Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Delays to Canadian DMCA Could Doom Act

Posted by Zonk on from the getting-late-in-the-day dept.

Jabbrwokk writes "Michael Geist reports legislation to create a Canadian version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been delayed again, possibly because of massive public outcry, and possibly even because of opposition from the industry itself. Canada's biggest ISPs have banded together to oppose the proposed new legislation and suggest their own solution, which include allowances for expanded fair dealing, private copying, no liability for ISPs and legislation that concentrates its wrath on commercial pirates instead of penny-ante downloaders and seeders.'"

5 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Once more ... by kpoole55 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The monarchy is only a figurehead. We control our own constitution now. And, it sounds like the government might actually be listening to the people at times other than when an election is due.

  2. Re:Once more ... by Vectronic · · Score: 3, Informative

    I Agree, however in this case you are wrong...

    We dont pay the Queen anything, she is simply a Figurehead... consider her the Eagle to the US... you dont pay the Eagle anything, hell you are killing them all... but you still put the damn thing on anything you can find...

    However, we do pay for whatever she needs when she is actually within our Borders, ie: "All Expenses Paid"... transportation, housing, protection, etc, etc.

  3. Re:Wishful thinking.... by Gorshkov · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wishful thinking. Unfortunately, the reality of practice is that the "public" has no say in these matters. More likely is that different big-money factions haven't yet decided how to portion the money up.
    Actually, NOT wishful thinking. One of the major differences between Canada and the USA is how parties & campaigns are financed. Personal donations ONLY are accepted - corporate & organizational money is strictly verboten. And in practical terms, the limits on campaign spending are so tight that pretty well any candidate with a hope in hell of winning is able to raise all the money they're allowed to spend from the voters in their riding.

    A lobby group my have more "access" to the lawmakers, by virtue of the fact that they have their offices in Ottawa .... but they can't really buy, or even rent the politicos .... their only weapon is persuasion. Because the politicians know that at the end of the day, the ones who WILL fund their campaign, and/or vote for them, are the people in their riding. Period.
  4. Re:Its the beer stupid by yesteraeon · · Score: 5, Informative

    I certainly agree that we're not quite as bad off as the U.S. with their two party system, but you've overstated the case quite a bit. First of all, at the federal level there are only 3 national parties that actually win seats in the House (I'm not sure where you got 4-5 from). Secondly, only two parties -Liberals and Conservatives- have ever controlled the federal government. Lastly, as much fun as it was to watch the Conservatives implode in 1993, that event left us with only the Liberals having a realistic shot at winning elections. As a result, we basically had a ONE party system from 1993-2004. Which, as far as democracy goes, is pretty bad.

  5. Re:Its the beer stupid by Telvin_3d · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just to note, the only bills that can bring down the government are budgets. They can also designate other bills as a non-confidence bill when they want to signal that the other parties better be serious if they want to oppose it. No one is going to bring down the government and trigger an election over a minor bill.