Slashdot Mirror
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."
Would be nice to see if it changes anything, I've always liked Canada's stance. Australia seems much too happy just following along with the USA.
It doesn't actually change anything in any of the three countries. People all do the same stuff. It's just the Canadians aren't made criminals by doing the same activities as everyone else in the world.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
I mean is anyone acctually surprised that this is how things get done? OMG she got caught doing what we all do! says the other government officials. sexual favours for getting bills passed and what not.
While Patricia Neri has been removed for this ethical violation, I doubt this indiscretion will have any effect on future legislation. Policy makers will still make their decisions based upon lobbying deals and merit. As for the MPAA, it's not like their reputation could get any worse.
Either way she's still a corporate whore.
I gave a lot of thought to your answer. In the end, what puzzled me was how you treat the right to own guns as an end in itself, rather than as a means to an end. What I mean is this: your reply seems to indicate that even if you lose all of your other rights, except the right to own guns, that this is somehow still a small victory for you. But, it seems to me that the original intention of your 2nd Ammendment was to be proactive -- namely, that the right to own guns should prevent your government from ever taking away your rights (fearing rebellion from an armed militia). At least in my opinion, as a non-American observing your politics from afar, this has failed (beating the Patriot Act example to death, here). What victory is there for your rights if you have a complacent (but armed!) population?
Indeed, this is a very good point. It is much easier to produce statistics on how many gun deaths occured, rather than on how many crimes were prevented by guns. This argument seems to be a cornerstone of people who support arming the population.
Unfortunately, your statement was more accurate than you intended, perhaps. I don't hear about how many crimes are prevented by guns. In order for me to consider your argument that guns prevent crime as a valid argument, I would need at least some indication that the number of crimes preveted is large.
The only "indication" that I've ever seen produced is a thought game, which I've only ever heard as some variant of: "Would you rob that liquor store, if you knew the clerk was packing?" Yet, were that rationale valid, there would be far fewer liquor store robberies per capita in parts of the world where people are armed to the teeth (all other factors being equal, to rule out secondary causes of crime such as poverty, etc.). If I could see that evidence, or if anyone could point me in the right direction to it, then I would be able to assign a lot more weight to your argument.
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). Contrary to what our American friends think, it's MUCH easier to vote out a government that's doing things you don't like than it is to conduct an armed revolution.
We do not have a DMCA either, so we can download music, backup our DVDs, talk about DeCSS and watch DVDs from India, Luxembourg or China.
"How's that working out for you? I mean no disrespect, but as a Canadian looking south, from my point of view it doesn't look like your 2nd Ammendment is doing anything to curb your government screwing with its citizens (Patriot Act, anyone?)."
Theoretically, it's supposed to provide that when the majority of the population realizes that their democratic republic has become a tyranny, enough citizens will still be armed to foment revolution. Now, having said that I have to also state that I don't believe that the USA has reached that point. Ask me how it seems to working again if the next election is delayed or canceled for some reason.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
Not that I'm a rabid gun nut stroking my metaphorical Kalashnikov at the thought of revolt, mind you. It's just that the American political system was not designed for the one-party system we basically have now, where the Democrats and Republicans argue about largely inconsequential bullshit to occupy the minds of the voting populace while silently coming to perverse agreements like the DMCA. Our government is out of control, and we have little to no guarantee that it would even recognize the results of an election if it would bring outsiders to a position of sufficient power.
Makes us a little jaded toward "well why don't you just vote them out?"
The world can be wrong today for once.
Don't get me wrong - I'm against DRM, the DMCA, etc. If I buy a CD (or vinyl or cassette), I figure I've paid the record company and the artist, and if I want to copy the music or video to an iPod or my hard drive, or so I can have a copy in my car without having to drag my entire CD collection every time I saddle up, that's my right. I paid to have a permanent copy of the work.
But live performance is something different - I haven't contracted to have anything beyond that performance, and I don't feel I've paid for the right to make a copy. I doubt you'll see any kind of DMCA act pass nearly as quickly; in fact, I doubt it will pass it all, and that's regardless of who's shacked up with who.
What was once true, is no longer so
Neither is there an inherant right for business models to be propped up by government legislation, especially when there is already the remedy of breach of civil contract.
Yep, a tax that some want to also place onto MP3 players with storage > 30GB. Of course, the CRIA just woke up and realized that this little tax effectively legalizes all music downloads in Canada, so now they're fighting it :)
oh god, its the old "business model propped up by government" complaint again.
lets say you run a shop that sells food. all the food is on shelves, ready for people to pick it up and take home. the windows are made of glass. If people don't want to pay, they can ram-raid the shop at midnight, load up all the food, and drive off. Why don't we all do this?
Because its against the law. The police will investigate, they may well catch us, they will prosecute us, they will press for us to get a custodial sentence, and we will end up in prison. if we resist arrest they will use force, ultimately, if we are armed, they may use deadly force to push the issue.
Surely that is a business model ultimately propped up by government?
You live in western society. Modern capitalist societies have rules, rules that we all agree to abide by in the common interest. One of those rules is not to take stuff from other people without compensating them. This is true of food, lodgings, cars, clothes, music, movies, software, live performances by entertainers... anything that someone is doing for a living and requesting payment for.
The distinction between the government protecting retail, and it protecting movies exists only in the minds of those who want to take the movies for free, yet still be protected from the anarchy that ensues if the government stops protecting bricks an mortar businesses.
BTW any lame attempt by anyone to argue that its ok to make digital copies because the original remains does not understand the concepts of market size and fixed costs. If your actions (taking something rather than buying it) cannot be scaled up to the whole market without putting the producer out of business, then you are just leeching of the law-abiding.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Don't worry the Conservatives will try to spin this as the Liberals fault, just like all their other problems and try to maintain their image as an ethical government.
I can hear it now: "Patricia Neri was in office while the Liberals were in charge and they had 13 years to do something about it..." yada yada yada
Your statement that it's one-sided, while stretching the truth, is more or less accurate. That it is necessarily wrong doesn't follow. That was your error.
-josh
The idea that you cannot take photos, cam, or audio recordings of an event for which you are present (and so presumably recording into your memory with your own eyes and ears) is quite new, and quite bizarre. I'm not saying its wrong, necessarily, just not as obviously right as you are making it out to be.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Hanged over a copyright law? That's a bit extreme.
She's a dirty politician, and should never be employed again as anything more involved than burger flipper, but let's cut the hyperbole.
And yes, I'm Canadian.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
I can hear it now: "Patricia Neri was in office while the Liberals were in charge and they had 13 years to do something about it..." yada yada yada
Wait, is this actually the case? I've been trying to dig around for Ms. Neri's party affiliation, and I can't find anything in particular, though it appears she donated to the Liberal Party in '99, implying she is, in fact, a Liberal. I had just assumed that, given she was in a fairly prominent post in a major ministry, she was a member of the Conservative Party, but if that's not the case, I take back my comments re. the Conservatives. The Conservative Party has a ton of problems, including a PM that apparently doesn't believe in free speech for the party members, but I don't want to lay this one at their feet if Ms. Neri is, in fact, a Liberal Party member.
There is no inherent right to enter to a place of public performance and make an unauthorized recording, and *IT SAYS SO ON THE BACK OF YOUR TICKET*. So, by making such a recording, you are already breaching the contract you agreed to when you bought your ticket.
Right.
So if it's already against the law, why the hell do we need another law that does the same damn thing.
Let's stop making new laws until we can adequately enforce the ones we already have. There are existing laws already in place that would solve whatever problem the new laws seek to deal with if they were enforced.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Actually, it works well. We still have them. So we have one final defense.
How well do legal fire arms work well against APCs, Abrams, and Blackhawks?
You need fully automatic weapons, RPGs, and shaped charged explosive to defeat such vehicles (which Iraqi insurgents have) which are of course illegal to own in the United States.
I might be able to get lucky and shoot someone through the eye slits of their body armor, but the only use for the legal gun is to turn it on yourself when there is nothing else to live for.
In reality, I think the 2nd Amendment gave the States to have their own militias separate from Federal control. Of course now that is generally overlooked and all National Guard armies are under command of the President (which is horribly wrong in a peace time enviroment and Jefferson is powering a small generator in his grave right now through spinning)
If every state had its own militia fully armed it could defend itself from a national army, but sadly that is not the case.
As it stands now... The 2nd amendment is about as useful as the 1st in terms of getting respect from the government.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)