Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canada's Copyright Notice Fiasco: Why the Government Bears Responsibility

Posted by timothy on from the state-is-never-your-friend dept.

An anonymous reader writes Canada's copyright notice fiasco, with false and misleading notices being sent to thousands of Internet users, has attracted growing attention with the government promising to address the issue. This morning, Michael Geist posts internal government documents that show that the government was aware of these risks before launching the system, but did nothing about it. The documents show that the government decided to forge ahead with the system without any regulations, despite repeated warnings that additional rules on the scope of the notices was needed.

73 comments

  1. In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA:

    "... the government was aware of these risks before launching the system, but did nothing about it. The documents show that the government decided to forge ahead with the system without any regulations, despite repeated warnings that additional rules on the scope of the notices was needed ...

    In other words, the Canadian government is either a psychopath, or the Canadian government enjoys the citizens to get screwed

    If there is a sentence I could tell the Canadian government it would be " FUCK YOU !! "

    1. Re: In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Living in Canada, while gov't policy is not perfect, I think we have it pretty good. Imagine we did things like the US? Think DMCA...

      Let's push the gov't to fix this minor hiccup. Also, lets support TekSavvy for fighting this in court.

    2. Re:In other words ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's a blogger on Canadian constitutional matters that actually has a good description of the Tories; he calls them "lazy revolutionaries". The Tories seem full of all this desire to reform various aspects of the Canadian government, but seem too lazy to actually do the legwork. That's how they end up in fiascos like the copyright notice incident.

      While some ascribe malice to the Tories' actions, it's become very clear to me, particularly during the years of the majority government, that while maliciousness may play a part in some of what they do, a good deal of what they do is just simply incompetent.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re: In other words ... by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      TSI isn't fighting it - they just said get a court order and pay our costs (as they should). The fight is up to the Does.

    4. Re:In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Hanlon's razor

    5. Re:In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian, I have to agree with you. Our Prime Minister is a fraud who is too busy misleading the country that competence falls by the wayside.

    6. Re:In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, the equivilant of american democrats

    7. Re:In other words ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Because the GOP overfloweth with talent...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:In other words ... by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While some ascribe malice to the Tories' actions, it's become very clear to me, particularly during the years of the majority government, that while maliciousness may play a part in some of what they do, a good deal of what they do is just simply incompetent.

      Quite likely, given that the Stephen Harper Party basically is like that. You see, the real reason why the Tories are so successful is because of Stephen Harper. He rules from the top down. This means his messaging is EXTREMELY effective because no one is allowed to speak out of line. Media scrums are very carefully controlled - if you're not a "pre-approved" reporter who submitted their question ahead of time, you're not going to be picked to ask a question.

      When someone accidentally does open their mouth, then, it reveals they aren't any better or knowledgeable. Harper pretty much knows this - the other parties don't have as much party discipline which leads to foot-in-mouth issues. But by muzzling his party, he ensures they don't make these mistakes.

      Basically you have to assume incompetence - they're really just little automatons who follow Harper's word. When you ask them to go off-script, they get the deer-in-the-headlights look.

    9. Re:In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In french canadian we call those "des grands yeuls", or less french canadian: "des grandes gueules".

    10. Re:In other words ... by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Since when have Democrats been interested in revolution? I've voted for them as slightly less dedicated corporate whores than the Republicans, but I've never heard them even make any real noise about anything that might be called revolution, at least not as a group. Well, with the possible exception of gun control - though that would be more a case of the government revolting against the people, which I'm not sure counts.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:In other words ... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I think it comes with the office - largely regardless of officeholder or even nation. To have a realistic chance of getting the job you need to have already sworn allegiance to the unelected money- and power-brokers funding the election campaigns and sculpting the media portrayals.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically you have to assume incompetence - they're really just little automatons who follow Harper's word. When you ask them to go off-script, they get the deer-in-the-headlights look.

      Wouldn't it be the opposite.You should always assume malice, since Harper is a control freak and a psychopath?

    13. Re:In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Lazy revolutionaries" says it all. I would go a bit further and say that the only real revolution Harper has begun is the steady incremental shift to permanent electioneering. This is a rather recent phenomenon (at least in my lifetime) in Canadian politics. Of course all parties in power engage in this activity to some extent, and it ramps up as the next election approaches. But Harper's Conservatives (this was not a thing that pre-Harper Conservatives did well) have really taken it to a new level in my opinion. They looked at what has been going on at a more mature and sophisticated level in the US for a few decades and have tried to implement the same strategy here.

      They talk a lot about changes but they don't care about actually implementing anything. The only goal is to work towards re-election from the beginning of their mandate right to the end. No actual policy ever need be implemented if simply talking about it is enough.

      I could at least respect a gov't that had a vision and implemented it, even if I disagreed with it. What I can't stand is a gov't whose only reason for existing is to continue existing, which seems to be what Harper is all about. I long for the days of the Mulrooney Conservatives, dare I say it.

    14. Re:In other words ... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      It seems to be crucially dependent on the size of the area. Towns often have decent governments, cities more rarely, states ... only the small ones. The country...no.

      That said, another factor is the number of more powerful groups looking over your shoulder. If a city or town becomes too corrupt either the state or the feds are likely to step in. (I don't know how analogous this is to Canada, but I suspect it's a global property.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:In other words ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't think it is because of Stephen Harper. It is because his opponents were weak and disorganized. In particular, the Liberals were divided and damaged after the Gomery Inquiry, and suffered from a series of weak and unpopular leaders; Paul Martin, Stephan Dion, and Michael Ignatieff. Even Harper's victory in saving his government from a collapse in the face of a coalition government of Liberals, NDP with Bloc Quebecois support, came only because his opponents were too dimwitted to realize that a Prime Minister still commands the ear of the Governor General up until the point that Parliament revokes its confidence.

      In other words, Harper isn't that skilled, he's simply lucky; not that that is bad, luck is often very important in politics. But now that the Liberals have reunited themselves, have a leader that, if not exactly capable and tested, is at least a unifying figurehead, suddenly Tory fortunes look a lot worse. The same applies to the NDP, who, like the Tories, greatly benefited from the Liberals. The NDP could cast themselves as the "progressive alternative", but now that the Liberals' fortunes have recovered, suddenly the NDP doesn't seem to have much of a purpose, and the party is slipping back to its natural third place status.

      The decade from 2003 (when the Martin-lead Liberals only won a minority government) until roughly 2013, when the Liberals finally put most of their demons to bed (or at least hid them from plain sight) will likely be seen as an aberration. I think Canadian politics is returning to the decades-old norm of the Liberals and Tories exchanging government, with the general trend of the Liberals retaining the dominance of the "natural governing party of Canada". This, by the way, was Harper's clearest mission, to overturn the decades' old order and destroy the Liberals' natural position at the top of the Canadian political establishment, so whatever victories he may count (some good ones, like reuniting Reform and the PCs, and the free trade deal with the European Union), ultimately his years as Prime Minister will be seen as something of a failure.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:In other words ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The permanent electioneering is a product of fixed election dates. I live in BC, and that is exactly what we have had since the BC Liberals instituted fixed four year terms in 2001. The UK has also seen this happen since instituting four year limits on Parliament.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:In other words ... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Or they just do not care. I think it is a situation where ideology trumps common sense in most cases.

      Most laws and the like are not written by politicians, but the direction and marching orders are.
      The bureaucrats that drafted it up, probably knew all about the issues, and told the politicians all about them.

      However when you are told to do it, get it done, and get it out, I am pretty sure any nay saying falls on deaf ears. That and the patented, we'll fix it later once implemented, or we'll see what happens, or lets risk manage that, etc...

      As far as incompetent goes, I would say that because they rammed it through it does show they are incompetent politicians, as they should have saw this coming, underestimated the greed of the media groups, and foresaw that this is going to cause a real political issue when Little Jimmy or Grandma gets a letter saying that they are going to get sued into oblivion, with an election coming up.

    18. Re:In other words ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      No talent there, but a lot of stubbornness and willingness to say or do nearly anything.

    19. Re:In other words ... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      While some ascribe malice to the Tories' actions, it's become very clear to me, particularly during the years of the majority government, that while maliciousness may play a part in some of what they do, a good deal of what they do is just simply incompetent.

      In Valhalla, Ayn Rand is laughing and nodding her head...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    20. Re:In other words ... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You have a point, up to a point. I live in New Mexico, the 14th smallest state by population, and Texan money just bought the Governor's office for the second term in a row.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re: In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living in Canada, while gov't policy is not perfect, I think we have it pretty good. Imagine we did things like the US? Think DMCA...

      In Europe we also have it that things are better than the US; however the problem is that our leaders are basically following them blindly. This means not only will we eventually get the same problems as the US; the big companies have already had a place to experiment on.

      The DMCA is a perfect example. Yes; it lets copyright holders censor some stuff. It also makes it clear that other stuff, uploaded content, is okay. In the version we get there will only be the censorship. We need to learn from our US brothers who are fighting for freedom and make sure that we try to block the bad and get the good from what they have done.

      Unless we push back, for example by making copyright invalid if it was ever owned by an organization which was ever involved in or associated with an organization involved in political lobbying, the continual extension of copyright attacks against the people will go on forever.

    22. Re:In other words ... by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

      Well, the talent the GOP has, they fire.

      --
      When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  2. Problem by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sir, if we pass this law the media companies will do something that will show everyone that they are a bunch of lying pricks!
    Uh, and that's a problem how?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Problem by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      the problem is that they knew about the problem ahead of time and didn't add a handful of words that would have made it illegal. rudimentary precautions easily fall within the realm of responsibility for governments.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  3. Poor policy, as usual ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a government who consistently fails to make evidence based policy, who routinely allows ideology to substitute for facts, and whose definition of "consultation" is informing people of what they plan to do.

    This is a government who will do anything to give business a leg up, and who think that they should be able to pass laws which don't meet Constitutional and other requierments.

    They routinely pass laws which are terrible, and which won't hold up to a court. And like a bunch of winy morons, they feel their incompetently written laws should trump the guidelines for what is a valid law.

    Basically they're assholes and luddites, who routinely craft poorly thought out laws.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...and whose definition of "consultation" is informing people of what they plan to do."

      And spending millions of dollars on advertising before getting approval from Parliament to actually do it.

    2. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      I'm fairly certain that the Government has many sources of money that do not require Parliament's vote. I certainly disagree with much of what any government advertises on, but the idea that Parliament has to approve every line item problem hasn't been true since before Canada was even created.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is they often spend as much (if not more) money promoting what an awesome job they're doing than they actually spend on doing that job.

      They basically use public money as a PR machine for their own agenda, and their spending on advertising and promoting often outpaces the actual program spending.

      So much of what they advertise is for partisan purposes.

      Because it's easy to find examples of signage promoting "Canada's Action Plan at Work" where years later the sign is still up in front of an incomplete project they never actually funded.

      They're all PR release, and no substance in a lot of ways.

      And since they came into power on the heels of the Sponsorship Scandal, this is even more galling.

      Way too many vacuous statements and claims, not nearly enough of doing anything.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by internerdj · · Score: 2

      If Canada hadn't been in the article title then I would have sworn from this comment you were from the US and possibly my home state.

    5. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't remember a time when governments at the Federal, Provincial and sometimes even municipal level didn't use public funds for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. The temptation to use legislative clout for partisan gain is just simply too great.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      When you spend more money advertising what you're doing that you spend on what you are braying about ... something is seriously wrong.

      Harper shows up for the photo op, and spends money advertising it, and then fails to do anything.

      That's pretty much fraud and wasting tax payer money to promote themselves.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Ministers re-announcing projects, or announcing what amounts to political vaporware is probably as old as democracy itself. Again, not defending the Tories, just putting it forth that they are behaving exactly like their predecessors.

      That seems to be the price of democracy; that politicians spend much of their time considering their re-election. As bad as that it is, the alternatives would be much worse.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That seems to be the price of democracy; that politicians spend much of their time considering their re-election.

      Arguably, in a representative democracy that might be all they SHOULD be doing.

      After all, the whole idea in that sort of government is that the politicians represent the will of their constituents. Rather than have a small group of men making up the laws themselves (an oligarchy), the representatives are - supposedly - little more than conduits we use to enact the laws we want. These political agents vie for the job by proving how able they are in representing our goals. In other words, we don't send 'em to the capital to make laws for us, but to pass the laws we want.

      Of course where it all breaks down is that this requires an informed and involved constituency. For a variety of reasons most democracies do not - and are not encouraged - to have this. This is not due only to voter apathy, but because the politicians have made the system so complex and difficult that most people have neither the time, the training nor the desire to become involved. We-the-people are not giving our agents the explicit instructions they require; at best, we manage a collective moan about how certain things may not be to our liking.

      At the same time, large organizations (corporations) - who /do/ have the time and interest to engage in the political process - are able to more easily transmit their needs to those same representatives (usually in the form of legislature conveniently written up and passed to government to pass into law). So politicians remain conduits (just to the wrong people) but due to the electoral system still need to spend most of their time proving their worth.

      Ultimately, the goal should be to be make it easier for individuals to become involved in their own governance. Smaller government, simpler laws and more local authority are all ideas that may work. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to the problem and certainly those in power - who benefit from the current way things are - see no advantage in changing things.

    9. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is all true, but I'm quite thankful that the courts have been doing a pretty good job protecting us from the government.

      I think Harper has lost more Supreme Court and Federal Court cases than any government I can remember. Hope it keeps up that way.

    10. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by StrangeBrew · · Score: 0

      So... like every government that came before it?

    11. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if Conservatives went to every house to deliver free ice cream out of their own pocket, the vitriolic liberals would still find something to complain about. Meanwhile anything their parties do is seen as shitting golden turds. Hypocrisy is business as usual.

    12. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can't remember a time when governments at the Federal, Provincial and sometimes even municipal level didn't use public funds for the purposes of self-aggrandizement."

      It's not that they do it at all that grates on some people's nerves, it's the shear quantity of it that pisses us off. You can expect to see a flyer mailed to every Canadian home at -least- once or twice a month that does little but pat themselves on the back for helping Canadians over whatever the latest law they passed did. And that's just one example of what they do.

      I've never seen the propaganda machine working so hard in my life.

    13. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course there is taxpayer dollars laying around somewhere that they can spend. But it's less about the approval itself and more about the waste of having all these expensive advertisements with a little "*" pointing to the fine print at the bottom saying "Subject to Parliamentary approval". They were forced to put that caveat in there because people were complaining about going to the website for "more information" only to discover the program didn't exist yet. Maybe if they stuck a gigantic "Coming soon!" at the top of the ad it wouldn't be so misleading, but even with that it's a big waste of money advertising for something that's unavailable for many months.

    14. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by Gavrielkay · · Score: 1

      I disagree that we send representatives specifically to act out our will. I think more we are supposed to elect people who will make decisions that are good for the whole - at whatever level they are elected to - by devoting their time to learning what is best. No regular citizen with a job and family can be expected to keep track of more than minor issues in their locality. The kinds of decisions that should be made at the federal level for example are more than most people can wrap their heads around. You're supposed to vote for someone you trust to do what you would do if you had all the information available and the time to study it.

      What we actually do is vote for whoever tells the most pleasing lies, has the most ad money, follows some arbitrary political party etc. Voter turnout is crap, so all election issues are boiled down to just the hot buttons that can motivate the crazies to go vote. And we end up with a gov't run by people who have no reason to care about good solutions because they'll get re-elected by the same TV consuming wing-nuts who put them in office in the first place.

    15. Re:Poor policy, as usual ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "are" taxpayer dollars. Doh.

  4. Where's the Beef? by lazarus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only information I can find saying that the regulations are not enforced is what is in Geist's article. He notes that the regulations are located here and then goes on to say that the government decided to go ahead and implement without these here. The problem is that the second article does NOT say (anywhere that I can find) that it was implemented without regs. It claims that it is the final step in the copyright modernization act which is in fact what the first government document was all about.

    Either I'm missing something or Geist is making assumptions about what Canadians actually have based on the action of a US company that is already being sued for their practices. Someone please enlighten me.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    1. Re:Where's the Beef? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This was not the first time Moore decided against reforms to the notice-and-notice system. Further government documents reveal that Bell Canada recommended reforms in January 2012 (before the bill was passed) that included a removal of a minimum statutory damage for failure to to forward a notice. Had the reform been accepted, the government would now be in a position to recommend that Internet providers not forward the misleading Rightscorp notices without fear of liability.

      Basically, they were told their legislation was flawed. And, as usual, they're too focused on their own agenda and ideology to let little things like a poorly written law stop them.

      They knew these problems existed, and did nothing about it.

      These are the kind of clowns who will write a law which is clearly unconstitutional, and then whine about activist judges who don't see the supreme glorious wisdom in their bullshit ideology.

      Mostly they consistently do the same crap over and over again, and keep going "la la la" when someone tells them their laws have to stand up to scrutiny by the courts.

      Stephen Harper seems to believe he can simply decree something true and have it stick. In that sense, he's pretty scary.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Where's the Beef? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the second article does NOT say (anywhere that I can find) that it was implemented without regs.

      "The ministers announced that the regime will be brought into force without additional regulation in recognition of the flexibility ensured by the Act."

    3. Re:Where's the Beef? by 0123456 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Stephen Harper seems to believe he can simply decree something true and have it stick. In that sense, he's pretty scary.

      So just like Obama, then? Except tthe Canadian Supreme Court keep reminding him how limited his powers are.

    4. Re:Where's the Beef? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Scary or not, he wins elections. That makes the voters even more scary.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Where's the Beef? by lazarus · · Score: 2

      The only information you've provided in your response (beyond your dislike of the Conservatives) is that they failed to protect ISPs from a small fine (per the copyright modernization act this is $5000 to $10000) in the event that they are asked to provide information to potential rights holders or their representatives should they decide the requester is on crack and decline the request.

      So, we are all up in arms about the potential of an ISP to pay a fine for telling a troll company like Rightscorp to go pound sand?

      It's no surprise to any Canadian that the virtual ISP monopoly they exist under is being sold out by them so they won't pay a small fine. Excuse me while I go away and shed a small tear for them...

      Don't you think this may be "payback" by ISPs because they have been forced to implement something that costs them money? You don't think they may be punishing the "clowns" who have been trying to get more carrier competition in the country?

      Do you work for an Canadian ISP?

      By the way, thanks for clearing this up for me (seriously). I actually thought this was about the government and citizen's rights and couldn't figure it out. Sounds like it's a pissing match between the government and the ISPs.

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    6. Re:Where's the Beef? by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Managed to get up to 38% of the people who actually voted last time, with a lot of close ridings and quite a bit of fraud, though they've changed the law so that in this election we'll never know about any investigations for fraud.
      We have the tyranny of the minority due to multiple political parties.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re:Where's the Beef? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Managed to get up to 38% of the people who actually voted last time...

      That these kind of people get one vote says all that needs to be said. I'm not going to quibble over percentages.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Where's the Beef? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      Not necessarily. There's cheating to factor in. The people may have actually voted otherwise, but some incumbents abuse their power to rig the election. That's what's going on in the US. Bush should never have won the presidency. Currently, the majority of North Carolina's representatives should be Democratics, instead, most are Republicans. Republicans have been engaging in a number of tactics to tilt the vote their way. Gerrymandering is something both sides have done for decades, but in recent years the Republicans have pushed their cheats more. They make sure there aren't enough voting machines in districts that lean democratic, and they manufacture a problem with voter fraud and use that as the excuse to kick people off voter registration lists and pass these photo ID laws. They even try to intimidate voters in democratic districts with big scary warnings that cheating at the polls is a felony for which you could spend 10 years in jail. Anyone who believes that threat is not going to take a chance like that, better not to vote at all. The courts struck that one down, but there are many other tactics. Crosscheck is a big one. Voters have to jump through a bunch of hoops to be allowed to vote. Recently in Texas, a 4th choice was added for voters who want to vote straight party ticket. Used to be R, D, and Libertarian. Now there is ... Green! How did the Green party gain enough strength to do that? Perot's Reform party is not on the ballot, and he's from Texas. Answer: the Greens aren't strong enough, the Republicans put them on the ballot, figuring that would split the Democratic vote.

      The worst part is that the Republicans who do this crap have very limited understanding and not much intelligence. They really seem to think it's okay for them to cheat. The end justifies the means, you know. But no one else better cheat, no sir! If they were smarter, they would understand that cheating is destructive. Instead, they behave as if "might is right" and that winning any way you can, even by cheating, is acceptable, and indeed a show of strength. The other guys were too "wimpy" to use the same "aggressive" tactics, so they deserved to lose! They've even convinced themselves that they aren't really cheating. It's how they can sound like such straight shooters even while their pants are on fire. That last is all part of their overall campaign against reality, science, and reason. For me, one of the most telling moments was the night of the 2012 election, when Romney's gang chose to believe slanted polls and propaganda that showed he was going to win, rather than the best, most unbiased polls which showed that he was losing, and then the actual results, in which he lost.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    9. Re:Where's the Beef? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      So, we are all up in arms about the potential of an ISP to pay a fine for telling a troll company like Rightscorp to go pound sand?

      No, we're up in arms that incompetently written legislation, championed by idiots, and without consideration for how it will be misused ... is now being abused after they'd been warned of this exact outcome.

      Do you work for an Canadian ISP?

      LOL, no, not now not ever.

      The problem is when you pass a law, and refuse to put any checks and balances into it, it's a shitty law. So, instead of protecting users from fraudulent claims, or abuse of the system ... they simply gave the copyright cartel everything they wanted.

      Same kind of idea as the DMCA. Pass a flawed law, which places all of the power in the hands of corporations, ignore the people who tell you this will be abused. And then stand back and watch the abuse of your poorly crafted law.

      Basically the government ignored the ISPs who said "this is flawed and will cause problems".

      But since they were only interested in copyright reform, and not interested in adding balances to protect consumers ... this is what we get.

      Basically the industry minister is apparently too beholden to corporations to be willing to entertain the notion that he has crafted shitty legislation which even a chimpanzee could have spotted the flaws in.

      Ergo, it is entirely possible the industry minister is dumber than a chimpanzee, or indifferent to safeguarding consumers.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re: Where's the Beef? by lazarus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the chuckle, you certainly have a way with words! I understand where you are coming from now. Many many years ago I was invited to give a speech to Canadian MPs in Centre Block about censorship and how to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. What I discovered doing this is that government is run by people who have time on their hands (it doesn't pay enough to attract the gainfully employable crowd). I also discovered that getting drunk with the 'lumber lobby' and the strippers they brought with them was more important than technology or how it will be used in the future.
      For the record, only conservatives showed up to the presentation. The liberals, NDP, and bloc were partying (hard). The Bloc MPs were completely smashed!
      Point is, I'm not surprised they did a shitty job. But I think your particular hatred for the current ruling party is, not misplaced, but deserving of all of them. Politicians are incompetent and corrupt universally. And I still maintain that the ISPs are punishing them for this. A single phone call to the minister about the request would have prevented the whole issue in the first place. Now they "have to talk". You know what that is going to sound like? "Hey, bro, why are you busting my balls? Listen, I can get you an invite to our next party - the mining lobby really knows how to put it on..."

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    11. Re:Where's the Beef? by davecb · · Score: 1

      Huh? Mr Harper is a Conservative, so it's more like Mr. Nixon.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  5. Grease the right palms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And you can write the laws you want. It's easy to hide it, if you are a multi-billion dollar industry that owns a lot of music, tv shows and films.

  6. In other words ... by ikejam · · Score: 1

    If there is a sentence the Canadian government is telling its citizens it would be " FUCK YOU !! "

  7. Incompetent prime minister by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    What else can we expect from a prime minister that can't even make up his mind?

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:Incompetent prime minister by AlCapwn · · Score: 0

      Or say "Election" properly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  8. Deaf ears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think a Canadian government more interested in waging a war on science is going to deal with vague and misleading copyright claims from an industry which convinced it to issue a mandatory copyright tax on blank media?

  9. Wouldn't intentionaly misleading imply its ilegal? by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't intentionally misleading letters demanding money amount to fraud or racketeering? Perhaps if Bell and them were really concerned they could turn it around on the copyright holders.

  10. Can ISPs send their own notices? by oneiros27 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I apologize for reading the article, but it says that ISPs complained that they didn't like the $5000 fine for not forwarding the messag ... but can they forward it and add their own message?

    Something to the effect of 'you should know your rights', with the maximum penalty they could face, how they can fight against it, etc.

    If they come up with a boilerplate message, and not something that needs to be customized for each letter being sent, then you're minimized the incremental costs. And I'm guessing that they had plenty of lawyers involved with reviewing the bills as proposed and the law that was finally passed.

    I would think the 'we comply with the letter of the law, but not the intent' approach would cheaper & more effective than trying to deal with lobbying politicians who already have their minds made up. (provided you don't do something that might get you sued ... but getting sued and going to court might be better to establish the limits of the law than leaving it to politicians)

    If the law's written in such a way as to prevent them from sending a message triggered by the requirement to forward the message, then you send it to *all* of your subscribers.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:Can ISPs send their own notices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the previous article: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
      They're already including the message inside their own message that provides more information.

      Anon as I'm actively moderating this story :)

  11. Perhaps Canada was doling out rope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we are aware that certain organizations would try and abuse the new law.

    We decided to allow them to pull as much rope as they wanted to.

    Now we're going to use that rope to hang them.

    Any and all companies that abused the new process will be excluded from the new law and will never be able to send a notice ever again. ie - their copyrights are null and void in Canada from this day forth.

    One could dream right?

  12. NDP by phorm · · Score: 1

    Yes, but the NDP had Jack Layton, who was quite popular. Yes, he died shortly after the election, but that was after an election that the NDP still lost. He was probably more popular after his death than during his life, though.

    1. Re: NDP by corychristison · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard from peers, Jack Layton lost because of rumours floating about regarding his health. The fact he made it through the election was rather impressive, considering how far south his health had gone.
      While I'm sure his right hand man would have done well, that unknown scared a lot of people and they decided to jump on the Harper train.

      I personally am of the mind that no matter which way you vote, the government will appear incompetent no matter, because people are always out to blame someone. That, and, well, its politics.

    2. Re:NDP by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Jack Layton certainly made an impact, but the Orange Crush was mainly a Quebec phenomena, and clearly had more to do with the collapse of the Separatist vote. But it is pretty clear that even Quebec voters are casting their nets a little more widely, and that the Liberals are not the toxic brand they were even three or four years ago.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re: NDP by Maow · · Score: 2

      From what I've heard from peers, Jack Layton lost because of rumours floating about regarding his health.

      I, for one, hadn't heard the rumours, so I don't think they held many people back from voting for him.

      While I'm sure his right hand man would have done well, that unknown scared a lot of people and they decided to jump on the Harper train.

      I cannot believe anyone was thinking of voting Layton but switched to Harper for any reason, never mind Layton's health. They were so diametrically opposed in style and substance, after all.

      I personally am of the mind that no matter which way you vote, the government will appear incompetent no matter, because people are always out to blame someone. That, and, well, its politics.

      This I agree with, but the task is to vote someone in whose mistakes benefit the most people instead of "Ooops, the rich benefited from that mistake. And that one. And this one too."

      Just for once it'd be nice if "the little guy" was the beneficiary of a government screw-up.

  13. Sorry by PPH · · Score: 1

    Not the sort of bear I expected in a story about Canada.

    Never mind.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  14. .. go harper.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweeping legislation in Canada without thoughts or redundancy (or self checks in place) This isn't uncommon in Canada unfortunately.

  15. companies don't care by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    In my experience US companies don't bother to determine who they are sending notices too. I worked in Germany and we got DMCA notices etc (people in our network with personal laptops with torrents etc on them). They just say "according to such and such law you may be libel for up to X" yadda yadda even when you aren't living in the wonderland that is the US.

  16. Re:Wouldn't intentionaly misleading imply its ileg by rdnetto · · Score: 1

    Bell is just an intermediary - the plaintiffs would have to be the recipients of the notices. The problem is you then have your classic big company vs. the little guy scenario, where the imbalance of power makes pursuing justice expensive. In Canada and Australia, this is normal resolved via regulations (which were omitted in this case). (The US approach seems to rely more on class action law suits.)

    --
    Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.