Canadian Copyright Official Dumped Over MPAA Conflict

An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian government's top copyright policy maker has been moved aside after revelations that she was in a personal relationship with Hollywood's top Canadian lobbyist. The development is raising questions about how the MPAA got an anti-camcording bill passed in only three weeks and what it means for the introduction of a Canadian DMCA."

Comments

Again?

[MunchMunch]

I swear, I must be getting old, because didn't this just happen?

Well, I'm still jealous. At least Canada apparently cleans house every so often...

Re:Will he dump her now?

[MicktheMech]

Well yeah, but the point is that she's now a sleazy, corrupt EX-politician, so the situation has changed for the lobbyist.

Sleazy or not, she's wasn't a politician. She was a Director-General, part of the civil service; a bureaucrat. She's not even an appointee, order in council doesn't kick in until ADM.

Doesn't even respond to direct questions

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote to the then Minister and complained about the fact that Bill C-59 had been pushed through due to lobbying and against the wishes of Ministry Staff, and the opening line stated "I'm concerned that my government would succumb to the pressures of foreign lobby groups and you've now proven that I was worried with cause.".

I received a response from Bev Oda, then the Minister of Heritage, that in no way addressed the issue of lobbying that I raised. At no point did she mention my concerns about lobbyists, and clearly attempted to deflect the issue. I think I was mislead and I'm pissed!!

I know .. why should I expect to get an honest answer from a Conservative government? Because they promised ethics and transparency in government after the Sponsorship Scandal! Liars!

Re:Doesn't even respond to direct questions

[Emetophobe]

I was actually going to raise the issue with Bev Oda in a seperate thread. She's been taking bribes from the broadcasting industry since 2004, maybe earlier... It's amazing how long she has remained in office even though she is clearly receiving contributions from broadcasting corporations.

From Bev Oda's wikipedia entry:

2006 fundraising controversy

In November 2006, Oda planned on holding a fundraising dinner for broadcasting executives, just weeks before a major review of broadcasting rules. The event was cancelled, but a number of donations were still made.

If you go to the Elections Canada website, you can see all of the corporations and individuals who donated to Bev Oda's Durham riding in 2006 (Unfortunately there's no direct link so you have to use their search feature). Select "Ontario" under Provice/Territory. Then select "Conservative Party of Canada" under Political Party. Now under Electoral District select "Durham". Leave the years 2006 to 2006. Hit the search button and then select Durham "Conservative Association / 2006". With that entry selected, hit the Add button. Finally, hit the lower right search button (not the top one).... (It's a horrible interface to access this public information...)

Now you should see the following three options:

By return summary Allows you to search summary information on contributions made to registered associations
By return details The easiest way to view the complete details of contributions and expenses for registered associations
By contributor Allows you to search for contributions made to registered associations

Click on "By return details".

Here's the list of corporate contributions (from Part 2b - Statement of Contributions Received - Details of Contributions from Corporations)

1 EMI Music Canada Jan. 3, 2006 500.00
2 EMI Music Canada Jan. 10, 2006 1,000.00
3 Gorritane Bros. Ltd. Feb. 24, 2006 300.00
4 Radio Marketing Bureau Oct. 12, 2006 250.00
5 Alliance Atlantis Oct. 25, 2006 500.00
6 Insight Productions Co. Ltd. Nov. 2, 2006 500.00

5 of those 6 corporate donations are from media corporations. It might even be 6 out of 6 but I couldn't find any details on "Gorritane Bros. Ltd.".

Also, much more disturbing is the list of individual contributions (Part 2a - Statement of Contributions Received - Details of Contributions from Individuals). The following are just the individuals who I could identify as working for some media corporation or group:

23 Gail Asper Oct. 31, 2006 250.00
5 Leonard Asper Jan. 26, 2006 2,500.00
Leonard Asper is the President and CEO of CanWest, a major Canadian media company (they own Global TV). It appears he also got his wife to donate to Bev's riding.

13 Andre Bureau Oct. 16, 2006 500.00
Andrea Bureau is the former chairman of the CTRC and is now the President and CEO of Astral Communications Inc (now known as Astral Media). Astral owns several Canadian radio and television stations.

14 Lisa De Wilde Oct. 16, 2006 250.00
Lisa De Wilde was a former president and CEO of Astral Communications (now known as Astral Media). She is now the CEO of TVOntario. Interesting how she and Andre Bureau both made donations on the same day. Lisa was the former President and CEO of Astral while Andre is the current president and CEO, and they both managed to make donations to Bev Oda on the same day?

16 Robin Jackson Oct. 20, 2006 250.00
Robin Jackson is the Executive Director of the CIFVF (The Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund). Here's a quote 'The Canadian Independent Film & Video Fund (CIFVF) is a dynamic private sector funding body which supports non-theatrical film, v

Re:Doesn't even respond to direct questions

[Dr Caleb]

One thing the last government got right was campaign contributions. No corporation can donate more than $500 to an individual campaign, no person can donate more than $2500. Period. There are severe consequences otherwise.

In exchange, Parties are paid $1.50 per vote they receive, per year. It at least resembles a system intent on reducing corporate influence. What it ends up doing is giving corporate CEO positions to former members of Parlament, like the former Canadian Ambassador to the US and Premier of Ontairo, being on the board of the Carslyle Group.

Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed

[alexo]

Well, remember that when you vote next time (which probably won't be long from now, seeing as it's a minority government and all).

And while you're voting, help change our system a little bit for the better.

Re:Nice one

[dbIII]

Australia seems much too happy just following along with the USA.

The copyright law changes were part of a free trade deal so we could sell beef, sugar and steel to the US market without restriction. The sick joke was we got a promise that a beef deal will be looked at in more than ten years time and we can forget about sugar and steel.

Re:Nice one

[dbIII]

Sugar? We grow sugar here? Huh?

One of the largest exports. On another thread I was bitching about the quality of US education and it looks like my own country has a few problems too :(

Re:Will he dump her now?

[WNight]

The contract argument is wrong. Nothing printed on the back of a ticket or anything is a contract. It couldn't be, you got it when you bought the ticket, how could you have agreed to it before then?

There is a contract of sale, but the ticket and what's printed on it, isn't it. That'd be like a EULA - hidden conditions, crouching liability.

Re:Will he dump her now?

[k8to]

If a site is anti-copyright it must be wrong?

Sorry it still isn't theft, no matter how many times you say it so. The term in both vernacular and legalese is incorrect.

Re:the hilton effect

[dwarfking]

Ok, being pedantic here but, not hung, you should use hanged. English grammar generally uses hung for things like paintings, and hanged for people who die by hanging.