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."
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.
Well, it's kind of obvious. She's only against the use of camcorders in movie theaters. if you know what I mean.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
According to multiple sources, the personal reason involves a personal relationship with one of Canada's leading copyright lobbyists.
While Neri's personal life is no one's business but her own, this does raise troubling questions about the quick passage of Bill C-59, the anti-camcording legislation, since Neri appeared as a witness before a Senate hearing on the bill with the lobbyist in the room.
I'd be interested in watching the speed at which she is "dumped" by the lobbyist now that she has no power to help advance his career.
I was expecting some kind of payola, maybe free vacations, a car, ya know, the usual. But when the Canadian Lobbyist told his bosses he'd really give it his all...
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
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.
Given that the lobbyists are always in bed with the lawmakers ;)
Well, I'm still jealous. At least Canada apparently cleans house every so often...
I see a follow-up article here.
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
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.
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.
Either way she's still a corporate whore.
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.
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.
Thankfully, a small segment of the American populace endeavor to maintain our 2nd Ammendment rights in order to ensure the rest of our rights.
Another Canuck mentioned it too but I haven't notice that particular group. I notice lots of corprate interests groups buying your government off. I notice civil liberties slowly fading away. But have yet to see an interested militia kick out the corrupt. I did see your vice prez exercise his second amendment rights and shoot a "friend"... you have to something fiercely evil when the guy you shot apologizes to you.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
... 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.
Canadia? Shouldn't it be Canadiaa? :)
this raises the (ahem!) barrier to entry for other lobbyists who might want to follow in his, ah, footsteps.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Actually, it works well. We still have them. So we have one final defense.
As for the gun deaths. Considering I had a classmate in high school who ran for gun dealers. The laws prevent nothing. They bring guns over the border and sell them illegally. You just don't hear about how many crimes are actually prevented by guns.
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!
Send in the man-whore to get something through a legislature? Hell, they do that five times before breakfast.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
You just don't hear about how many crimes are actually prevented by guns.
So you're saying the USA, which leads the first world in gun-related crime, would actually have more gun-related crime if we didn't have so many guns?
How's that work, exactly?
Read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article413114.ece
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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.
Tell you what. Why don't you keep your 'get out yer guns and slaughter the bastards' solutions on your side of the border. In case you haven't noticed, things are actually different in Canada! For starters, we don't have a DMCA-like bill. It was actually DEFEATED!!! Also, Ms. Neri was removed from her position, and (more significantly) Bev Oda was "shuffled" in the last parliament reorg.
You admit, "I am not sure what the basis of legality for copyrights in Canada is." Well then, quit giving advice. Since most of your opinion is based on how fucked up your country is, why don't you apply your advice to your country and leave us the fuck alone.
Oh yes, and have a nice day.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
"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.
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.
Once again we get the origin myth that a freezing band of civilians in the woods with hunting muskets took down an Empire singlehanded. Can't you guys just wave a flag instead of using real and dangerous guns as your symbol?
I've been watching a DDOS on our public IP block for about 2 weeks now. I can't say for sure that it's these guys but it's certainly causing me grief. Not the least of which is that all the connection attempts to the firewall are logged. It's eating disk space and CPU time as well as network bandwidth.
:(
Thousands and thousands of hits a minute... and the real interesting log events are just being drowned out
Somebody here was downloading videos about a bunch of guys in a prison before I got out the big stick and ended that. Didn't stop the DDOS happening though.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Wasn't Canada the country which places a tax on blank optical media, based on the assumption that all of it (or some, at least) will be used for piracy? Thus, you may not be a criminal, but you're already being punished because something you're buying could be used to commit a crime??
If so, fuck them. They're as bad as the rest. Worse, even.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Before we actually crucify the MPAA, let's look at the big picture. Does anyone have it? I mean a picture of this Neri woman, because if she's hot it's just a simple case of bribery by "hide the salami", or as the MPAA says "An innocent relationship, which in no way affected Ms. Neri's opinion".
But what if she's a complete dog? I think then you could actually start charging people with bribery and MPAA with pimping. Come to think of it, MPAAs methods aren't too far from those of a street pimp, though MPAA actually prefers the term "Carborne entrepeneur":
*SMACK* *SLAP* "I don't give a s**t if you already bought da movie, gimme da money, b**ch!" *SLAP* *SMACK* *THUD*
In Canada, 'fuck the RIAA' has different meaning?
I'm willing to bet that this lobbyist is a former sex worker of some kind, hired specifically for this purpose. Not that it made any difference to the likes of Neri. Politicians and bureaucrats have been embroiled in corruption and sex scandals since time began.
On the bright side, it's nice to see that women now have the same opportunities as men, when it comes to lurid political affairs at least. How egalitarian of the **AA to support this.
May the Maths Be with you!
Check out The Battle of Athens, Tennessee. 1946.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
In Canada people screw DMCA!
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)
Check out The Battle of Athens, Tennessee. 1946.
Interesting, however my previous point in another post still stands.
The load of the "rebels" had M1 Garands which was the top of the line weapons issued to US Soldiers in WWII (sure the German StG44 was far superior, but most of the Germans still only had Kar98 bolt action rifles) and of course dynamite.
If you were to compare it today standards it would be like having a fully automatic M16 and a package of C4 which are both highly illegal according to federal law. I mean... How are you supposed to defend against a Swat team armed with auto-assault rifles who also have an armored APC when you aren't even allowed to own dynamite?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Full auto is easy, and legal to get, depending on state. Federally, it must have been made before May of '86 (anything after is LEO, Military or "post dealer sample" only), you get a background check (same as buying any gun), fingerprint check, either form an LLC *or* get chief law enforcement sign off (county sherrif), and you get your full auto gun with a special $200 tax stamp. Same with silenced weapons, or short barrel shotgun (sbs, barrel less than 18") or short barrel rifle (sbr, barrel less than 16"). Not to mention the "AOW" (any other weapon) and various destructive devices. All legal to get, own, etc. with the proper checks and *tax* stamps. Thats how they are regulated - interstate commerce clauses and taxes.
:)
On top of all of that, full auto is fairly usesless - which is why the M16 now has a 3 shot burst instead of true FA. Tactically, it is used for covering fire, etc. not for actually "doing" something. For most of the "doing" stuff, semi-auto or FA with controlled bursts (thats why the 3 shot burst exists -they couldn't train it into the soldiers).
And on top of all of that, the last SCOTUS involvement with the 2nd amendment (miller vs. us) in the '30s affirmed that the 2nd was for military style arms of the times, which at the time didn't include full auto and sawed off shotguns, which is what Miller got busted for... so yeah, it *should* mean that my FAL, AK, and AR15 should all be full auto capable, etc
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
water is wet & politicians are corrupt
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
And yet, if you look more closely, Americans only have the right to bear (some) arms*.
*as long as they aren't arms that can compete with the arms used by organized crime or the US military.
For that matter... ever tried carrying a full-length sword down a busy street? Even weapons that are officially allowed aren't really allowed due to other legislation.
I think this brings new meaning to ancient ideas.
Finally, a decent sex scandal in Canadian Politics! We haven't had one since Maggaret Trudeau was hanging out with rock stars.
Although there was that time a burglar was confronted by Aline Chretien at 24 Sussex...
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
"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
exactly - and how can you go wrong with an armed mob?"
I wasn't going to but I'll bite...How can an armed mob of people fighting a tyranny to restore their democratic republic go wrong?
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
This still doesn't explain why handguns (almost totally useless against soldiers) are allowed?
"This still doesn't explain why handguns (almost totally useless against soldiers) are allowed?"
Guns, in general, can be very useful tools. While allowed by constitutional amendment specifically for allowing an armed militia, they are used legally here in the USA for multiple purposes. Pistols are used for hunting wild pig in many of our southern states and as self defense against bear and mountain lion in many of our western states. For those who feel a need for guns in their home as self-defense against intruders, often a pistol is a more practical weapon than a rifle or shotgun. I'd say that any gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, or even a spear gun would be useful in armed revolution. Besides that, shooting pistols is a lot of fun. Much more challenging than rifles in many ways.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
"But, it seems to me that the original intention of your 2nd Ammendment was to be proactive "
Quite so, the truth of the matter...many of the rights people are decrying being lost are not encountered by the majority of people. I've not found myself a victim of being detained without cause, search or had my possessions seized, etc.
The advantage of a complacent and armed population is that when things reach a point where complacency is NOT an option. A means to re-instate said rights exists via gun ownership.
"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."
Not a cornerstone, just one of the many pillars.
"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."
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
(how about 2.5 million a year?)
"see the 'well regulated militia' part? now, what on earth makes you think that a group of gentlemen who had a voting requirment of owning 10 acres of land want every idiot to own as many guns as they wanted?"
The British...
Oh, btw, it was mainly the fact that most everybody DID own said guns that allowed us to have our little revolution.
"i strongly suggest you consider that a muzzle loading musket is vastly different from a glock.""
I strongly suggest you consider that a glock is vastly different from an M-16. And an M1-Abram is vastly different than a British horse drawn cannon.
Therefore, a weapon of the caliber of Glock is both reasonable and necessary for the citizenry to be able to stand before the formed military.
"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."
Ever heard of an IED? It's what's been getting many of our troops.
"In reality, I think the 2nd Amendment gave the States to have their own militias separate from Federal control. "
No, it did not. The states already had armies. In fact, much of the fighting of the revolutionary war was by state armies.
"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)"
Agreed on this. Many people try to say the National Guard is the militia. It's not. Militias are defensive where as the National Guard is repeatedly sent abroad offensively.
Because pistols are very good for self-defense especially in close-in situations. An area rifles tend to be very poor at.
No, we didn't do it alone...
We had help for a foreign superpower. "France"