Given how thoroughly China controls Chinese businesses, it's exceedingly hypocritical for China to criticize Google for these perceived links to the US government.
The shitty warrant wasn't just a "technicality". That warrant wasn't worth wiping your ass with, let alone justifying a search and seizure. Go back and read the decision, it's pretty clear. Letting police into your home with worthless warrants makes your country essentially a police state. We haven't quite sunk that low here in Canada, and I'm thankful for that.
Besides, even though the guy "got off", his life is ruined anyway. Nobody is going to forget him, and the cops will be all over him like white on rice.
Entering someone's home and seizing their computer, their spouse's computer, video tapes and other gear with a crappy warrant isn't a "technicality", it's a grave breach of a citizen's right to privacy and the security of his person. So grave, in fact, that it's more important to let guilty people go (even people guilty of murder, treason, and possessing CP) if the State enters your home without "reasonable probable grounds".
It's illegal in Canada to "access" child pornography as well. The Crown Attorney didn't charge him with "accessing", nor was that charge specified on the warrant.
The technician found no such thing. What he found was a camera in a room, where there happened to be a lot of toys. In other words, the technician found reason to believe that the accused was making videos of his kid while the kid was playing. My impression from the rest of the decision is that they never did find any evidence at all that he was making porn of his kid, even though they did ultimately find child porn of other kids after they seized his computer.
Essentially, the technician found two bookmarks to "lolita porn" sites mixed in with a lot of other legal porn site bookmarks. He reported to the cops several months later, and on the strength of that the cops got a warrant. It was a really bad warrant, and deserved to be quashed.
And even though a politician does the appointing, she chooses from a short list of candidates that are vetted by a committee of judges, lawyers, and lay-people. The system works surprisingly well.
I think that this particular decision was even more sophisticated than that -- the judge made a point of saying that if you took advantage of the existence of the cache to store material, you would be in possession. So surfing to a page isn't possession, but knowingly surfing to a page, so that your cache would contain cp that you could go browze to later, might be.
I was quite surprised at just how well-done that decision was, but if you want to see an example of a Canadian judge getting it wrong, just read the dissent.
Also, the awards for legal costs are discretionary, and NOT the full legal fees by any stretch. It depends on the extent of the abuse of the system by the other side. If you intentionally run up a high legal bill by the use of overpriced lawyers, you will NOT get your legal fees covered, and could very well piss off the judge enough to give you zip, even if you win. The other side is also free to demand that the fees be arbitrated even if they are awarded.
You're absolutely right about this. I thought I mentioned it somewhere above, but I guess not.
Guess what? I pointed out that the rules vary from province to province in my first post to you, above. You must have missed it.
So I went googling, and it turns out that for most provinces (BC, Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan for sure, I couldn't find the Rules for every province) that they actually use almost the identical wording to the Ontario Rules. Which basically means that most of Canada uses a similar costs system to that of Ontario (including awarding costs against the winner, where applicable). The only province I could find that was noticeably different was Quebec. This isn't surprising as Quebec uses a very different system of law than the rest of Canada, as I'm sure you know.
Everything I found on fee-shifting applied to US law, which isn't surprising as it's kind of a new thing there. I'm not sure what your point with that was.
Again, you misunderstand what "costs" are. These are court costs and associated fees, not the other sides' lawyers time.
Thanks for correcting me. I'll be sure to pass on that information to my professor in Civil Procedure II, at law school. He'll be sad to know that he's been teaching the law of costs wrong for 25 years now. And of course the Bay Street firm he works for as well will have to be told too.
You'll often see in motions this phrase "the whole without costs against [other side], except in event of contestation."
I've never seen this phrase, despite reading dozens, maybe hundreds of costs awards, and having assisted in putting together motions for costs myself. I have seen costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis (some smallish fraction of total legitimate costs), a substantial indemnity basis (a rather large fraction of total costs) and even once in a while on a "solicitor and client" basis (lawyers hate that one, makes them look bad, insurers have to be notified, hell of a mess).
It is referring to the awarding of the filing fees, court stamp tax, cost of service, and fees for witness tax at the current legal rate.
It is very rare to get anything over that, except in the most abusive of cases. I've seen people spend $20k on legal fees, win, be awarded costs in the decision, and get less than $200.
This may be true wherever you are, it is not true in Ontario. See The Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly rules 57 and 58 I believe.
The key thing about the media levy is that money does seem to be going to the artists. The levy is actually a pretty good compromise. The numbers I found (which admittedly were out of date) were that the authors were getting about 60%, the performers maybe 25% and the recording industry was getting the balance (note of course that the calculations get complicated when you have several authors/performers for one piece of music).
I don't think it's entirely unfair for the distributors to get some share of the levy, as long as they don't get all of it. What's despicable of course, is that they want the whole boodle, and they're not getting it.
If you're curious, you can check out the copyright board's website, they have a lot of information, including financials. Copyright board
Errr, the big labels are opposed to the media levy. They originally supported it, but when that one decision came down stating that charging a levy meant they couldn't sue for file downloading, they did a quick about-face.
The media levy got in because the CRIA thought they could have their cake and eat it too. When a judge told them that wasn't going to work, they decided that law suits would be more lucrative than the media levy, and if they can't have both, they want the levy gone, not expanded.
The NDP is no friend of the corporations, and Charlie Angus, MP (who introduced the new bill) is himself a musician, with no particular love for the major labels.
With regard to "loser pays" costs awards, you're not correct either, I'm afraid. First of all, though it's true that Canada has a "loser pays" regime, it's the provinces who actually set the rules, so each province has a slightly different rule (and different case law applying it). In fact the rules may vary from court to court within a province as well.
Second, the loser may indeed be asked to pay the other side's lawyer's fees, but will almost never have to pay all the fees. The judge has a wide discretion to vary the amount of costs, including waiving them. the usual award is often a fraction of the actual costs. The judge can also, in exceptional cases, specify that the loser's lawyer has to pay the costs (where the lawyer has been exceptionally naughty).
Lastly, in Ontario at least, the winner can be hit with costs, if the losing side had made an offer to settle, and the winner's damage award is lower than the offer to settle. (i.e. the winner should have taken the settlement instead of going to trial).
HSPA+ rollout in Canada was hurried along by Bell and Telus, who wanted to have GSM-compatible networks in place when the world showed up to Vancouver for a few weeks, not long ago. Could you imagine the stink if Van got the hot new toys while Montreal and Toronto and Calgary had to suffer with the old tech?
My understanding was that Mariposa is a bot client, not just spyware.
Re:its because the olympics are over
on
The LHC Is Back Online
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It's not too bad, if you're not covering a lot of distance in a short time, and it's better the farther south you are. Just check the chart and adjust your compass for the declination before you go, and periodically if you're on a long trip.
Of course if you're in the Canadian Shield you also have to contend with magnetite deposits, which can be a much bigger hassle than the declination variance. A compass is still useful in the bush, but it should be one tool among many in your toolkit.
Re:its because the olympics are over
on
The LHC Is Back Online
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If you're curious, here's some info on the magnetic declination in Canada. Scroll down for images. Last time I checked there was a significant change in declination from one year to the next. Government of Canada
Slashdot Mirror
And Shakespeare is best in the original Klingon.
Given how thoroughly China controls Chinese businesses, it's exceedingly hypocritical for China to criticize Google for these perceived links to the US government.
The shitty warrant wasn't just a "technicality". That warrant wasn't worth wiping your ass with, let alone justifying a search and seizure. Go back and read the decision, it's pretty clear. Letting police into your home with worthless warrants makes your country essentially a police state. We haven't quite sunk that low here in Canada, and I'm thankful for that.
Besides, even though the guy "got off", his life is ruined anyway. Nobody is going to forget him, and the cops will be all over him like white on rice.
Entering someone's home and seizing their computer, their spouse's computer, video tapes and other gear with a crappy warrant isn't a "technicality", it's a grave breach of a citizen's right to privacy and the security of his person. So grave, in fact, that it's more important to let guilty people go (even people guilty of murder, treason, and possessing CP) if the State enters your home without "reasonable probable grounds".
Freedom is not a technicality.
The bookmarks were "Lolita Porn" and "Lolita XXX". It's in the decision.
I don't think they found any evidence that he'd created illegal images of his daughter, even after they seized his computer.
Thanks. I knew it applied to stuff he'd created for himself, but wasn't sure if it applied to all cartoons, so didn't want to say.
It's illegal in Canada to "access" child pornography as well. The Crown Attorney didn't charge him with "accessing", nor was that charge specified on the warrant.
The technician found no such thing. What he found was a camera in a room, where there happened to be a lot of toys. In other words, the technician found reason to believe that the accused was making videos of his kid while the kid was playing. My impression from the rest of the decision is that they never did find any evidence at all that he was making porn of his kid, even though they did ultimately find child porn of other kids after they seized his computer.
Essentially, the technician found two bookmarks to "lolita porn" sites mixed in with a lot of other legal porn site bookmarks. He reported to the cops several months later, and on the strength of that the cops got a warrant. It was a really bad warrant, and deserved to be quashed.
Actually, if memory serves, material drawn or created for one's own use is not illegal in Canada. That decision came down a few years ago.
And even though a politician does the appointing, she chooses from a short list of candidates that are vetted by a committee of judges, lawyers, and lay-people. The system works surprisingly well.
I think that this particular decision was even more sophisticated than that -- the judge made a point of saying that if you took advantage of the existence of the cache to store material, you would be in possession. So surfing to a page isn't possession, but knowingly surfing to a page, so that your cache would contain cp that you could go browze to later, might be.
I was quite surprised at just how well-done that decision was, but if you want to see an example of a Canadian judge getting it wrong, just read the dissent.
I have a Toyota, you insensitive clod! (and it runs just fine too)
Also, the awards for legal costs are discretionary, and NOT the full legal fees by any stretch. It depends on the extent of the abuse of the system by the other side. If you intentionally run up a high legal bill by the use of overpriced lawyers, you will NOT get your legal fees covered, and could very well piss off the judge enough to give you zip, even if you win. The other side is also free to demand that the fees be arbitrated even if they are awarded.
You're absolutely right about this. I thought I mentioned it somewhere above, but I guess not.
Guess what? I pointed out that the rules vary from province to province in my first post to you, above. You must have missed it.
So I went googling, and it turns out that for most provinces (BC, Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan for sure, I couldn't find the Rules for every province) that they actually use almost the identical wording to the Ontario Rules. Which basically means that most of Canada uses a similar costs system to that of Ontario (including awarding costs against the winner, where applicable). The only province I could find that was noticeably different was Quebec. This isn't surprising as Quebec uses a very different system of law than the rest of Canada, as I'm sure you know.
Everything I found on fee-shifting applied to US law, which isn't surprising as it's kind of a new thing there. I'm not sure what your point with that was.
(re: your sig)
Nice website, by the way.
Again, you misunderstand what "costs" are. These are court costs and associated fees, not the other sides' lawyers time.
Thanks for correcting me. I'll be sure to pass on that information to my professor in Civil Procedure II, at law school. He'll be sad to know that he's been teaching the law of costs wrong for 25 years now. And of course the Bay Street firm he works for as well will have to be told too.
You'll often see in motions this phrase "the whole without costs against [other side], except in event of contestation."
I've never seen this phrase, despite reading dozens, maybe hundreds of costs awards, and having assisted in putting together motions for costs myself. I have seen costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis (some smallish fraction of total legitimate costs), a substantial indemnity basis (a rather large fraction of total costs) and even once in a while on a "solicitor and client" basis (lawyers hate that one, makes them look bad, insurers have to be notified, hell of a mess).
It is referring to the awarding of the filing fees, court stamp tax, cost of service, and fees for witness tax at the current legal rate.
It is very rare to get anything over that, except in the most abusive of cases. I've seen people spend $20k on legal fees, win, be awarded costs in the decision, and get less than $200.
This may be true wherever you are, it is not true in Ontario. See The Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly rules 57 and 58 I believe.
The key thing about the media levy is that money does seem to be going to the artists. The levy is actually a pretty good compromise. The numbers I found (which admittedly were out of date) were that the authors were getting about 60%, the performers maybe 25% and the recording industry was getting the balance (note of course that the calculations get complicated when you have several authors/performers for one piece of music).
I don't think it's entirely unfair for the distributors to get some share of the levy, as long as they don't get all of it. What's despicable of course, is that they want the whole boodle, and they're not getting it.
If you're curious, you can check out the copyright board's website, they have a lot of information, including financials. Copyright board
Actually, they did sue someone. And they lost. Which is why they stopped suing people.
Errr, the big labels are opposed to the media levy. They originally supported it, but when that one decision came down stating that charging a levy meant they couldn't sue for file downloading, they did a quick about-face.
The media levy got in because the CRIA thought they could have their cake and eat it too. When a judge told them that wasn't going to work, they decided that law suits would be more lucrative than the media levy, and if they can't have both, they want the levy gone, not expanded.
The NDP is no friend of the corporations, and Charlie Angus, MP (who introduced the new bill) is himself a musician, with no particular love for the major labels.
With regard to "loser pays" costs awards, you're not correct either, I'm afraid. First of all, though it's true that Canada has a "loser pays" regime, it's the provinces who actually set the rules, so each province has a slightly different rule (and different case law applying it). In fact the rules may vary from court to court within a province as well.
Second, the loser may indeed be asked to pay the other side's lawyer's fees, but will almost never have to pay all the fees. The judge has a wide discretion to vary the amount of costs, including waiving them. the usual award is often a fraction of the actual costs. The judge can also, in exceptional cases, specify that the loser's lawyer has to pay the costs (where the lawyer has been exceptionally naughty).
Lastly, in Ontario at least, the winner can be hit with costs, if the losing side had made an offer to settle, and the winner's damage award is lower than the offer to settle. (i.e. the winner should have taken the settlement instead of going to trial).
HSPA+ rollout in Canada was hurried along by Bell and Telus, who wanted to have GSM-compatible networks in place when the world showed up to Vancouver for a few weeks, not long ago. Could you imagine the stink if Van got the hot new toys while Montreal and Toronto and Calgary had to suffer with the old tech?
Do the math[ematic]s? Only one math[ematic] is needed, a single division, and that's not really a math[ematic] at all, just an arithmetic.
spyware !== malware.
My understanding was that Mariposa is a bot client, not just spyware.
It's not too bad, if you're not covering a lot of distance in a short time, and it's better the farther south you are. Just check the chart and adjust your compass for the declination before you go, and periodically if you're on a long trip.
Of course if you're in the Canadian Shield you also have to contend with magnetite deposits, which can be a much bigger hassle than the declination variance. A compass is still useful in the bush, but it should be one tool among many in your toolkit.
If you're curious, here's some info on the magnetic declination in Canada. Scroll down for images. Last time I checked there was a significant change in declination from one year to the next. Government of Canada