The Liberals? Force an election? If they didn't do it over Afghanistan or the budget, what makes you think they'll do it over something that the average person knows nothing about? My biggest fear is that this will be a matter of confidence, thus shooing away the Liberals and giving this bill a free ride through parliament.
Yeah, but if this bill is considered a confidence motion, then Stephane "The Coward" Dion will just make the Liberal party sit out on the vote, and it'll pass right on through. I'm no fan of the Liberals, but I'll take another 13 years of Liberal rule than deal with the consequences of this bill.
Fuck off, twitter. This has nothing to do with MSFT, and everything to do with our rights as Canadian citizens and consumers. Please, take your anti-corporate rants elsewhere.
The bill would also allow consumers to record television and radio programs to watch or listen to later. And it would allow Internet programs to be recorded as long as they are simultaneously aired on television or radio.
There would also be limits on the time such recordings could be kept, so consumers couldn't build a library of recordings.
Department officials weren't able to say how long recordings would be allowed to be kept for later viewing.
I received an e-mail from the Minister of Industry, Jim Prentice (Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca), presumably because I've e-mailed him about this in the past. In it are the current government talking points. Please, do your best to refute these and point out the horrible, horrible flaws in this bill. Find your MP by postal code, and give them a good thrashing.
The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.
What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?
Specifically, it includes measures that would:
expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;
implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;
clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and
provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.
What Bill C-61 does not do:
it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation
What this Bill is not:
it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia
Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.
For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home
Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.
The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Industry
The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women
and Official Languages and Minister for
La Francophonie
The mind of a censor is best described in the following joke/anecdote.
Every day, Joe, a construction worker, would walk to his job singing dirty songs. Mrs. Williams finally got fed up and complained to the police about Joe's singing. They told Joe to cut out the singing. The next day, Mrs. Williams complained again. They asked Joe, and he had stopped singing. So they asked her what the problem was. "He's whistling dirty songs now."
Well, this will be interesting. I wonder if this will get used against him (i.e. he gets called a hypocrite), or if it'll affect his judgment regarding the case he has right now.
But if they're civil actions, why are they criminal suits? Again, I could very well be wrong, but I thought that criminal and civil were two exclusive parts of the legal system.
Men of this quality got out of politics because of the infestation of slime balls. However, I also suggest you read Eric Flint's columns on copyright, specifically on DRM and how it applies to publishing and society.
How is that even possible? Is someone suddenly not a criminal when you find out who they are? I'm terribly ignorant of the law, but I was always under the impression that criminal suits had to be brought by a DA, and even then it was rare for a case to be suddenly dropped unless new information was brought to light.
And then once you're suitably pissed off, go check out this amazing argument in favour of reasonable copyright terms (specifically, 42 years or until death).
But what happens when they grab the first non-RIAA song that was mislabeled? Or worse (for them), what if they forget to turn off their file-sharing and end up sharing someone else's song?
What about the fact that the stuff sways kids because they're ignorant? Maybe telling them all the benefits and drawbacks without the screaming hysteria would give them an opportunity to make an informed decision. Then, when they do take the stuff anyways, it's not for lack of effort on society's part to inform them.
So what? Call me an inhuman bastard, but if people are that goddamn stupid and gullible, then maybe they deserve to learn the hard way. Just because Joey Highschooler makes an idiot decision does not mean that I'm not allowed to discuss the benefits of drugs. Especially if I'm kind enough to point out the negative effects of said drugs immediately after that.
Excuse me. I'm a more-or-less conservative person. Note the lower case c. I regularly read stuff from my relatively conservative newspaper and I'm often offended by the conservative opinions leaking into the story. That being said, I love reading a good editorial, especially if the writer uses humour.
Alcohol is addictive too. Oh, and so is tobacco. In fact, so are many over-the-counter drugs. Oh, and don't forget all those prescription drugs with addiction issues (diazepam or morphine, anyone?). Oh, and there's things that do major damage your body, such as various cancer treatments, or the potentially fatal side effects of aspirin. However, all of these things also have many medical benefits.
So let's make them illegal. Oh wait, that worked so well with prohibition. And in Canada, almost 25% of cigarettes are suspected to be illegal, and that's just due to the high taxes.
So let's drop the addiction argument and take a good long look at how addictive it is, how much it takes to get addicted, etc... Let people make their own decisions for themselves. Inform them. Discourage them from doing it, but let them if they want to. The problems associated with the illegality of drugs are probably worse than the problems associated with addiction to said drugs. Now I'm not saying go out and start selling them in your local 7/11, I'm just saying stop throwing people in jail for having those drugs.
But I'm getting off-topic. Addiction is addiction, yes, but one must look at the severity of the addiction and the benefits of using the addiction product, before automatically dismissing the product.
Slashdot Mirror
The Liberals? Force an election? If they didn't do it over Afghanistan or the budget, what makes you think they'll do it over something that the average person knows nothing about? My biggest fear is that this will be a matter of confidence, thus shooing away the Liberals and giving this bill a free ride through parliament.
Yeah, but if this bill is considered a confidence motion, then Stephane "The Coward" Dion will just make the Liberal party sit out on the vote, and it'll pass right on through. I'm no fan of the Liberals, but I'll take another 13 years of Liberal rule than deal with the consequences of this bill.
Fuck off, twitter. This has nothing to do with MSFT, and everything to do with our rights as Canadian citizens and consumers. Please, take your anti-corporate rants elsewhere.
We think we have slightly higher expectations. Public consultation is pathetic, no matter where you go in the States or Canada.
For now.
That's why they have a copilot.
Codification of hypocrisy or not, it's still the current legal test of what is and isn't hypocrisy in the States.
The mind of a censor is best described in the following joke/anecdote.
Every day, Joe, a construction worker, would walk to his job singing dirty songs. Mrs. Williams finally got fed up and complained to the police about Joe's singing. They told Joe to cut out the singing. The next day, Mrs. Williams complained again. They asked Joe, and he had stopped singing. So they asked her what the problem was. "He's whistling dirty songs now."
Well, this will be interesting. I wonder if this will get used against him (i.e. he gets called a hypocrite), or if it'll affect his judgment regarding the case he has right now.
But if they're civil actions, why are they criminal suits? Again, I could very well be wrong, but I thought that criminal and civil were two exclusive parts of the legal system.
Men of this quality got out of politics because of the infestation of slime balls. However, I also suggest you read Eric Flint's columns on copyright, specifically on DRM and how it applies to publishing and society.
How is that even possible? Is someone suddenly not a criminal when you find out who they are? I'm terribly ignorant of the law, but I was always under the impression that criminal suits had to be brought by a DA, and even then it was rare for a case to be suddenly dropped unless new information was brought to light.
And then once you're suitably pissed off, go check out this amazing argument in favour of reasonable copyright terms (specifically, 42 years or until death).
But what happens when they grab the first non-RIAA song that was mislabeled? Or worse (for them), what if they forget to turn off their file-sharing and end up sharing someone else's song?
What about the fact that the stuff sways kids because they're ignorant? Maybe telling them all the benefits and drawbacks without the screaming hysteria would give them an opportunity to make an informed decision. Then, when they do take the stuff anyways, it's not for lack of effort on society's part to inform them.
So what? Call me an inhuman bastard, but if people are that goddamn stupid and gullible, then maybe they deserve to learn the hard way. Just because Joey Highschooler makes an idiot decision does not mean that I'm not allowed to discuss the benefits of drugs. Especially if I'm kind enough to point out the negative effects of said drugs immediately after that.
Excuse me. I'm a more-or-less conservative person. Note the lower case c. I regularly read stuff from my relatively conservative newspaper and I'm often offended by the conservative opinions leaking into the story. That being said, I love reading a good editorial, especially if the writer uses humour.
Alcohol is addictive too. Oh, and so is tobacco. In fact, so are many over-the-counter drugs. Oh, and don't forget all those prescription drugs with addiction issues (diazepam or morphine, anyone?). Oh, and there's things that do major damage your body, such as various cancer treatments, or the potentially fatal side effects of aspirin. However, all of these things also have many medical benefits.
So let's make them illegal. Oh wait, that worked so well with prohibition. And in Canada, almost 25% of cigarettes are suspected to be illegal, and that's just due to the high taxes.
So let's drop the addiction argument and take a good long look at how addictive it is, how much it takes to get addicted, etc... Let people make their own decisions for themselves. Inform them. Discourage them from doing it, but let them if they want to. The problems associated with the illegality of drugs are probably worse than the problems associated with addiction to said drugs. Now I'm not saying go out and start selling them in your local 7/11, I'm just saying stop throwing people in jail for having those drugs.
But I'm getting off-topic. Addiction is addiction, yes, but one must look at the severity of the addiction and the benefits of using the addiction product, before automatically dismissing the product.
And who, pray tell, will write and vote for the laws making this illegal?
But don't you see? They might be giants!