Canadian DMCA Bill Withdrawn

ToriaUru writes to let us know that Michael Geist is reporting that the Canadian Minister of Industry will not be introducing the proposed Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act legislation as scheduled. That proposed legislation, discussed here a couple of weeks back, is now reaching Canada's mainstream press. Geist doesn't speculate on why the legislation is being withdrawn, but it could have something to do with the massive popular outcry against the proposal that Geist helped to orchestrate.

Comments

MPAA's response:

[zonky]

Blame Canada

Re:MPAA's response:

[TheSHAD0W]

You know it's not a real country anyway.

Re:MPAA's response:

[morgan_greywolf]

MPAA: We have ways of making your pronounce the letter "O"!

Re:MPAA's response:

[corsec67]

Too bad they had to censor that song because of the FCC. First amendment, whats that?

Re:MPAA's response:

[KudyardRipling]

Just watch. Congress will be wrenched by the MAFIAA lobby to delcare war on Canada. I can hear the mumbling of their lobbyists: "Damn Hoser Pirates, we'll fix their wagons!"

Imagine Rick Moranis being renditioned to Fumbuqistan and waterboarded to extract information on who else succeeded in defeating this.

The DC ROTUNDA is beginning to look more and more like a toilet seat cover, but the flusher does not work ('cause it's made by Diebold).

Re:MPAA's response:

[Runagate Rampant]

U.S. President: It's time to turn off that war machine, and turn on our children.

... remember when this sort of stuff was satirical

Re:MPAA's response:

[B3ryllium]

No, their response would be:

"And it would have worked, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!!"

Re:MPAA's response:

[Ubergrendle]

Given that you can play the whole Blame Canada song uncut in prime time on Canadian TV, I think its pretty ironic...

PS Anne Murray likes the song too.

Re:MPAA's response:

[somersault]

Err.. isn't it still?

Satire: exposing human folly to ridicule

Good Job

[cthulu_mt]

Good job you moose fuckers! I salute you.

Re:Good Job

[SpaceLifeForm]

The mods around here, a bunch of hosers, eh?

Re:Good Job

[cthulu_mt]

No kidding, the line between "Funny" and "Flamebait" moves depending on how constipated they are.

Re:Good Job

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd mod you up if I weren't too busy trying to shit.

Re:Good Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait? I'm Canadian and I thought it was pretty funny. :)

well done

[geekoid]

All of you that raised there voice, gratz.

The rest of you that just whined but could take the time to actually help do something:
You got luck this time, you leeching mother fuckers.

Re:well done

[tjstork]

The rest of you that just whined but could take the time to actually help do something:

Well, I did my best to explain to President Bush that Canada was working on weapons of mass destruction and needed to be bombed immediately. However, he merely shrugged and said that would be something for Jenna to deal with when she is President.

Re:well done

[ToriaUru]

Yes, thanks, and the praise should mostly go to Dr. Geist, who's fighting it tooth and nail. And the others on the band-wagon. We all need to keep writing the M.P.'s, the Ministers, the letters to the editors. Keep it out there, in public. Not hidden/forgotten. :)

Re:well done

[rustalot42684]

Actually, I was going to print and send in letters to my MP (John Godfrey, Liberal), the PM, the Minister of Industry (Jim Prentice), Minister of Canadian Heritage (Josee Verner), and get >25 people from my school to sign a petition to send to my MP on Monday, but I probably won't now. I could take the time to actually do something, but it's easier to wait until a weekday, where you have more contact with other people.

Re:well done

[bouchecl]

Actually, I was going to print and send in letters to my MP (John Godfrey, Liberal), the PM, the Minister of Industry (Jim Prentice), Minister of Canadian Heritage (Josee Verner), and get >25 people from my school to sign a petition to send to my MP on Monday, but I probably won't now. I could take the time to actually do something, but it's easier to wait until a weekday, where you have more contact with other people. Actually, the bill hasn't been withdrawn, it has been delayed, according to prof. Geist (be wary of /. headlines and read TFA anyway). I think your petition drive and the letter writing campaign is still in order because it could come back in 2008.

Re:well done

[p0tat03]

Absolutely agreed. I emailed my MP on the matter (could have written a real letter, that's on my to-do for next time this bill inevitably shows up). This is an example of representative government actually working, we ought to be celebrating. When your government works like it's supposed to, it's everyone's responsibility to be vigilant keep it working!

My praise and congratulations go out to Dr. Geist, who successfully rallied the people. If only there were more men like him out in the world.

Re:well done

[thestreetmeat]

That's a bit harsh...

Some of us were going to wait until the bill was actually introduced before writing our MPs to protest. I thought it might be nice to see what's in it for myself first.

Re:well done

[rustalot42684]

Thanks for the info.

Re:well done

[kwandar]

I considered waiting till the Bill was introduced but decided against it for the simple reason that they shouldn't be introducing this Bill without EXTENSIVE public consultation.

So, Minister Prentice received an email (and would have called him from Toronto as well, but .... couldn't get through to his voicemail) :)

Re:well done

[Nikker]

What should I do if my MP shrugs me off saying he will ask about my question in Parliament, then tell me he doesn't have time to discuss his point of view of Copyright because of Mulroney?

Re:well done

[p0tat03]

Tell him that you will not vote for a representative who cannot represent the views of his constituents, and regretfully inform him that he cannot count on your vote in the next election. That's all. Encourage more people in your community to speak to your MP about the same matter - if enough people show their interest in the issue, your MP *will* do something, or risk losing his seat shortly.

Re:well done

[Darby]

What should I do if my MP shrugs me off saying he will ask about my question in Parliament, then tell me he doesn't have time to discuss his point of view of Copyright because of Mulroney?

Document everything and then get loud about it?

Was that a rhetorical question?

Re:well done

[Darby]

That's a bit harsh...

No, it's called having a scrap of common sense in the real world.

Some of us were going to wait until the bill was actually introduced before writing our MPs to protest. I thought it might be nice to see what's in it for myself first.

You know who's writing it and you know they're paying your elected officials to betray you with it (or you're a delusional idiot), so obviously waiting that long to do something about it is something only a fool would consider reasonable.

Good luck being a fool!

Re:well done

[ShieldW0lf]

Look him in the eyes with murderous intent, grind your teeth until the pain raises a frenzy in your mind, and tell him that you will personally see to hit that his name is mud and he never gets elected again, without giving a single word of details as to how you will do that. Snarl and shudder like you're just barely controlling yourself from knocking his fucking block off. Speak in a very precise way as you castigate him over the coals publicly for what he's doing and how badly he's fucking everyone there over. Do not swear or use foul language, but talk down to him as though you were a gentleman and he was a piece of dogshit you stepped in. Then stalk off as though you can no longer stand there and not hit him, without looking back.

Very effective at blowing holes in stuffed shirts. You don't do a damned thing wrong, but you make them very unsure of themselves and the power and respect they take so for granted, and you make everyone there embarrassed to be around them. People repeat it as "someone said this to him" without knowing who you are.

Re:well done

[ArbitraryConstant]

Indeed.

And remember, you don't need stamps to write your MP!

Re:well done

[AnonChef]

Indeed.

And remember, you don't need stamps to write your MP! Really? Where?
It's a very good idea. I wish we had somthing like that here in Sweden.

Re:well done

[somersault]

their*

couldn't* (though logically shouldn't that be "didn't", otherwise how can you complain?)

lucky*

motherfuckers

That is all.

Re:well done

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, ease up a little, eh? I *wrote* my letter to the minister yesterday. I just hadn't put it in the post yet, and I'll be mailing it to my MP too. I'll do that today.

I'm sorry if I'm not as responsive as "Canada's new government". :-)

the usual

[TheSHAD0W]

It's the usual. Legislators listen to lobbyists, at least until their constituents protest their heads off. Then they'll bother to read the actual bill.

Re:the usual

[schon]

Then they'll bother to read the actual bill. Contrary to belief, there was no actual bill to read.

This was about a bill that was going to be tabled this week. Nobody knew what was in it, except for insiders (one of whom apparently leaked details to Geist.)

This shows pretty much that Geist's source is credible - if the bill wasn't as bad as he said, then Minister would have tabled it, and made Geist look foolish.

Re:the usual

[ToriaUru]

Yeah, well, apparently, Dr. Geist looked carefully at what the Minister said. He also noticed what was in the throne speech. If you read this entry of his http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2295/125/ you'll see where he noticed what was mentioned and what *wasn't* mentioned. Therefore inferring what it contained. Also, in this post of Dr. Geist's from a House of Commons debate http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2321/125/ Again, what was spoken of, and what *wasn't* mentioned. Therefore inferring it. So, as to whether or not he's being fed info from the Minister's office directly? I'd not know that. But we can always hazard a guess. :) I'd say "yeah, likely".

Re:the usual

[Kristoph]

I would wager that in this case, even the legislator did not read the bill (which was probably written for him), until it became clear this could become a major issue for the government.

Then once he read it he realized it was as bad as everyone made it out to be he withdrew it before anyone else could read it to spare himself and the government the controversy.

]{

Re:the usual

[Jucius Maximus]

I actually wrote a letter to the industry minister Jim Prentice protesting this new copyright issue.

I'm not sure if he even read my fax or what but I do feel a lot better knowing that I actually said something and did something instead of just cheerleading on message boards.

-Proud to be Canadian!

Re:the usual

[canuck57]

Then once he read it he realized it was as bad as everyone made it out to be he withdrew it before anyone else could read it to spare himself and the government the controversy.

Probably had more to do with the combination of corruption allegations and a minority government situation. The government does not want to rock the boat so to speak as many Canadians are not happy with Ottawa right now.

While the bill is withdrawn, it will come back some day. With a majority government it would have passed unnoticed as there wouldn't be a thing Canadians could do about it. That is, Canadians got a temporary reprieve and lets hope a minority government continues, it is the only one that works for Canadians, at least a little bit anyway.

Re:the usual

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada, bills are drafted by Department of Justice lawyers who specialise in drafting. So, yes, Minister Prentice had the bill drafted for him. Posted anonymously because I named my employer.

Monopolies...

[eldurbarn]

We live in a time when "the common man" is well aware that business monopolies have a solid, historical track record of abusing "the little guy".

Copyright is simply a government enforced monopoly: allowing the copyright holder to have a monopoly on that particular piece of IP.

Like many of you, I am also a producer of intellectual property. Unlike big business, however, I don't see the need for me to have a monopoly. I am more encouraged to produce when I cannot simply rest on my butt and earn money for work that I did years ago.

As a consumer of intellectual property (gads, how I hate that term!), I simply cannot see how it benefits me to let my government grant big companies a monopoly on what is rapidly becoming our common, shared culture.

Re:Monopolies...

[QuantumG]

The founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony also understood the danger of monopolies and decreed that of these none would be granted by government and those which arose naturally would be challenged and restricted by government. Unfortunately, they let their ideology slip and permitted 7 year long patents to be granted to encourage knowledgeable workers to immigrate to the colony. Many took up the offer and after using their 7 year long monopoly to establish themselves in the community, they fought to have their patents extended to 14 years.. then they started filing the same patent twice but with slight improvements.. the came copyright.. then came patent on all sorts of things, so many of which were hard to validate.. then the patent office dropped the requirements for working prototypes.. then the copyright office dropped the requirement for copyright registration.. then copyright terms got extended.. then they got extended again.. etc, etc.

"Slippery slope" is such a nice way to describe it.

Re:Monopolies...

[kamapuaa]

Apples and Oranges. The difference is, nobody actually cares about the IP you produce, it's not capable of making you much money, and you aren't dedicating a significant amount of time & resources to creating this IP.

And copyright isn't a monopoly, in the way most people think of monopoly. If I don't like RIAA music, there's plenty of indie bands I can listen to.

Re:Monopolies...

[eldurbarn]

Goodness! Is that me you're talking to?

I make my living, completely and entirely, as a result of the IP I produce. I write books, scripts & music, I design performances, etc. I write software and web applications. I'm also a performer. This is my bread and butter.

As for monopoly, I stand by what I said. If you have one company who holds copyright to a significant fraction of our current culture, and markets that material as culture to perpetuate it for their own financial gains, and the copyright shall exist from this day forward until our grandchildren are all grown up and that copyright is enforced by law, then that is, indeed, a monopoly. To endorse such laws is selling out ourselves, our children and our culture.

Re:Monopolies...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I simply cannot see how it benefits me to let my government grant big companies a monopoly on what is rapidly becoming our common, shared culture.

Oh really? I never had any trouble. Let me explain:

Information can be shared infinitely, which is usually great. However, it means information has no scarcity, which in turn means no real money can be made naturally from it. Why would anyone buy it when they can get it for free of the internet? More importantly, if there's no money to be made, why would people bother creating it? Many people are happy to devote what little of their spare time to make menial projects, but distribution is difficult without fame.

Enter copyrights! All it does is give the artists ownership rights over the information they created. It doesn't tell them what to do, or how to do it, it just says, "if you want to, you can decide who gets your work and for what price for a limited amount of time, before it's fed back into the culture". It's beautiful in that it has all the creative works of a copyright-less society plus added works created because of copyrights! It's purely an improvement in our culture, unless you happen to be of the opinion that more choice in artistic works is bad.

Unfortunately, some people don't quite respect the ingeniousness of copyrights and the importance of what it does, and prefer instead to take their own copy of the creative works for free. It contributes nothing back into the culture pool, and discourages other people from doing so. In fact, it's a uniquely twisted economic problem, where an industry competes with, and could possibly muzzle out, its own supplier, eventually self-destructing. Copyright and guilt of not paying artists are currently the only thing preventing that.

Naturally, the people who copy illegally are punished, and because copyright infringement is a civil issue, it's left to the copyright owners to prosecute. Unfortunately, because copying is so attractively convenient and cheap in the short term, it's grown quite popular, and consequently the people who actually uphold copyright law are turned into the bad guys. It makes a twisted sense, because copyright delivers on its promise to deliver more culture far before the consumers deliver their end of the bargain: the payment. The debt collector has always been vilified. It's a shame because if people actually held up their end of the social contract, there wouldn't be a problem. The worst part is that copyright becomes the scapegoat, and a very vocal minority seems to be in favour of throwing out the baby with bathwater in order to get the debt collector (how's that for a mixed metaphor?).

So in conclusion, copyright provides more choice, and gives everyone a much richer culture, as well as economic benefits. The problem is that despite being a well-rounded legal principle, certain bickering is ruining its reputation. I hope that cleaned some things up for you.

Re:Monopolies...

[Jason Levine]

Yes, copyrights are good. Unfortunately, the good that they do is currently countered by the length of the copyrights. If I write a book, why should I continue to get profits from it 50 years later? Why should my (currently not born) grandchildren profit off of a book that I write today? Will getting small payments from a book written in 2007 somehow give them an incentive to create new works 70 years after I die? Of course not.

In fact, I'd wager that 98% of works out there don't take in any significant money after 40 years. However, big corporations want to a) milk that remaining 2% for all they are worth and b) want to hold on to the 98% just in case something in there is worth something. This lead to them lobbying for extended copyright lengths until we got to where we are now. Life of the author + 70 years for individuals. 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication (whichever is shortest) for corporations. (And you can bet that Disney will work to extend copyright terms before Mickey falls into the Public Domain in 2023.)

IMO, we would be best off by moving back to the original copyright term length of 14 years plus a one-time 14 year renewal. This would allow us to keep strong copyright protection, while balancing that with the needs of the people to have a strong Public Domain. The only compromise I would make would be a phase in period for items whose copyright would be expired or would be expiring soon under the new 14+14 plan. With the strength of the "pro-long-copyright" lobby in Congress, I'm not holding my breath though.

Re:Monopolies...

[Z34107]

If you have one company who holds copyright to a significant fraction of our current culture [...] To endorse such laws is selling out ourselves, our children and our culture.

Goodness! You don't get to take something for free 'cuz you decided it was "culture."

What if I think that your "books, scripts & music" are "culture"? Or have you not made enough culture to justify me stealing it from you?

People are entitled (God, how I hate that word) to do as they want with the works of their mind. It shouldn't matter how many works they have, how valuable they are perceived to be, nor how many people use them.

Re:Monopolies...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If I write a book, why should I continue to get profits from it 50 years later?

Plus however long you live for, don't forget. It's 50 years (or 75 in certain countries) after the artist's death. It truly is insane. At this rate, we may as well just grant infinite copyrights, because it seems everyone has been blinded by the concept of ownership of works.

In fact, I'd wager that 98% of works out there don't take in any significant money after 40 years. However, big corporations want to a) milk that remaining 2% for all they are worth and b) want to hold on to the 98% just in case something in there is worth something.

Those two percent would have made them a lot of money in the first 40 years, and now they are a part of the culture. The artists and the labels really owe it to the people to put it in public domain. All the others, well, most of their value is gone, so you might as well give it back after 40 years anyway.

Re:Monopolies...

[dukeGuinness]

Of course, Canada has an extraordinarily long history of monopolies. In fact, we exist largely as a result of one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson's_Bay_Company

Re:Monopolies...

[Jason Levine]

I completely agree. In fact, many people I talk to nowadays don't see why companies should ever have to give copyright up at all and think of the Public Domain as a bad idea. The corporations have so indoctrinated (most of) us to seeing copyrights as lasting for more than a lifetime, that people are now accepting them as infinite in length. The counter example I use is Shakespeare's works. For example, just try tracking down the correct current owner of Hamlet to get permission to put on a play.

The 98% figure was an off-the-top-of-my-head notion. In fact, I was probably being very generous. For every Star Wars that generates massive floods of profits 30+ years later, I'm sure there are hundreds of films that generate a trickle at best. Perhaps if corporations want to keep things out of the public domain, the fees should be ever increasing. You get 14 years for your initial copyright. The first renewal (14 years) is $10. The second renewal is $1,000. The third renewal is $100,000. The fourth renewal is $10,000,000. And so on. Is Mickey Mouse really worth a $1 billion renewal fee? If not, let him go Public Domain. If Mickey is worth the fee, then the government gets money that can be used for various purposes (e.g. help pay down the national debt) and Disney gets to hold onto Mickey for 14 more years.

Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[DaedalusHKX]

Like all unpopular legislature, first its tried legitimately. Secondly it is passed by governmental or bureaucratic fiat. They will simply make a regulation to cover it if actual legislation does not work. BATFE did it with guns in the USA, DEA did it with drugs in the USA, FDA does it to various foods, OSHA does it with workplaces (though the enforcement, from my days doing construction is haphazard at worst and selective at best).

So, it will go to a small blip or nonexistent blip on the radar, and a year down the road, the RCMP will be kicking in doors or seizing equipment based on a treaty ratified with Bun-fuk-u-stan, which states that they have to enforce whatever treaty was accepted for the "benefits of Canda's socialized welfare system".

That or the UN, intergovernmental panel on climate change will discover that Britney's pirated MP3's are actually causing global warming or costing Britney so much in lost royalties that she can't afford to feed those starving children that the UN has failed to care for over the years (Kofi Anan's son, however, managed to buy himself a pair of Lamborghinis with the money he received as "salary")

(And we know that a bunch of politically appointed "scientists" and bureaucrats are going to be FAR more correct on telling us why the earth is getting warmer each morning and colder each evening, because that damn glowing orb in the sky that has had variable output over several million/billion years is just too insignificant to really matter... its wooden stoves that heat up the earth and diesel engines, so shut down that goddamn sun and stop wasting that heat!!)

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[Kristoph]

I am a little confused by your ... err ... post. You know we're talking about Canada and not the US, right? Also, you know we're talking about digital rights right?

Where does global warming, the UN, the USA and Kofi's son come into it?

]{

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[Anonymous Coward]

"the UN, intergovernmental panel on climate change will discover that Britney's pirated MP3's are actually causing global warming"

I am fully supportive of any UN action that results in less Britney Spears. Pro-piracy, anti-piracy, pro-climate-change, anti-climate-change ... doesn't matter ... if it results in less Britney Spears I'll sign the treaty.

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[Anonymous Coward]

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[Dipsomaniac]

When you have an axe to grind, all you see is grindstones.

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[DaedalusHKX]

What I'm saying is one way or another it will pass.

For example. 3 years ago, everyone thought the so called "NAFTA superhighway" was a myth. Now its been discovered that Canada and the USA have working groups bringing it about through low level regulation and land grabs (eminent domain here has been abused forever, so its nothing new, Canada is using drug busts as far as I hear, to confiscate homes and land... and Mexico... well, Mexico doesn't need its people's permission to abuse them, not even to make the abuse legal.)

So in the spirit of that, if the powers that be WANT DMCA in Canada, you can be guaranteed they'll have it. Just like your PM signed that agreement with George and Fox without so much as consulting his "constituents" (or is that "willing subjects")... you people are doing nothing more than choosing HOW the masters will abuse you, but you voted for them, so you gave them carte blanche to abuse you. They rule you through your consent not against your consent, and thus, they can do whatever they want... sure you can recall them, but by the time you do, they'll want to retire anyways. Show me ONE head of state who got poorer by running a country into the ground. Show me ONE head of state pushing carts at Walmart. None. No politician ever gets poor or broke. Ever.

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[dargon]

Not to mention, that given the public outcry, the liberals and/or the ndp would love the excuse to pull down the gov't. Bad legislation = votes for them if the pc's try to force it through.

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[Run4yourlives]

I think the aluminum in your hat is leaching into your brain a bit.

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[DaedalusHKX]

You recall that it was the so called "liberal" PM that signed the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement with Bush and Fox, right? It wasn't your current "conservative" PM.

I saw about 5 minutes of "public outcry" about as much as I saw when Clinton's team ratified NAFTA and the WTO. Suckers on every side of the Canada/USA border will buy anything the government sells so long as it taxes "someone else" more than them. Wealth redistribution systems have worked marvels for governments. Back in Nero and Caligula's day it was called "bread and circuses" today its called "war on terror" and "welfare"... nothing new. Give people "free" food and "victories" and they'll love you for it.

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[Demolition]

You recall that it was the so called "liberal" PM that signed the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement with Bush and Fox, right? It wasn't your current "conservative" PM.

These labels mean nothing. In the view of most Canadians, the "Liberal Party of Canada" are not "small-l" liberals. They are solidly situated on the right wing side of the political spectrum. However, they are not as far right as the "Conservative Party of Canada" whose ideology closely mirrors that of U.S. conservatives (mostly Republicans and so-called "right-libertarians").

To many Canadians, both parties are of the same stripe.

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[DaedalusHKX]

And yet you still buy their falsely advertised and tainted product willingly?

Do you not find this a bit strange? Its not like Canada's government can profess to protect you, if anyone invades it, your country is toast. The army is pathetic, the equipment outdated, and the populace is far less armed and far less numerous than equivalently equipped and trained Americans, so what exactly does your government promise to protect you from? (At least in the USA there are privately held arms to the tune of 300 million (accounted for) and several dozen GOOD tactical and self defense schools that have no shortage of students (even the poor quality schools have quite a bit of patronage.))

Hypothetical Situation: If some foreign nation (say Russia or China) landed troops in Canada tomorrow, short of American intervention, there is no other country that would be able to hold up to such an invasion, and short of Nuclear Warfare, I see no way that any other country, even the USA, would stop our hypothetical invaders from burning the Maple Leaf and putting up their version of the "red white and blue"... Of course I'll be told that Canucks are all heavily armed with single shot break over carbines, and carry "excessive" amounts of ammo (according to news media) of OVER 20 rounds (**GASP!!**) for each gun they own, and have trained with said guns extensively (they've actually fired a few shots and would've zeroed the sights, or even broken in the barrel after buying the gun but they couldn't find enough affordable ammo to get more than a rough 25 yard boresight.)

And I don't really see anyone that really gives a shit about Canadians enough to threaten and actually ENGAGE in Nuclear Warfare with said theoretical invader, not even (theoretically) the USA... if the leaders of any country DO nuke any theoretical nuclear behemoth, regardless of some vaunted "ballistic missile shield", you can guarantee that they have already secured some form of orbital or underground city (about the only safe places for a few years), well shielded from the blasts and fall out. These rulers are all evil, but not as clueless as the people who continue to vote for them and pay for their abuses and excesses.

It still amazes me with how much ease the few can dupe the many. I guess I still hold too much esteem for the beasts of burden that, at first glance, appear to be men and women, and then, through behavior, immediately dispel that illusion. I really should set my standards for those I consider to be my "peers" a lot higher than mere physical resemblance and common means of communication.

Well, it would be reckless of the people to allow

[davidsyes]

Capricious, unrestricted, unchallenged, and blanket permission to just take away computers because the RIAA or others want to start punishing or using as examples people who still buy SOMETHING from among the overpriced products.

Go Canada! Stand up and who your pride AND defiance.

Good news, everyone!

[Citizen of Earth]

Wow, this is almost as good news to Canada as Global Warming is!

Re:Good news, everyone!

[HungSoLow]

You laugh, but where I live (Ottawa region) we peak at 35 to 40 celcius in the summer with ample humidity and dip as low as -35 to -40 celcius in the winter. A shift in either direction would not be pleasant!

Re:Good news, everyone!

[Citizen of Earth]

A shift in either direction would not be pleasant!

Last winter and last summer in Ottawa were pretty mild. The cold weather lately demonstrates that we haven't been polluting enough. To the beer-fridge store!

Re:Good news, everyone!

[RealGrouchy]

Actually, here in Ottawa (coincidence that the other repliers are also here!), municipal staff report that we will be seeing a lot more freezing rain in the future, which costs a hell of a lot more to deal with in terms of salt and road-clearing vehicles than snow. Taxpayer panda is sad.

- RG>

Re:Good news, everyone!

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Wow, this is almost as good news to Canada as Global Warming is! To Hell with that! Where am I supposed to live once my igloo melts, huh? Global warming is effing with our housing markets here, gawdamit.

On a side note, I was curious: I ran ' "igloo for sale" ' in Google and got 910 results. ' "Igloos for sale" ' got 1970. Granted, no actual igloos are for sale AFAICT, but still... Who. in reality, ever has a need to say those phrases? It reminds me of George Carlin's thoughts on shoving a red hot poker up your ass (I'm too lazy to link).

Re:Good news, everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks, you funny Americans can keep your "Global Warming" to yourselves. I'm already quite happy with my 40 degrees C (104 degrees F) summers where I live in British Columbia.

Canadians and Free Speech

[PHAEDRU5]

I hope Mark Steyn gets decent treatment: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071130_111821_7448

Re:Canadians and Free Speech

[big_paul76]

I know this kind of an off-topic thread, but yeesh, surely you don't think there's anything to this load of crap article?

I could go point-by-point on matters of fact that he gets wrong, or distorts to suggest things like an Iraq-Al Queda connection, but really the point he misses is that Al Queda is not a threat long term, because they believe in nothing and stand for nothing. If you ask bin Laden what his policy would be on unemployment or monetary policy or social spending or deficits he wouldn't have an answer. They're more like the anarchists and nilists of the early 20th century, and they'll eventually die out because they have nothing to offer people.

The other thing he doesn't realize (I wonder where this guy lives) is that when you give non-white, yes, even muslim people the opportunity to integrate, they take it, because strangely enough, our lifestyle is a lot more fun than living in the mid-east. The problems you see in europe are the result of (sometimes literally) creating second-class citizens or 'guest workers' to make up for the fact that nobody wants to spend all their life working as a janitor. Europe tried to 'import' a new working class that wouldn't do pesky things like unionize and stuff. You compare the situation in Canada, where recent immigrants do much better, and the first generation born here is virtually indistinguishable from WASP-type Canadians who's families have been here for 100 years.

There's no reason to take a band of criminals, anarchists and nihilists who's best work couldn't even kill as many Americans as six months of traffic accidents, and elevate them to an actual threat to NATO, an alliance that stared down the USSR. Let's get some perspective here.

Re:Canadians and Free Speech

[PHAEDRU5]

If the Canadian Islamic Council (CIC) gets its way, free speech will cease to exist in Canada.

The CIC is making a bogus claim of religious and racial discrimination in order to persecute a writer, thereby launching a lawsuit on frivolous grounds. And what is the CIC complaining about? Why, writers who say that Muslims make bogus claims of religious and racial discrimination, in order to persecute writers, and launch lawsuits on frivolous grounds.

There's an odd totalitarian circularity there.

Best slap down the Muslim totalitarians now, before they pull a Rhineland, Poland, etc.

Re:Canadians and Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhineland? Poland? Get a grip you friggin retard. Steyn is a racist and a bigot and deserves whatever he gets. McLean's ditto for publishing his crap and others like him. The magazine is a puss filled piece of toilet paper. And you need prozac or counselling.

the evil person in me...

[GerbilSocks]

..says we should hang Jim Prentice by the balls for even considering introducing this piece of crap legislation. I can't but thank the thousands of Canadians who opposed this bill.

Re:the evil person in me...

[ToriaUru]

Now, now, in Canada we are civilized! Let's just lob snow balls at him, okay? ;)

Re:the evil person in me...

[dadragon]

No, no, no! We need to pummel him with Tim Bits!

Re:the evil person in me...

[RealGrouchy]

Mod parent up; it's a reference to Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans"!

Re:the evil person in me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am in his constituency, in fact I live a very short walk from his office (but was working during the open house unfortunately). I am ashamed to say I voted for him. Because of this incident alone I will not next time.

Re:the evil person in me...

[dmatos]

Shouldn't we at least jersey him, and give him a few shots to the head? :)

Re:the evil person in me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now. There's no reason to get nasty, people. There's a long tradition of using one particular law-breaking, Canadian protest tactic against politicians when people are *truly* angry. It's not easy for Canadians to talk about, but it does happen sometimes that a few of them decide to act violently. It's tragic, really. A kind of secret shame that people in other countries don't hear much about. Yes, we do break down sometimes and resort to violence to make a political statement, and over the years it has happened a lot.

Everyone from Ralph Klein (former premier of Alberta), Jean Charet (premier of Quebec) to Jean Cretien (former Prime Minister of Canada) has been subjected to it. There are many more. I'm sure it's a nightmare for their security personnel to try to deal with:

A pie in the face.

When watching the crowds they're probably looking almost as carefully for those disc-shaped pie-pan missiles as any other potential weapon someone might use. You ask any in the Prime Minister's security team, and I'm sure they'll sigh and tell you they're ready to "take one in the face" to save the leader of the country.

Yes, sure, in some countries they shoot their leaders. Can't have that here. Not polite at all, and not conducive to thoughtful consideration of alternative views. Snowballs and Timbits? Sorry, but those things are no substitute either because they could hurt somebody if you flung them really hard.

Video on youtube.

[In no way is the above intended to incite an actual pieing of the Minister! That would be assault! Seriously.]

Re:the evil person in me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please send him a note telling him that. He's going to reply that the bill isn't tabled yet, so, make sure you mention that you'll reconsider if the reports about its contents are wrong.

It's hit the news-wire now!

[ToriaUru]

It's now on the Canadian Press newswire. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvt3LW3hjo1fIaaiwZACBiZ0R3wA So, it'll likely be picked up by mainstream press in other countries, perhaps, now. All helping to publicize the fact that in Canada, we FIGHT for our rights! It is the True North, strong and free, after all ;)

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[ToxicBanjo]

All helping to publicize the fact that in Canada, we FIGHT for our rights! It is the True North, strong and free, after all ;)

Yep, we fight for our rights... unless it's during Hockey Night in Canada.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[Anonymous Coward]

"All helping to publicize the fact that in Canada, we FIGHT for our rights! It is the True North, strong and free, after all ;)"

Isn't it kinda hard to masturbate in an igloo?

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[saskboy]

People can still join the fight, from abroad, by joining the Facebook group to pad our numbers for the next round.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[c6gunner]

All helping to publicize the fact that in Canada, we FIGHT for our rights! It is the True North, strong and free, after all ;)

I see you're not familiar with our gun laws.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[HybridJeff]

We like our gun laws.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[c6gunner]

No we don't.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[Abcd1234]

Yes we do.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[c6gunner]

Come for a stroll with me through Jane and Finch some time. I've got a great t-shirt for you to wear. Might help you figure out that without the freedom to bare arms, all your other freedoms are an illusion.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[Abcd1234]

Yes, I'm sure your hunting rifles will prove an excellent defense against an armored tank, should the government decide to quell a rebellion.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now!

[c6gunner]

Thank you for inserting your totally unrelated penny and a half into the conversation.

Thank a minority government

[earthforce_1]

Thanks to the razor thin minority government that exists here right now, they cannot be arrogant and a few thousand determined people actually can make a difference. This is the way government should be - it should be scared of the people, not vice-versa. This plus an alert press ensures they do not dare try to slide a fast one under the table for well heeled friends. One massively unpopular bill could tip the scales against them and they damned well know it.

I don't live anywhere near Calgary, but I was one of the ones who (politely but firmly) e-mailed him with my objections to a Canadian DMCA and how C-60 loomed large in my mind last election.

If the current government can ignore the Kyoto accords, they sure as heck can choose to ignore WIPO as well.

Re:Thank a minority government

[Scruffy Dan]

Don't forget that we actually ratified Kyoto, but we have not ratified the WIPO treaty.

Re:Thank a minority government

[Jester998]

I also sent an email (and sent a carbon copy via post ... hardcopy gets much more attention from politicians!). I don't live anywhere near Calgary either (Ottawa, in fact), but I definitely felt strongly enough about the issue to write to him.

Below is the text of what I sent:

--

Dear Hon. Jim Prentice:

I regret that I am unable to attend your open-house session tomorrow, 08 Dec 2007, in person; however, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern over a proposed piece of legislation regarding Canadian copyright, namely the so-called "Canadian DMCA".

I work as an IT professional, however my background is in pure Computer Science. I often spend time performing security research. A Canadian version of the US DMCA legislation greatly concerns me -- one needs to look no further than the 'US v. Elcomsoft & Sklyarov' case to see why.

References: http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/us_v_sklyarov_faq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov

In this instance, legitimate security research was suppressed, and the researcher arrested at the will of a large corporation. Rather than acknowledge & fix the weaknesses in their product's security, Adobe chose to use the DMCA as a sledgehammer to suppress disclosure of information they did not like.

This has obvious chilling effects -- as an analogue, if a researcher were to find a weakness in the encryption used for e.g. online banking, is it reasonable to arrest the researcher rather than fix the weakness? To my mind, it is infinitely preferable to acknowledge, fix, and continuously improve security through legitimate research. Those with criminal intent will search for these weaknesses in any event -- it is much better to discover and fix the issues in a transparent manner. As the saying goes, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." hold very true here.

Other kinds of DMCA abuse is well-documented and widespread. A few simple Google searches (e.g. "DMCA abuse") very quickly turn up many sources of information. This legislation has been used to suppress reviews or opinions which are negative towards large companies -- technically, these should be handled as a civil lawsuit for slander or libel (if they are, in fact, untrue); however, many large corporations choose to invoke a DMCA takedown notice instead, as it forces the content hoster to take down the material immediately, rather than waiting for a judgement from a court of law. It is important to note that it is *corporations* that send these takedown notices, not the courts. Under this model, 'justice' is a distant wish.

There was some research done in 2005 by the University of South Carolina which showed that 30% of DMCA takedown notices sent by corporations were improper, and even potentially illegal (unfortunately, the document seems to have been taken offline, or moved, but the previous URL was http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/releases/2005/legalFlaws.html). This is a stunningly high figure -- laws are traditionally written to ensure that there is an onus of proof before charges are filed, and that due legal process is followed. The rules of jurisprudence are critical to ensure the equitable operation of any society, but overly broad, overly powerful laws like the US DMCA allow companies with deep legal pockets to run rampant, and allows them to run a private campaign of fear and intimidation.

I wish to point out that I am not pro-piracy, but rather am opposed to legislation (and legislators) funded or supported by corporations. This is the very antithesis of a democracy, and is the current state in the US. Canada is already dangerously close to that abyss, and I do not wish to

Re:Thank a minority government

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Thanks to the razor thin minority government that exists here right now, they cannot be arrogant and a few thousand determined people actually can make a difference. The problem with this, I think, is it isn't going to matter if it's the Tories or Liberals in power (or the Bloc or the NDP, for that matter). There's enough money and corporate influence peddling in this that it'll probably happen eventually, just like it's happened in the States. They only have to win one battle, but we have to win them all. Unless they're outlandishly detrimental, laws rarely seem to get changed, once bought.

Re:Thank a minority government

[big_paul76]

That's some nice work. I also wrote a snail-mail copy, a friend of mine who worked for federal public works once told me that for every letter the feds receive, they assume somewhere between 1000 and 10,000 people also feel the same way, but didn't write.

here's what I went with:
First I'd like to point out a fundamental shift in the way copyright law functions. Before the age of networked computers, copyright law functioned as a restriction on publishers by authors, more like an industrial regulation. If you wanted to have a business publishing books/movies/etc, you had to accept this as the 'cost of doing business'.

However, in an age of networked computers, copyright law functions as a restriction on ordinary citizens by publishing companies, and is something citizens must accept by the act of reading something.

This is a fundamental shift in the function of the law, and the enforcement of it requires invasions into the private life and freedoms of each and every one of us.

The publishing industries claim that this is necessary to preserve their business model, but I ask you, since when is it the business of government to preserve an obsolete business model? The 'content publishers' like the MPAA, RIAA, and the CRIA believe that if a person has made a profit off the public in the past, that it is the role of government and courts to guarantee that income in perpetuity. This belief is not supported by statute or case law. When the automobile first came into production, were manufacturers of buggy whips able to sue Ford and General Motors? Were producers of whale oil able to prevent the production and sale of the electric light bulb?

Furthermore, the copyright holders claim they act for the betterment of artists, but let's be honest: The MPAA/RIAA/CRIA's members have the same relationship to artists that a pimp has to a prostitute. Does the Conservative government feel that this is the sort of relationship that Parliament ought to preserve?

Re:Thank a minority government

[sabernet]

Two letters, and a voicemail were my contributions. Small as they may be, I'm happy to have been able to contribute something. And it was easy enough to do I encourage everyone to at least do the same.

Re:Thank a minority government

[Anonymous Coward]

definitely copypasting this and using it as inspiration for a version in french, if you don't mind.

Re:Thank a minority government

[Jester998]

You're certainly welcome to use it if you wish. I would recommend rolling in some of the points from the other respondent to my post (big_paul76), especially w.r.t. the fact that it's not the business of the government to ensure continuity of business models... wish I had thought of that myself when I was drafting my letter.

Re:Thank a minority government

[Jardine]

As the saying goes, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." hold very true here.

That is the perfect thing to compare this to when talking to the Conservative Party. They do love their guns.

cockroaches don't like light

[Trailer Trash]

So keep the light on them.

Tag should not be suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Hamfist]

but suddenoutbreakofhouseofcommons

You mean....

[KillerBob]

You mean the Americans didn't have to one-up us after all?

Boy, I bet they feel dumb...

Not withdrawn, delayed

[apankrat]

As per Michael Geist's own comment -

I can't say with certainty why the bill has been delayed, nor whether it will be for a day or two, or for longer. I think that this presents an excellent opportunity for Prentice to engage in broader consultation and hold off introducing the bill until 2008.

On the other hand

[Geof]

How much stronger it looks when in a single week 10,000 people organize themselves in protest based on incomplete information. You can always contact your MP twice - once to say you are concerned about the bill, the second time to oppose it. I'm sure those of us who did write fully intend to follow up when necessary.

And we did know something about the bill. We knew a ban on DRM circumvention technology was in it because the government announced it would implement the WIPO treaty. That in itself is bad enough.

Nothing wrong with copyright

[daBass]

I do not see anything wrong with copyright; if I spend a lot of time and money into creating something that can so easily be copied, there should be some protection against that. I also have no problem with RIAA and MPAA going after those who blatantly share music and movies; just because the industry make enough money to be profitable through their preferred distribution channels does not mean I should just get it for free. Eventually most people will be connected to the internet so fast and sharing will be made so easy that nobody will go through the legitimate means of obtaining the content they want.

That said, I DO have a problem with legislation like the DMCA or any DRM. If I have paid for a perpetual license for personal and household use, including any guests present, for content, I should not be limited to how I should be allowed to store and play this content. Yes, giving a copy of a movie to a friend is bad, but moving it to my media server and letting him watch it in the guest bedroom when he is visiting should be fine.

Unfortunately, temptation is too great and I don't always practice what I preach; I do download, though mostly TV series that I either can not watch at all in my region or that I can't be bothered to find. I don't like downloading someone's recording, I would much rather pay a little money for it and get it straight from the source and reward the creators. Unfortunately, they won't let me. And even when they do (we have some content on iTunes), the pirated versions are of much better quality.

Take for instance "Bender's Big Score"; only R1 NTSC with no R2/4 PAL version even announced. This is a true geek show, how much money do you think they would have made overnight if they made a 4GB 720p version available for a $10 download? As a true fan I had to see this and was left with no choice but to download a pirated copy. I might buy it when it comes out, I might not, but in any case the studio and distributers have proven themselves complete retards not to offer their geek movie to the geeks in the way that geeks want.

To conclude, I feel that just because we can we should not just copy everything left right and center, but the truth is that we do and the industry mostly has themselves to blame by not keeping up with what consumers want. And that makes them retarded because the internet is the easiest form of distribution ever invented and they completely fail to exploit it.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[CastrTroy]

What I have a problem with is perpetual copyright. It seems as though copyright is going to be extended forever if the corportions have their way. It started out at 17? years, and now it's something like 70 years. I know that art is important, but people don't need to profit from their work for that long, otherwise, they will stop producing new stuff once they have enough old stuff to support themselves from. If copyright ran out in 5 years, artists would have much more incentive to produce new works, instead of living off the old ones. And 5 years gives them plenty of time to profit in today's fast paced world.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[Heddahenrik]

The question we as the world population has to ask ourself is:

Is it better to have 10 times less information produced and get it all available for free, or to have the information production we have today but unavailable due to costs? I think the answers is clear: We want free information! 100 000 movies for free are better than 1 000 000 movies you have to pay way too much to see. Same goes for science and education material.

Worth noting is that it will probably not be 10 times less information produced. It will be easier to produce information when it can be shared and the once producing it can get revenue from other sources (for example product placements, advertising, real life events, sponsors and development on demand). So I think there will be more information produced, but way less of the high cost stuff like mastont movies.

Also worth noting is that the alternative to free sharing of information is a spying and controlling society way worse than 1984.

When that is noted one has to realize that not only is it OK to copy, but it's also wrong to buy anything from companies who are working towards a 1984-society, buying politicians and using the corrupted US legal system to destroy people's lives. If these evil companies have less money, they can buy fewer politicians (and ISP and media and...) and that gives us a better chance to battle them.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[daBass]

I do not see why anyone should not be allowed to make a good investment and then live off it for the rest of their lives. Are we really going to force people to produce more?

It would be like doing 10 years of good investing on the stock market, retiring on $10M dollars only to be told 5 years down the track to hand all your capital gains over because you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your work; you must keep working.

And why would I pay for something new the artists created when I can have so much stuff that is only 5 years old for free?

I know the corporate IP holders are crying all the way to the bank and would do fine with a little less profit from their back-catalog, but what about the independent artists, are we going to have two rules? It would be nice to have more of our cultural heritage lapse into the public domain, but I feel it is a much more complex issue than most people realize. What you are proposing is pretty much communism and after 5 years anyone can get it for free, but it would also mean anyone can make money on it!

Imaging a 5 year rule and "Top Gun" has become public domain years ago, but most people can not get it easily, so someone WILL make money of selling copies on DVD. Not to mention TV stations broadcasting it for those not able to download or afford the few bucks for the DVD copy and selling commercials. Should the original creator really be shut out completely? And how is the TV station going to get their broadcast quality copy? Someone has the physical medium, most likely the corporate entity that created the film. Is there going to be a law that states the copy MUST be handed over or supplied at cost to the anyone who wants to broadcast it? Do you really think that in that case stations would buy much new material? I think not and it would be counterproductive to your "artists would have much more incentive to produce new works".

What about spending a lot of money scanning and cleaning up the negatives and re-releasing it on Blu-Ray or HDDVD? How is that going to work, a new copyright term for the new format, so that you may freely copy the DVD of Top Gun, but not a copy (converted into whatever format) of the HDDVD?

I do not think it is quite a clear cut as you seem to think it is!

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[sc0ob5]

I do download, though mostly TV series that I either can not watch at all in my region or that I can't be bothered to find. I don't like downloading someone's recording, I would much rather pay a little money for it and get it straight from the source and reward the creators. The creators aren't rewarded for works on the Internet, legal or not. That's why there is a writers strike. I guess it really means that the value of these works is nothing and you are actually paying(or not as the case may be) to watch the adverts.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[rm999]

Your vision of the perfect world is my hell. Sometimes I want to pay to see real art, not watch some crap full of advertising. The mentality that everything should be free has only served the purposes of big corporations who can afford to plaster anything and everything with advertisements, and in the process take over creative control. Artists should not literally starve, and corporations should stay out of art, so I completely back copyright if it protects the quality of art.

When you look at the low average salaries of a typical musician or Hollywood writer (or even at the negative profits of the big studios that back them), you'll realize that people who create actual IP don't make a whole lot. I blame this on the increasing mentality that art should be free, because someone else can pay for it. Artists have always needed monetary aid, and being a patron of the arts has really fallen out of favor.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[daBass]

That is a different issue entirely. Unless you think the writers are the only creators of TV content, that is.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[Darby]

I do not see why anyone should not be allowed to make a good investment and then live off it for the rest of their lives. Are we really going to force people to produce more?

Define "good investment". You'll quickly realize that you're just making a circular argument.

It would be like doing 10 years of good investing on the stock market, retiring on $10M dollars only to be told 5 years down the track to hand all your capital gains over because you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your work; you must keep working.

You're either *extremely* fucking stupid or a troll.

The money the stock market investor made is equivalent to the money the "intellectual property" creator made. Nobody is talking about taking that away.

And why would I pay for something new the artists created when I can have so much stuff that is only 5 years old for free?

If the new stuff isn't that much better than you shouldn't. That wasn't even a good question. It's just an artifact of your inability to get past your initial logical fallacy.

What you are proposing is pretty much communism and after 5 years anyone can get it for free, but it would also mean anyone can make money on it!

So since anybody... or more accurately whoever does it more efficiently, can make money off of it it actually is completely unrelated to to communism. It's actually an example of a free market, which your clearly fascist tendendcies cause you to despise.


Imaging a 5 year rule and "Top Gun" has become public domain years ago, but most people can not get it easily, so someone WILL make money of selling copies on DVD.

So you're saying absolutely that it creates a free market situation once you remove government granted, market manipulating, effects.

I think not and it would be counterproductive to your "artists would have much more incentive to produce new works".

No, you clearly don't even understand what *you're* saying.

New works are promoted. Reselling the same old crap is discouraged. It follows absolutely from what you're saying. Your conclusions are completely opposed to your own arguments. Sane people change their minds at that point.


I do not think it is quite a clear cut as you seem to think it is!

His argument might not be clear cut, but yours is dead wrong and internally contradictory as a even a school kid could figure out if he had basic reasoning skills.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[penix1]

I have no problem with "life of the author". It is the "+70-90" and registration requirement loss I have problems with. It is corporate person-hood I have problems with.

I'll tell you what I proposed in the past and continue to advocate:

1. Only the original creator can "own" the copyright / patent. And before some poor slob comes along and screams this is against "work for hire", it isn't. Corporate interests can license whatever they want from the original creator. In fact, this alone would give creators a place at the bargaining table they lack today.

2. The author dies, so does the copyright. Any term based on time for copyright is doomed because there will always be someone who thinks it isn't long enough.

3. Copyright MUST be registered if you do have time based terms. There is no other way to determine when the clocks start and more importantly, when the clock stops.

4. If it is protected by one area of "IP" law such as patents, it loses its ability to be covered by another area of "IP" law such as copyright. The choice is yours but it can't be both. The best solution would be to eliminate method patents all together but that is unlikely to happen because of the very powerful lobbies mostly from big proprietary software vendors.

5. Congress needs to ask the question, "What effect does this have on the public domain" and if the result is negative, then trash whatever they were trying to do. After all, it is the public domain that copyright and patent laws exist for in the first place. Too often politicians are too worried about the corporate well being and forget they are supposed to represent the public good in this. It is not in the public good to have perpetual monopolies.

6. Prosecute the RIAA / MPAA for the price fixing cartels they are. Enforce the RICO laws for once.

Lastly, this goes to patents. The assumption of validity of patents needs to be reversed especially since patent offices are incapable of determining validity as shown by the multitude of frivolous ones that are granted daily.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[daBass]

You're either *extremely* fucking stupid or a troll.

Please stick to arguing the case, personal attacks don't make you any more credible.

So since anybody... or more accurately whoever does it more efficiently, can make money off of it it actually is completely unrelated to to communism.

No it isn't, your interpretation is not what I argued. Taking a personal possession or efforts from someone without due compensation and for the free use of everyone is communism. On top of that someone else profiting from your stuff being taken from you without you getting any more compensation is just plain stealing. In my book anyway.

New works are promoted. Reselling the same old crap is discouraged. It follows absolutely from what you're saying. Your conclusions are completely opposed to your own arguments. Sane people change their minds at that point.

How is this absolute? I believe free content that is 5 years old will at best keep new content creation at todays level and at worst lower the amount (and possibly quality) created. This is because I believe fewer people will be buying if they can get other stuff for free. (just like not everyone wants to spend money on the new latest and greatest car and buys second hand) You believe it will encourage more new content. Both yours and mine conclusions are speculative as there is no proof either way, so, again, no need for name calling.

But my main point is: too much government interference. Why should there be a law that prevents you from selling the same old crap? If someone wants to sell the same old crap and another wants to sell better new stuff, the market will take care of it - and it does; while back-catalogs make a lot of money as a whole, that is only because there are so many individual items. Besides, that is not the case I am arguing. What I am arguing is that I do not believe copyright limits should be quite so short. It should be a free world in which we are free to sell our same old crap if people want it.

Now, can we have a meaningful discussion with name calling and insults?

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[daBass]

I agree with what you say, really. The only thing that bugs me is how to implement it.

First of all, you have to define who is a "creator". It seem simple for a single author of a book, but even that poses problems as books are edited and is an editor shuffling content and re-writing parts to make it better also a "creator"? And what share should they get for that effort?

It also becomes much more complex when more people are involved. Say you and I write a book together, 50/50. Now I die in 10 years time and you live for another 50 years. During those 40 years after my death, do you get 100% of the royalties, or only 50% with my share going to my next of kin or whoever I nominate in my will until you also pass away and royalties stop completely. (not a very nice deal for your next of kin!)

Now imagine the dozen writers on your average TV show. And the set designers, and the director, and the graphics artists, the list goes on and on. Where do you draw the line between work for hire and creator?

Interesting problem!

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[Darby]

Please stick to arguing the case, personal attacks don't make you any more credible.

No, you go out and learn what an ad Hominem actually means.
The fact that you are extremely stupid or a troll was the conclusion of the argument absolutely demanded by your statements. It was not in any way part of the argument. Your whiny little bitchery did nothing to address the sound, valid points which I arrayed against you. Obviously, you know that or you wouldn't have resorted to whining so soon.

No it isn't, your interpretation is not what I argued.

No, you argued something that was directly contradicted by your own argument. That's entirely *your* failure. Learn logic. It will help you greatly.

Taking a personal possession or efforts from someone without due compensation and for the free use of everyone is communism.

No, it isn't.

That is *one* possible event that could occur under communism, but it isn't communism. Being deeply ignorant isn't a good thing.

On top of that someone else profiting from your stuff being taken from you without you getting any more compensation is just plain stealing. In my book anyway.

OK, but now you're talking about something entirely different.
Nobody is talking about doing that. The topic under discussion is *at what point* do you remove an artificial, government enforced monopoly on things which do not belong to you.


How is this absolute? I believe free content that is 5 years old will at best keep new content creation at todays level and at worst lower the amount (and possibly quality) created.

The fact that you have to invoke "belief" all of a sudden when we were talking about real things demonstrates your lack of ability to defend your position. I believe magical fairies will make everything ok! Wow, now we're at the same level.

Your entire argument was based on the fact that *more* innovation in distribution would inevitably occur given that situation.

So you have a situation where more efficient distribution methods will come into place as you argued. More efficient distribution methods will demand more content to distribute. That's how it works.
You also have more people able to play off of old themes, leading to even more content being generated.

You have not offered a single argument or idea that backs up your conclusion. Everything you're saying promoted and argues for that idea. Your failure to recognize what your own arguments are saying is really sad and pathetic. You're arguing against yourself and in favor of the people you think you're against.

This is because I believe fewer people will be buying if they can get other stuff for free. (just like not everyone wants to spend money on the new latest and greatest car and buys second hand)

Of course they will. Why would you buy the same old crap? Are you arguing that reselling your car should be illegal? Rhetorical question. You absolutely are. That's an obvious and integral problem with your arguments.

Both yours and mine conclusions are speculative as there is no proof either way, so, again, no need for name calling.

The need for "name calling" is simple honesty. The words I applied to you are absolutely demanded by your lack of ability to reason, and the specifics of your inability to do so. Your point is not, in any way, "equally valid". It's totally invalid. That is a well defined logical term which you should look up before attempting to win an argument based on whining.

But my main point is: too much government interference.

No, your point is that you want even *more* government interference and your failure to even grasp what you're arguing is what *demonstrates* you to be a fool or a troll.

Why should there be a law that prevents you from selling the same old crap?

There isn't one. What you are arguing for is laws to *help* you to sell the same old crap at the expense of somebody who can do so more effi

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[Heddahenrik]

I know a lot of artists as I am running Elftown. As far as I know, none of them makes any money with help of copyright laws.

What they do make money of is taking requests. People pay for getting a special piece of art created for them. And no one could be happier than the artist if those pieces are copied as much as Mona Lisa as it's free marketing for their services (which is producing art, not revealing secret information that you're not allowed to copy). If you think about it, you realize that the Sistine Chapel ceiling is a great example of art paid by product placement (where the product in this case is the religion) but it's not a bad piece of art even if you don't like the product in question.

I however have no problem with copyright (as long as it's limited in time) that makes it illegal to sell things like for example DVDs, t-shirts and books that are based on copyrighted material. What I have a problem with is government trying to restrict and control information charing between individuals.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[Sique]

2. The author dies, so does the copyright. Any term based on time for copyright is doomed because there will always be someone who thinks it isn't long enough. The main problem with this is: You can hire a killer if an author doesn't want to license to you. Then his work becomes public domain and you get what you want. The +70 after death was introduced to remove the incentive to kill creative people to get hold of their work.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[themusicgod1]

Hey, musician here, I'm probably more going to agree with you than anything on this one(especially since you seem to be with us against this bill, I'll overlook some differences) but;

"It would be like doing 10 years of good investing on the stock market, retiring on $10M dollars only to be told 5 years down the track to hand all your capital gains over because you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your work; you must keep working."

Your example sucks. If we wanted to use your metaphor, this is how the situation would work;

Let's say I do 10 years of pushing out amazing music, and then I retire on 10$M dollars that I've made from sales of my music. 10$M is quite a bit, and would take some doing, but as 'In Rainbows' has proven, it's within the realm of possibility. It's probably around the same magnitude of difficulty that investing in the stock market would take, give or take an order of magnitude. If I make that 10M$, I should be able to retire, just like the stock broker. The only one talking about the state coming to take that money away is you. If you've made enough profit to retire, great! If not? Well, keep working, keep writing music, right?

If you're going to treat music like a business, at least do so consistently, that's all I ask.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[daBass]

Yeah, it sucks because everybody misunderstands me! ;-)

If you make a song, make $10M bucks on it and they take the song away, you still have $10M. In this case, the song you made is the product.

The nice thing about keeping copyright is that you make your $10M, buy the jet and then keep a steady income every year from back-catalog sales to put fuel in the jet too.

In my stock market example, the money you made, is the product, which can be likened to your song.

So yeah, that is confusing and that is why the example sucks. But you see what I mean now?

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[vux984]

if I spend a lot of time and money into creating something that can so easily be copied, there should be some protection against that.

There is, its called: GETTING PAID IN ADVANCE, or at the very least paid on delivery. I write code, that's how I get paid. That's how I paid my wedding photographer, and how I paid the band that played too, for that matter. Its how I paid the architect who designed my home, and for one of the paintings on the wall.

Its simple and it works well. In a world where things are easy to copy and copies are impossible to stop or even track, the solution is not to prevent copies. You don't really CARE how many copies are made. If you want a million dollars for your book, write your book, release a couple chapters to get people interested, and then start the fund raising. When you've made enough money, release the book.

And I'm not saying dump copyright entirely. I'm just for dropping all enforcement on non-commercial copies made by the public for their own non-profit use. So if someone wants to make release a movie based on your book, or someone wants to get Patrick Stewart to read it on the radio, or someone just wants to sell printed copies, they still have to obtain the rights from you.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[remmelt]

> Are we really going to force people to produce more?

HELL YES!!!!

The entire point of copyright, a government granted monopoly, is to the artist encourage the artist to make more art. This is not so much a sit back and relax bonus, it's a keep up the good work fee.

See the difference? Now you'll also see why it's not good to make the term too long (artists will be less likely to produce more art) and why it's ridiculous to extend it after the artist is dead, as is the case now (life + 70 years?). The final point of ridiculousness is the ability to pass the copyright on to someone else and to top it all off the ability to pass it on to an organisation/corporation, an entity that is not likely to ever produce anything but bills and lawsuits.

So, yes, we're "forcing" the artist to produce more art. If he doesn't like it, there's always flipping burgers.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[penix1]

First of all, you have to define who is a "creator". It seem simple for a single author of a book, but even that poses problems as books are edited and is an editor shuffling content and re-writing parts to make it better also a "creator"? And what share should they get for that effort?

Not just creator but "original creator". An editor isn't creating it so he isn't the original creator. In short, the editor would need a license from the author to edit that work and it becomes a derivative work. The same holds true in today's world. An edited copy is still a copy. As for what "share" that would be negotiated before a license is granted to the work.

It also becomes much more complex when more people are involved. Say you and I write a book together, 50/50. Now I die in 10 years time and you live for another 50 years. During those 40 years after my death, do you get 100% of the royalties, or only 50% with my share going to my next of kin or whoever I nominate in my will until you also pass away and royalties stop completely. (not a very nice deal for your next of kin!)

Again, original author would mean both in a collaborative work. As for next of kin, I'll pose a hypothetical to you:

If you worked for McDonalds and happened to die in your home, would McDonalds be obligated to continue paying your next of kin your salary for the next 90 years? Why should copyright be considered any differently than a salary from McDonalds? See how silly that argument is for copyright?

Now imagine the dozen writers on your average TV show. And the set designers, and the director, and the graphics artists, the list goes on and on. Where do you draw the line between work for hire and creator?

Just like all the programmers in the Linux kernel would have to agree to change the license of the kernel, all those authors would have to agree to license the work and how to construct that license. Again, no big show stopper here.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[GoofyBoy]

>The entire point of copyright, a government granted monopoly, is to the artist encourage the artist to make more art. This is not so much a sit back and relax bonus, it's a keep up the good work fee.

Thats an interesting way of looking at it.

But who says how long the person can take before he stops being rewarded and forced to create something else? One person could do it weekly but others, depending on the art and personality and life-situation, may need years.
Also, it may lead to more blatently commercial works of art (which may or may not be a good thing). "I need to replace this part of income very soon, I need something else to replace it quickly. Too bad I don't have the time to develop my artform as I would like."

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, you made my day. Thanks. My trolling worked and I got you all worked up!

Why did you decide it would be a good idea to write that? When you are wrong and realize it yourself, wouldn't it be be better just to be honest and admit it?

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[CastrTroy]

The difference with the stock market is that once you stop investing your money, you stop getting more money. By investing your money, you are letting others use it for their own gain, so you should be entitle to make money. However, once your money is pulled out, you stop making money off it. You are no longer providing a service to anyone. You want to keep making money, you have to keep the money invested. With music, you could write a song, which may take a certain amount of work. Time invested on your part. But now you can live off the sales of that item for the rest of your life. That doesn't really push the artist to create any new work. They can just continue to make new money off work they did years ago. As well as collect interest or invest all the money they made from the work they produced years ago.

Also, once a work slips into the public domain, there's very little money to be made off of it, and it becomes very easy to get a copy of that work. If a network wanted to play a 5 year old movie on their TV station, they could just get a copy of the DVD and broadcast it. Companies could make money off of it, just like they make money from selling Shakespeare's plays. But there's not a whole lot of money to be made, because anybody could print the same thing. So there's less incentive to sell these works, because there would be extremely low profit margins. You could sell copies of that 5 year old movie on DVD, but you wouldn't make much, because so could everybody else. And it would also be available for download on the internet.

Possibly 5 years is a bit too short, but it's better than 70 years after the artist dies. We are going to lose a lot of works because of laws like that. Things will get lost and forgotten, because they will stop selling copies of a lot of works after 5-10 years, and in 100 years when they go out of copyright, nobody will have a copy, and the work will have been lost.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[spockbert]

Again, original author would mean both in a collaborative work. As for next of kin, I'll pose a hypothetical to you:

If you worked for McDonalds and happened to die in your home, would McDonalds be obligated to continue paying your next of kin your salary for the next 90 years? Why should copyright be considered any differently than a salary from McDonalds? See how silly that argument is for copyright?

This isn't quite the same. If you work at McDonalds and die at your home, McDonalds is not obligated to continue paying your salary. But the X other employees of the McDonalds you work at don't get your annual_salary/X. That situation is more similar to what the post you replied to was indicating. If two authors co-write a book and one dies before the other, it makes sense to me that the dead author's estate, or someone designated in the author's will, should continue getting his royalties. The fact that one author is dead should not lessen in any way his contribution to the original work.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[Ginger Unicorn]

thats a very creative way to avoid admitting you're totally clueless. uh... yeah.. i meant to get everything wrong! hahaha! i sure fooled you! is your face red!

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[remmelt]

Exactly. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The length of the copyright can be argued about, I think a good ten years would be ample time for anyone to develop their art the way they want to. If there's no movement after that, it's flipping burgers time.

How does your artist come up with his first work of art anyway? There's no up front payment with (c), you only get money after the art sells. The artist in question made something that sells in his spare time, most likely while working a daytime job. See? It can be done. Now we like the art so much that we want to reward the artist and encourage him to make more, so there's copyright, a monopoly so he can make money and not have to work (so much) so there's more time for him to do the next piece.

I don't think we'll ever live in a world where no art (or anything else, for that matter) is blatantly commercial. If it sells, it sells.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[daBass]

Both people in this conversation were making predictions about what would happen if copyright terms were limited to only a few years. Let's emphasize "predictions". That means him nor me can be wrong as we are only making predictions.

I wrote that because I was being sarcastic. For pete's sake, we were making predictions and the guy calls me troll and an idiot simply because he didn't agree with me!

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[Darby]

For pete's sake, we were making predictions and the guy calls me troll and an idiot simply because he didn't agree with me!

No, you made many factually inaccurate statements *and* blatant logical fallacies as I demonstrated in great detail. Grow up, be a man, and take responsibility for yourself. Quit being such a lying little bitch.

Thank You All

[Undead Ed]

Thank you all that wrote, called, emailed or in any way communicated your displeasure to your political representatives about this terrible proposed legislation.

Ed

Yes!

[Maury Markowitz]

Wow!

I actually took the time to write a letter. Dead trees and the whole thing. To my dying day I'll claim to that it was both well written and convincing. All I said is that it seemed like a _very_ bad idea to be deciding on copyright law in the midst of one of the most dramatic changes in the real-world IP practice that I can recall. If all the IP holders are dropping DRM, maybe it's not the greatest idea to be enacting laws about legitimizing DRM... Right? I sent it on Thursday.

Here's to having absolutely no effect whatsoever on the debate. Vive la insignificance!

Maury

Too many contradictions

[daBass]

I am sorry, but your post keeps contradicting itself.

Why would more information be produced if it is free to share? Any information anyone produces is free to share if the producer wants it to be. Yes, you have copyright, but you can license your information any way YOU want. Got something to share, make it public domain or give it a creative commons license. Knowing that their information is going to be copied freely might be inspiring, but it is hardly going to make anyone able to spend days, months, years of full-time work to produce it; they have bills to pay and need a day job. (not to mention a social life outside of the day job)

Also, if I can freely copy, I can freely modify. So why would I not take out the commercials?

Sponsorship won't work either. Imagine if Coke pays for "Shrek" to be made so that they can have Shrek-based competitions and put the image on their packaging. But if Shrek is not copyrighted, what is stopping Pepsi from doing all the same promotions but without actually paying for the movie to be made?

The only thing that makes sense is product placement as it is hard to remove, but god help us if we need to sit through movies with enough products placement in there to finance the movie.

No thanks, I'd rather pay my $10 at the box office.

Re:Too many contradictions

[Heddahenrik]

More information will be produced in a free to copy information world, because production of new information is based on old information. Most of Disney's movies are for example based on other stories and most discoveries are done when combining knowledges from different sources. But the best example here is that one can make much better teaching literature faster by combining and editing previous works. Then there is of course the issue about what rights you have if your book contains copied stuff, and I can accept that I'm not allowed to print it and sell it without permission.

As for Shrek: I don't mind that selling things with copyrighted material is illegal, and saying that you're a sponsor, when you aren't, is of course illegal for other reasons. It's sharing information that mustn't be illegal.

As for commercials: When there was no commercials on TV here in Sweden, people made sure to come in time to movies just to see the commercials there. And movie-audiences don't seem to mind watching good and relevant commercials like trailers. So if the one producing the movie doesn't have to pay for distribution, I think they can make some money out of commercials that generally aren't cut away when people copy the movie. I've seen some documentaries made to be bittorrent distributed with ads for the sponsors in the beginning. An Australian producer (I think) made a great speech about how content producers should make money in the future: www.elfpack.com/stuff/FutureOfBitTorrent.avi.torrent

But as I said: I realize that Hollywood will not get as much money as now. But I prefer Hollywood being wiped out over that my communication with others being strangled. And strangling our communication is the only way to uphold any respect for the current laws.

Re:Too many contradictions

[daBass]

I agree this is true for "knowledge" work; I find it frustrating that when I try to find some more obscure research using Google I get many results behind for-pay site from the likes of Elsevier. It would be much better if the universities and research institutes of the world could simply get together and organize peer-reviews themselves publish under creative commons, rather than letting commercial publishers do it with whom the authors have to agree to an exclusive distribution license.

But that, again, is something the organizations have the power to do themselves, I do not believe intervention by the government to force free-distribution is the answer. (Except maybe in the case of heavily state-sponsored universities and hospitals, like most in Europe are)

We probably disagree on this, but I feel copyright is a natural right, not restriction by the government, but merely enforced by law. If I create something, I should be free to sell it, or give it away for free. I firmly believe in intellectual property and let the free market decide wether they want my content for pay, or someone else's content for free.

As for entertainment, I could not care less about who gets paid and for how long, if the price is too high or the burden to watch too great (commercial breaks, product placement, on at the wrong time on the wrong station, etc.) I'll go somewhere else. (including piracy, I have to admit) But it would be nice if publishers could get better at distributing old content. Many books are out of print and never will be in print again. They could easily be made available in electronic form and sold (without DRM please!) for a small fee. But it seems the publishers don't like this idea because 1) they are afraid of any online distribution, especially without DRM and 2) they would probably rather sell us newer books at greater profit.

IP

[Anonymous Coward]

> As a consumer of intellectual property (gads, how I hate that term!), I simply cannot see how it benefits me to let my government grant big companies a monopoly on what is rapidly becoming our common, shared culture.

I prefer to call it "imaginary property." Feel free to use that term all you like; it's not like I own it or anything :)

Won't solve the problem of the term merging three disparate areas of law, but I don't see us getting rid of any words they teach at law school. The lawyers will hang onto obscure terms and uses for them long after society moves on.

Discovering Facebook

[SlashJoel]

This bill was delayed, in part due to the outcry of thousands of ordinary Canadians. Geist set up a Facebook group last week that has grown to over 14,000 members. Check out the video from Question Period in Parliament today. My favourite quote from a member of the opposition NDP: "They tabled the bill this morning now three hours later he's telling me he's got cold feet? What, did he just discover Facebook this morning?"

Re:Discovering Facebook

[ari{Dal}]

I love question period. That is the single best political snipe fest around. And they all have to be so damned polite, even though there's pure vitriol in their tone.

You just can't pay for better entertainment than that. The USA needs to take a page from the parliamentary system. And for you Americans out there, the Prime Minister isn't immune from the verbal sparring either.

likely US reaction

[cpghost]

"Introduce this bill again, pronto, or we'll flatten Toronto!" (Canadian Bacon).

Re:likely US reaction

[Robber Baron]

"Introduce this bill again, pronto, or we'll flatten Toronto!" Please do!

- signed, the rest of Canada.

Re:likely US reaction

[tkw954]

Secretary of State: We were thinking, what could be a bigger threat than aliens invading from space?
General Panzer: Ooh boy! Scare the shit out of everyone. Even me, sir!
U.S. President: Jesus, is this the best you could come up with? What about, ya know, international terrorism?
General Panzer: Well, sir, we're not going to re-open missile factories just to fight some creeps running around in exploding rental cars, are we, sir?

Re:likely US reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, Conrad.

Bill could still be introduced tomorrow

[telso]

As you can see on the Order Paper for Tuesday, the Minister of Industry can still introduce such a bill (with some last minute changes that water down only the most objectionable content, or no changes at all), just like he could yesterday. It'll stay on the "waiting to be introduced list" until it's introduced, or removed. With 4 more days until the holiday break, it should be interesting to watch; I know where I'll be tomorrow morning at 10 a.m....

Oh, of course, as already mentioned, the title and summary of this story are wrong, since a bill that's never been introduced cannot be withdrawn. As usual with editors, YMMV.

Re:Bill could still be introduced tomorrow

[ceoyoyo]

You know, that address has always bothered me. Do they think that Canadians are too stupid to spell "parliament" or do they just want to discourage people from visiting unless they know the secret code ("parl")?

Re:Bill could still be introduced tomorrow

[telso]

I don't know about you, but I like short URLs (not that any pages except top-level ones have short URLs, as evidenced by those links). I also don't like how that page needs the "www" (as you can see, the same being true for Elections Canada). Then again, few people actually go to pages through the URL; they just go to Google, and as you can see, it doesn't take much work to find it (you don't even need "of Canada").

Re:Bill could still be introduced tomorrow

[ceoyoyo]

Requiring the www is a configuration screwup.

I like short URLs too, but not ones that are cryptic. www.parliamentofcanada.gc.ca would be stupid. www.parl.gc.ca is cryptic (what's a parl??) www.parliament.gc.ca, or better, www.parliament.ca would be perfect.

Yeah, you're right. Google rules. Still, if you Google parliament and you ended up with www.parliament.gc.ca I'd be a little more confident I'd gotten what I wanted than if it turned up parl.

Clarification

[Deadstick]

Perhaps a little clarification would help here. In Canada "tabling" a bill means presenting it for consideration. In the States, "tabling" means removing it from consideration until a decision is made to reintroduce it.

rj

Re:Clarification

[theheadlessrabbit]

are you sure about that?

to put a bill on the table, or "tabling a bill" obviously means you want to discuss that particular bill.

you literally place the bill on a table, where everyone can see it, and discuss the bill.

why would anyone possibly put a bill on the table if you wanted to remove it from consideration? that makes no sense. Please don't tell me American English is THAT bad.

Re:Clarification

[NotoriousDAN]

The American parliamentary motion "to Lay on the Table" does in fact mean to remove something from consideration. The slang expression "to table" therefore has the same meaning.

Doesn't look like the Minister responsible...

[big_paul76]

Understands the first thing about the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF_dHu5fRAk

This is a video of Industry Minister Jim Prentice getting ambushed by amateur reporters and bloggers on the way to his riding association's Xmas party, and he comes across not only as not caring about anyone who isn't a CEO, but not really understanding the issue.

He may be our "series of tubes" guy in Canada.

Re:Doesn't look like the Minister responsible...

[EveLibertine]

I like to imagine that this video is an accurate portrayal of what it looks like when Canadians riot.

Re:Doesn't look like the Minister responsible...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the sake of posterity, here's a transcript, as best I could manage.

I'm impressed by how well the Minister didn't answer most of the questions, and referred people to the pending bill ... which is not possible now. I was also impressed by how committed the Minister and government is to fulfilling our 1990s WIPO international treaty obligations, and how concerned he is about criticisms by other nations for dragging our feet, but rather perplexed by the way this enthusiasm doesn't seem to apply to other international treaties of the same vintage (Canada signed that one in 1998). Anyhoo...

-----

Filmed by Andy Doan
Transcript by the Anonymous Coward. Public domain.

[initial part is a reporter (?) asking about responses in French. My French isn't very good, so I couldn't follow the conversation well, but I think the minister was saying that it isn't really possible for him to respond in French. Sorry I can't do any better.]
[~1:09 into 5:56]

Reporter #1: I just wanted to ask you why are you bringing this bill forward?
Minister Jim Prentice: Uh, well the copyright bill is an important bill, it's a piece of framework legislation. Copyright laws that we have in this country right now don't reflect the treaties that Canada signed internationally. Canada has been criticized internationally as one of the countries that signed the so-called WIPO treaties in 1996 and 1997 and has never proceeded with the legislative changes to basically, to uh, achieve compliance with those treaties. Uh, we've been criticized internationally. It's a very significant issue. It's a piece of framework legislation that needs to be updated. The former [Liberal] government, several years ago [2005], attempted bill C-60, um, to achieve WIPO compliance, and, uh, this bill essentially will proceed where that bill left off. That bill died on the order paper several years ago, so, um, the intent is to put a bill forward and then get into a constructive process in a parliamentary committee to examine the issues, to hear from people. If anyone here is interested in speaking to the committee there will be a process, at which point, uh, views will be heard, so.
[talking reporters at same time]
[Different reporter]
Reporter #2: Persuant to ... You were saying we've been criticized internationally. Can you recall, would you tell us, by who we have been criticized?
Minister Jim Prentice: Well, we've, we've been criticized by our treaty/trading partners. We've also been criticized by, uh, different watch groups on, uh, copyright. And I can you as the Minister of Industry, um, virtually every CEO that I've met with has ... who is engaged in high tech industries where intelluctual property ownership is an issue has raised the question with me. And, uh, it's been one of the most pressing issues since I became the Industry Minister. Now, I know there are different thoughts ...
[interruption by reporter and/or other participant, something about "criticisms of WIPO"]
Excuse me. I know, uh, these are difficult issues and, um, we have to work to strike the appropriate balance. And that's why I welcome what the parliamentary committee has to say.
[Mr. Minister can you tell us ...]
[This question was hard to figure out because of background construction noise]
Reporter #1: Can you give me a sense of what you are being criticized for?
Minister Jim Prentice: I'm not aware I've been criticized for anything, actually.
Reporter #1: The bill.
Minister Jim Prentice: The bill hasn't been introduced yet.
Reporter #1: Well, okay, but what are other countries criticising us about? Can you give me a sense of why is it that... [somebody else loudly saying something] something in the current legislation, the current bill, that exists now ... what are they ...
Minister Jim Prentice: Uh, the current sta

Re:Doesn't look like the Minister responsible...

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a video of Industry Minister Jim Prentice getting ambushed by amateur reporters and bloggers on the way to his riding association's Xmas party"

Actually it is a video of Industry Minister Jim Prentice at his open house on Saturday in Calgary (where he "listens" to his constituents). Although it has nothing to do with an Xmas party, I doubt he was expecting the turnout he got anyways.

Last Canadian DMCA thread:

[king-manic]

I keep hearing about how wonderful Canada is, compared to their neighbor to the south, and then stuff like this happens which seems to show no regard for the common citizen at all! -Nom du Keyboard

You'll keep hearing wonderful things because we actually have a fairly highly motivated political class who more or less raises enough outrage to keep laws on the better side of sane. Sometimes it's an uphill battle though. I think this minority government wouldn't risk power over this. Hopefully they'll tone it down so much it won't be a threat or they'll ditch it. - me

I'm glad I was right. At least for the time being. I think it's spreading from the initial alarmist into more politically potent circles now. IT's exactly the sort of legislation Conservative supporters would be against. More importantly the "anybody but the liberals" crowd that brought the conservatives into power would suddenly change into the "anybody but the conservatives" crowd. I'm glad it's a minority government. Minority government seems to do the least damage.

One Guy's Letter

[hyades1]

I certainly didn't make these jackasses change their minds, but I'd like to think my letter may have helped a tiny little bit. For anybody who may want to adapt it for use against the American species of jackass, here it is:

Dear Mr. Prentice:

You are planning to enact a copyright law that has profound implications for my privacy, my property and my wallet. It is based solely on the greed and misrepresentation of industries that have an almost-unparalleled record for perfidy. I cannot believe you are unaware of the flawed assumptions and outright lies the recording and motion picture industries use to inflate their alleged financial losses due to downloading and copyright violation. You are prepared to put the country my family has bled to protect at the service of a venal and corrupt special interest group, and I will not let you do so without consequence.

If you move forward with this, I promise that not only will I vote against your party in the next election, I will work hard to oppose it in every way I possibly can. That includes actively campaigning for a party I would not otherwise support, and approaching my friends in a way I never have before to secure their cooperation in this matter.

Should you proceed, I will do all in my power to end your political career and end your party's leadership of my country.

This e-mail will be followed by a printed letter to your office.

Sincerely,

Dave (Hyades1 sounded too stupid, so I used my real name)

Re:One Guy's Letter

[Samalie]

Similar to my letter...except I went straight to Harper... Mr. Harper, I must state my extreme outrage at the upcoming Copyright Reform Bill as outlined in an article in The Globe and Mail from Tuesday November 27, 2007 (Online Edition). From the article: "And the buzz is that the new law will basically be a copy of the controversial U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." Mr. Harper, the DMCA is a deeply flawed piece of legislation in the United States, and is nothing more than Government bowing to the pressures of Big Business over the freedoms of ordinary citizens. Canadians enjoy many freedoms today with our current copyright laws, including Fair Use, Device Shifting, Time Shifting and parodying copyrighted materials. While I admit that today's technology is causing issues with copyright abuse, the solution is not removing personal freedoms that Canadians enjoy. I in no way, shape or form advocate anyone stealing music, movies, software or any other creative or informational work. However, I cannot condone or support a government which would abandon the very nature of Fair Use. Without proper fair use clauses in place, my quote of the Globe and Mail article above would be considered illegal copyright infringement. This Mr. Harper is unacceptable. I consider even the possibility of Canadian copyright law reflecting the DMCA as a direct slap in the face to ALL Canadians, and I strongly urge your government to scrap any proposed legislation which would mirror the DMCA and come up with a Canadian solution which protects both the copyright holders and the freedoms of Canadians in using creative works fairly. This is an issue I feel extremely strong about, to the point that should your government pass a mirror bill to the U.S. DMCA, I will immediately do everything in my personal power to see the Conservative Government fall. This proposed bill is simply not acceptable to me as a Canadian.

Re:One Guy's Letter

[hyades1]

Excellent letter! I also copied the PM.

With any luck, maybe a few other people will join this thread, and a nice little series of template letters will assemble itself. It would certainly make things a lot easier for people who feel strongly about this issue but don't like to write a lot.

Re:One Guy's Letter

[SupRspi]

I used the letter creator linked from Geists's website. This is what I sent (CC'd to Verner and Prentice): November 28, 2007 Mr. Richard Harris House of Commons Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Dear Sir, I am a constituent who cares about Canada's cultural policy, and I am writing in regard to legislative proposals for "copyright reform." During the last Parliament, Bill C-60 provided some very sensible approaches to this complicated topic, but it also left room for improvement. As you consider the issue of copyright reform, I hope that you will work to ensure that any new legislation is not a regression from the sensible policies set out in Bill C-60. In particular, I do not believe that "digital rights management" (DRM) technologies should stop the public from making lawful uses of their legitimately acquired media. Publishers using DRM push aside the delicate balance between copyright and the rights of the public - a balance set according to an assessment of the public interest by legislators - and replace it with one-sided rules that reflect publishers' private interests. Even artists disagree with publishers' anti-consumer use of DRM, as evidenced by the recently formed Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Therefore, as in Bill C-60, new copyright reform legislation should not make it illegal to circumvent DRM for lawful purposes. I am also concerned that the use of DRM can threaten computer security and consumer privacy, as in the recent Sony-BMG "Rootkit" fiasco. When content companies routinely use technological measures to control how people enjoy entertainment in the privacy of their own homes, I think we need protection *from* DRM more than we need protection *for* it. I am also concerned with rumours of new copyright reform not including strong enough language protecting flexible fair dealing, parody exception, time shifting/device shifting exception and expanded backup provision. It would be unfortunate to see the government seemingly choose locks over learning, property over privacy, enforcement over education, (law)suits over security, lobbyists over librarians, and U.S. policy over a "Canadian-made" solution. These concerns are shared by a substantial and growing number of informed Canadian citizens. I hope that you will take them into account when considering any changes to Canadian copyright law. Thanks very much for your time.\r\n Sincerely, Jeffrey Closs I received a response 2 days later: Dear Jeffrey, Thank you for writing regarding concerns about copyright protections against the circumvention of technological protection measures (digital locks that prevent accessing copyrighted content on certain devices, and/or copying of this content, or "TPMs"), particularly when applied to legitimately acquired music CDs or DVDs. The Copyright Act must continue to support innovation and research while reflecting current technological realities. The Act must also provide adequate protection for copyright holders while promoting access to copyrighted material. Please be assured that the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, are working closely to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to copyright reform, and technological protection measures. Jeffrey, thank you again for taking the time to write, Sincerely, Richard M. (Dick) Harris, M.P. I followed up with: Sir, I appreciate your timely response on this issue. I would like to ask for clarification however, of your position on copyright reform. I understand that a balance must always be maintained between technology and protection of intellectual property - I am an author myself, and copyright is very important to me. That being said - would you say you are for TPM's (technological preventative measures), or against them? Do you believe that a copyright holder, whether person or corporation, has a the right to keep consumers of their work from exercising their fair use rights by locking the work in such a way that unlocking it would

Re:One Guy's Letter

[SupRspi]

My apologies if this posted twice, once ugly. I'm a bit of a /. noob.
I used the letter creator linked from Geists's website. This is what I sent (CC'd to Verner and Prentice):

November 28, 2007

Mr. Richard Harris
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Sir,

I am a constituent who cares about Canada's cultural policy, and I am writing in regard to legislative proposals for "copyright reform."
During the last Parliament, Bill C-60 provided some very sensible approaches to this complicated topic, but it also left room for improvement. As you consider the issue of copyright reform, I hope that you will work to ensure that any new legislation is not a regression from the sensible policies set out in Bill C-60.

In particular, I do not believe that "digital rights management"
(DRM) technologies should stop the public from making lawful uses of their legitimately acquired media. Publishers using DRM push aside the delicate balance between copyright and the rights of the public - a balance set according to an assessment of the public interest by legislators - and replace it with one-sided rules that reflect publishers' private interests. Even artists disagree with publishers'anti-consumer use of DRM, as evidenced by the recently formed Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Therefore, as in Bill C-60, new copyright reform legislation should not make it illegal to circumvent DRM for lawful purposes.

I am also concerned that the use of DRM can threaten computer security and consumer privacy, as in the recent Sony-BMG "Rootkit"
fiasco. When content companies routinely use technological measures to control how people enjoy entertainment in the privacy of their own homes, I think we need protection *from* DRM more than we need protection *for* it.

I am also concerned with rumours of new copyright reform not including strong enough language protecting flexible fair dealing, parody exception, time shifting/device shifting exception and expanded backup provision.

It would be unfortunate to see the government seemingly choose locks over learning, property over privacy, enforcement over education, (law)suits over security, lobbyists over librarians, and U.S. policy over a "Canadian-made" solution.

These concerns are shared by a substantial and growing number of informed Canadian citizens. I hope that you will take them into account when considering any changes to Canadian copyright law.
Thanks very much for your time.\r\n

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Closs

I received a response 2 days later:

Dear Jeffrey,

Thank you for writing regarding concerns about copyright protections against the circumvention of technological protection measures (digital locks that prevent accessing copyrighted content on certain devices, and/or copying of this content, or "TPMs"), particularly when applied to legitimately acquired music CDs or DVDs.

The Copyright Act must continue to support innovation and research while reflecting current technological realities. The Act must also provide adequate protection for copyright holders while promoting access to copyrighted material.

Please be assured that the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, are working closely to determine the appropriate next steps with respect to copyright reform, and technological protection measures.

Jeffrey, thank you again for taking the time to write,

Sincerely,

Richard M. (Dick) Harris, M.P.

I followed up with:

Sir,

I appreciate your timely response on this issue. I would like to ask for clarification however, of your position on copyright reform.

I understand that a balance must always be maintained between technology and protection of intellectual property - I am an author myself, and copyright is very important to me.

That being said - would you say you are for TPM's (technological

Too soon to celebrate...

[mark-t]

Although this delay can easily be seen as good news, it may just be a temporary thing. The article says it remains to be seen whether it has only been postponed, and for exactly how long, but it does not appear to actually be withdrawn at this time. I'm sure that Michael Geist's site will have more information on the subject over the next few days.

Not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to see this legislation vanish from the docket completely. Keep up the good fight.

JDS.

tag !blamecanada is priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

tag !blamecanada is priceless

We win!

[Shadyman]

I, for one, welcome our new letter-writing Canadians. Kidding. I wrote an email to the Minister of Industry, and was just about to mail out a paper copy to him. Looks like I don't have to send it out now. Oh, and a highfive for the use of the !blamecanada tag, and for any /.'ers who took the time to increase the Minister's email box a little bit more over quota.

Proud...

[Braintrust]

... to say that I and a few friends wrote letters and made phone calls this week from our igloos. We Canadians get feisty when you pull this kind of garbage. A battle to be fought again in the coming months though.

Privacy, Fair Use, Free Speech, etc aside.. the positive effect completely overhauling all copyright law would have on the economy would be great. 20-year limit on all rights with an option to renew for another 20 under special conditions. And nothing more.

Anything more is criminal.

En francais!

[Roger W Moore]

Do they think that Canadians are too stupid to spell "parliament"

No they just realize that some Canadians spell it "parlement" and so calling it "parl" is the same stem in both official languages....and before you go making wisecracks about french speaking Canadians just remember that we are asking for the government to listen to us. So we can hardly fault them when they listen to and accommodate an even bigger minority.

Re:En francais!

[ceoyoyo]

Two domains would, of course, be out of the question to support two official languages.

Re:En francais!

[Roger W Moore]

Two domains would, of course, be out of the question to support two official languages.

Yes because then you'd end up with very confusing URLs since the two languages are integrated (at least if they are like all the other Canadian government websites). For example you could link to the english article via the "parlement" domain and vice versa.

See it in action

[cOle2]

It seems Charlie Angus's constituents got their message through. He is the NDP MP for Timmins/James Bay. The Facebook comment is especially good.

http://www.charlieangus.net/houseitem.php?id=70

Contradicting yourself in so short a message

[Anonymous Coward]

You state that you were trolling and then turn RIGHT around and talk about turning what you said around 180. If it's a troll, it's MEANT to be turned around. Trolling requires silly or inflammatory arguments made to get a negative response. Negative means OPPOSITE. Or 180 degrees around.

So can you make up your mind and work out whether you were trolling or telling what you see as the truth.

PS communism is the government owning property. Copyright is the individual being told what they can do with their owned property. Copyright is more closely aligned with communism.

Re:Contradicting yourself in so short a message

[Anonymous Coward]

communism is the government owning property. Copyright is the individual being told what they can do with their owned property. Copyright is more closely aligned with communism.

I don't think it's possible to write 27 words with so many factual errors in it. Bravo.

LOL ROFLM

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think that hitmen will be coming out to steal copyrights?

I had to giggle.

I wonder if Jason Bourne will be resurrected to assasinate JK Rowling to allow the US government to take her books.

Jeesus, there's shitloads more money on shedloads of other things but we don't see boddies falling down all over the place to get them. Killing is kind of illegal, hard to hide and to do it just to get copyrights is ridiculous.

And remember, if it goes PD, the one taking the contract out doesnt get the copyrights either.

Doofus.

Re:LOL ROFLM

[Sique]

It has happened, and it is the reasoning behind the "after death" regulation. Look it up!

They'll Try Again

[Greyfox]

They always try again. If people notice the first time they try to sneak it through again and again until they succeed. They've got nothing but time and billions of dollars.

I think the correct response is every time they try something like this, push to have IP laws relaxed and clarified. Push to add transparency to the government so that the crooked deals to the corrupt politicians will be in the open for all to see. Push to make it impossible for a entity that only exists as a legal fiction to buy the law with billions of dollars. Every time they push, push back harder.

WIPO Treaties Already Contain Loopholes

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually read WIPO's WCT and WPPT treaties you will see that:

1- The treaties have a section allowing for "limitations and exceptions". It is hard to imagine how it could possibly be considered unreasonable to require actual copyright infringement before awarding damages for the circumvention of "technological measures" and to exclude devices with substantial non-infringing uses (think photocopier, think xine, etc).

2- The treaties both warn against the sort of implementation we have been seeing, concluding with "Contracting Parties will not rely on this Article to devise or implement rights management systems that would have the effect of ... prohibiting the free movement of goods or impeding the enjoyment of rights".

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html

Inaccurate Submission

[cyberbian]

The Act to Reform the Copyright Act has not been withdrawn but rather delayed. It is a credit to Canadians and the democratic process that our Minister of Industry is delaying the tabling of this legislation to ensure that there is appropriate public consultation in this matter. I'm thankful that we live in a democratic society where our government is responsive to the people.

It's important for all members of democracies to speak out against the oligarchs who stifle innovation, and entrench dated business models through pumping cash into lobbying efforts. If we are to embrace a 'one world' globalist marketplace, we as the consumers of said market must let the vendors know what acceptable terms of sale are. Digital media in all of its forms is no different than previous incarnations of the same product, where rights were more broad, protected fair use, and consumer control of the purchase under these conditions.

If it is to be, it is up to we.

mods...

[TheSHAD0W]

Redundant, flamebait... The mods here need to watch more movies. :-P

The analogy isn't great

[tkrotchko]

"It would be like doing 10 years of good investing on the stock market, retiring on $10M dollars only to be told 5 years down the track to hand all your capital gains over"

It's not a great analogy really, and I think we all know that. The problem is that an investment is (a) never guaranteed a return (b) and even if it gains in value, it can disappear for no reason whatsoever (c) is taxed. While (a) is certainly true of a song/movie/book, (B) and (C) really aren't true of IP.

I made this comment several years ago... I'd be okay with longer terms for IP, provided it was treated like real property. A valuation is placed on the IP, and it a property tax is applied to it. Right now, IP owners get the best of both worlds... treated like an investment when it's suits the owner, and then treated like property when it suits the owner. And the public is not really getting any value from that.

And let's not forget the intent of IP laws is not to make you rich, it's to encourage you to create more. I wish you make a $billion on your song/painting/book/movie. But it's not the government's job to protect your investment. That's your job. If you're going to be a capitalist, go all the way. Don't stop at the first part!

I believe the mere act of creation doesn't give you any special moral rights. Otherwise, we'd have ditch-diggers getting a stipend every time one of their ditches was used. You'd agree that's ludicrous. But somehow a guy playing a guitar gets special privileges. I would think you'd enjoy the fact that the government/the people have given you that special privilege.

Let's scale things back a bit. Give Copyrights 17 year protection. And you can protect it any way you can. But after that, boom. Your special protection from the government goes away. That seems pretty fair.

Re:The analogy isn't great

[daBass]

The money you make on the market in this analogy is the "product". I.e: I can take $3000 and spend a month at home and end up with a song to sell, or I can put it in the stock market and make some money, which I can then use to make more money to live off.

I do not think IP laws exist for either reason you give. Looking at this from a chicken and egg thing, I doubt some government went: "Hey, how can we make sure there is more art? I know we can create a thing called copyright!". More likely, the creators of easily copied works came bitchin' to the man asking them for a law to stop people ripping off their hard work.

The ditch-digger analogy is absurd, by the way. They spent the value of $10K to dig your ditch and asked you to pay $10K for it, that is work for hire. The guitarists spent the equivalent of $500K recording his album and is selling it for $15 per copy. Maybe only 10,000 people buy it and he makes a loss, maybe 1M people buy it and he makes a lot of money on his risky investment.

IP may also not be directly taxed, but just like anything else you pay tax on any money you make on the investment. The only property that generally is taxed is real estate - it is the exception, not the rule and therefor gives no credibility to the argument that merely owning IP should be taxed.

Re:The analogy isn't great

[tkrotchko]

"I do not think IP laws exist for either reason you give. "

Actually, that's the only reason it exists in the United States. US Law is not concerned with the moral aspects of IP. Here's a good summary here:
      http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/Sweet&Maxwell_1.htm

If you look in the constitution itself, you'll see the U.S. specifically has copyrights/patents to further more creation of IP:
      http://www.conlaw.org/patent_copyright.htm

Here's a key paragraph:
    "Patents and copyrights are grants to the holder, by the state, of monopoly powers, for a specific period of time, for a specific reason. The goal is to provide incentive for invention and art. "

And while certainly you as an IP owner care about making money, society only cares that there is enough incentive to make you produce more.

The Ditch-Digger analogy is exactly apropos, as you seem to be equating hard work and investment with the right for protection. The ditch-digger works as hard as any guitar player, and he has invested everything he has... his time. Therefore his work deserves special protection? Of course not. And yet you're somehow claiming a moral superiority for playing guitar.

That's why the U.S. law does is not concerned with the artist's investment, it's simply an economic protection.

I think the argument that somehow the amount of investment is what deserves protection falls apart as well. If I write a little song in 5 minutes and record in 1/2 and hour and sell 10 Million copies, do I only deserve a little protection because of the amount of time? Or do I deserve the same protection?

The bottom line is that copyright and patents are very special monopolies granted by the government (you can argue they are socialist by nature), and they only reason is because they provide an economic incentive for creative works. No more, no less.

dion needs to grow balls (canadian politics)

[Ralph Spoilsport]

If the Liberal opposition party would just grow some cajones and call an election, we could dump Harper and his cryptofascist dickwad buddies. I know people - even in Texas^H^H^H^H^HAlberta who are totally sick of these assholes. Yeah, the liberals fucked up, but the PC are so stupid and have such a nasty case of cranio-rectal inversion, they make the NDP look competent. (note: I support NDP and Greens - their time will come when the PC disappears and the Liberals become the conservatives, like in Oz.)

We have all the oil and all the water. I'm looking forward to rescinding NAFTA.

RS

Re:dion needs to grow balls (canadian politics)

[udowish]

Lets lets bring back crooked face and the LIEBERALS, they are much better at stealing your money and then lying about it! Socialism is dying in Canada, and thank GOD for that.

Re:dion needs to grow balls (canadian politics)

[Ralph Spoilsport]

aaaa- just move to Texas and get all the cornpone capitalist pigfucker fascism you want ya hoser.

RS

Re:dion needs to grow balls (canadian politics)

[udowish]

WOW! for someone who supports the communists (oops I mean the socialist...oops I mean the NDP) those are some pretty strong words from the tree hugging, put flowers in my hair and hope for the best party. I love Jack, he lives in a nice perfect world where we don't need a military, or police, or jail sentences as everyone is perfect and lovely. We don't need guns at all in fact, lets spend everything we have on trees. Won't that be nice!

He just doesn't live in the same world as the rest of the planet!

Looks like I struck a nerve, you could do worse than voting for the NDP but whoever you want to throw your vote away for is of no business of mine.

Awesome!

[OmegaWolf747]

Props to the people of Canada for standing up for your online rights! If only Americans had done this ten year ago with the DMCA.

Re:Awesome!

[Catbeller]

Amazing how people can affect their laws when they act like informed, involved citizens who participate in their own governmental process rather than cynical consumers who think government is an perncious enemy of mankind. Kudos to Canadians.

We ARE the government. For those few who always complain that we always talk but never do: speech is the tool of revolution, not guns. Guns can hold a man's body in place, but never his mind. We make the world with the words we write and say. The mind is made of symbols. Words are symbols. Governments, businesses, cults can be brought to heel by using the right words in the right places. Words are deeds.

Bah

[PlanetSmashers]

I'm glad public outcry has delayed this bill, but it will most likely be buried deep to be resurrected when no one is looking (potent dark magic, indeed). Our laws regarding this matter are sound, we shouldn't have to listen to pressure from foreign business entities. We seperated from Britian, and now the nation of Universal Music Group (or who ever) has us by our balls? And apparently for nothing, as some music corps (namely Universal) have admitted to handling this whole online distribution in a heavy-handed manner. I'm willing to forgive the corps for terrorizing and sueing our asses off, just abit more gruel please...

Mail works best!

[typicallyterrific]

If you put it through canada post, which requires no stamps, they actually have to respond to you. I can't remember if this only applies to your MP, but either way you force their aides to look through it and type some form of response.

It's up there in the most effective way to reach'em.

When Canadians Attack!

[big_paul76]

Heh, that made me laugh out loud.

Yes, to set the record straight, that is an entirely accurate picture of a Canadian riot. Although you can see by the lack of beer, moose, or hockey sticks that this was a spontaneous riot, not a properly planned and government approved one.

sneaky bastards?

[Ratchet]

The concern I have now, since this bill wasn't actually tabled, is that when it _does_ get tabled it won't generate near as much attention from the public or opposition in the House as it did this time.

In fact (excuse me while I get my Tin Foil hat), this may be all part of a grand plan to actually get this bill to pass...

Yay

[trentgamblin]

I rarely ever write to my MP, but I did this time, so this news makes me feel good.