Slashdot Mirror
Delays to Canadian DMCA Could Doom Act
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.'"
If the law were fair, making a copy of any copyrighted work on media bought in Canada would be totally legal.
We basically have, the Queen (and/or 'Future King') is a figurehead, and little more...
The extent of her power is basically just being able to bitch if she wants to, but we dont have to actually listen to her.
"The Canadian constitution places the Queen as head of state, and all Canadian laws and treaties must be approved by her. In reality, an appointed governor acts as her representative, and for all intents and purposes, decisions made by the Canadian parliament are never opposed. Thus, the Queen exercises virtually no political power in Canada."
We even excerised this during WW2... "Oh Britain is declaring War?... we'll wait"... sure it was only a day, but if the Queen/King had actual power over us that would have caused quite the turmoil.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Yes, a copyright levy is collected on CD-Rs and other media to compensate artists for personal copies of musical works, which is permitted under the Copyright Act. If I borrow a friend's music CD and copy that CD on to media purchased under the levy then I have broken no law. The caveat is a person must make the copy for themselves; you cannot make the copy for a friend and then give it to them. Of course, there is absolutely no way of determining this.
Biggest difference in Canada? We have a habit of tossing out political parties that piss us off. We can get away with it because there are 4-5 major parties active at any one time, so easy enough to out with the old and in with the new. And there is always a couple parties that have to compete to be the new big dogs.
.6% (2 out of 295). Do that once or twice and your politicians will get the message.
And when we get rid of a party, they are gone. In 1993, one of the Conservative parties passed unpopular tax laws. They went from controlling 57% of the seats to controlling
I think this parallel between the monarchy/figureheads in Canada and the eagle in the US is being taken just a little too literally now.
I think the main reason for the saner laws in this parliament is due to the minority. If any party has a majority we'll get some pretty crazy bills passed through the House. IMHO we should just keep minority governments around forever - it keeps legislation sane and relatively nonpartisan.
Well, right now we have the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. That makes 4. In the past decade or so, there was the Reform party and the Alliance. If you go back into the 80s and 90s I think you can add another one or two that had seats in parliament. Heck, the Green party tends to come close to a seat or two each election. Also always a few independents with seats.
Yeah, and look what happened to the Liberals when they got comfortable. I don't think the number of parties in control matters quite as much as having the afraid for their jobs.
I think the fact that Canadians actually have a law to make it illegal to engage institutionalized bribery doesn't make it impossible to influence government through money... It just means the US have been needing such a tool for years, and managed not to get it.
Having the tool won't remove ALL bribery... But without the law, it just means the bribery(ahem "Lobbying") is legal... I just wish I understood why most US citizens have been so convinced their system is superior for so long that when someone shows them an idea they can use, they refuse to even consider the matter...
I double-dog dare them to. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating 26-million easily-accessible customers (English-speaking Canadians). But, more importantly, they wouldn't do it because they know that their rhetoric is bullshit.