Well... Quebec would made a better contry, but since we are not an offical contry yet, i am still happy to live in Canada!"

Does Quebec still have the problem it was infamous for 10 or so years ago of censoring private speech/writing for being in the wrong language? I've not heard an update on this in while.

Petitions in Parliament are ignored

[reformhead]

Petitions delivered by MPs to the Canadian House of Commons are routinely ignored. The government Minister whose department covers the subject matter of the petition must give a written response, but that's it. The government is under no obligation whatsoever to do anything about the petition.

There have been petitions with hundreds of thousands of real, hard-copy dead-tree signatures that received no attention by policy makers whatsoever.

Petitions make the petitioners feel good and give the MP presenting them a chance to do a little chest thumping. But that's it. I should know. I've been working for MPs for fifteen years.

Re:Petitions in Parliament are ignored

[bwalzer]

The real problem here is that most MP's not only don't know nothing about the issues here, they don't know that there is an issue at all. This copyright reform stuff is presented as a routine update of a body of law that has become technologically outdated. The petition is important in that it implies that there is some sort of public policy issue lurking somewhere.

I suspect that the petitions with 100k+ signatures were related to popular issues. The copyright reform thing is invisible right now. I have my petition printed out and will be asking people to sign it over the next few weeks. In many cases this will lead to a discussion. This sort of discussion might be more important than the actual petition. This thing will not be won in the hearts and minds of Canadian politicians. It will be won in the hearts and minds of Canadians. If it gets to the point that people start writing letters about this it's over and the forces of light will have won.

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[anti-gens]

You can write in whateven language you want, as long as you also have a French version! Speak the language ... French!

Canadian DMCA

[Man102]

I'm not Canadian, but I sent an email to every Canadian paliamentarian last weekend. A few responded. This is very important. Things are also falling apart in Norway. I sent the Storting (parliament) members a note as well. You'll find somewhat less polite versions of my messages here: www.litenverden.org

Re:Not about copyright at all

[Psyborgue]

Man... Apart from that toilet bowl comment i would aggree with you... and i'm and American. That's increasingly starting to sound like "i'm and alcoholic." So. How does one go about moving to Canada. I'm about done with "Bush Co. USA".

That is rather "fascistic"...

[AtariAmarok]

"You can write in whateven language you want, as long as you also have a French version! Speak the language ... French!"

So, they still have the language-nazi problem? For all of the US problems with the Spanish language, I have yet to see a proposal as extreme as having the government punishing individuals for writing in the "wrong" language. Not even Pat Buchanan.

"Speak the language ... French!"

Why not let them speak what they want? There is no good reason at all that the "French language protection" needs to go beyond making sure French is used in government operations (inciuding government road signs). It really crosses the line to censor private individuals.

Re:That is rather "fascistic"...

[AtariAmarok]

"the only restriction is that in a commercial"

It is the commercial censorship that goes WAY overboard. A country that respects the free rights of expression for its citizens would not care what language people used in their private, non-governmental affairs.

"there must be a french version available so that the 80% of french speaking population can understand... that is not asking a lot"

Yes it is asking a lot. The US has more than 80% english speaking, but if someone wants to put up a sign in Sanskrit on their own private business, so what? Leave the government out of it. The free market will take care of problems like this: a Sanskrit-only sign on a storefront in either the US or Quebec will turn away most customers.

Do you mean to say that if you go into a Chinatown in Quebec, all the Chinese signs on businesses will have French on them by government decree? That's ridicolous.

"Not to mention that Quebec never ratified the Canadian constitution... it was forced on us..."

Did it have other basic human rights (besides the right to use the language you want) that you did not like as well?

"Especially if you consider that the english polulation of canada has done a lot in the past to try to strip us of our French heritage"

Similar claims have been made in totalitarian countries to justify the banning of the "wrong" kind of expression and crush people's rights. It is not anything to be proud of. Denying people's basic rights to make up for past abuses by other people.

Re:That is rather "fascistic"...

[udowish]

Not to mention that Quebec never ratified the Canadian constitution... it was forced on us... Thats right and your SO worse off because of it...get over it. Quebec has benefited ten fold because of the Charter you just don't like to admit it. Its time to get off your high horse.

Re:That is rather "fascistic"...

[AtariAmarok]

"People have the right to put up signs in any language they like... we just ask that they also put up a french version on the sign too"

Ask all you want. Just don't force them.

"we just ask them not to deprive us of our rigth to be able to read what is public in our hometown/province..."

You don't have the "right" to force anyone to re-write any private writing to satisfy the whims of those who are too lazy to learn read the language. Language is a personal choice, not to be forced by gestapo. Or are you really one of those arrogant asses who can walk around in Chinatown and get heated into a foaming rage because you can't read the Chinese signs?". Get over it.

"You cannot judge such mesure without looking at the sociological reality of a nation."

Totalitarian ultranationalist regimes do this, free countries don't. You continue:

"of Quebecs wealth still is in the hand of English speaking Quebecers and most buisness are owned by them."

I didn't think you would go further down the road of the fascists, but you did. Substitute "Jews" for "English speaking" and it sounds more and more like certain bad situations that have happened before.

"Thus this is because we were denied our freedom to work in our language "

So it is OK to turn around and "Get back at them" by censoring them now?

"Had they treated us with respect rater than as pseudo-slaves..."

You are so totally caught up in the rhetoric of raciist retribution: because persons in Group A oppressed persons if Group B, it is OK for persons of Group B to oppress anyone of Group B. That's fine for you, as long as you are in Group B, right?

"Now we force them to let us use french... but we do not do as they did, that is deprive them of their right to use the language of their choice.. ."

The laws you defend do just this. However, you always could use French.

Thankfully, we had someone else from Quebec who chimed in and said that these nasty laws are not really enforced. Quebec is not near as bad as you are making it out to be.

Re:That is rather "fascistic"...

[AtariAmarok]

"Now all we ask is to insure that BOTH languages are available... Thats not that much to ask."

"there were enven french employee forced to speak english to french speaking customer due to Company policy... Now that was fascistic"

How? Was the government involved? No. Now you have the government forcing langauge choices on business. That is what is fascistic.

Why not leave such a personal communication and expression decision up to the people? Note: I'm not talking about official government business. I'm talking about the draconian laws you are in so favor of that control private (non-government) speech.

As for the justification you are using of retribution against the English "who owned everything", that is sounding similar to a certain other country that, like Quebec, had laws to censor and silence private communication for "nationalist" reasons, but they blamed it all on the Jews "who owned everything". This is a dangerous road to go down.

Any culture that has to have draconian laws to preserve it is not worthy of preserving.

Re:That is rather "fascistic"...

[AtariAmarok]

"Not about a policy passed inside a nation by an elected governement who was voted in office by a majority of the population and that had the population support in doing so..."

If the policy involves language-nazis regulating a personal matter such as what language they use in private communications, that is about as bad.

"Not about a policy passed inside a nation by an elected governement who was voted in office by a majority of the population and that had the population support in doing so..."

Re:That is rather "fascistic"...

[Bullfish]

Pal, if you haven't noticed, the french come pre-offended.

Re: Weather The NDP is in power or not...

[Anonymous Coward]

So anyone who gets 25 or more signitures for there area must take their copy of the petition to their MP, weather their in "power" or not!

Actually, MPs can introduce petitions with signatures from anywhere in Canada as long as they have a bunch from their own riding. Peter Julian was chosen for the first batch because many of the signatures were in his area, and the petition organizers were able to convince him to support the cause. His being an NDP member isn't particularly relevant. This is an issue that cuts across party lines - you could just as well say that the Right should support the petition because expanded copyright laws are government-sponsored monopolies and harm the free market.

Please DO talk to your local MP about this, but it would be better to send your collected petition signatures to Digital Copyright Canada rather than sending them to your local MP, because the petition organizers are trying to collect them into well-organized batches, remove duplicates, and have them presented by the MPs who will bring us the greatest benefit. Submitting a petition to Parliament is a bit complicated if you want to do it in the proper way that compels them to pay official attention.

If it is a levy, it is a tax.

[AtariAmarok]

"The problem with that statement is that this is a levy, not a tax"

A levy is a kind of tax. Don't make a distinction that does not exist in order to make it sound better. If it is money that the government forces you to pay to it, it is a tax. This particular money is collected by the government and then given to CRIA.

Re:If it is a levy, it is a tax.

[schon]

A levy is a kind of tax.

No, it isn't.

Don't make a distinction that does not exist in order to make it sound better.

Don't lump two things together when they really are different, just because you don't like them.

This particular money is collected by the government and then given to CRIA.

No, it is not . It is collected by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (which is *NOT* the government), and then disbursed to copyright holders (including, but not only, the CRIA) and artists. From the CPCC's site:

The Canadian Private Copying Collective is the non-profit agency charged with collecting and distributing private copying royalties. Established in 1999, CPCC is an umbrella organization that represents songwriters, recording artists, music publishers and record companies. These are the groups on whose behalf the royalties are collected. CPCC is not an arm of government. (Emphais mine.)

Thanks for the info! MODS READ PARENT!

[Wacky_Wookie]

I hope this post gets Modded UP!

Re: Weather The NDP is in power or not...

[MrAndrews]

Better than that, the best way to get something like this killed is to make Industry Canada think it will cripple innovation for small business. So anyone in Vancouver Kingsway with any sort of high-tech business should go down and leave David Emerson a letter of concern. But really, IC is probably already freaking out about this, so I doubt there's much work to do.

Semi-relatedly, if anyone in said Victoria-Beacon Hill district happens to have a spare petition lying around, it would save me buying a printer :)

Re:Get the facts straight.

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading commercial music without payment is not.

Actually, if by "downloading" you mean making a personal copy of someone else's commercial music, then you're wrong.

The Canadian Copyright Act specifically allows personal copies of music to be made. The U.S.A. has never had an equivalent exclusion in its copyright laws.

Re:backpacks... websites...

[Ced_Ex]

Putting an American flag on your backpack when travelling, is akin to putting a huge Bullseye on yourself in some countries

Unfortunate for Americans is that their government's foreign policies, and a few obnoxious travellers ruined your flag for you.

Re:Not about copyright at all

[AtariAmarok]

"If you're gonna turn tail and run on account of Bush, you're no use up here when shit happens either"

Yeah. As soon as Canada elects a government they do not like, they will run to Cuba. And if an election ever happens in Cuba, they will run to North Korea. Then they will have no where else to run.

Music Business Model is Dead, Dead, Dead

[Bullfish]

It's hard to say whether or not the petition will have any effect in the end. Artists have to be paid in north american society in order to produce and at the same time the consumer expects a degree of degree of ownership over what they've bought. You can argue all you want that software, music etc can't be bought, or licensed for use, but when money has changed hands people get funny about it. There's also the issue of what the price of the media should be to properly reimburse the artist in a sustainable fashion.

The industry companies, however, are a different matter. Their business model is completely and irrevocably broken no matter what law comes down the pike. Yet, they cling to it. These same companies that were used to exorbitant profits for the longest time, the same ones that were nailed for price fixing not that long ago, are desperately trying to prop up a way of doing business that began to spiral downwards since the first consumer audio recording was possible. The internet was just the last nail in the coffin of that business model. I find it ironic that the most successful service to date, the Apple service, has been getting pressure to raise prices. Obviously Apple can make cash at a 99 cent price point. So can the industry members, they just don't want it. They want to keep things the way they are and are willing to go to court and endure bad pr to do it.

In the end though, it is all less than a finger in the dike. I wonder what would happen if big names artists at the end of their contracts began to use some of their elaborate home studios to sell direct to the public over the net? They could probably do quite well selling music at 99 cents a song without having to line some record executive's pockets. At the most, I'd say the present way the record companies operate has maybe five years left. That is regardless of whether downloading is legal or illegal.

Re:Music Business Model is Dead, Dead, Dead

[Bullfish]

It wouldn't necessarily stop, but they couldn't do it professionally. A guy's gotta eat (women too I hear).

Re:That's it!

[Ced_Ex]

No guns up here though.

We solve our differences and defend our freedoms like real men, using beer bottles.

Re:Get the facts straight.

[tricops]

Here's actual information related to its current legality in Canada... right here. It is currently legal to download personal copies. Whether that status will change, who knows...

Good to see this

[iminplaya]

This isn't just a Web click-through petition that politicians can freely ignore; more than a thousand real hardcopy signatures have already been collected from Canadian residents opposed to further expansion of copyright privileges... Emphasis mine

I'm very happy to see that somebody actually sees copyright for what it really is...A privilege...granted to you by the public, subject to revocation at every election. Let's not forget that, eh?

How do you measure tenfold?

[AtariAmarok]

"Quebec has benefited ten fold because of the Charter"

Freedom-of-speech certainly did not benefit. What did benefit "tenfold"? Are the Quebecoi ten times richer than before?

Re:How do you measure tenfold?

[udowish]

mabe you haven't heard of Adscam? or maybe you can tell my why the CSA (Canadian Space Agency) is headquarted in Montreal instead of Ottawa? Why are there 8 other government head departments located outside of Ottawa? Western Canada, the east coast they have no such national head offices? Why has 90% of all Pm's been from Quebec? Why are 75% of the highest ranking officers in the CF from Quebec...I can go on and on..you (Quebec) has gotten WAY more than its fair share considering its population. So my question is then why is there such a heavy infulence from Quebec? and yet you want more??

Re:How do you measure tenfold?

[udowish]

Unfortunately it would be like taking candy from a baby...Quebec has gotten so much for so long that now they feel what they have is their right..All province have control over education, environment, resources etc that isn't the issue. My concern is "forcing" certain language laws etc, if a culture can not stand up on its own without government intervension then it should die a peaceful death.

Re:How do you measure tenfold?

[Dr. Binders]

I'll take the flamebait: "if a culture cannot stand up on its own without government intervension then it should die a peaceful death". That's easy for you to say, you're not part of the french minority. How would you feel if you couldn't read food packaging for ingredients and warnings on Over-the-Counter medication in your own language within your own province. Let's face it, english speakers in North America would abuse their economic power otherwise.

That's interesting, but....

[AtariAmarok]

"...A privilege...granted to you by the public"

That is interesting, but it is granted by the government, not the public. Big difference.

Re:That's interesting, but....

[iminplaya]

Does not your gov't derive its power and authority from the.....public?? You can vote where you are, right? Gettin' my drift? Pickin' up what I'm puttin' down?

Re:That's interesting, but....

[AtariAmarok]

"Does not your gov't derive its power and authority from the.....public??"

Yes, but it is still a separate entity with its own goals. As a comparison (US politics): the Supreme Court justices are all appointed by Presidents. However, it is a different body than the executive (presidential) branch.

"The government is the people" is a worthwhile lofty goal, but just about every place with a constitution recognizes that there is an important difference, and limits need to be placed on what one group (government) can do to the other group ("the people").

Re:That's interesting, but....

[iminplaya]

Even the constitution can be indirectly voted down by the voter. Little by little, that's just what they are doing. It's almost easy to amend it. The ultimate power will always be with them. As long as the goals of the gov't jive with those of the voter(public), they can be assured of maintaining their authority for a very long time. If the voter uses the power they have, they will see the desired result. We elect the people who do the appointing. If we don't like their choice, it's up to us to change the "appointer". There may be a "chain of command", but we are the real commanders. If a big enough percentage of voter don't like the appointed judges or other bureaucrats, I'm sure there is a way to remove them fairly quickly. or at the very least, render them harmless. The first step here is to realize that we do have the ultimate power. The second is to pay attention and use it wisely.

Re:That's interesting, but....

[WillAffleckUW]

"...A privilege...granted to you by the public"

That is interesting, but it is granted by the government, not the public. Big difference.

Wrong.

Heck, copyright is supposed to only be for 17 years too.

Re:American issue

[udowish]

class president I see your point however, its a two way street. You can not expect Canada (or other countries) to follow your lead when the US blatanlty breaks the law (its own and international). IE soft wood lumber, cattle, farm subsidies I could go on and on. The WTO and NAFTA have all ruled AGAINST the US but are they going to lift the ban any time soon??? Know you get a sense of the feeling in Canada when the US knocks on the door "asking" that we do this and that...why? When the US breaks even its own rules. Like I said its a two way street. Not US way only. I agree the US does produce piles of music so....? Remove the duty of softwood lumber, resume imports of live beef and stop subsidizing your farmers THEN knock on our door...until then...forget it!

The Rename Party

[AtariAmarok]

"Well, if, by your moniker, you've been working for the Reform Party, which became the Canadian Alliance and is now the Conservative party"

Gack! Why don't they just call themselves the Rename Party and be done with it? We have a "Reform Party" in the US. It started out with its main mission being defecit-reduction under Ross Perot, but evolved into a "We Hate Mexicans" party under Pat Buchanan.

The world is becoming like the one in Aliens

[doc modulo]

"I'm Burke, I work for the company"

The quote might not be accurate but the power of corporations keep growing lately. Especially in the US where the laws keeping corporations in check are too weak.

A lot of conflicts where people died were partly because of corporations. Corporations get too powerful, violence has to happen to get the situation back to normal/livable. Happened in history lots of times. Mussolini said something like: "Fascism can be more accurately called corporatism"

It's happening right now as well, there was this piece in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" where the population in a South-American country/province rebelled against a corporation and it's corrupt helpers. They were forbidden to collect and use rainwater from their own roofs because the water company wanted to sell more water at starvation prices.

I hope we can fight off software patents in Europe, I hope Canada can fight off this law. Better to do it now peacefully than having to do it violently later. Might already be too late for the US. Incredible how the doofuses there vote their enemies into government.

The most important thing is to keep thinking logically and optimistically. Keep an image of what you want in your head and things will work out. For example, think: "it's not too late for the US, things WILL work out better if we can just convince people of the truth, the brainwashed can not be convinced should be labeled not sane" etc.

Re:The world is becoming like the one in Aliens

[UlfGabe]

mod him up now! scotty

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[kebes]

It's not as bad as people (who don't live here) seem to think.

In Quebec, public notices and ads must be in French or have French translations (and the French version must be more prominent). All government documents must be available in both English and French in the entire country. These rules seem reasonable. And as an example, advertisements for local English newspapers are in English only... (which makes sense)

There is no censoring of private speech that I'm aware of or have ever encountered.

The only really weird thing left is the fact that children must be sent to french schools, unless their parents are English speaking. What this means is that french families and immigrating families have no choice about the language their children learn in elementary school and high school.

Glad to see my MP is hard at work

[WillAffleckUW]

my last place of residence was in Burnaby-New West.

The only way to fight this is to fight hard.

Thanks

[AtariAmarok]

I see the "what has Quebec gained tenfold" question answered with "inordinate political power". Thanks for answering the question.

"then why is there such a heavy infulence from Quebec? and yet you want more??"

You have me confused with another. I came into the Quebec argument as a non-Quebecoi questioning how that province denies freedom of personal expression based on ethnic heritage.

Re:Morality in Government.

[UlfGabe]

sorry i saw those same numbers as congress, i call bullshit, so show your cards.

The law may very well not pass.

[Pig Hogger]

Parliament is currently being entangled in the sponsorship scandal, and it is very well possible that the opposition parties will force a general election on the minority government as more dirt is uncovered.

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[AtariAmarok]

"There is no censoring of private speech that I'm aware of or have ever encountered"

Ads, which you say are censored for language content, are private speech. Something that is done by the citizens, not the state. That is not reasonable. Why should this be the government's business? See my example about a Sanskrit sign in the other post.

What sort of legalities are involved with it? If you are seller of signs, and have non-French signs in your window as part of displaying your wares, do the gestapo come down on your for that?

Let them pass their meaningless laws...

[LordZardoz]

They can pass all the laws they want about copyrights for digital media. They will be largely inneffective as a deterrent.

Until someone breaking such a law shows up in court, this will all mean nothing anyway. I would prefer the petition succeeds, but sooner or later, the entire damn thing will come crashing down simply because the law that the petition is against is essentially unenforcible anyway.

Trying to pass laws preventing computers from copying information and using the internet from sharing that information is like trying to pass a law saying you can buy scissors, but cannot use scissors to cut things.

It makes no sense to pass a law preventing you from using an item that you are permitted to own in a manner it is designed to be used.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:Morality in Government.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out Snopes

The parent is full of BS. It shouldn't be modded up.

Re:Morality in Government.

[UlfGabe]

what i ment to say is that a very similar joke/factsheet about the US congress exists, and either both are true, or one is face, or both are true, but both being true is unlikely.

isn't that

[Run4yourlives]

sven's old riding?

Re:isn't that

[WillAffleckUW]

Yup, Svend Robinson. I've got pics from back in my old NDP days.

Re:Morality in Government.

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet hoax uses Citizen as source: Message accuses MPs of criminal activity; [Final Edition]
Glen McGregor. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Apr 13, 2001. pg. A.5

i.e. This is old!

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[kebes]

Firstly, I consider Ads to be a corporate issue, not a private speech issue. I do not think corporations should be accorded as many rights and freedoms as individuals.

Secondly, there is the issue of comparing law to practice. There are many silly laws "on the books" and this bothers me. But at the end of the day, we must (unfortunately) analyze our freedoms and quality of life with regard to enforcement.

So, in Quebec, the gestapo DO NOT come knocking on your door for displaying a non-french sign. In Chinatown, all the signs are in chinese, and it's hard to find french or english anywhere. Lots of stores have english signs posted. Some even lack the french signage that is legally required. Does the military blow up their stores? No. Do they receive letters asking them to conform to the law? Rarely.

At the end of the day, I do not feel like my rights are being infringed. I am willing to put up with some strangeness in order for the french culture to be happy and preserved. As I said, I think the laws are somewhat bizarre, but luckily the enforcement of these laws has been, as far as I can see, reasonable. (My main complaint being, as I said before, related to schooling...) Importantly, I have never felt that my ability to express my opinion or exercise free speech was inhibited in the slightest by these language laws.

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[Anonymous Cowpat]

We have something similar in my university, well the student's union. All adverts must be put up in a Welsh translation (I don't know if it works the other way) and, granted, the univerity offers free translation, but it's an extra annoyance and makes 50% of advertising wallspace useless to the 90% of the student population who don't speak Welsh, and redundant to the other 10% who do speak Welsh, but speak English as well.

Snopes is wrong.

[AtariAmarok]

The Snopes article appears to be an attempt to excuse and spin. The language is so phony that it is what you would expect from the Democratic Party is the list only named Democrat criminals, or from the Republican Party if it named only Republicans. The Snopes justification for the criminals reads kind of like a bipartisan version of "my party can do no wrong".

One of the things in the list however deserves attention: "117 have bankrupted at least two businesses"

As a body, they have bankrupted thousands of business due to enacting of regulations and punitive tax increases.

yet another example...

[Phil246]

Of Canada doing something right, which american could not.

My congratulations go out to the organisers of this, and to the canadian people as a whole for having the stomach to say " enough is enough "

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[AtariAmarok]

"Firstly, I consider Ads to be a corporate issue, not a private speech issue"

All speech is by individuals. A corporation cannot speak, when you get right down to it. Why even look for an excuse to censor in the first place? Besides, when condemning this censorship, I had the small non-corporate business in mind (the downtown T shirt seller or grocer). A large corporation is likely to print in French there anyway as not to avoid French consumer dollars.

"I do not think corporations should be accorded as many rights and freedoms as individuals."

Does this mean then that individuals lose their free speech rights if they are members of corporations? Regardless, I do not believe in looking for excuses to censor any speech.

"Chinatown, all the signs are in chinese, and it's hard to find french or english anywhere. "

This is the first thing you have said that backs up your "it is really not that bad" statement. I asked the other guy about Chinatown earlier, and he did not answer. So the law is not being enforced?

" I am willing to put up with some strangeness in order for the french culture to be happy and preserved"

You can always ask if a "culture" is worth saving if it requires trampling on people's rights to prop it up, and it cannot survive on its own merit. I'm just strongly against any sort of cultural force.

Re:American issue

[kebes]

Canadian students elect a class president (and treasurer and secretary), just like in most small groups (tenant associations, astrophysics club, etc.). It wouldn't make sense to have a *prime* minister unless you have alot of *other* ministers (and most High Schools don't have a student council that requires that much administration!)

With regard to the rest of your comment: I'm sure we're all well aware of *why* the US is so interested in pushing their IP laws on the rest of the world. Of course it is in their best interest to do so: they make alot more money off of IP than other countries, so all kinds of money from around the world flows into the US. That's all well and good, but then it must be equally obvious why every other country should want to enforce much less strict IP laws. Every other country stands to gain by ignoring copyright as much as possible.

If the US doesn't like it, then they can impose martial law and disconnect their population from the internet. Of course what really happens is that the US uses their economic power in other domains in order to enforce extraction of IP money. The rich get richer. Oh well. It just bothers me how often people assume that IP exists for moral reasons, when, as you point out, it mostly exists for economic reasons.

Re:Morality in Government.

[Chris84000000]

Snopes Reference Page. This refers to the US Congress, but the same analysis applies.

Most of these say "arrested" or "accused", none say "convicted", the assault one only implies guilt. No names are given, nor a dates, nor references.

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[kebes]

All speech is by individuals. Does this mean then that individuals lose their free speech rights if they are members of corporations?

Different rules apply when an individual is expressing their personal opinion, versus when they are speaking on behalf of a corporation or government body. It's as simple as that. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want (e.g.: libel and slander, NDAs, etc.)

Regardless, I do not believe in looking for excuses to censor any speech.
You can always ask if a "culture" is worth saving if it requires trampling on people's rights to prop it up, and it cannot survive on its own merit.

I agree with you on these points 100%. Frankly I think the laws are unnecessary. Either a culture will survive or it won't and we should just let society/culture evolve on its own (unless some totallitarian government is trying to destroy it, of course). I don't think the laws make sense, and ultimately I don't think they have made a difference. The proff that they haven't made a difference is, in my opinion, the very fact that they have become commonplace, somewhat ignore, and in the end not much has changed. French and English people still get along, and French people still all learn English, and English people (living in Quebec) learn french.

So the law is not being enforced?

Largely it isn't. Others who live in Quebec might disagree with me here, but there was a time period where the "language police" were going crazy monitoring everything... but that's calmed down and over the last 10 years I haven't really heard any complaints. It just doesn't seem to affect the citizens.

To be clear: my point was not to defend the laws and measures that have been put into place. I don't like those measures at all. However, in practice it turns out that things are not as bad as predicted. Life goes on and no one seems bothered. It's a waste of money, but has not infringed my rights. I am willing to put up with a bit of sillyness if it makes French people happy (even if, in my opinion, it was unnecessary). I just wanted to set the record straight on what it's actually like to live in Quebec.

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[AtariAmarok]

"Different rules apply when an individual is expressing their personal opinion"

Why? It is still an individual expressing something. At least in the United States constitution, you are not supposed to lose your free speech rights just because what you say might happen to agree with what someone else might want you to say.

"Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want (e.g.: libel and slander, NDAs, etc.)"

Yet, here you have it censored only because it might be similar or identical to what someone else might say or want you to say. Not because it is slanderous or NDA'neous (no idea what an NDA is).

"Largely it isn't. Others who live in Quebec might disagree with me here, but there was a time period where the "language police" were going crazy monitoring everything."

That's good. In my other message, I found the idea of a Chinatown filled with non-Chinese government-mandated signs on businesses ridiculous. The other person said something like "speak French or leave!"

"To be clear: my point was not to defend the laws and measures that have been put into place. I don't like those measures at all. I just wanted to set the record straight on what it's actually like to live in Quebec.

Thanks!

Your welcome everyone

[2bitcomputers]

Now I feel even better that I voted for this guy last election day. I also signed the petition and if you live in Canada I urge you to do the same.

Re:Oh, sure, a Canada Icon. Next thing...

[sik0fewl]

Give us an inch and we'll take 3,855,102 sq. miles.

And for my fellow Canadians too lazy to do the math: Give us 2.54 centimetres and we'll take 9,984,668.34 square kilometres.

Re:Not about copyright at all

[udowish]

Hum, Glad you can't spell C A N A D A but be carefull. The US might just get the wrong country..oops did I say that out loud? Doesn't surprise me that comments like that come from Anonymous Coward(s)...

Parliment

[Mark_MF-WN]

Don't yanks get exactly the same benefit from their Congress, and then the same benefit again from their Senate (our Senate isn't even elected, it's fucking appointed)? The president is essentially a figurehead. It's Congress and the Senate that wield the real power in the states if I'm not mistaken.

Re:Parliment

[Guppy06]

"It's Congress and the Senate that wield the real power in the states if I'm not mistaken."

Perhaps, but not without a great deal of trepidation from the folks who wrote our constitution. Article II starts out by saying "the president gets the executive power," article III with "the supreme court gets the judicial power," while article I says "Congress only gets the powers specified within." It's a natural tendancy in a democracy to put all the power in the legislature, but that's not always a good thing, mostly because the majority isn't always right.

"our Senate isn't even elected, it's fucking appointed"

I envy you that to a degree.

On the other hand, our House is practically appointed (by the states or by the parties, depending on how you want to look at it) thanks to gerrymandereing. Your average Senate election is won by a smaller margin of victory than House elections, despite House elections being three times as common, and ultimately House members have more to worry about from the decennial census than a biennial election whose outcome nobody doubts.

At least with an appointed Senate you know who to blame and Senators can't pretend they have the mandate of the people.

"The president is essentially a figurehead."

He acts as party leader and tends to be the source of many bills. For example, our lower house must be the source of all bills that deal with spending money, but most of those bills (including/especially the yearly budget) are introduced at the behest of the president. Congress may have power, but often that power gets transferred to the president (consider Congress' war-making power).

Ultimately, the source of all power in the US Constitution is the state legislatures, the ones who ratified the constitution and have the power to abandon it outright. However, they have steadily transferred their power to Congress, who has, in turn, passed that power onto the president.

We have entered the fifth year of the presidency of George W. Bush and he has yet to veto anything. This is because Congress has never presented to him a bill he didn't like.

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[udowish]

"Different rules apply when an individual is expressing their personal opinion" Why? It is still an individual expressing something. At least in the United States constitution, you are not supposed to lose your free speech rights just because what you say might You have never servered in the military have you. I would love to see a high ranking general NOT pull the party line of issues of politics. They are by definition NOT supposed to express any opinion do you consider this freedom of speech?

Re:That's it!

[udowish]

Actually that is NOT true. Canada per capita has MORE firearms than the US. You just can not walk around with them... I own three firearms, 1 rifle, 1 shotgun and a pistol...

If it is a levy, it is a tax.

[AtariAmarok]

It's a tax. Here you have the government forcing you to pay a special organization when you buy something that really has nothing to do with that organization. It is through government force. If it wasn't, no one would have to pay it, would they?

Whether or not I like it, it is still a tax. Also, you are forgetting thata more traditional (federal sales tax) is applied to the full price of the item, including the levy.

Here are some other references to the tax:

"Federal Government to Levy Blank CD-Rewritable Media". (a law site: if lawyers don't know what a tax is, who does?_ Elsewhere,

Stereophone (which knows CD's) says "Canada Decides to Tax Blank Media".

TWShepherd.com cuts through the BS: "...to increase the tax (they call it a levy in obfuspeak) on blank media...".

A Canadian legal site, lawconnection.ca: "Board is responsible for setting the levy or tax on blank CDs and cassettes..."

"The levy/tax is problematic in that it is quite abstract" - canadianheritage.gc.ca

"..with an increased levy or tax on all blank CDs...." - cbc.ca

"I have represented opponents to Canada's blank audio recording media levy, which is ordinarily referred to as a tax." - ccfda.ca lawyer site.

What browser, Mr. Dumas?

[AtariAmarok]

What browser are you using, Mr. Dumas? On my screen, all the bullet-characters line up with the leftmost letters of the non-bullet lines. Perfectly.

Re:What browser, Mr. Dumas?

[FHMyles]

I'm using Firefox and the bullet points are slightly to the left of the leftmost characters in the non-bullet lines.

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[goates]

One less province to support with transfer payments too...

Must be a Firefox bug

[AtariAmarok]

On both MSIE and regular Mozilla, the bullets line up with the rest of the left margin.

Re:Won't someone PLEASE LISTEN to the children?

[hung_himself]

Let's see... according to Frulla - the children are right about recycling, smoking and experts on the Internet.

BUT

She and her generation know more about the morality of downloading music.

Non sequitur - Norman coordinate...

Yeah, the kids have got it right. When they take charge things like the DCMA will seem as incomprehensible as forcing darker-skinned people to sit at the back of the bus. I can imagine Frulla, Hatch et al sitting in their nursing homes saying - "we didn't know any better - that's just the way everyone thought back then..."

FREE WILL

[shufler]

>> Part of freedom is being free to choose
>All of freedom is being free to choose. That's it.

In the words of Geddy Lee (a Canadian, so this post is certainly ON TOPIC):

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

Write your MP it's not hard, and free:

[saskboy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

Sincerely,
my name

progress?

[sum.zero]

you expect progress from the most socially backward party in the country?

also, the ontario liberals are not the federal liberals. just like the bc liberals aren't the federal liberals, or even liberal period.

sum.zero

Re:progress?

[nuggz]

I don't think the Conservatives are socially backward. Why would you say that?

I haven't heard anything like calls to reinstate slavery or remove womens right to vote. Maybe I'm missing something.

I can think of some issues where people can disagree, but nothing suggesting backwards ideas.

Mostly I see a party with ideas and a vision.

Re:Not about copyright at all

[neiras]

We don't hate Americans. Far from it. We hate bigoted, ultra-nationalist, Fox-News-Is-Fair-And-Balanced, With-Us-Or-Against-Us, Social-Programs-Are-For-Commies, Canada-Doesn't-Matter-Because-They-Don't-Do-What-W e-Say embarrassments to humanity like yourself.

Real, upstanding, proud citizens of the USA who carry themselves with humility, share their many gifts with their neighbours, and accept our many differences with grace are much loved here. I mean, we're family, right? I wouldn't discard my brother because he doesn't agree with me. In most places I've visited in the States, the people are great.

Yes, you're powerful. Yes, you could roll up here one night and take us out. But you aren't our judge, just as we aren't yours. When you speak about your neighbours in the future, do so with the respect most of us would still give you.

==

How America looks from up here

Re: Weather The NDP is in power or not...

[Gog]

I just HAVE to get 25 signature as my MP is... Liza Frulla

Gog

Re:If it is a levy, it is a tax. NOT

[schon]

It's a tax.

*sigh* can you not read? It is *not* a tax, it is a levy. They are Two. Different. Things.

It is through government force. If it wasn't, no one would have to pay it, would they?

No, but it *still* wouldn't make it a tax.

Whether or not I like it, it is still a tax.

No, it is a levy. Just because you want to call it a tax does not make it a tax.

you are forgetting thata more traditional (federal sales tax) is applied to the full price of the item, including the levy.

I'm not forgetting it, it's just not relevant.

You pay tax on pretty much everything, does that make *everything you buy* a tax? By your logic, your car is a tax, your food is a tax. Your TV is a tax. Paying tax on something means that it is a taxed good or service. It does not *make* it a tax.

Here are some other references

Just because someone misuses a term, does not make that term correct. And you provided no links - just text. Please provide *links* where someone *who actually knows what the words mean* states *that it is a tax and not a levy*.

SO FUNNY!!, - MOD THIS UP!

[Wacky_Wookie]

I'm not kidding, I really DO Find it Funny!

Censor the media! NOW

[AtariAmarok]

"Those channels are banned because Canada wishes to keep it's culture somewhat separate from the US."

Again, any culture that requires censorship in order to preserve it is not worth preserving. If it can't survive by allowing people basic freedoms of expression, what is it worth?

Besides, you are incorrect. The channels are banned because the Canadian government wants them censored. I've talked to many Canadians about this, and most of them want the personal choice to receive evil "outside" channels. It is the basic right of any individual in a free society, even if culture-nazis want censorship.

"It's to protect our sovereignty from a valid threat that is the United States of America"

If Canada is so "threatened" by the prospect of information flowing freely, what is it worth? If this is really true, Canada has vastly inferior culture that can only survive by draconian laws, and truly belongs on the "ash heap" of history or in a museum.

And what about the soveriegnty of Canadian citizens who want to be able to make their own choices?

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[Bullfish]

Actually it has less to do with "preserving the culture" than helping the Canadian industry to survive. Almost all the shows on the channels are available in Canada from Canadian providers. Movie Central, for example, airs Deadwood, Carnivale etc and pays HBO for the rights. The economies of scale between Canada and the US are such that in many areas if we want to have an idigenous industry locally owned, they have to have a bulwark against US companies which service a market of 275 million. Canada is not alone in doing this kind of thing, many countries do it. Hell, try importing a cup of rice into Japan sometime

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[AtariAmarok]

"Actually it has less to do with "preserving the culture" than helping the Canadian industry to survive"

If an industry must have such barriers in order to survive, then it is not viable in the first place. Take down the barriers and put it out of its misery. The same thing applies to US industries like the auto industries. We've had barriers here to protect the US auto industry from the fact that they still can't make cars as good as Japan.

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[Bullfish]

Sorry, not all things can be purely market driven. Some things, like an indigenous broadcast industry are in the national interest. What a nation considers to be a vital interest is up to the nation. You can be busted and fined for trying to bring a cup of foreign rice into Japan.

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[AtariAmarok]

"Sorry, not all things can be purely market driven. Some things, like an indigenous broadcast industry are in the national interest. "

I strongly disagree on this, when it means censoring outside voices. The interests of a free person in a free society vs the interest of the rulers to "keep them from seeing things we don't want them to see."

"You can be busted and fined for trying to bring a cup of foreign rice into Japan."

That is a lot less important than being denied the right to read/see what you want to. I find it very hard to justify censorship of any kind. However, this type of censorship "in the national interest" ranks up there with bookburning. It is really similar in ways. This is one thing that must be left purely market driven, because in this "the market" is the ability to read/see/etc what you want.

My Canadian friends strongly resent the censorship, and have no moral problem with circumventing censorship regulations so they can see what they want.

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[Bullfish]

The purpose of the ban was clear, it was a vain hope, but a hope to try to keep a clean jury pool. It became evident during the inquiry to the judge (that was hostile to the government) that criminal proceeding would arise because of the testimony. Hence he tried to ensure as best he could a fair trial.

In the end, it was in vain, people saw it, and no one went to jail.

As far as having "strategic" industries, you can disagree with them all you like, but they exist. Even in the ole USA

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[AtariAmarok]

"The purpose of the ban was clear, it was a vain hope, but a hope to try to keep a clean jury pool" Yet another place where the internet bypasses the ban. "As far as having "strategic" industries, you can disagree with them all you like"

As long as it does not involve censorship. See my other reply to you about how to protect Canadian broadcasters without censoring a thing.

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[Bullfish]

Censorship goes on all the time though. In the states, they can only watch the Sopranos on the air uncut over cable, in Canada we can watch it uncut on regular, good ole CTV. The Patriot Act plays all kinds of havoc with civil liberties as well.

I did read your other reply, but unlike many slashdotters, I went out last night and partied and was unfit to answer. The issue is that here, we force cable companies to carry the CBC (and other channels) like other channels bundled together (they do that in the states too), but because of treaties with the US, the companies have to buy programming from the US to rebroadcast here. The companies in turn lobby so they don't have to compete against the carriers they have to pay for the programming.

In effect, while it seems like the government is driving it all, it is actually another example of that north american phenomenon of government by lobbying.

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[AtariAmarok]

"Censorship goes on all the time though. In the states, they can only watch the Sopranos on the air uncut over cable, in Canada we can watch it uncut on regular, good ole CTV"

They (Canada) just ban entire channels from closed-circuit systems. That is what satellite is.

" The Patriot Act plays all kinds of havoc with civil liberties as well."

Its negative effects are greatly overplayed, and end up unnoticable down here. Little reported is the fact that it still requires search warrants for all search/seisure.

"the companies have to buy programming from the US to rebroadcast here. The companies in turn lobby so they don't have to compete against the carriers they have to pay for the programming."

I'm still trying to parse that. Care for a reword?

"it is actually another example of that north american phenomenon of government by lobbying."

This would not be so bad if government had a lot less spending and regulatory power. Then the government would do less damage when lobbyists "weilded" it.

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[Bullfish]

The reword is that the companies pay the US companies for programming to broadcast in their home market. In turn they get to sell that programing in our market. The HBO market is the US, while Movie Central's is Canada. It's an agreed split.

In the end, we get to see the same things as are in the states, we just pay the Canadian broker who would be screwed over if they had to pay HBO for the content and then have to compete them at the same time. As a result, we buy from Canadian providers and Americans buy from US providers.

Government isn't going to give up it's power. Our nature as humans is once we've got a leg up on someone, we are loathe to give it up.

In the end though, I prefer to see a mix of market forces and government regulation. It keeps the corporations in check, and the corporations keep the government from running amok.

As long as humans are involved in the process, I think it is the best we can do.

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[Kwil]

Congratulations. You're missing that media and culture are as entirely susceptible to market manipulation as anything else.

The a reason why American culture would steam-roll Canada, has nothing to do with quality or "rightness" of culture, it's simply the economies of scale. American media producers can afford to re-sell American culture and American media to foreign countries for generally cheaper than said foreign countries could produce it themselves. Why? Because with a massive media-hungry population, they get profits from inhome and then can simply "dump" their product on foreign markets for cheaper than the original cost of production (one of the side effects of free copies).

End result, media companies in non-US countries would happily pay bargain basement rates for shows that then allow them to charge advertisers. When cost to purchase is below cost to produce, production doesn't happen -- no matter what the quality.

In any trade agreement, selling something for cheaper than the cost of production is considered dumping, and there are rules against it.

Now, since it's impossible to charge duty or tarriffs to stop this dumping of media content over our borders, another way needs to be taken to handle this. Legislation was chosen to do this.

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[AtariAmarok]

"You're missing that media and culture are as entirely susceptible to market manipulation as anything else."

I am not missing it. I am asserting that perception of "manipulation" is not reason to censor anything. "Market manipulation" is not an excuse for censorship.

"The a reason why American culture would steam-roll Canada"

This would only happen if Canadians happened to like it in the first place. Why not let each Canadian choose?

"In any trade agreement, selling something for cheaper than the cost of production is considered dumping"

So? What does this have to do with anything?

"Now, since it's impossible to charge duty or tarriffs to stop this dumping of media content over our borders, another way needs to be taken to handle this. Legislation was chosen to do this."

And it is a particularly draconian legislation that is designed to censor "outside" content. The only silver lining here is the rise of Internet browsing at the expense of TV watching: Internet browsing is not censored yet. Canadians are allowed to choose for themselves here, unlike with TV.

Re:Censor the media! NOW

[AtariAmarok]

I forgot to add, that your argument is way off. The channels are being censored not because they are dumped for cheap, but because the government does not want you to see the content..

I am again reminded of my friends who had to get an "illicit" dish account in order to watch what they wanted. They like watching a few different news channels. At the time, the Canadian government only allowed one in, arguing that "one was enough". Since when is the government to decide that just one viewpoint is enough?

As for "dumping", I like it: it means that prices are so much lower.

Why?

[Hamster Lover]

I have not heard in my thirty odd years one succinct, consise argument as to why Quebec should separate. Not one. I asked my Quebec relatives the same question and they could not either. They just throw their hands up in the air and say something to the effect that they currently receive a raw deal from Confederation.

As far back as you go in Canadian history be it Lower Canada or Quebec, the distinctive and unique nature of Quebec has been recognized and furthered by careful consideration and compromise on the part of the rest of Canada. There is no real grievance that Quebec has to separate. They have control of their own immigration and other unique powers, a substantial cash flow from the Federal Government in the form of tranfer payments and a unique and favored position in Canada. In short, they are stronger in Canada than out.

The handful of arguments that have been presented sound like those from a disgruntled teenager who hasn't grown up to realize the wisdom of his parents.

Re:Why?

[Bullfish]

I personally always figured that if Quebec separated their language would be doomed. Right now, they get the benefit of being part of a market of 32 million that requires bilingualism on products etc. If they separated, they would be a market of about six million on a continent of 300 million english speakers.

Companies right now absorb the cost of the bilingual labelling, I doubt they would be willing to do so for such a small market.

Re:Why?

[AtariAmarok]

"If they separated, they would be a market of about six million on a continent of 300 million english speakers."

Is there a way to separate the market temporarily without Quebec leaving Canada? That way, you can watch the language problem die out. Afterwards, re-integrate the market. The language-nazis would be gone, and the Quebecoi would be able to breathe easier in whatever language they want.

Re:Why?

[Bullfish]

No, not really, and in response to another reply, I didn't include Mexico and Central America in the population numbers because they are predominatly Spanish speaking and combined have 300 million people as well.

I do wonder though how the rest of the continent would view a nation being founded in their midst that has born on the basis of racial and cultural purity.

Interestingly there is a huge prejudice in Quebec to dark skinned French speakers and most of the French speaking countries that are a primary source of immigration are in fact in Africa, the Carribean, and places like Viet Nam

Re:Why?

[AtariAmarok]

"I do wonder though how the rest of the continent would view a nation being founded in their midst that has born on the basis of racial and cultural purity" Not just the continent, the world. With laws that deny basic rights in order "preserve the culture", they put themselves in the same boat with Serbia in the 1990s and Germany in the 1930s.

People complain about how much the US is "to the right" of other countries. However, our ethnic/cultural fascist wing (Pat Buchanan, etc) is on the outside of the mainstream: properly shunned. In Canada, you have such "oppress the 'alien' culture elements" fascists in the main posts of power in one of the largest provinces.

I am guessing that Pat Buchanan loves the Quebec principle of censoring and crushing those who are not culturally pure, but I have not seen his words on the subject. I know he would like the United States to be run this way (having Quebec-like laws to censor people from using Spanish in their private affairs).

Re:Why?

[Bullfish]

To be fair, Quebec allows people to communicate in any language privately, but some of their other policies would not be tolerated anywhere else that I would go visit. That and their dislike of the aboriginals and "ethnics". It is right out of the 30's. Bizarre in the here and now. Ironically, the harder you try to preserve and freeze a culture the faster it dies. This is one the world could do without.

Re:Why?

[AtariAmarok]

"To be fair, Quebec allows people to communicate in any language privately"

The Quebec laws actually do censor private communication (i.e. non-government, non-official communication). The "to be fair" someone in Quebec mentioned elsewhere is that the laws are not enforced.

"Bizarre in the here and now. Ironically, the harder you try to preserve and freeze a culture the faster it dies. This is one the world could do without."

I agree. If it only exists due to paranoid, xenophobic laws, what good is it anyway?

Re:Why?

[birdman17]

I personally always figured that if Quebec separated their language would be doomed.

I've always wondered what the Natives (Amerindians and Inuit) would do if Quebec separated. Would they separate from the separated Quebec, either to become independent or to stay with the rest of Canada? If so, how much of their land would they take with them? And how much would be left to the French Quebecers? I think the natives would have the last laugh, since they can probably lay claim to most of the land and resources that currently makes up Quebec - and such claims would have a lot more force after Quebec unilaterally declares that the existing Confederation deal no longer applies to them.

Re:Why?

[Bullfish]

This came up during the last referendum and the First Nations people (natives) said Quebec had no right to take them out of confederation and that they would remain within Canada. There is also a question of what would happen to the eastern townships where a lot of english-speakers are holed up.

Re:Why?

[birdman17]

they would remain within Canada

Good on them. Do you know how much land they would control that would stay with Canada? And does that cover various important resources like hydro power stations etc.? I would like to think this is only an academic issue, but with those separatists, you never know.

It would be pretty funny if both the natives and the Eastern Townships separated from Quebec after Quebec separated from Canada... there wouldn't seem to be a whole lot of it left.

Re:Why?

[Bullfish]

Acutally, during the last referendum, it was determined all they might be entitled to was the land it had at confederation - which wasn't much. It was a strip along the St. Lawrence river.

Of course there is a fault line running under the river as well.

a minor point

[AtariAmarok]

"If they separated, they would be a market of about six million on a continent of 300 million english speakers."

I think you are leaving out most of the countries in the continent, which happen to speak Spanish, including Mexico which is much more populous than Canada.

Re:Get the facts straight.

[jafac]

The Canadian Copyright Act specifically allows personal copies of music to be made. The U.S.A. has never had an equivalent exclusion in its copyright laws.

Not true.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Unfortunately - it's so vaguely worded, and the big media outlets have spewed so much propaganda, along with armies of high-priced lobbyists, what's written in law is pretty much useless.

There's another way to look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

First, let me clear something up: it is not legal to copy music because of the levy. The act of copying music for personal use became legal before the levy was imposed. The levy was imposed only afterwards, to compensate the music industry for the preceived loss of revenue from the legality of copying.

Morality and the Canadian Copyright Act: The underlying philosophy of the Act is that no matter what we do, people will copy music for free, and if we make such an act illegal, there's no way to enforce it, so why bother. The Act basically tells the music industry to find some other way to make money, e.g. the levy, or live performances, or selling t-shirts, or just don't charge the cost of 4+ happy meals for each CD. It doesn't say that it's moral, it just says that it'll be as stupid to outlaw it as it would be to outlaw people standing outside stadiums and listening to a concert.

But never, never forget: (1) the levy came after the Act. (2) It's not legal because of the levy, it's just legal to copy music for personal use, levy or not.

seriously?

[sum.zero]

they have to damage control every couple of months because a party member makes a racist or homophobic comment...

notwithstanding clause threats over the definition of marriage...

significant factions that would like to repeal abortion laws...

and on and on...

sum.zero

Re:seriously?

[nuggz]

Well lets see, elected officials stating a position on a controversial issue that a large numbers of Canadians support.

Sounds pretty much like democracy in action to me. You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

then you agree

[sum.zero]

they are the most socially backward.

sum.zero

Socially responsible

[nuggz]

There are just some things they see as wrong and would like to fix.
I think working to solve problems is a responsible thing to do. The only question is what side of the debate you're on.
Sitting back and calling the other side names isn't the way to accomplish it.

disingenuous

[sum.zero]

racism and homophobia are not sides in a democratic debate. please reread the charter of rights and freedoms.

name calling? i stand by my statement. when a significant portion of a party wants to take away the established right to self-determination from women, they are socially backward. especially when the numbers don't back them.

sum.zero

Informed consent

[nuggz]

Right to self determination, nobody is arguing that. There is however a debate on if/when and wheter or not abortion becomes murder.
This is a VERY fuzzy area, particularly in the case of partial birth abortions where the child is capable of a separate independant survival.

As long as you're sharing blood, it's your body to do with what you want, but I feel that many women don't understand the serious risks of abortion before they get one. Working to ensure we have informed consent before this potentially fatal surgury is critically important.

Suggesting that informed consent is backwards is laughable.
Is the current lack of information on the risks of abortion somehow progress?

As for the charter http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Section 15 (1)
Discrimination on race is in the charter of rights and freedom.

Gay marriage is not in there, nor is sexual orientation. I really don't care what consenting adults do. But don't play this silly game that there is some charter or moral right to it.

Re: Weather The NDP is in power or not...

[pipingguy]

Not to be a spell nazi or anything, but you might want to check the following spelling/usage: "signitures", "ther", "there", "weather", "constituants" and "rideings". Maybe I missed a few.

Good luck!

Re:I'm happy to live in Canada

[pkhuong]

Clarification re schooling: You can only send your children to an English school if at least one of the parents went to one. I've extremely ambiguous feelings regarding this rule. It seems to me that, mostly, it means that kids whose parents send them to private schools (which, given the average income of ~20k/year/person, isn't that expensive, but still non-negligible, at ~2-3k CAD/year) get a much better English education than the rest of us. The importance of this advantage varies a lot, since TV and neighbours can change a lot, but it's definitely still there. For example, I started English lessons in preschool. The education ministry only requires them from Grade 4 to 11, and then 6 (9 for some i believe) credits for CEGEP (~Grade 12-13). It seems to me the end result is that:

1. Québécois tend to live in a golden jail. Easily 1/3 of the Québécois I know have never left the province, and ~1/2 the country.

2. The difference between the rich and the poor is slightly perpetuated, rather than attenuated.

3. Most of the kids who can go to English schools are sent there, at least for Grade 1-6, since the option cost is minimal (imho, the schooling tended to be somewhat weaker in my region [Québec City], but it's only grade school), and the benefits potentially important for the next generation.

And in other news...

[quarkscat]

The USA's Bush regime has determined that Canada
has been taken over by "terrorists", and that
invasion of Canada is both inevitable and emminent.

Quoted from unamed sources within the White House
staff: "First, the Canadians started dumping their
beef and lumber in the USA at below cost. Then
they refused to help out in the Iraq war. They
rejected joining Dubya's new Star Wars program.
And now they are threatening our entertainers'
IP property rights and profits. As soon as we
get anough illegal Mexican immigrants to form a
new Army brigade, we will be seeking a regime
change in Canada".

Stay tuned for news as it becomes available...

whose playing silly games?

[sum.zero]

women are already counselled about the potential effects and nearly zero percent enter into this choice casually. "informed consent" is misdirection to insert an outside morality into the proceedings. imho, it is the height of hubrous to assume that you have some grand insight that they are missing. oh if only you just had a chance to tell them, then they'd see...

sexual orientation was added to quebec's human rights act in 1977.

sexual orientation wass deemed to be 'read in' to the charter by the supreme court in 1995.

sexual orientation was added to the federal human right's act in 1996.

your silly game is already reality in most of the country. the supreme court has oked the change of definition and found that only allowing a civil union is discriminatory.

i notice also that you chose to ignore the underlying racism i have also mentioned.

sum.zero

I'll be bringing this to friend and co-workers.

[Lanhdanan]

Might not make a difference, but i have to try at any opportunity im presented.

I have more to say, but most of you all have said it already to some degree or another.

Go Canada!

of course

[sum.zero]

bad apples in every barrel, but the ratio is the thing...

sum.zero

Re:of course

[acrylic-apple]

where is that coming from?

Re: Weather The NDP is in power or not...

[Trickster Coyote]

He also misspelled the party name, "Libral", the name of the riding Beacon Hill, not "Becon" and even the politician's name! (Should be Jeff Bray). In addition he is confusing his local representatives: Jeff Bray is the provincial MLA for Victoria-Beacon Hill, while David Anderson is the federal MP for Victoria.

It would probably be pointless to send anything to Jeff Bray, particularly since he will be unemployed in 5 weeks.

The continent

[AtariAmarok]

"No, not really, and in response to another reply, I didn't include Mexico and Central America in the population numbers because they are predominatly Spanish speaking and combined have 300 million people as well."

You referred to "the continent". The continent the United States and Canada are on includes Mexico and Central America.

Re:The continent

[Bullfish]

True, I did, but that would be 600 million and they (Mexico and Central America) really are a reqion unto themselves. If they ever get organized, they will be an economic powerhouse themselves. The point was six million Quebecers would be horribly outnumbered.

Re:The continent

[AtariAmarok]

"The point was six million Quebecers would be horribly outnumbered."

Yes. I can't imagine the racist xenophobic mindset present in Quebec law that so many Quebecoi love would be too friendly to those who choose to speak Spanish.

Re:The continent

[Bullfish]

I don't know how they would react to the spanish speakers, their gripe seems to be with Canada itself, though I have never met a selective bigot.

Levy is just a type of tax.

[AtariAmarok]

It's a tax alright. Just because it is a kind of tax that you apparently like does not mean it is not a tax.

"I'm not forgetting it, it's just not relevant"

The specific problem mentioned is where this tax causes you to pay more in other taxes.

"Just because someone misuses a term, does not make that term correct. And you provided no links - just text"

I provided the sources for most of those quotations that accurately call a tax a tax. If you think I am a liar, go look them up. Otherwise, there is no reason to.

"You pay tax on pretty much everything, does that make *everything you buy* a tax?"

No. Only when the government forces me to pay an extra fee on it that has nothing to with anything. This is a tax like any other. The government forces the person to pay the government money, and then the government takes this money and gives it to another. You are trying to get off on the technicality that while the government forcibly swipes this money, it does not technically pass through government hands on its way to the Canadian copyright organization, which receives the money as a massive payment of corporate welfare. That is what it boils down to: taxation to fund corporate welfare.

These two situations are the same thing:

non-levy tax: The government forces you to pay it money when you buy a CD. The government takes this money and gives it to a copyright organisation.

levy tax: The government forces you to pay the tax directly to the corporate welfare recipient (the Canadiana copyright organisation) without the money passing through government hands.

The above situations are both taxes. The accounting is simpler with the tax you call a levy, however.

"By your logic, your car is a tax"

You are babbling. Wild analogies that are never explained or justified do sound like that.

"*who actually knows what the words mean* states *that it is a tax and not a levy*."

If they know what words mean, they won't be denying that this specific kind of tax is a tax.

"*sigh* can you not read? It is *not* a tax, it is a levy. They are Two. Different. Things."

Typing like Shatner when you are saying something that is entirely incorrect does not make it any more true.

"Just because someone misuses a term, does not make that term correct"

Words for you to live by.

How about this?

[AtariAmarok]

"Sorry, not all things can be purely market driven. Some things, like an indigenous broadcast industry are in the national interest"

While I also have extreme distaste for any government involvement in media or "official government news, why not try this approach? I find it much less onerous than censorship. It would protect the indiginous broadcast industry, while it would not trample on the basic rights that free citizens have in other countries:

Increase tax funding to the CBC/etc and make it more robust, with more channels.

Force the cable TV carriers to carry it. Make sure it is broadcast to most Canadian homes as well over the air.

Lift all bans on "outside" channels.

Then, your native industry is protected, and "Canadian Content" is available to all, who still have the freedom of choice.

If even this is not acceptible, what of the Web? If TV viewers abandon TV and become Web users, do you propose a sort of "Great Firewall" to "protect" Canadian web content?

Paying a music piracy tax if you are deaf?

[AtariAmarok]

Would it be possible for a deaf person to be exempt from this CD tax?

If someone is completely deaf, it is not as if they are going to be ripping and burning for their own use. "Here. Pay this tax because you might listen to copied music on the CD."

Re:Paying a music piracy tax if you are deaf?

[iamnotanumber6]

actually, yes, sorry, there is one exemption allowed, for persons with perceptual disabilities.

i was thinking it meant for blind people so they could get audio books. but maybe it's for deaf people too. i don't know.

lol [n/t]

[sum.zero]

this text is not here.

sum.zero