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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 :)
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)