Canadian Politicians Reverse Course On DMCA

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that the two Canadian Ministers responsible for copyright seem to have reversed course on copyright and now appear to oppose a Canadian DMCA. At a government event this week, Industry Minister Tony Clement spoke of how things have changed and of the need for consultation, while Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore emphasized the great potential of the Internet and how older politicians often don't get it."

Comments

They didn't necessarily reverse course.

[Ragingguppy]

We have to look at this in the context of whats going on in the Canadian parliament. They are a minority government and they don't want to necessarily do anything stupid that would alienate half the population. So they have decided to not go forward with that legislation. They may decide to go ahead anyways. Right now they are consulting not with the public but with so called most successful CEO's in industry. Which means that they are just going tow the party line and not do anything all that innovative. So put your faith in the snakes that are the Canadian politicians. They are bigger liars then George W Bush.

Re:Of course older politicans don't get it.

[skreeech]

Our TV/Radio has some rules about a certain amount of Canadian content. Example, we see and hear Canadian bands in disproportionate amounts - which would be ok if not for nickleback being Canadian.

Re:Of course older politicans don't get it.

[Opportunist]

Hey, it could be worse, Celine Dion could still be in fashion. Or Shatner could decide to make another CD.

Re:Conservatives doing the right thing?

[thirty-seven]

But the media companies still have money, and so after the next election, when once again the contributors' favours are to be repaid, they'll be pulled back off the shelf no matter who wins. Just you wait.

Do you know about the restrictions on campaign contributions in Canada at the federal level?

Any individual who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada may make these contributions:

• up to $1,000 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party
• up to $1,000 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party
• up to $1,000 in total to a candidate for a particular election who does not represent a registered political party
• up to $1,000 in total to the contestants in a particular leadership contest

• [405(1)]

The Act provides for maximum contribution limits of $1,000, subject to an inflation adjustment on April 1 of each year. On January 1, 2007, the contribution limits were adjusted by the April 1, 2006, inflation factor and therefore established at $1,100.

So if you want to "buy off" a party or candidate, you can give only $1,100 to the political party and $1,100, in total, distributed among the candidates to whom you want to donate for that party. A "leadership contest" is held, at most, every few years within a party to choose a party leader.

The following are ineligible contributions, either monetary or non-monetary:

• contributions from individuals who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
• contributions from corporations
• contributions from trade unions
• contributions from unincorporated associations
• contributions in excess of the contribution limits set out in the Act

I added the emphasis in this quotation. So I'm not sure what "favours" the media companies, with all their money, can use to get repaid. I'm sure that bribery can and does happen on occasion, but the amount that the parties spend in elections is also monitored and reported, so I'm not sure how such "favours" could swing an election enough to need to be repaid. Federal politics in Canada aren't like in the US, where some forms of bribery are legal and common.