Slashdot Mirror


Canadians Battling Proposed Canadian DMCA

An anonymous reader writes "CTV reports on how Canadians are fighting back against the Canadian DMCA. Led by Michael Geist, the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group is nearing 90,000 members. There are local chapters, a YouTube contest, wikis, and people writing letters and organizing rallies against the copyright bill. Geist said, 'When you get tens of thousands of Canadians speaking out like this, there's big political risk for any political party who chooses to ignore it.'"

66 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. No Worries by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Prentice and the Tories don't need to worry about voters. I'm sure they've been paid handsomely by American media giants for their co-operation.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:No Worries by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that money only keeps rolling for as long as they have their finger on the button. Ya know, despite everything else, the final say in who gets to take the bribes is with the voters.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:No Worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people with most money to run their campaign win, not the ones that please the most voters.

    3. Re:No Worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That may be true in the US, but in Canada the general public seems to put a little more effort into elections than just voting for the person who has the most signs on front lawns.

    4. Re:No Worries by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, they say you can't buy votes but that's not really true and you know it. Who cares if 2000 knowledgable voters get pissed at you if 5000 clueless voters vote for you instead with your new campaigning budget? It doesn't really matter where and why the vote comes from, a vote is as good as any other. People don't want to hear the truth, they want to hear how you'll make their lives so much better so it's tough to call someone on talking bullshit - even when they're not pimping some lobbyist agenda they are telling you sweet, sweet lies.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:No Worries by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? We didn't even break through 70% of eligible voters showing up in the last election. In some parts of the country it was a lot less. Maybe Canadians are slightly less apathetic than their US counterparts, but only slightly.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:No Worries by mixmatch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you think that the 70% that vote is not representative of 100% of the voting populace? Or, for that matter, that the 30% that did not vote really had anything to contribute to the voting pool. Perhaps the message from voting advocates should not be, "You have an obligation to vote, so go vote." I would think a more appropriate message would be, "We would like for everyone to inform themselves and make an educated decision about the candidates, but if you are unable to do so, by all means DON'T VOTE."

    7. Re:No Worries by Malekin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why should the educated and informed be the only ones represented in parliament? The actions of the government affect the bright and the dumb. You (and I) may think there's a section of the population whose votes we'd be better off without, but the solution is not to discourage them from voting but to encourage them to raise their political awareness. The heart of a representative democracy is every person getting a vote.

      When you have compulsory voting politicians are forced to address issues that matter to their electorate (rather than just the subset who are voters) and people who otherwise would cynically ignore elections are forced to pay attention to their choices and how they will be affected by them.

    8. Re:No Worries by Sepper · · Score: 2

      The English-speaking media had a lot of editorials on the issues (but no 6 O'clock news stories about it)

      The French-speaking media has been *very* quiet on the issue: I saw a 2 article written in 3 months. At least in both cases they gave equal time to Micheal Geist and CMPAA / CRIA

      Nobody around me seems to care about the issue... Yet it will have a lot of very real consequences on own you can use stuff you own.

      The sad thing is: this law is presented has the one that will stop illegal downloading... It might give more power to copyright distributors, but it won't truly stop P2P and such...

      yet, to give more power to these corporations (not even copyright holders, we are talking about copyright distributors), they have to take away mine: I won't be able to do whatever I want with the stuff I bough.

      Whatever I try to bring up this issue around me, I'm getting labeled as a pirate who just wants everything free, yet, I have nothing to do with this sort of behavior. I just want to be a criminal for trying to copy music for a DRM-covered CD to my unlocked Nokia N95. I paid for the damn CD, and I paid for the damn unlocked phone. It this too much too ask?

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    9. Re:No Worries by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You also don't do votes for 75% of the positions we do.

      A fact that I am infinitely grateful for. Electing judges and district attorneys, for example, is pure madness.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    10. Re:No Worries by mrbcs · · Score: 4, Informative
      You are obviously ignorant of Canadian politics. If we are pissed off enough, we do MAJOR damage. Examples:

      1. William Davis, Tory premier of Ontario, who after giving full funding to Catholic schools, was tossed out of office after 40 years of consecutive Conservative rule.

      2. Brian Mulroney, Ronny Reagans buddy, after introducing the Gouge and Screw Tax, had his MAJORITY government reduced to 2 seats in the next election.

      These tories have been warned, enact this legislation and they will be destroyed politically. Harper won't be able to run for village mayor after we're through with him.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    11. Re:No Worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My precise thoughts about encouraging everyone to vote, even if they have no clue about what they are voting on! The obligation should be to find out what they are voting on, what the likely actions of the proposals are, and THEN cast an educated vote.

      Having people who don't have a clue is part of how we got gw bush.

    12. Re:No Worries by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We would like for everyone to inform themselves and make an educated decision about the candidates,
       
      I like to think that I'm a reasonably well-informed and educated person. I take an interest (greater or lesser in a great many things, including politics and the world around us.
       
      I have, in several elections, gone to the polling station, taken my ballot to the little booth and after unfolding it, I re-fold it and return it to the clerk for her to put into the ballot box. I vote, but I make no mark on the ballot at all if, in my opinion, no candidate is worthy of receiving my vote.
       
      And I am Canadian.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    13. Re:No Worries by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps the message from voting advocates should not be, "You have an obligation to vote, so go vote." I would think a more appropriate message would be, "We would like for everyone to inform themselves and make an educated decision about the candidates, but if you are unable to do so, by all means DON'T VOTE."

      How do you know that an "educated decision..." does not equate to "none of the above"? It's perfectly possible to have a set of candidates (even with a large number of candidates) who do not represent the opinions of voters.

    14. Re:No Worries by gmack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually in Canada politicians are not allowed to take donations from corporations and individuals are limited to small donations.

      The problem here is not money it's the previous government signing a treaty that makes something like the DMCA a requirement and the US ambassador lobbying on behalf of the RIAA/MPAA threatening to damage Canada's economy with a trade war.

      The other real problem is that Prentice doesn't have enough of a backbone.

    15. Re:No Worries by brainhum · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other news, Lorem Ipsum was elected Prime Minister of Canada today by a landslide margin.

    16. Re:No Worries by Caged · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you have compulsory voting politicians are forced to address issues that matter to their electorate (rather than just the subset who are voters) and people who otherwise would cynically ignore elections are forced to pay attention to their choices and how they will be affected by them.

      Speaking from experience living in a country that has compulsory voting your opinion is incorrect. Just like non-compulsory voting you have blocs who are dedicated to one party or another and rarely change based on the issues raised at election. Indeed this steady bloc who are forced to vote makes it much harder for a seat to change hands as the candidate or party has to really tick off the electorate for those rusted-on supporters to change their mind and help tumble the incumbent out of power. (Also known as a protest vote). Hence with compulsory voting apart from the protest vote, the other way for change to occur is for the demographic of the electorate to change. Eg, for agricultural seats to acquire a more cosmpolitan community.

      Non compulsory elections seem to be won by those who can encourage the largest number of people to get out there and vote.

      I'm not sure which system is better.

    17. Re:No Worries by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. That's why we vote for people in the first place. So that they can represent us. I personally would find it quite time consuming to educate myself to the point where I could be comfortable voting for 20 different offices. Municipal, Provincial, and Federal are enough for me. I'm electing those people so they can run things, not so they can hold even more elections to get my opinion on a bunch of other stuff.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    18. Re:No Worries by canuck57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These tories have been warned, enact this legislation and they will be destroyed politically. Harper won't be able to run for village mayor after we're through with him.

      But it does show in majority governments in Canada, they are term dictators. The senate is nothing more than old patronage buddies collecting big bucks to rubber stamp things. But fortunately we are in a minority government situation which makes the dictatorship more tenuous.

    19. Re:No Worries by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Informative

      These tories have been warned, enact this legislation and they will be destroyed politically. Harper won't be able to run for village mayor after we're through with him.

      Yeah, but in the meanwhile, they will have enacted it, and you can bet your arse the liberals won't scrap it afterwards. After all, they haven't scrapped the GST as they promised...

      (The GST is a classic case of ideologic stupidity. What the government did was replace a hidden 12% tax with a visible 7% tax, but they so badly explained it that people got to hate it).

    20. Re:No Worries by mrbcs · · Score: 2, Informative
      It was also the arrogance of, "you may have thought that we were gouging and screwing you before, (because of hidden tax) now you'll KNOW when we are.

      I also think that because of this issue and the fact that we now have the internet with which to organize ourselves, we may actually do something about these laws before they become law. As you stated, history has shown that it's far more difficult to remove a law than to fight a bill.

      Prentice was pretty freaked out before Christmas when an impromptu protest was set up in this very forum. Over 40 people showed up at his office the very next day for an Open House and proceeded to quiz him on this bill and his intentions. They thought there was no opposition to this. The were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    21. Re:No Worries by Jardine · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem here is not money it's the previous government signing a treaty that makes something like the DMCA a requirement and the US ambassador lobbying on behalf of the RIAA/MPAA threatening to damage Canada's economy with a trade war.

      Just to be clear, parliament doesn't have to pass a DMCA-style bill. Signing the WIPO treaty is like dating, it's not a commitment to marriage. And even if they decide that they really do want to commit to complying with WIPO, most of the crappy parts of Bill C-61 aren't required under the treaty.

    22. Re:No Worries by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've actually some talk of "None of the Above" as a choice, and if that gets the plurality of votes, then a new election has to be run with a different slate of candidates. In Canada, at least, one of the big flaws is that the political parties hold far too much power over individual candidates, and I think allowing the possibility that the chosen candidate might not only lose, but might actually lose to "None of the Above" might reduce the sometimes very unholy power that political parties hold over candidates.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:No Worries by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      The electorate could indeed keep voting for Conservative and the Liberal minority governments. This would have the effect of eventually bankrupting the major political parties (a good thing in my view) and might lead those parties to some pretty severe institutional changes.

      The fact is that at the moment there seems equal odds of either party forming a minority government. There are simply no chance of either one getting a majority. What that likely means as far as this legislation is concerned is that if either the Bloc or the NDP decide they don't like it, it probably won't go through.

      I have some suspicion, at least, that the whole thing was a stunt. Prentice and Harper know full well that no controversial legislation has a hope in hell of ever getting passed, particularly as all the major parties have increasingly itchy trigger fingers. This probably was nothing more than an attempt to con the US media giants into the belief that the Canadian government takes copyright "reform" seriously, with the full knowledge that the Opposition would, for purely political reasons, suddenly decide that this Canadian DMCA is bad. This is very ironic for the Liberals, as a lot of the groundwork of this bill was done while the Liberals were in power, but because they were reduced to a minority after Chretien was forced from office they didn't have the clout to pull it off. That situation has remained the same ever since.

      The fact is that in a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, a minority government that cannot form some sort of semi-permanent coalition can only remain in power by doing as little as possible. The Conservatives are in a position where they are a minority government with three left-of-center (to one degree or another) parties holding the plurality of votes, I'll be more scared if we get a Liberal minority government, because they'll form a coalition with the NDP, probably bribe over a few more centrist Conservatives and get themselves a functioning majority voting bloc, and will then happily sell us all down the river with some new version of this horrible copyright legislation.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Curse you Young People F***ing Movie! by file_reaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    I knew the title of that movie would just bring trouble!

    SEE! See how things are turning out?!

  3. Political Repurcussions by mochan_s · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone know who in the US elected government caused the US DMCA to happen?

    So, if even slashdot users can't remember who caused the original DMCA to happen, what hope is there that any Canadian politicians would be worried?

    1. Re:Political Repurcussions by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that this doesn't seem to have any escape path. Or rather, it doesn't matter what side you vote. The (new) Republicans are for big government and cracking down on whatever perceived crime exists, not to mention that "those intarwebs" and the uncontrolable spread of information, opinion and propaganda is usually not really something the new kind of Rep enjoys.

      The Democrats otoh have traditionally good ties with Hollywood and the media.

      In other words, you're fucked either way. The DMCA is on both sides' agenda.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Political Repurcussions by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's because there really is only one side in US politics, the one with the money.

      As long as TV advertising is the way to get voters this will not change.

    3. Re:Political Repurcussions by multisync · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the wiki article on the DMCA says "Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998" so I must have been mistaken. I thought I had heard something around the time of the MPAA vs 2600 case, but apparently not.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    4. Re:Political Repurcussions by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998...

      Well, that does it. I'm definitely not voting for Bill Clinton this November.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Political Repurcussions by ehintz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps I can explain why you recall a level of sneaky-ness. At the time it got very little attention, as everyone was breathlessly awaiting more news about BC getting a blow job or diddling Monica with cigars... Certainly the dog and pony show drew attention away from the geeks crying foul.

      --
      ehintz
  4. Facebook group counts ... by Blade · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have we really entered an age where the number of people who join facebook groups are used as some kind of measure?

    Half the people I know on facebook join whatever the hell their friends join, or click anything they can to get the alerts to go away.

    Seriously - really?

    1. Re:Facebook group counts ... by ozphx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      90000 is a far cry from such popular groups as:

      "If one million people join I will name my son Batman"

      "If ninety thousand people join I will shave the slashdot logo into my pubes"

      "Forty million people for anti furry discrimination"

      In this modern age, having less than a hundred thousand indicates that nobody really cares.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    2. Re:Facebook group counts ... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >In this modern age, having less than a hundred thousand indicates that nobody really cares.

      Canada has a smaller population then the state of California.

      Try putting two and two together and see how 90,000 comes together. 200 people can enact policy change in Canada.

      Sadly, most people don't seem to get that there are very 'large' countries that have very small populations. I realize this is a large concept to grasp but policies work different in other parts of the world.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Facebook group counts ... by Doggabone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Caveat: There's a lot that I don't know well, but I'm going to spout off about some of it anyway.

      Have we really entered an age where the number of names on a petition are used as some kind of measure?

      Of course a petition is "some kind of measure" - and that's hardly new. At the very least, it's a list of people who DIDN'T tell the petition writer to f*** off. It would be shocking if petitions had become some kind of final arbitrating value, or were given equal credence as polls, or letter writing campaigns, or the ultimate poll - voting.

      Obviously petitions can't be given any kind of absolute authority, but still they indicate that there's more than one crazy with a vote out there that might hate you. That's worth considering, if you're in politics. And a Facebook group doesn't end with the petition - there are 90,000 communicating to each other, receiving updates, and already connected in case someone wants to mobilize on the issue. It's certain that most of them won't - but it's also certain that many of them will.

      You should see the look on peoples faces when I tell them that the Bell Canada is promoting a new feature on their PVR which would be illegal under the new law. Or that the proposed law is such that the record labels will have the teeth to decide which CDs they can copy to their MP3s. Mostly, all I need to say is "like the American DMCA, and maybe worse", and the light goes on. On every petition are names of people who will work damn hard to sway votes when the time comes ... a large petition or Facebook group is something an intelligent politician must consider. It is a measure of collective will in the voting populace.

      And unlike the "One Million Potato Lovers Can't Be Wrong" groups, this one hasn't just popped up and filled right away - it's been growing steadily over weeks, which hints to me and may suggest to a politico that people are considering the issues and getting on board. Those people might have decided to vote based on the issue. It's not final, it's not quantifiable, but it's also not insignificant.

      Specifically to the significance of this petition/group - there's a Canadian federal election coming (not yet announced, but imminent). It's going to be nasty. They're going to be measuring and gauging the collective sensibility by every marker they can get their hands on.

  5. its for their own good by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The government will just ignore them and do what they want, as the people are too stupid to know what is right.

    ( yes thats sarcasm, but its also what the 'man' will do if given a chance )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  6. No conspiracy theory here by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite the conspiracy theories you're likely to hear about this, the reason why the DMCA sailed through Congress is the same reason it'll sail through Canada's legislative process... media companies are responsible for a nice chunk of GNP (and whatever they call it in Canada), and neither side, liberal or conservative, is willing give up that wealth. And both sides believe that things like high technology for consumers and piracy is a danger to their broadcasters and publishers.

    The reason opponents are going to lose on this is that all major parties will be on board with the copyright holders. And average voters don't give a rat's ass about copyright reform crusades.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:No conspiracy theory here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The legislation has already been delayed once due to public pressure. Any more broad but inaccurate sour grapes from the American peanut gallery?

    2. Re:No conspiracy theory here by GodKingAmit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually in Canada the official opposition (Liberals) and our left-wing party (NDP) have come out in opposition to this bill. The inability for corporations to donate to federal political parties helps eliminate some of the more obvious forms of bribery. (All parties past a certain threshold are funded using tax dollars - there are also very low limits on individual contributions and no contributions at all from corporations/unions/etc)

    3. Re:No conspiracy theory here by BPPG · · Score: 3, Informative

      sail through Canada's legislative process...

      I think you're overestimating the Canadian legislative process, since the Bill itself will be set onto the back burner for maybe the next year or so before actually passing, assuming the government doesn't dissolve into another election and will have to be backburner'd indefinitely. There was almost a couple of times just this summer a Vote of no confidence was brought up.

      Liberal and Conservative are indeed the two dominant parties, but they must try their best to cater to voters from other parties (like a Bloc Quebecois supporter who votes for PC while waiting for Bloc to get more power). This is really counter-intuitive, but it's literally impossible to pigeonhole Canadians into two groups, and the both the liberals and conservatives need support of non-party supporters, otherwise they won't get a majority government. (By contrast, PC currently has a minority government, meaning that they've won less than half of the seats available during the last election). Please correct me if I messed up one of these details above, but that's basically federal party politics in summary.

      The whole technology and corporations thing isn't as cut and dried as that either. For example, Sony is somewhat opposed to this, since details of the Bill-C61 will means less sales of their DivX television player. But at the same time, Sony represents many label whose interests may be protected by the Bill. So Sony's been mostly passive. Microsoft, on the other hand, is basically threatening to lay off a bunch of workers in Canada, since it's not in their interest to operate as heavily here.

      I'm opposed to the bill myself, but I'm optimistic that it will be shut down, maybe occasionally to be rewritten and rear its ugly head again.

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    4. Re:No conspiracy theory here by fyoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually in Canada the official opposition (Liberals) and our left-wing party (NDP) have come out in opposition to this bill.

      That doesn't mean that the Liberals will vote against it. They may sit on their hands or run away as they have for past votes. Perhaps a historian of Canadian politics could say whether there was ever a wimpier opposition. I doubt it.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    5. Re:No conspiracy theory here by PFAK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last I heard Liberals were supporting copyright reform, including the previous Bill C-60 that they themselves tabled before their government came crashing down.

      Please provide proof otherwise?

      --

      Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
    6. Re:No conspiracy theory here by doktor-hladnjak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The situation isn't really all that different in the States and it still got passed here. In Canada, basically you can't give more than $1000 per year to a candidate. In the US, the amount is $2300 per election (primary and general are separate). In both countries, contributions by corporations and unions are not allowed. In the US they can form PACs from their employees/members, but I'm not sure if something similar exists in Canada.

      In the end though, I think it has little to do with direct bribing and more to do with ignorance. Media companies lobby both governments about how these laws need to be passed to reign in copyright infringement so that their revenues (and the gov't tax revenues) can stay high.

    7. Re:No conspiracy theory here by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Despite the conspiracy theories you're likely to hear about this, the reason why the DMCA sailed through Congress is the same reason it'll sail through Canada's legislative process... media companies are responsible for a nice chunk of GNP (and whatever they call it in Canada)

      That's not really true.

      The value of RIAA members' shipments (not sales) in 2007 was $10.37 billion.
      The value of MPAA members' U.S. domestic box office and home video sales in 2007 was $37.44 billion ($40.92 per person box office + $118.39 per person home video times 235 million adults).

      U.S. GDP in 2007 was $13.6 trillion, so together the RIAA and MPAA comprise 0.35% of the U.S. economy. For comparison, the MP3 player market in the U.S. for 2007 was an estimated $5.4 billion. That's just MP3 players, never mind accessories, home audio systems, headphones, car stereos, etc.

      If they were a Fortune 500 companies, the MPAA's movie-related sales would come in at #62, and the RIAA's members would come in at #256. They wield so much power because they make a disproportionately high amount of campaign donations.

    8. Re:No conspiracy theory here by Sepper · · Score: 2, Informative

      My own MP (Liberal) told me that they will vote *for* it... but won't allow to go on without major changes... They are not opposed to the bill itself , but how it's written.

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    9. Re:No conspiracy theory here by Random+Guru+42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      With the way that the Tories and Libs are both gearing up for fall elections, we might just end up being lucky and seeing a far more reasonable bill show up in the 40th legislature.

      --
      Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
    10. Re:No conspiracy theory here by Cecil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the point in bringing down the government if the end result is to end up where you started?

      Well, some would say principles but we all know there's no room for that in politics.

  7. It needs to be said... by Dzimas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Michael Geist is a shining example of why academics are critically important in society - and why governments detest them. His running analysis of bill C-61 has been eloquent, straightforward and polite. He has earned a loyal following be clearly explaining what the flaws of the legislation are and how they will impact Canadians in everyday use (for example, how the Government is touting the clauses that grant timeshifting and device shifting rights while glossing over the fact that other parts of the legislation effectively neuter consumer rights where DRM is involved).

    Dr. Geist's blog posts and editorials in several major Canadian newspapers encouraged me to write to several members of parliament after a lifetime of political apathy. More importantly, I've done my best to explain the legislation's flaws to others, too, in the hope that they will take action. Several have, also for the first time.

  8. My MP is ignoring it... by mykepredko · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've written a couple of emails and talked to his office manager about the issue and asked why the Liberal party is not making this a confidence motion. It's bad legislation and bad for the country.

    For anybody else in Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Toronto South-West), please drop a line to Michael Ignatieff and let him know what you think.

    Thanx,

    myke

    1. Re:My MP is ignoring it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You don't want this to be a confidence motion. When you do that, there's suddenly a whole lot more riding on the passage of the bill than the actual legislation. MPs and parties will think twice before voting against it if it means triggering an election, and it greatly increases the degree to which the parties will get their MPs to toe the party line.
      With a non-confidence vote, MPs are far more likely to vote on the actual merits of the bill, and what their constituents have expressed to them.

    2. Re:My MP is ignoring it... by TheBig1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wrote a real letter to my MP (who happens to be Stephen Harper himself) expressing my disagreement with this bill. He replied with the standard form letter listing all the 'benefits' of the bill, and how my life will be so much better when it passes. I am seriously thinking of writing back saying that I was not asking for his opinion, I was telling him mine, and that if the bill passes, I will never vote Conservative again. (No need to mention that I have not voted conservative yet...).

      This guy and his corrupt party just make me mad...

    3. Re:My MP is ignoring it... by Random+Guru+42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should. And don't just write, but phone and email and while the House is out, visit the constituency office even without an appointment. Get on Harper's ass about it.

      It might not do much, but you'll feel better, and he might actually have second thoughts if he's planning to make it a confidence issue or otherwise gun it through Commons.

      --
      Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
    4. Re:My MP is ignoring it... by schon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Three critical steps:

      1. Reply, pointing out that their standard form letter is full of lies and half-truths (maybe point out a few of them.)

      2. Send copies of the letter to the NDP and Liberal candidates in your riding (or the head of their parties if you don't know who they are.)

      3. BE VERY BLUNT AND LET HARPER KNOW YOU'RE CC'ING THE OTHERS.

      The third part is the most important - it makes it much harder for him to ignore you if other people who want his job are aware they have something to attack him with.

    5. Re:My MP is ignoring it... by TheBig1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thank you (and the others who replied) for your encouragement. Here is my reply letter:

      The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
      House of Commons
      Ottawa, Ontario
      K1A 0A6

      Re: Bill C-61

      Hello Mr. Harper,

      I had written you last month to voice my concerns about bill C-61, and inform you that I was not in agreement with it as currently constituted. I have just received a standard form-letter reply to my initial letter, listing all of the 'benefits' which are to be included with this new proposed law, and how it is "made-in-Canada" with all sorts of benefits to Canadians.

      You have obviously either missed my point, or chose to ignore it. I was not requesting propaganda on this bill - I was writing to inform you (as my representative) of my opinion. To re-state the major point in my previous letter, the most important of my concerns is included here.

      The major loophole which you have managed to include in the bill, but which you continually ignore in all your official propaganda, is the DRM exception: if any copyright holder includes any digital rights management on the content, all your rights as a consumer, which this bill would give you, are void. To quote Michael Geist: "The Canadian DMCA allows every single exception to copyright to be eliminated by adding DRM: whatever the law allows you to do, a corporation can take away, just by using DRM to prevent you from doing it. Breaking DRM is illegal, unless you fit into a tiny, narrow, useless exception for security research."

      Let me reiterate on this point: I am opposed to bill C-61, and I refuse to vote for any politician who supports it. If you and your party continue to bring forward and support bills of this nature, you will lose yet another voter from the "Conservative West".

      I am copying this letter to my local, non-Conservative MPs, as well as the heads of the opposition parties, in the hope that they will encourage their parties fulfill their responsibilities, and oppose such blatant disregard of the wishes of their constituents.

      Respectfully Yours,

      <signed>

  9. Re:print page by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 3, Funny

    It was already on one page, karma whore.

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  10. Educated and Informed -- about issues. by Safiire+Arrowny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think he means educated and informed about the issues they're voting for, not IQ or whether they're 'school' educated.

  11. Canada is a democracy by Rix · · Score: 4, Informative

    If Canadian politicians don't respond to the wishes of their constituents, they have the option of replacing them. The current ruling party, for example, is only about 20 years old.

    It's not comparable to the US system where Democrats have a monopoly on the left and Republicans on the right.

    1. Re:Canada is a democracy by LoveGoblin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The current ruling party, for example, is only about 20 years old.

      I think by "20" you mean "5".

    2. Re:Canada is a democracy by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 2, Informative

      The current Governing party, the Conservative Party of Canada, is only fiver years old.

      The Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance merged in October of 2003.

      --
      52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
    3. Re:Canada is a democracy by Rix · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Reform Party was founded in 1987. Sure, they change their name every 5 years or so, but still.

    4. Re:Canada is a democracy by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And to those of you who think this is rhetorical:
      In the 60's, one presidential candidate supported a guaranteed income of 1,200$ per year minimum to every citizen, regardless of whether they worked or not. (That was enough to buy a new Mustang convertible back then). That same candidate supported government price fixing for all major commodities, and worked hard to establish closer ties with a major communist country once elected. That candidate had a plan to fix up decaying inner cities that would have assigned up to five union carpenters, electricians and plumbers just to training roles for each new laborer inducted from the local areas into those unions, with most of the actual work being done by the local hires (and this plan failed to be implemented only because the unions wanted even more trainers per new hire and another politician promised them up to a 17 to 1 ratio). That same candidate ran on a promise to pull troops out of an unpopular war, and did so. He set time tables for withdrawing and winding down the war in many cases, and was widely characterized as being out of touch to the far, far right when he insisted upon keeping even some of his plans for withdrawing secret.
              That candidate was Richard Nixon, the guy seen then as moderately right of center only because Barry Goldwater was 'even farther right'. By todays standards, Nixon would score about as far left as Dennis Kucinich or Ted Kennedy, maybe even farther.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  12. Re:Property rights will trump the democratic proce by ZippyKitty · · Score: 2

    I do know that Canada is a representative democracy like the US,

    Actually we are technically a constitutional monarchy... not that the difference is relevant for this discussion.

    Why do you think the government pointed machine guns at the union protesters back in the early 20th century? Because if the status quo were changed it would go against what the founding fathers envisioned! A representative democracy is set up to protect property rights first so that the capitalist class can maintain control, then human rights and the democratic process come second.

    So, yes, the Canadian DMCA will pass if Canada is much like the USA in this regard.


    I think that Canada isn't like US as much in this regard. Traditionally we have been more socialist, with more emphasis on the rights of the worker. So while corporations have an obscene amount of control... I think the individual voters have a little more say than in the US.

    I agree with the analysis that this will probably die on the order paper. Harper is so spoiling for an election it isn't funny.

    ZK

    --
    Time flies like an arrow Fruit flies like a banana
  13. It's funny what you get used to. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It just struck me, reading this thread, how really fucked up the implied procedure at work here is.

    We have a bill, moving forward, over which the citizenry seems to be divided between those opposed and those apathetic. And, nevertheless, the bill has a credible shot at passing, and this is treated as a fairly unremarkable occurrence. The fact that legislation can happen, in absence of popular support, unless some(large) quantity of displeasure materializes, is a seriously broken imitation of representative government.

    It shouldn't take mass protest to kill legislation that has near zero popular support, it should simply die as a matter of course. How did we come to accept a situation where that isn't the case?

  14. That's a rather wide definition of "merged" by Rix · · Score: 2, Informative

    It would be more accurate to say the Progressive Conservative Party was purchased by the Reform Party, which was founded in 1987.

  15. To quote the Letter the Parent Linked: by plasmacutter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Liberal MP Marlene Jennings, who serves as the party's deputy house leader, has been sending the following letter to concerned constituents about Bill C-61. The letter, which is the most substantive that I have seen, is posted in its entirety with permission.

    Thank you for your letter concerning Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. Over the last few months I have made a concerted effort to better inform myself of all of the issues associated with copyright reform in Canada. In this vein, I joined the Intellectual Property (IP), Anti-Counterfeiting and Anti-Piracy Parliamentary Caucus. Through the meetings and consultations held by this group I came to the conclusion that reform of our copyright legislation will, I hope, have the following principles at its core:

    1) Anti-circumvention measures and penalties must be linked to the efforts of those who violate copyright for commercial purposes, and not just the technology itself;

    2) Provisions for flexible fair dealing. Fair dealing creates a limited number of exceptions, including private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting to charges of infringement.

    3) It would also incorporate a fair and well defined 'notice and notice' system, which involves a notification from a copyright holder - often involving movies, software or music - claiming that a subscriber has made available or downloaded content without authorization on file sharing systems. The Internet Service Provider forwards the notification to the subscriber but takes no other action - it does not pass along the subscriber's personal information, remove the content from its system, or cancel the subscriber's service. It falls to the subscriber to remove the infringing content (if indeed it is infringing) voluntarily.
    In assessing the degree to which Bill C-61 incorporated these basic principles, I compared it with the previous Liberal government's proposed copyright Bill - Bill C-60 - which was introduced in June of 2005. Bill C-61 incorporates the same 'notice and notice' requirements as Bill C-60.

    Though C-61 appears to offer more flexibility on fair dealing, in banning circumvention technology the means to legitimately copy or change formats is torn from the hands of legitimate users. Thus, the section of the bill banning legitimate anti-circumvention technology needs to be eliminated and replaced with something that experts in the field would feel is more appropriate in allowing a greater deal of flexibility in fair dealing. I hope that these changes will be developed during the committee's study of the bill.

    In Bill C-60 (clause 27, new subsection 34.02(1)) anti-circumvention penalties required that circumvention be for the commercial purpose of infringing copyright, for example reproduction or communication of the work, whereas Bill C-61 (clause 31-new subsection 41.1(1)) prohibits circumvention in general and does not require infringement of an economic right in the work (thus circumvention alone is deemed an infringement). The bill prohibits picking the digital locks (often referred to as circumventing technological protection measures) that frequently accompany consumer products such as CDs, DVDs, and electronic books. Under the new bill, transferring music from a copy-protected CD to an iPod could violate the law. So too could efforts to play a region-coded DVD from a non-Canadian region.

    Even the few exceptions to anti-circumvention measures in the bill are deceptive since the software programs needed to pick the digital lock in order to protect privacy or engage in research are prohibited. This is a part of the bill I hope will be amended when the bill gets to committee so that only deliberate infringement of commercial copyright is punished, not the possession of the technology to do so.

    As you can see, this is a highly technical piece of legislation, and I will have to study it more closely. While it is my hope that the Conservatives will send this bill to committee for further study and changes b

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  16. Americans need to stop with the cynicism already! by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In canada, the MSM has given this issue pervasive coverage, and most of it from Geist's point of view (e.g. it's the worst thing since Hitler's Germany)

    Granted it's had a little while to cool down since introduction, but that while has been rife with op-ed's and official stories ripping it a new one.

    This includes big tv news, and many local print publications.

    according to the end of this video, some MP's are actually making this bill a major campaign issue.

    Imagine if feinstein were suddenly bombarded for a month straight with nothing but reporters and constituents asking why she's selling them out to hollywood through letters, print, and live tv.

    Dont belittle these efforts, they're actuall making headway there!

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!