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.'"
or I wish it was that simple, then we could all chip in $10 and get D.C. flooded with the stuff. Something in Canada seems to be affecting their politics. If we could bottle it I'm certain that an American entrepreneur could make money off of it. Whatever it is, the US desperately needs some of it... well, lots of it.
I've been pleasantly surprised how the Internet has been affecting politics in the US lately, and I hope that it's a long term ongoing effect. I hope that WHATEVER it is in Canada is something that spreads southward like those geese they have, or something.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I am tremendously proud of Canadians for standing up in the thousands to let it be known they do not support the adoption of the failed copyright regime suffered by citizens the United States. Our action has been essential to preventing the adoption of this law - so far.
But we have also been very lucky. The previous government introduced a bill (admittedly not as bad as what is reported to be in the current plans). An election was called before it could become law. Timing may again be on our side: the current minority government is likely to fall in the near future. If so, the clock would probably be reset.
For us to really win this, we need meaningful consultation (i.e. where we not only talk, but the government listens) to ensure the views and interests of all Canadians are taken into account. Very few politicians understand why most Canadians would care - I suspect many of them are not quite sure what to make of the current outcry. Until recently, media stories seldom even reported that the issue had another side. Until our politicians acknowledge the significance of copyright and the public passion over the issue, we must keep fighting.
While I agree with you, I think there is an important point to be made about why this is much more possible in Canada that the US.
In the US 90% of all media are controlled by just six companies; they make virtually all the movies, music, and television seen by Americans. They also have a sizable stake of the ISP business. This gives them both economic motive to accert the kind of control they do, and the muscle to do it (both monetary muscle, and the immense power they can have over public opinion via what they choose to put on the news).
In Canada the situation is very different. We don't have any media conglomerates comparable to those in the states. Our movie industry, after being practically dead for half a century, exists now primarly as a cheap shooting location for American productions. While we have a music industry, in every measurable way foreign, especially American, music has dominated for a very long time. While we have plenty of home grown television stations, except for cbc they tend to show only as much Canadian content as CRTC regulations require; its quite telling that of the top 20 shows in Canada the past few years only two are Canadian (Hockey Night in Canada and Corner Gas), and before Corner Gas became such a hit HNIC spent something like a decade all alone.
In a very real way there is a huge irony to the way American media companies have come to hate Canada. The situation in Canada, where we only produce a tiny fraction of the media we view, is entirely because of economic bullying from American content producers; quite simply they drove Canadian companies out of business. So our media companies have practically no stake in the production of content and as such barely care about things like DMCA. The media companies not having a stake means that not only do they not see draconian measures as not helping them, but it would hurt them in so far as it would create expenses for them with little reward.
On more than one occassion various industry groups in the US have threatened to cut Canada off if we don't do something about copyright infringement. And while I really don't think they have the balls to do it, I think it would benefit us greatly if it did; possibly breathing new life into industries long dominated by American content.
I disagree, for two reasons. One is that, as another poster pointed out, a head of state's job includes a lots of things other than exercising power: hosting state diners, doing good-will tours, giving out awards. Why not keep these roles with a specialized non-political head of state, and separate out the head of government roles (making foreign and domestic administrative policy decisions) into a political position with power.
Secondly, and more controversially, I think that there are great socio-political benefits to having a "figurehead" who represents the state and/or nation. Having spent a fair amount of time living in both the United States and Canada, it is my opinion that the US political culture is actually more suited to a constitutional monarchy than Canada is. There seems to be a sizable group of Americans who have an almost mystical respect for the presidency, treating it as a holy office that must be kept sacred. This can lead to horror and hatred that anyone would question George W. Bush "during time of war" and also to an overreaction to Bill Clinton's sexual affair sullying the presidency. In a constitutional monarchy, such people can worship the office of the head of state without interfering with or polarizing valid political criticism, since the person who gets criticized for making political decisions, the prime minister, does not occupy an office revered as representing the state/nation, in the way that some people view the presidency or monarchy as doing.
As an aside, a large majority of developed, democratic countries has figurehead heads of state, even though most of these countries are republics, not constitutional monarchies. They have a parliamentary system with a prime minister making most executive decisions, but instead of a monarch they have a president, sometimes directly elected by the people (Ireland), chosen by Parliament (Germany), or elected by an electoral college (India). In these systems the president is mostly a figurehead, with about the same power (or even less) than the Queen has in Canada.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.