You seem to be under the misguided thought that this is a Conservative only bill... I have news for you. This bill WILL pass, no matter what government gets in. The only question is how may tries, and how long it takes. The official platforms of the opposition parties all include reference to copyright changes... and you can guarantee none of them involve increasing fair use or shortening copyright term!
I think that it would still be an interesting data point to know. I'm not saying it would be right to take stuff if there is no way to pay for it, but I'm definitely curious to see if people were more honest with working self-checkouts than when they had no way to pay at all. Call it a social experiment.
We know that theft goes up as the ease of doing so increases and as the perceived consequences decrease. (That's why we lock our door, not because it makes theft impossible, but because it makes it harder. Also why we have security cameras (especially the fake ones), it increases the perceived consequences of the action (they think they'll be caught)) This would give us a gauge on the other end of things where instead of gauging the ease of the theft we gauge the ease of doing the right thing and see what effect that has on theft.
To clarify, I believe that taking merchandise from a store without paying is very wrong and should not be done. My question here is not one of legality, or morality, my question here is one of psychology or sociology.
To be fair, it was only after they announced the cancellation of the series that decent episodes started airing...
Stargate Universe was a series I was looking forward to, and was massively disappointed in when it first came out, in fact I very nearly stopped watching it all together. The more recent episodes though have actually improved a lot and I've started to actually enjoy the show (of course only after they announced the cancellation did the series seem to improve)
Unfortunately the "trapped in a far away land trying to get home" genre of shows is VERY difficult to get right, it quickly becomes far too predictable, every episode the crew tries to get home, every episode they fail (because if they succeed the series is over) It is only once they stopped focusing exclusively on that part of the story, and started branching off to other challenges that they made it interesting.
I had a chance to try both an iPad2 and PlayBook recently. They are very fancy devices. Video on the playbook looked incredible. The iPad is almost ridiculously large compared to the PlayBook, which seems a better size for a tablet..
I think what you fail to grasp is that different people have different needs for a tablet. You may want it smaller, but I don't. I already have a small screen device that fits in my pocket (my phone), I want the tablet to be big. The playbook is too small to be useful, the iPad is pretty marginal, my ideal tablet would have a screen the size of a normal A4 piece of paper. But I also realize that I'm not everybody, and different people want to do different things with their devices. That's why I'm glad many companies are releasing tablets in different sizes, with screens from 4 inches all the way up to just over 10 inches (IMO still a little small, but it's a start) it gives people the choice to find the one that best suits their personal needs.
As for the future of tablets... When the ipads first came out I thought they were really cool, but couldn't for the life of me figure out what I'd want one for. As time has passed though I start to see a real use for them. especially with the ability to dock them with full size keyboards and monitors. With this docking functionality and the right apps they can almost completely replace a full computer for many (not all) people, giving you the advantage of the large keyboard and monitor at home/office, while still having the potability to use it as a stand alone device on the bus/train/plane or wherever else you go. I agree that they aren't going to replace conventional computers overnight, but I think tablets and smart phones with appropriate docks will end up replacing a large percentage of desktops/laptops over the long term.
The xoom has two major disadvantages over the ipad, and these 2 disadvantages have severely hurt it's sales, which in turn leads ipad lovers to label it a complete failure. 1) price. They didn't match or beat the ipad. Theoretically this shouldn't be an issue as it does more than the ipad, but people are always comparing the two on price without noticing all the extras the xoom has 2) marketing. everyone has heard of the ipad, almost nobody I talk to knows about any other tablet at all.
We're at the same point now with tablets that we were at with smart phones a couple of years ago, we had some marginal efforts from palm, blackberry, and a couple of others facing off against the iphone which was almost in a category of it's own. iphone sales took off and apple quickly became the dominant player in the smartphone world, then android came along, and now androids out-sell iphones by a very large margin. I think the market right now is at that same turning point for tablets, and will shift away from the ipad in the next year or two as more and more of the new generation of android tablets start to ship, many of them promising price points that match or beat the ipad, and some of them with many added features. (eg toshiba's new tablet which includes a full size HDMI port, full size and mini usb ports, full size SD car reader, a replaceable battery, and other goodies)
Don't get me wrong, Apple isn't gong to vanish, but just as we are with phones today, you'll no longer see a tablet and immediately assume it must be an ipad.
This is one thing many consumers, and even more reviewers constantly fail to realize. The vast majority of manufacturers make their money from selling hardware and have no interest in doing upgrades for existing software. You MAY get one or two minor bug fixes released after you buy the device, but you will rarely get anything big because the manufacturer makes more money off you if you throw out the device and buy a new one.
I've bought many devices in the past that were amazing hardware, but with software that was "almost there" with the expectation that the manufacturer would continue to support it. I've been burned on almost every one of them. I've learned now.
Buy a device for what it is right now. Always assume that you have the final software version and that no future upgrades will ever happen. Most of the time you'll be right. Sometimes you will be pleasantly surprised when a manufacturer ships a new version. and just as often, the "new version" will turn out to be an ad-riddled piece of crippleware that takes away features you had when you bought it... (never upgrade without researching the upgrades first!)
Since changing my outlook on electronics it has been much harder for me to find what I think is "the right product", but I have been much more satisfied with my purchases.
Unfortunately this planet is rather out of continents to set up new countries on... and if you did somehow find a way, you can rest assured that some less free country would find some excuse to "liberate" you soon enough for failing to force your citizens to obey the broken laws of their country.
While I don't agree with the original article, I don't think you quite grasp the new reality of the banking world. Sure the old banks need to follow all those rules, but the precedent has been set that new banks that operate purely on the internet don't. For the biggest example see paypal, it would be really hard to argue that they don't provide banking services, yet they follow none of your original 3 points. As an asside, this is something government really needs to work to correct. Saying you aren't a bank while acting like you are shouldn't give you carte blanche to screw people over. (and no, I'm not asking for increased regulation, I'm asking to enforce existing regulations on all players in the same market)
The company I work for has many issues, and many broken processes, I certainly won't deny that. But the job itself is one I enjoy, and there is no other company in this part of the country that has the same job to offer. And luckilly, although a computer really helps me do my job, it isn't quite absolutely essential, there are ways around it (even if some of them are a little painful). Plus, I'm paid by the hour, so the lost productivity doesn't come off my paycheque.
Working for a company as large as the one I do, and as paranoid to boot, I'm rather certain that if they could have found a way, we wouldn't have admin rights. On the bright side, although I have had to call in to our support departments many times, Every time the problem has either been hardware (something that admin rights don't affect) or issues on server side programs (again, something local admin rights don't affect) and the same goes for pretty much everyone in my department that I've talked to. So I don't think admin rights are driving the nightmare call volume here that you seem to expect.
From my point of view the real problem is rarely the bit about coming back from death. As you point out, it IS science fiction. The problem is in how they do it. Far too often the resurrection is handled far too casually and it becomes quite obvious that the point of it was a cheap ploy for either ratings, or contract negotiations with the actor. Too often you see someone who has been very obviously and thoroughly killed, who is then brought back with the logic of "it never actually happened" because it's easier than finding a plausible way for it too happen. If death isn't supposed to be taken seriously, than your characters shouldn't be so afraid of it.
I guess the problem isn't so much any one plot device, as simply bad writing in general....
In a large company we run in to a different problem. Internal cost centres. Every manager I've ever met would rather waste thousands of dollars of company money, than have to spend $5 out of his own cost centre. I've taken business cases to them to show that a $200 tool would save the company over $1000 worth of my time every week (and the tool would last for years), and been denied because it's "too expensive". Buying tools comes from the manager's cost centre, but employee paycheques don't.
Interestingly, repairing (and up to replacing a destroyed computer) also doesn't come from their cost centre, but a requested replacement would, leading many managers to suggest the destruction route so that the cost comes from the IT budget for repairs instead of the manager's cost centre.
I'm a field tech for a telco. They tried giving us limited rights. luckily for me, it failed. As a limited user you can't set a static IP address, which makes troubleshooting and configuring various routers, bridges, and virtual WAN setups impossible. Limited users also can't do wireshark captures, another important troubleshooting tool... There were more issues, but I can't remember them all right now.
So yes, SOME users can operate without admin rights. but not ALL users.
At my company they have a policy in place that prevents this. They will fix your machine no matter how badly your destroy it. The only way you get an upgrade is when they have determined that the machine has reached it's lifecycle time (generally 3-4 years after it becomes completely unusable for it's intended task). If you do manage to find a way to break it beyond any repair at all (which I think would require either it being run over by a tank, or in the middle of a large explosion) They will replace it with an identical model from spares stock. You will also have to work without a computer for close to a week.
On a previous laptop I went through 3 screens, 2 power supplies, 2 hard drives, 3 mother boards, and 2 wireless cards over the life of the computer. Fixing any one of those issues probably cost as much as the whole machine (especially if you consider my lost productivity of trying to do my job for a week without a computer each time)
The bigger question is, why do big companies think it's ok to violate the GPL to make their software, but don't think it's ok for us to violate their copyright on the finished product?
I don't think you have any clue how the legal system works.
The old rules would say you can do what you like with your recordings, the new rules would "clarify" that to say that you can only do so under such limited circumstances that you will never actually encounter them.
The laws don't cause a giant conflict, the new law simply removes the rights you had before.
More to the point, our legal system works on a principle where you are allowed to do anything, unless a law says otherwise. As a result, laws aren't written to allow things, only to deny them. previously the law didn't deny you these abilities, but neither did it spell out that you had them, because under our system of law it isn't necessary to do so. This also means that adding a new law ALWAYS removes some of your freedom. The more laws, the less freedom. Adding this specific law would take away freedoms you already have.
As for ethics, honesty, integrity. I'm not defending the idea of politicians not having them, but I am realistic, and know that assuming they'll actually act in the best interest of the people and not questioning every move they make is a sure fire way to loose a lot of liberties.
Working on an ambulance, I have to say this isn't true. The "Fallen And I Can't Get Up" demographic has very little correlation with the cell-phone using demographic. (Although some seniors are starting to get cell phones, the prevalence in that age group is substantially lower than in any other age group older than about 5 years old) Additionally, these patients wear a small necklace or bracelet with a call button at all times, something not feasible with a cell phone (what happens if you fall in the shower? or on the way from your bed to the bathroom in the middle of the night, you are unlikely to have your cell phone within reach in those situations)
The Lifeline industry is not in any danger at the moment, the aging population, combined with longer life expectancy is more than offsetting any minuscule loss they may be having from cell phones.
No, passing a law outlawing it would outlaw it. plain and simple.
As for politicians' ethics and common sense.... I hope you didn't type that with a straight face.
It doesn't "confuse the legal process" it changes the law, the courts then enforce the laws as they exist, meaning you can't do what you used to be able to.
And you're right. We don't need that at all. But our politicians likely WILL pass this law, it's just a matter of when...
if nobody votes for the small parties "because they can't win" then they WON'T win.
If you really believe in them, do both, donate AND vote for them.
The $1.75 isn't actually anywhere near as important as the message it sends to the other parties. If you vote for a party, and they get in, they see it as reinforcement that you think they are doing everything right. If you vote for a party, and a different one gets in, they see that many people voted for that other party, and therefore they shift their policies more towards that party's platform to try to capture more voters next time.
If you keep telling the big parties that you like what they are doing (by voting for them) you both deny the small parties any chance they have, AND you send the message to the big parties that you like everything they are doing.
"regulated market" is government speak for more regulations, and more laws. That alone is more "left" than "right" "conservative style fiscal management" is a buzz phrase meaning nothing. EVERY party pretends they are fiscal conservatives in a recession... none of the major parties actually are. and in fact of all the platforms, the green party advocates the most expensive programs, the most increase in spending, and the most new taxes.
Look where they stand on actual issues. (which I'll admit is difficult as in the time since the last election they have removed most of the easy to find policy points from their website)
What you can find right now indicates they stand for: - limiting marketing of, and place a tax on, "junk" foods and soft drinks - reduce poverty (no mention of how, but I'm betting it's through an increase in social programs) - increase regulation of food labelling and packaging - increase funding of healthy living programs, health education, and health care professionals - implement environmental and health related taxes (sorry, they call it "tax shifting"... same deal) - increase regulation around farms and farm land - enforce minimum nutritional standards for all food programs - increase regulations surrounding community design - more money for low income housing, and to help with homelessness
I don't know what your definition of "conservative" is... but increased regulation isn't "conservative" and increased social programs tends to be the very definition of a socialist party. (Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with socialism. As a country Canada *IS* socialist when compared to places like the USA, and I think that's a good thing. I'm just saying though that the Green party is too socialist for me. They may in fact be your ideal party, that's fine too. They just aren't likely to get my vote.)
If it's another minority government (regardless of party) it won't last the full term. The parties are all far too greedy for that, they all think they can wrest power from the one in charge. If it's a majority government, they'll force all sorts of garbage we don't like (like this bill) down our throats (again, regardless of which party, both of the ones likely to form any form of government are almost exact copies of each other anyway)
I honestly think minority governments are the way to go, they are the only way to keep power hungry politicians in check. I just wish there was a way to force them to spend more time working together, and less time trying to create another election to try to get a majority.
The libertarians are a little too scary for me, I really want a smaller government, but not quite that extreme... I'd like to vote Pirate, but I don't think they'll likely run anyone in my riding... So I'm not yet sure who I'll vote for.
That said, with the options in my riding, I may well vote libertarian, It would at least help to send the right signals. (and honestly, I know for a fact the conservatives will get in in my riding, the only time they didn't was when reform still existed)
But this law would also make it illegal to copy many things for personal use without consent. I'd much rather they waste my money than use it to actively make me a criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be under the misguided thought that this is a Conservative only bill... I have news for you. This bill WILL pass, no matter what government gets in. The only question is how may tries, and how long it takes. The official platforms of the opposition parties all include reference to copyright changes... and you can guarantee none of them involve increasing fair use or shortening copyright term!
I think that it would still be an interesting data point to know. I'm not saying it would be right to take stuff if there is no way to pay for it, but I'm definitely curious to see if people were more honest with working self-checkouts than when they had no way to pay at all. Call it a social experiment.
We know that theft goes up as the ease of doing so increases and as the perceived consequences decrease. (That's why we lock our door, not because it makes theft impossible, but because it makes it harder. Also why we have security cameras (especially the fake ones), it increases the perceived consequences of the action (they think they'll be caught)) This would give us a gauge on the other end of things where instead of gauging the ease of the theft we gauge the ease of doing the right thing and see what effect that has on theft.
To clarify, I believe that taking merchandise from a store without paying is very wrong and should not be done. My question here is not one of legality, or morality, my question here is one of psychology or sociology.
To be fair, it was only after they announced the cancellation of the series that decent episodes started airing...
Stargate Universe was a series I was looking forward to, and was massively disappointed in when it first came out, in fact I very nearly stopped watching it all together. The more recent episodes though have actually improved a lot and I've started to actually enjoy the show (of course only after they announced the cancellation did the series seem to improve)
Unfortunately the "trapped in a far away land trying to get home" genre of shows is VERY difficult to get right, it quickly becomes far too predictable, every episode the crew tries to get home, every episode they fail (because if they succeed the series is over) It is only once they stopped focusing exclusively on that part of the story, and started branching off to other challenges that they made it interesting.
I had a chance to try both an iPad2 and PlayBook recently. They are very fancy devices. Video on the playbook looked incredible. The iPad is almost ridiculously large compared to the PlayBook, which seems a better size for a tablet..
I think what you fail to grasp is that different people have different needs for a tablet. You may want it smaller, but I don't. I already have a small screen device that fits in my pocket (my phone), I want the tablet to be big. The playbook is too small to be useful, the iPad is pretty marginal, my ideal tablet would have a screen the size of a normal A4 piece of paper.
But I also realize that I'm not everybody, and different people want to do different things with their devices. That's why I'm glad many companies are releasing tablets in different sizes, with screens from 4 inches all the way up to just over 10 inches (IMO still a little small, but it's a start) it gives people the choice to find the one that best suits their personal needs.
As for the future of tablets... When the ipads first came out I thought they were really cool, but couldn't for the life of me figure out what I'd want one for. As time has passed though I start to see a real use for them. especially with the ability to dock them with full size keyboards and monitors. With this docking functionality and the right apps they can almost completely replace a full computer for many (not all) people, giving you the advantage of the large keyboard and monitor at home/office, while still having the potability to use it as a stand alone device on the bus/train/plane or wherever else you go. I agree that they aren't going to replace conventional computers overnight, but I think tablets and smart phones with appropriate docks will end up replacing a large percentage of desktops/laptops over the long term.
The xoom has two major disadvantages over the ipad, and these 2 disadvantages have severely hurt it's sales, which in turn leads ipad lovers to label it a complete failure.
1) price. They didn't match or beat the ipad. Theoretically this shouldn't be an issue as it does more than the ipad, but people are always comparing the two on price without noticing all the extras the xoom has
2) marketing. everyone has heard of the ipad, almost nobody I talk to knows about any other tablet at all.
We're at the same point now with tablets that we were at with smart phones a couple of years ago, we had some marginal efforts from palm, blackberry, and a couple of others facing off against the iphone which was almost in a category of it's own. iphone sales took off and apple quickly became the dominant player in the smartphone world, then android came along, and now androids out-sell iphones by a very large margin. I think the market right now is at that same turning point for tablets, and will shift away from the ipad in the next year or two as more and more of the new generation of android tablets start to ship, many of them promising price points that match or beat the ipad, and some of them with many added features. (eg toshiba's new tablet which includes a full size HDMI port, full size and mini usb ports, full size SD car reader, a replaceable battery, and other goodies)
Don't get me wrong, Apple isn't gong to vanish, but just as we are with phones today, you'll no longer see a tablet and immediately assume it must be an ipad.
This is one thing many consumers, and even more reviewers constantly fail to realize. The vast majority of manufacturers make their money from selling hardware and have no interest in doing upgrades for existing software. You MAY get one or two minor bug fixes released after you buy the device, but you will rarely get anything big because the manufacturer makes more money off you if you throw out the device and buy a new one.
I've bought many devices in the past that were amazing hardware, but with software that was "almost there" with the expectation that the manufacturer would continue to support it. I've been burned on almost every one of them. I've learned now.
Buy a device for what it is right now. Always assume that you have the final software version and that no future upgrades will ever happen. Most of the time you'll be right. Sometimes you will be pleasantly surprised when a manufacturer ships a new version. and just as often, the "new version" will turn out to be an ad-riddled piece of crippleware that takes away features you had when you bought it... (never upgrade without researching the upgrades first!)
Since changing my outlook on electronics it has been much harder for me to find what I think is "the right product", but I have been much more satisfied with my purchases.
That part is easy. Subpoena the contract.
Unfortunately this planet is rather out of continents to set up new countries on... and if you did somehow find a way, you can rest assured that some less free country would find some excuse to "liberate" you soon enough for failing to force your citizens to obey the broken laws of their country.
While I don't agree with the original article, I don't think you quite grasp the new reality of the banking world. Sure the old banks need to follow all those rules, but the precedent has been set that new banks that operate purely on the internet don't. For the biggest example see paypal, it would be really hard to argue that they don't provide banking services, yet they follow none of your original 3 points. As an asside, this is something government really needs to work to correct. Saying you aren't a bank while acting like you are shouldn't give you carte blanche to screw people over. (and no, I'm not asking for increased regulation, I'm asking to enforce existing regulations on all players in the same market)
The company I work for has many issues, and many broken processes, I certainly won't deny that. But the job itself is one I enjoy, and there is no other company in this part of the country that has the same job to offer. And luckilly, although a computer really helps me do my job, it isn't quite absolutely essential, there are ways around it (even if some of them are a little painful). Plus, I'm paid by the hour, so the lost productivity doesn't come off my paycheque.
Is that an option on XP?
Working for a company as large as the one I do, and as paranoid to boot, I'm rather certain that if they could have found a way, we wouldn't have admin rights. On the bright side, although I have had to call in to our support departments many times, Every time the problem has either been hardware (something that admin rights don't affect) or issues on server side programs (again, something local admin rights don't affect) and the same goes for pretty much everyone in my department that I've talked to. So I don't think admin rights are driving the nightmare call volume here that you seem to expect.
From my point of view the real problem is rarely the bit about coming back from death. As you point out, it IS science fiction. The problem is in how they do it. Far too often the resurrection is handled far too casually and it becomes quite obvious that the point of it was a cheap ploy for either ratings, or contract negotiations with the actor. Too often you see someone who has been very obviously and thoroughly killed, who is then brought back with the logic of "it never actually happened" because it's easier than finding a plausible way for it too happen. If death isn't supposed to be taken seriously, than your characters shouldn't be so afraid of it.
I guess the problem isn't so much any one plot device, as simply bad writing in general....
In a large company we run in to a different problem. Internal cost centres. Every manager I've ever met would rather waste thousands of dollars of company money, than have to spend $5 out of his own cost centre. I've taken business cases to them to show that a $200 tool would save the company over $1000 worth of my time every week (and the tool would last for years), and been denied because it's "too expensive". Buying tools comes from the manager's cost centre, but employee paycheques don't.
Interestingly, repairing (and up to replacing a destroyed computer) also doesn't come from their cost centre, but a requested replacement would, leading many managers to suggest the destruction route so that the cost comes from the IT budget for repairs instead of the manager's cost centre.
I'm a field tech for a telco. They tried giving us limited rights. luckily for me, it failed. As a limited user you can't set a static IP address, which makes troubleshooting and configuring various routers, bridges, and virtual WAN setups impossible.
Limited users also can't do wireshark captures, another important troubleshooting tool... There were more issues, but I can't remember them all right now.
So yes, SOME users can operate without admin rights. but not ALL users.
At my company they have a policy in place that prevents this. They will fix your machine no matter how badly your destroy it. The only way you get an upgrade is when they have determined that the machine has reached it's lifecycle time (generally 3-4 years after it becomes completely unusable for it's intended task). If you do manage to find a way to break it beyond any repair at all (which I think would require either it being run over by a tank, or in the middle of a large explosion) They will replace it with an identical model from spares stock. You will also have to work without a computer for close to a week.
On a previous laptop I went through 3 screens, 2 power supplies, 2 hard drives, 3 mother boards, and 2 wireless cards over the life of the computer. Fixing any one of those issues probably cost as much as the whole machine (especially if you consider my lost productivity of trying to do my job for a week without a computer each time)
The bigger question is, why do big companies think it's ok to violate the GPL to make their software, but don't think it's ok for us to violate their copyright on the finished product?
commenting to undo accidental "offtopic" moderation.
I don't think you have any clue how the legal system works.
The old rules would say you can do what you like with your recordings, the new rules would "clarify" that to say that you can only do so under such limited circumstances that you will never actually encounter them.
The laws don't cause a giant conflict, the new law simply removes the rights you had before.
More to the point, our legal system works on a principle where you are allowed to do anything, unless a law says otherwise. As a result, laws aren't written to allow things, only to deny them. previously the law didn't deny you these abilities, but neither did it spell out that you had them, because under our system of law it isn't necessary to do so. This also means that adding a new law ALWAYS removes some of your freedom. The more laws, the less freedom. Adding this specific law would take away freedoms you already have.
As for ethics, honesty, integrity. I'm not defending the idea of politicians not having them, but I am realistic, and know that assuming they'll actually act in the best interest of the people and not questioning every move they make is a sure fire way to loose a lot of liberties.
Working on an ambulance, I have to say this isn't true. The "Fallen And I Can't Get Up" demographic has very little correlation with the cell-phone using demographic. (Although some seniors are starting to get cell phones, the prevalence in that age group is substantially lower than in any other age group older than about 5 years old) Additionally, these patients wear a small necklace or bracelet with a call button at all times, something not feasible with a cell phone (what happens if you fall in the shower? or on the way from your bed to the bathroom in the middle of the night, you are unlikely to have your cell phone within reach in those situations)
The Lifeline industry is not in any danger at the moment, the aging population, combined with longer life expectancy is more than offsetting any minuscule loss they may be having from cell phones.
No, passing a law outlawing it would outlaw it. plain and simple.
As for politicians' ethics and common sense.... I hope you didn't type that with a straight face.
It doesn't "confuse the legal process" it changes the law, the courts then enforce the laws as they exist, meaning you can't do what you used to be able to.
And you're right. We don't need that at all. But our politicians likely WILL pass this law, it's just a matter of when...
if nobody votes for the small parties "because they can't win" then they WON'T win.
If you really believe in them, do both, donate AND vote for them.
The $1.75 isn't actually anywhere near as important as the message it sends to the other parties. If you vote for a party, and they get in, they see it as reinforcement that you think they are doing everything right. If you vote for a party, and a different one gets in, they see that many people voted for that other party, and therefore they shift their policies more towards that party's platform to try to capture more voters next time.
If you keep telling the big parties that you like what they are doing (by voting for them) you both deny the small parties any chance they have, AND you send the message to the big parties that you like everything they are doing.
"regulated market" is government speak for more regulations, and more laws. That alone is more "left" than "right"
"conservative style fiscal management" is a buzz phrase meaning nothing. EVERY party pretends they are fiscal conservatives in a recession... none of the major parties actually are. and in fact of all the platforms, the green party advocates the most expensive programs, the most increase in spending, and the most new taxes.
Look where they stand on actual issues. (which I'll admit is difficult as in the time since the last election they have removed most of the easy to find policy points from their website)
What you can find right now indicates they stand for:
- limiting marketing of, and place a tax on, "junk" foods and soft drinks
- reduce poverty (no mention of how, but I'm betting it's through an increase in social programs)
- increase regulation of food labelling and packaging
- increase funding of healthy living programs, health education, and health care professionals
- implement environmental and health related taxes (sorry, they call it "tax shifting"... same deal)
- increase regulation around farms and farm land
- enforce minimum nutritional standards for all food programs
- increase regulations surrounding community design
- more money for low income housing, and to help with homelessness
I don't know what your definition of "conservative" is... but increased regulation isn't "conservative" and increased social programs tends to be the very definition of a socialist party. (Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with socialism. As a country Canada *IS* socialist when compared to places like the USA, and I think that's a good thing. I'm just saying though that the Green party is too socialist for me. They may in fact be your ideal party, that's fine too. They just aren't likely to get my vote.)
If it's another minority government (regardless of party) it won't last the full term. The parties are all far too greedy for that, they all think they can wrest power from the one in charge. If it's a majority government, they'll force all sorts of garbage we don't like (like this bill) down our throats (again, regardless of which party, both of the ones likely to form any form of government are almost exact copies of each other anyway)
I honestly think minority governments are the way to go, they are the only way to keep power hungry politicians in check. I just wish there was a way to force them to spend more time working together, and less time trying to create another election to try to get a majority.
The libertarians are a little too scary for me, I really want a smaller government, but not quite that extreme... I'd like to vote Pirate, but I don't think they'll likely run anyone in my riding... So I'm not yet sure who I'll vote for.
That said, with the options in my riding, I may well vote libertarian, It would at least help to send the right signals. (and honestly, I know for a fact the conservatives will get in in my riding, the only time they didn't was when reform still existed)
But this law would also make it illegal to copy many things for personal use without consent.
I'd much rather they waste my money than use it to actively make me a criminal.