Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Copyright Official Dumped Over MPAA Conflict

Posted by kdawson on from the duties-still-to-be-determined dept.

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."

12 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Another nail in the coffin? by Rodyland · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Surely, eventually, people will have to realise what the **AA are up to and call shenanigans on the whole show. And towards that end a story like this is nothing but good news.

  2. Re:Will he dump her now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't know, sleazy corrupt politician and MPAA lobbyist ... they seem like a natural couple.

    ("Talk dirty to me!" "Fair use! Consumer rights!" "Ohhh that's it you filthy slut ...")

  3. It's time for another Boston Tea Party... by headkase · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The issues are the same - an unfair balance between parties. Once we (here in Canada) get up to ridiculous levels of copyright terms as you already are in the US then it's either reform time or - forbid - killing time. Culture is being locked up, fourteen years is enough for copyright. If it was still set at this reasonable time imagine what you could be downloading right now legally: all music, books, and movies from 1993 and before. This is fair not a defacto perpetual license to rip people off.

    --
    Shh.
  4. Re:What it means... by SpottedKuh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thankfully, a small segment of the American populace endeavor to maintain our 2nd Ammendment rights in order to ensure the rest of our rights.

    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?). In fact, it seems like the only result of the 2nd Ammendment is a lot of gun deaths. I'd like to hear your point of view on this.

  5. I didn't even realize that law had passed by freeweed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Funny, I figured that legislation had no hope in hell of going anywhere.

    So there I, after paying my $15 to watch a movie this weekend, and this commercial comes on. Guy in a prison cell. Looks hardcore, like a gang thug or something. The tag line is to the effect of "cameras can watch this dude all day long now... because he DARED bring a camera into a movie theatre".

    I just about bust a gut laughing, then realized it was serious: there's a "Operating a recording device in a movie theatre is now illegal in Canada" message at the end.

    How fucking pathetic.

    Fuck them. I'm officially downloading from here on in. HEY SHITHEADS: I JUST PAID TO SEE YOUR FUCKING MOVIE. PLEASE STOP THREATENING ME WITH A FUCKING PRISON TERM.

    Yes, I'm that angry. Even having a minority government didn't stop this horseshit from passing.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  6. No, what it really means is that... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... while it's clear a conflict of interest has occurred here, at least the government has been forced to remove Ms. Neri as the heritage minister, since it's an apparent violation of ethics laws. Contrast this to, say, the US, where such things are the norm, and are practically expected from elected officials.

    IOW, while something clearly egregious has occurred here, I would argue that the removal of the heritage minister is a clear victory for the people. In addition, this may result in greater scrutiny of the current government, and may serve as an interesting piece of ammunition against a government that was, in theory, supposed to be the ethical alternative to the corrupt Liberals.

  7. Re:the hilton effect by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm a Canadian, not a copyleft movement. She's a traitor. I want her hung.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  8. Re:What it means... by ageoffri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually many of us who are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment despise the Patriot Act. Acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment is important does not mean that we want to give up other rights. The Patriot Act overstepped the bounds of the Federal government just like the Gun Control Act of 1986.

    --
    -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
  9. MAD - Mutual Assured DMCA by Nymz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, in Canada it is illegal for a federal politician to accept corporate or union donations.
    Hmm, are you confusing 'lobbying deals' to mean 'buying off'? An example of a deal, that the MPAA might lobby for, would be an cross-country agreement declaring mutual respect for the others copyrights. By respect, that means pursing prosecution of pirates and infringers.
  10. Re:Yep by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And from the article:

    "In total, 3,995 people were shot, of whom about half (2,187) had minor wounds caused by air guns."

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  11. Re:Doesn't even respond to direct questions by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there any legitimate reason to let companies make political donations? Companies do not represent their shareholders politically - if those shareholders want to contribute they can make this individually.

  12. Re:Will he dump her now? by djasbestos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a content creator, I can assure you that it is massively clear, but you keep clinging to some belief that copyright theft is somehow a good thing for the person you took the product from if it helps you sleep at nights.
    As a "content creator", I can assure you that you are wrong. There are very few "commissioned" artists these days, and for everyone to expect they can become one is ludicrous. However, if you simply produce "content" for the love of music or art or what-have-ye, then profit is secondary to greatness, both of reknown and of your own ability to forge your mental conceptions into concrete representation. As long as you are credited as the creator of whatever content you make, I don't see the problem...it's free advertising, and notoriety is worth far more than a flat buck. And if your content REALLY is THAT good, people will offer you money for more of it, even if they can get it for free (even legitimately). People ask if I've got CD's all the time, and I say all my music is free for download, and they still want to buy a CD. You can't buy that sort of thing.

    Of course, there will always be those out there (primarily pop musicians) who will create crap for the purposes of making money. Hence filler tracks. Hence "contract fulfillment" via quantity over quality. Which dilutes art. Yay capitalism!

    But definitely, if someone takes credit for your creations, it's time to lay the smack down. Per Barnum: "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right."