Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Gov't Gives Big Bucks to Copyright Lobby

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the canada-v.-itself dept.

5degreez writes "The Toronto Star is reporting that the Canadian government is providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a copyright lobby group that claims that education groups are 'devoted to abolishing creators' rights on the Internet.' Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act by Prof Michael Geist reveal that government officials recognized that the funding established a bad precedent, yet they still plan to pay big bucks until 2008."

43 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a minute... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    they're using the taxpayers' money to provide the *AA money so they can lobby for parties following their lines?

    O.o This is sick, man! It's way more serious than the *AA. It's more like electoral fraud.

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Depends by what you mean by *AA.

      The money goes to the Creators' Rights Alliance. They include groups that represent poets, songwriters and composers. I do not believe that the CRIA (the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA) is part of this alliance.

      Here in the USA, there are groups that represent the media companies (the RIAA and the MPAA), and there are groups that represent artists (ASCAP and BMI). This distinction doesn't matter to many Slashdotters, but for background it's important to understand that the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI are often at odds with each other. Generally speaking, if you're a "little guy" composer or songwriter, ASCAP/BMI are your friends, and the RIAA is not.

      Many people reading this will fall into a couple of camps:

      If you are in the "hate the big record companies, respect the artists" camp (the "the artists are needy" group), then you might be okay with this.

      If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year -- is out of line, or if you believe that any organization made up of initials and which fights for copyright protection is evil (the "the artists are greedy" camp), then this news may upset you.

      I hope this answers your question.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Wait a minute... by stubear · · Score: 4, Informative

      bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI. The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations.

    3. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI."

      Correct. ASCAP and BMI collect on behalf of the artists. This is why I wrote that ASCAP and BMI represent artists (as separate and distinct from the RIAA, which represents record companies). When ASCAP or BMI comes a callin', the money goes to the artists, not the record companies.

      "The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations."

      The RIAA is a trade group that represents record companies, but it is the record companies that are responsible for calculating and distributing royalties based on CD sales. I know that many people like to use "RIAA" and "big record companies" interchangeably, but it's important to understand that for as much as the RIAA talks about how they are helping the artist, it is the record companies that they represent. Money goes to the RIAA to cover lobbying efforts, lawsuits, and so on, but you won't see the RIAA issuing checks to musicians. That is not their job.

      This is why I wrote that the RIAA represents record companies, while BMI and ASCAP represent artists.

      Let me know if I'm being unclear, or if you still believe that I'm incorrect.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    4. Re:Wait a minute... by koreth · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Nice generalization, but sadly not really true. From TFA:
      The CRA has eight objectives, which notably include "to ensure that government policy and legislation recognize that copyright is fundamentally about the rights of creators"

      In other words, this is a group that specifically says it's out to reduce the rights of the public, since the original conception of copyright is that it's a way to balance the rights of creators and the public for the greater good. This has its roots in English common law: the Statute of Anne in 1709 established the idea of limited terms for copyrights, the idea being that previously copyrighted material should become public material after a time.

      This group wants to go from "the point of copyright is to benefit society" to "the point of copyright is to benefit creators." Kind of a fundamental difference that one can in good conscience oppose without wanting to screw over any artists.

    5. Re:Wait a minute... by sasdrtx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe you should rethink your pigeonholing. The point of the article is the government paying lobbying organizations. I don't care what they're lobbying for, that is outrageous. It has nothing to do with one's position on copyright.

      --
      Most people don't even think inside the box.
    6. Re:Wait a minute... by bombadillo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Damn Canada has gone right wing all of the sudden. First they elect a Canadian version of Bush and now this...

    7. Re:Wait a minute... by Danse · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Downloading Star Wars before it even films doesn't benefit society. I find that most slashdotters are of the 'I am too cheap to pay the artists for their music' camp.

      If that was all this was about, then I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's about the copyright industry's repeated overreaching in their neverending quest to ensure that copyright lasts forever, and the public gets well and truly screwed out of what they are supposed to be getting out of the copyright bargain. They won't be satisfied until they've turned every media form into a DRM'd ad-fest. Now they even want us to pay for their efforts to screw us.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    8. Re:Wait a minute... by Headcase88 · · Score: 2, Informative
      First they elect a Canadian version of Bush and now this...
      Forgive me if I'm wrong, but to me the wording here implies that the two things aren't connected. That's like me saying (a few years ago) "First those yankees voted for the Amercian version of Bush (Bush), and now they're going to war with Iraq!"

      And for the record a lot of people voted for Harper because the Liberals were a horrible choice and God forbid they vote for a third party. After all, they have no chance of winning!

      So yeah, I agree with you, it's gone right wing. But we (the Canadian public) didn't make this lobbyist-funding decision in any more of a way than the American public "decided" to bomb Iraq.
      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    9. Re:Wait a minute... by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look, the guy clearly wrote "bzzzzttt...wrong," which means that you are wrong, whether or not what you wrote was factually correct. The simulated buzzer sound thingy in writing trumps all logic and automatically wins any dispute.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    10. Re:Wait a minute... by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Funny
      That's a neat trick. How do you download something before it's been created?

      I don't know, but Mel Brooks figured it out. Go watch Spaceballs again -- Colonel Sanders pulls the Spaceballs tape off the shelf to fast forward and figure out where Lonestar crash landed. He explains to Dark Helmet that thanks to modern technology, they can have the VHS ready before the movie is done filming.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    11. Re:Wait a minute... by hearingaid · · Score: 4, Informative
      Sort of.

      Here in Canada, we actually have four parties currently represented in Parliament. This is down from the five that were there before (two parties merged; nobody got destroyed at the polls).

      However, since Confederation, the Prime Minister has been the leader of either the Conservative or Liberal/Whig party. There are other parties, and they do hold seats, but none of them have ever formed the federal government. However, some have won provincial elections.

      Handy links:

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    12. Re:Wait a minute... by AnyoneEB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, there is no logical reason for the original trilogy to still be protected under copyright. They are nearing 30 years of age. Should they not have fallen into public domain by now? It would certainly have made the whole original series not on DVD problem a moot point.

      There are certainly those who violate reasonable copyrights, and that will never be stopped, but not all copyrights are reasonable.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    13. Re:Wait a minute... by wharlie · · Score: 2, Funny

      "ding...correct", the bzzzzttt is final and makes that person the definitive source, no further arguments can be entered into.

    14. Re:Wait a minute... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      since the original conception of copyright is that it's a way to balance the rights of creators and the public for the greater good. This has its roots in English common law: the Statute of Anne in 1709 established the idea of limited terms for copyrights, the idea being that previously copyrighted material should become public material after a time.

      Canda's legal system is not as directly derived from english common law as is the US's. One factor in Canadian copyright law that has almost no representation in the US system is the concept of "Moral Rights" which derive from the continental (i.e. French) take on copyright.

      Moral Rights ("droits moraux" in french) are mostly about the author's right to maintain the integrity of the creation - to prevent it from being used in ways which (in the author's opinion) dilute or alter the intent of his work rather than being about making unaltered copies. It is my understanding that under French, and thus probably Canadian law, an author can not reassign his moral rights the way he may assign the right to distribute.

      Until a bill was passed settling it, the US had been headed for a decision regarding moral rights regarding the practice of some companies of making and selling "censorship tracks" for mainstream movies. There are a couple of different implementations, but the end result is the ability to see a movie edited by someone not approved by copyright holder. Usually all the good parts are taken out in order to pacify people like Ned Flanders living in Utah.

      Hollywood hated the idea and sued, claiming that the companies selling the dvds in conjunction with censorship tracks were misrepresenting the movies as the original works when they were not the creator's intended versions.

      It never got to court because congress passed a law that permitted even more draconian drm but also made such censorship tracks legal. But if it had, it would have been about an author's moral rights - although it is pretty certain Hollywood would have had to depend on somewhat creative interpretations of statutes written about things like trademarks in order to "create" moral rights.

      Anyway, the point of all that background and explication is that the line you quoted from the CRA's objectives sounds more like it is referring to Moral Rights as recognized by Canadian law than to proprietary rights like the public domain.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:Wait a minute... by Thangodin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the tip-off about these people is the part that says education was a "well heeled, publicly funded lobby . . . devoted to abolishing creators' rights on the Internet." He's talking about students and public libraries here; not exactly my idea of well heeled.

      When I hear spin like this, I smell bullshit.

    16. Re:Wait a minute... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't believe that is true. I think the far-right politicians in Canada could teach Bush a thing or two about being right wing (which is why Canadians have been rather fearful of electing them)... only they can't fully excercise their beliefs in government as they know they will be out of work (as politicians) at the next general election if they did (which is why Prime Minister Harper is keeping a tight reign on his core MPs and not allowing them to talk unscripted to the media). Many are very devout Christians, and many are very right wing, and there are several I would bet are almost Libertarian in view. Canada may have single payer health insurance, but we are a lot more capatilistic and market driven than most in the U.S. think... not as much as the U.S. but very close, and certainly much more so than Europe.

      Remember the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) who had the largest majority ever elected to Canadian parliment under Prime Minister Mulroney (1980s). He turned hard to the right and did as he pleased. The upshot was that he pissed the population off so bad that they were reduced to 2 seats in parliment after the next election. The PCs could not even be recognized as a political party in parliment (they have to sit as independents until they elected something over 10 MPs). The new Conservative Party of Canada (which is way further to the right than the old PCs) seem to have learned from that. They know they have to moderate themselves, especially at this time since they only have a minority government. However, I would bet that if they had a majority, they would drift pretty hard right closer to their roots. And personally, I think that might be good thing as Canada has drifted way too far to the left in my opinion. If they did get out of control, like before, the citizens would elect them out of existance the following election. But by that time, things might be more balanced to the middle for a few years before they go hard left again (and hopefully we would have a triple-e senate by that time!).

      What I find interesting is that even if Canadians were so sick of the Liberal Party after their ~14 year corruption riddled reign they actually elected any sort of right wing party. And what's more interesting is the Conservatives are gaining ground in Quebec (since they are supporting a more autonomous roll for that province... one thing I don't like about them... I like a strong central government), which would mean that they have a very good shot at getting a majority government next time. Finally as right wing as they are, I personally don't think the Conservatives are puppets of Bush. They may agree with him on quite a number of issues, but I think they understand that they represent Canada and its interests, not the U.S.A.'s. But at the same time, they understand that we have to work closely with the U.S. as friends since that is where most of our income comes from. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, unless you first find someone else to feed you. They are right next door and anyone else are many thousands of miles away. You do the math. ;-)

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    17. Re:Wait a minute... by gmack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) who had the largest majority ever elected to Canadian parliment under Prime Minister Mulroney (1980s). He turned hard to the right and did as he pleased. The upshot was that he pissed the population off so bad that they were reduced to 2 seats in parliment after the next election.

      It wasn't the shift to the right that did him in. It was the unpopular tax (GST) that he put into place followed by his first moves at cutting programs and moving towards getting the spiralling deficit under control. The two seats part was him chosing a hand picked sucessor (scapegoat) to take over the party. The problem was that she was politically inexperianced and should NEVER have been put in charge. Fun lines like "would you want something that ugly representing Canada internationally?" followed by ad campaigns making fun of Cretien's partially paralysed face finished the job. They would have lost for doing the right thing but putting someone in charge who just didn't know when to shut up caused a lindslide loss and pretty much finished off one of Canada's oldest political forces.

      The Liberal party kept their hold on power for 13 years by blatant FUD. The new (reform / alliance / Conservative) party was too new and while the Liberal party had ALL THE SAME THINGS being said by backbenchers they were able to scare people into thinking that the conservative party would actually do them. Personally I found the whole tactic sickening.

      I did however find the last election to be very entertaining.. it's a pity the next election won't be so fun to watch.

    18. Re:Wait a minute... by gmack · · Score: 3, Informative
      Damn Canada has gone right wing all of the sudden. First they elect a Canadian version of Bush and now this...

      The Conservatives weren't in power last fall when this was signed, the Liberals were. The change in power was in January. Also keep in mind that the Liberal party had been trying for awhile to implement a Canadian version of the DMCA

  2. It's all about the marketing .. by Entropy · · Score: 4, Funny

    IMHO, the CRA should rename itself to truly reflect what it stands for. And we all know they will say they stand "against piracy". So they should name themselves the Creators Rights Alliance Againt Piracy.

    I think that then and only then will the right message get across ..

    --
    The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
    1. Re:It's all about the marketing .. by siriuskase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, they are doing it again - claiming to be all about creators' rights when they are really only concerned about owners' rights. We need a copyright systems that creates an incentive to create, not just to own.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  3. Public Interest by Morosoph · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have to say that it's a new line for Industry Lobbyists to be taking:

    "The public interest is getting too much representation! We need funding so that we can counter it!"

    You can be sure that other lobbies will soon be arguing the same thing. It's worked for the Creators' Rights Alliance, why not any other interest group?
    --
    Wikileaks, no DNS
  4. Repeat after me... by Audent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    copying copyright material is not theft. It is copying.

    Why should we be treating this as a criminal act when it's clearly a civil issue?

    Lobbying money, that's what.

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind
    1. Re:Repeat after me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is theft! It's immoral, an offense against God, an action against the holy laws, a terrorist act, an act that leads to killing of baby seals and global warming, an act that goes against everything that humanity stands for, a foul act of one undeserving any pity, an act of communist anarchist hippie facists, an act that goes against every single idea around which the modern democratic governments were built, an act that offends every single fiber of a human being, a foul act deserving the harshes treatment it can get, an act which should be completly eradicated from the entire universe, and left behind, as one of the past vices of our society!

      This post was paid for by the Recording Industry Association of America.

    2. Re:Repeat after me... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why should we be treating this as a criminal act when it's clearly a civil issue?

      Because when laws change, copyright infringement will become a criminal act.

      And speaking about lobbying, let me tell you about elections in my country.

      Here in Mexico, money for political campaigns is provided by taxes. It is scandalous because too much money is given to the parties - but in a way it's still healthier than lobbying. Because with lobbying, it's corporate interests which determine who gets advertised (and therefore, elected).

      A much better idea (IMHO) for an electoral process is to spend equal amount of money in propaganda for all parties involved, to promote their platforms and ideas. Then do obligatory (for the parties) debates and let the public decide.

    3. Re:Repeat after me... by gid13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are of course correct. It should be noted, though, that at least in the States the penalties for such copying are FAR worse than those for stealing. Despite being Canadian, I don't know too much about Canadian law on the subject except for the fact that there was a judge last year that said downloading and uploading music both qualified under personal use.

      More important than definitions of the word "theft", however, is the point that the government is funding a lobby group? How do I convince them to fund me to spread my message that infringing copyright is a good thing?

    4. Re:Repeat after me... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think the problems are as simple to solve as that, but not doubt what you suggest would improve both systems.

      Please don't take this the wrong way, but I actually admire Mexican corruption (outside of the corruption due to drug trafficking). It seems so egalitarian compared to the corruption we see in the US (again, outside of drug trafficking). In the US, you have to already be extremely wealthy, powerful, or connected to participate in corruption, while in Mexico, corruption seems available to a much broader swath of society.

      Of course, once we look at the drug trade, we have to start looking at how demand and law enforcement policy in the US is creating the current environment of narco-terrorism and corruption in Mexico to a large degree. And that doesn't even begin to consider the role of US policy in Central America in the creation of groups like the Maras.

      I guess the point of this is that a lot of the fucked up things in our countries are inextricably bound, whether people admit it or not.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  5. i thought canada by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful


    was a bastion of all that is fair and just in the world?

    or maybe what people traditionally associate with american versus european versus chinese versus (anywhere) behavior is actually a component of all human behavior?

    nah, that ruins all of my simplistic nationalism-based stereotypical ways i think about my world, where everyone is conveniently lumped into "good guys" versus "bad guys"

    heaven forbid i have to think critically about the world i live in and keep an open mind about all its peoples regardless of the issue at hand

    that what we consider "bad" (usa) might sometimes do good and what we consider "good" (canada) might sometimes do bad

    inconceivable!

    what is this world coming too if i can't prejudice based on nationality?

    </sarcasm>

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  6. Re:Harper == Baby Bush by djmurdoch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This contract was awarded under the previous government, but it's for a 3 year term. So we'll see if there are any differences between the Liberals and Conservatives.

  7. All you Slashbots... by rewt66 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    who said, "The USA stinks! I'm going to move to Canada", well, now's the time to rethink your position.

    This is one of the craziest, most twisted, least democratic things I have ever heard of an allegedly democratic government doing.

    (Yeah, I know, the NSA. That's crazy. But at least I understand it. I understand why they want to do it, and why they want to keep it secret, and even if the effects are bad, and the precedent is horrible, at least the intent is not at the moment evil. But using government money to lobby the government? I just can't begin to get my brain around that one.)

  8. Canada vs. Itself by twicesliced · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, lemme get this straight... I'm paying taxes that fund copyright holders' (specifically, SOCAN) efforts to make more money while I'm still paying a blank media tax that already puts money directly into those same copyright holders' (SOCAN) pockets? Sweet deal ;)

  9. Creators' Rights ? by Groovus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems to me the only "right" that matters in these conversations is the "creators'" entitlement to being paid in perpetuity for any and all copies of the same work over and over, in any format it may appear.

    That shouldn't be a right, and it didn't used to be for nearly the entirety of human artistic existence. I'm all for abolishing it if it has become one too. The trick these lobbiests/cartels have pulled is establishing this "right" as a fact and basing all consequent discussions on this fact. Sorry guys I'm not on board - the very principles you're trying to have everyone take for granted are wrong and repugnant.

    Even if "creators" never receive a cent, dinar sheckle or chicken liver for selling a copy of their work there will still be plenty of art - good art, great art - just as there has always been. And in this day of advanced distribution technology we'll all have easy access to it as well. And just possibly, eliminating the artificial "entitlement" money attached to copies will return the economics of art to a sane level, bringing the "artists" and the would be bloodsuckers who infest them back into line with the rest of society in terms of monetary value in relation to actual utility value.

    Take back the terms of the discussion human beings - once you do that these cartels have no ground to stand on. Everything else is window dressing.

  10. The enemy of my enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This distinction doesn't matter to many Slashdotters, but for background it's important to understand that the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI are often at odds with each other. Generally speaking, if you're a "little guy" composer or songwriter, ASCAP/BMI are your friends, and the RIAA is not.

    The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

    If I am a composer whose works are performed or recorded by others, ASCAP protects my interests. If I am anybody else, then ASCAP protects the interests of composers from me. ASCAP is just as likely to be attacking me as they are to be attacking the RIAA. For example, let us say that I run a restaurant. In that case, ASCAP are the people who prevent me from allowing my employees to sing the "Happy Birthday" song, or virtually any other song for that matter. If I am a small-time composer or musician whose works are not performed by others, ASCAP are the people whom I live in fear of in case I have the temerity to perform a song I did not write under the very wide umbrella of what constitutes a "public performance".

    I am not familiar enough with Canadian CRIA to comment on them specifically.

    If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year

    Wait, stop right there. "Intellectual property" owners have no rights. They have privileges. Copyrights are granted by the government, which means they are not rights. Real rights cannot be granted by anyone, because something which can be granted can be taken away. Since copyrights are priviliges and not rights, the populace have the authority to direct the government they theoretically control to limit or remove the priviliges that those copyright holders enjoy.

  11. Pot Complains: Hey, Kettle Is Sort of Grayish Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So one incident of the canadian government giving money to a copyright lobby, is somehow greater and more negative than the between $75 billion and $125 billion, depending on who's counting, that the U.S. Federal government alone hands out per year in corporate welfare.

    Good to hear it.

  12. The thing that bothers me most.... by ezratrumpet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is that even though they recognize the danger of setting the precedent, the government refuses to do anything about it. Effective government must be able to correct its mistakes and inefficiencies, or it will cease being effective.

  13. In Soviet Canada by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    3.2.1.Joke

    In Soviet Canada the Government pays the lobbies to influence Law.

    Joking aside;

    Another thing happened just recently in my neck of the woods that I am really pissed about.
    I live in Windsor, Ontario (Across the river from Detroit, Michigan). This past week the 'Hell's Angels' motorcycle club/gang/mafia was in town. The police setup checkpoints on the roads (that they knew the bikers would be traveling along {ingress and egress fromthe club-house}) and took the drivers license + insurance documents of EVERYBODY that drove on these public roads.

    The reason: They HOPED to catch some of the bikers that had arrest warrents in other parts of the country!

    I was/am LIVID. I wrote the newspaper; called the local radio station, complained to the Local members of Parliment.
    We are 1 step away from East-Block communist oppression. I am surprised that they didn't just click thier Jack-Boots and say "Papers! Please!"

    **The Hells Angels are considered the largest (and now ONLY) organized crime syndicate in Canada.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:In Soviet Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      **The Hells Angels are considered the largest (and now ONLY) organized crime syndicate in Canada.

      At first I thought you'd left out the Liberal Party, but then I noticed you said organized...

    2. Re:In Soviet Canada by pete_norm · · Score: 3, Informative

      You must not be living in the province of Quebec. Around here, no one would concider the Hells Angels like good guys that like to ride motorcycles. From the early 1980's, when there was several members of the gang that were murdered by other members, to the mid 1990's gang war between the Hells Angels and the Banditos in Montreal (several shootings in bars, exploding cars that killed some civilians, etc), nobody around here conciders them like good guys.

  14. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, until we get a separate International Politics section, I think this is probably the best spot for it. Also, you may want to keep in mind that any success by Canadian pro-copyright groups will be held up as an example by the RIAA in their next court battle. If the RIAA can point north and say "Hey look, the Canadian music industry profits went up by 0.00000000001% last year! I bet it's because their pro-copyright groups get government support! *hinthint*", what are the odds that they won't take advantage of the situation?

  15. I'd mod you up if I could. by Ahnteis · · Score: 2

    Government paying lobbyists? It's bad enough the other way, but paying someone to try to influence yourself? Utter insanity.

  16. Shocked. by nneonneo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm in Canada, and I'm surprised that this isn't all over OUR media by now...maybe they're being kept quiet. I'll keep watching though.

  17. What can we do? by crossmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We can write our member of parliament, and if that doesn't work, I can go pay him a little visit and explain my position as his constituent very well.

  18. Access to Information by The+Hobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a Canadian, I've seen a lot of good stories show up on CBC's website that they got from good, investigative journalism (kudos to the CBC). Yes, I realize the CBC is the state media (well, crown corporation), but I find they aren't bought by the government and they regularly air stories of interest to regular joe Canadians, and I'm also glad that the act lets them get to the important information without all the hiding and deceit I hear about in the US.

    Also, I find it a bit funny that the politics version of Slashdot shows an American flag at the top where it says Slashdot, as if there weren't politics anywhere else..

    --
    There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints