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 ;)
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.
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.
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.
... 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? :)
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!
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.
"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.
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)