Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Youtube Your Rights Online

Canadian SOPA Could Target YouTube 231

Posted by samzenpus
from the sopa-of-the-north dept.
bs0d3 writes "The music industry is seeking over a dozen changes to Canadian anti-piracy bill C-11, including website blocking, Internet termination for alleged repeat infringers, and an expansion of the "enabler" provision that is supposedly designed to target pirate sites. Meanwhile, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada also wants an expansion of the enabler provision along with further tightening of the already-restrictive digital lock rules. It's concerning that some of these expansions will create a risky situation for legitimate websites, as SOPA did in the U.S. Michael Geist outlines the legal history and complications here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian SOPA Could Target YouTube

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, Canada (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @03:59PM (#38821589)

    Looks like the citizens of every country are going to have to stay on careful guard these days. When the music industry loses in one country, they just shift focus to another for a while (then later try to sneak back in under the radar where they lost). I guess they're hoping they have the money to wait everyone out. Sadly, they may be right.

    Couldn't someone start a rumor that this bill is anti-French? At least that would get Quebec to come out against it. Of course, that's a pretty dubious ally. But you take what you can get.

    • Re:Oh, Canada (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jamstar7 (694492) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:09PM (#38821721)
      Typical MAFIAA tactics. If you get stepped on at home, go overseas and push your laws through, then come back to the US and push again, with the added excuse of 'This just gets us parity with $COUNTRY_X's laws. We need this to stay on parity with our treaties with them' and it goes through.

      The SOPA war is far from over. Hell, we're just now seeing the openning skirmishes. Why doesn't the MAFIAA just come out and say 'All yer IP is belong to us' already and be done with it?
      • by dumuzi (1497471) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:22PM (#38821829) Journal
        Canada = Overseas? I know the USA education system has myopic geography but putting an ocean between Canada and the USA......wow.
      • Well, MPAA head (and former Senator) Chris Dodd has said that the reason SOPA failed was because people were able to speak their mind and the MPAA didn't have any outlet for "correcting" us. (No outlets at all... Ignore the fact that they own all of those TV stations.) We need to get rid of that pesky freedom of speech for the common folk (aka Consumers). Our only right should be the right to purchase the MPAA/RIAA-approved entertainment materials that the MPAA/RIAA tell us to purchase.

    • Re:Oh, Canada (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nemyst (1383049) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:12PM (#38821743) Homepage

      At least Quebec didn't vote the Conservatives into power...

    • Re:Oh, Canada (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:37PM (#38822005)

      Troll much?

      Quebec voted against the current Conservative government. We massively voted for the NPD, which is a party more interested in social issues and the people. The current party in power who's not listening to Canadian wasn't voted in by Quebec, it was voted in by the rest of Canada. Shocking EH! As a French speaker, born in Montreal, I can tell you that I dislike the "Office de la langue Française" and how they are obcess with protecting the french language and the culture. But who gives a fuck about that, this isn't what C-11 is about.

      Seriously, modify your comments with black or jewish people instead of Quebec and ask yourself if you sound too much like a biggot. In Quebec, just like with the rest of Canada, we have protests about stuff that concerns all of us. We had the occupy movements in some of our cities, we had protests against being in Irak. Maybe you live in this world where Quebec is a bunch of separatists who don't care about the rest of Canada or the world, and if so, you've fallen in a bad stereotype, because that's not the case. If it was the case, Quebec wouldn't be part of Canada still, our provincial government wouldn't be the Liberals and we wouldn't have such a diverse culture from all over the world.

      So, I hope you'll be more careful in the future, not just about Quebec, but about all cultures and all nations all over the world. Racist comments have no place in this day and age.

      • The current party in power who's not listening to Canadian wasn't voted in by Quebec, it was voted in by the rest of Canada.

        Unfortunate, but also only partly true. I know that in Alberta, at least - a sea of blue with a single orange riding - we had a lot of split votes. If those people had voted stratetgically, rather than just the party they support, there would have been a hell of a lot fewer Conservative seats. Unfortunately, my riding would have had our douchebag whether everyone else voted strategi

    • by StikyPad (445176)

      Looks like the citizens of every country are going to have to stay on careful guard these days.

      As opposed to what days? The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

      "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Curran

  • well (Score:4, Funny)

    by Janek Kozicki (722688) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:01PM (#38821609) Journal

    probably it's time to get interested in namecoins...

  • you know (Score:5, Insightful)

    by masternerdguy (2468142) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:03PM (#38821627)
    So it isn't just American stupidity then folks. Quit claiming your countries are so much more just and infallible.
    • Re:you know (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quacking duck (607555) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:18PM (#38821795)

      "We" voted the fundamentalist Conservative party into majority last year. Probably the ONLY reason bad laws weren't passed the last five years is they'd been kept in check with a minority. Infallible? Canada? Hah!

      There's no stopping this crap bill or ACTA this time. The next federal election is 3 years away, people will have forgotten this by then (assuming they haven't been locked up in the new mega-prisons thanks to an massive crime and punishment bill that even Texas Republicans said was unworkable, having tried the same thing themselves and failed miserably).

      • by ceoyoyo (59147)

        I doubt it. Three years is a long time to remember a bill, unless it affects your daily life. And it will. When the RIAA starts pulling it's massive lawsuits up here and people start getting bitten by them, they'll remember. And that's not going to be over in three years.

        If they pass this, it might well be the issue at the next election that gets the Conservatives smacked down to reconsider their platform.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jamstar7 (694492)
      Hate to say, this is American stupidity, shipped North for your (non-)viewing pleasure.

      Sorry bout that, but I didn't send them North.
    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      You guys have had the DMCA since when? 2001? And have been pushing the rest of the world to adopt something similar ever since. Canada has held out for the last decade.

      What was it you were saying about being just?

      • Re:you know (Score:4, Insightful)

        by quacking duck (607555) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @06:07PM (#38822975)

        The only reason we held out was because the parties in power at the time (Liberal and Conservative both) were minority governments. Twice, copyright reform bills died when the government fell and an election was called. Last time, the Conservatives knew an election was coming and "listened" to the public outcry and shelved the bill, to give people one less bullet point against them.

        Then they got a majority. There'll be no stopping them this time.

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          There was the little matter of the heritage and/or industry ministers responsible for those bills getting either outright fired or "reassigned to another portfolio."

          Harper's not an idiot. If there's enough outcry against this, he'll drop it. If not, well, hopefully it's bad enough that the massive lawsuits start up here and continue until the next election.

  • by medv4380 (1604309) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:03PM (#38821639)
    I've had it. I liked the idea [penny-arcade.com] of requesting gamer journalists to refuse to cover E3 as long as the ESA supported SOPA, but I don't think that's enough anymore. If E3 is abandoned en mass then the ESA could easily die. They need to be turned into a public example to everyone else. This needs to become a year without E3.
  • by 0racle (667029) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:03PM (#38821641)
    Blindly doing whatever the US does.
    • by tonywong (96839)
      Blindly doing whatever the US wants.

      Fixed that for you.
      • The US does not want this. Certain corporations want this. There is a huge difference between the two, so quit throwing the rest of us in with that greedy lot.
        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          Sorry, but the leaked diplomatic cables and various actions like putting Canada on the pirates list make it pretty clear that the US government (i.e. the US - you guys are responsible for who you vote into power) is actively pushing this stuff on the rest of the world.

          • (i.e. the US - you guys are responsible for who you vote into power)

            You really think that's how it works these days? It's as clear cut as that? Because there are so many honest, everyday Joes on the ballot that aren't on the take or in some corporation's pocket, and we just choose not to elect them because we're dicks. We're simply dicks. Really, our elections boil down to which shit sandwich is going to taste the least appalling over the next 4 years, based on what is said before you take that bite. Once it's in your mouth, pretty much anything goes. The only real power we

            • Re:Canada (Score:4, Interesting)

              by ceoyoyo (59147) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @10:37PM (#38824881)

              You are responsible for the government you elect. That's what it means to live in a democracy. No, you're not all dicks. Unfortunately a large percentage of you are too apathetic to both voting (which is certainly not unique to the US), virtually all of you can't be bothered to run and actually commit to what you believe in, and the rest haven't bothered to think enough to figure out that abstaining from voting is completely stupid and everybody not voting for alternative candidates because "they don't have a chance" is nearly as dumb.

              I'm Canadian. I didn't vote for Harper (and I DID vote), but as I Canadian I know he's our fault. We're getting what we asked for. And we'll pay for it. Next time hopefully we'll know better. If not, it's still our fault.

              Vote your conscience. If everyone did that you guys would actually have a pretty decent democracy.

  • by Thud457 (234763) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:04PM (#38821653) Homepage Journal
    Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM, HP, Toshiba, Samsung and Comcast should just create a consortium.
    The purpose of this consortium would be to buy up the media companies and put a bullet in their head .
    It's time we stopped the tail from wagging the dog here. It's just good business.
    • by PRMan (959735) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:08PM (#38821705)
      Exactly. It even makes good investor sense for Google to buy, say, Universal or Viacom. Without buying them, one of their largest assets—YouTube—is in jeopardy. This even takes care of anti-trust issues.
    • by houghi (78078)

      Yeah, because the best defense against companies with too much power is to give that power to other companies.
      Especially as those new companies love to fight dirty themselves (including Google) and make up their own rules.

    • by Mista2 (1093071)

      They should see that mega upload was able to make a business out of paid subscribers even though identical DRM free content was available for free on competitors like piratebay and demonid. What are they so blind!
      I'd pay for access to drm free books, movies and music, as soon as they come available, not drm restricted stuff whenever some distro company decides I'm allowed to get it in my region to protect deals with other dying media organisations.

      What if every show that got canned managed to get piced up b

  • by HellKnite (266374) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:15PM (#38821771)

    Can we link to Michael Geist's actual article rather than that horrid looking ActivePolitic website?

    Original [michaelgeist.ca]

  • by JimCanuck (2474366) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:16PM (#38821783)

    Please, C-11 does nothing of the sort.

    C-11 is really just renaming some things in the original copyright acts, doesn't change the fact you must go to court to prove your case before having someone's website pulled, charged or anything.

    It adds a bunch of non-specifics about the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT in the law), that we signed and never actually changed our copyrights to agree with. Its you know only been 10 years since the Liberals signed it and had not done anything about it Federally.

    Also, most of the law, is worded to match that agreement, especially relating to internet sharing, however, the law was written not targeting the "service providers" and "users" as the agreement was originally signed and the American's adopted it as the DMCA, it actually appears to only target the people who are hosting/running the services. Which is following the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling about P2P file sharing being legal, as long as your not advertising, or benefiting through the copyright infringement financially.

    Which seems to be why they added this part:

    (2.4) In determining whether a person has infringed copyright under subsection (2.3), the court may consider

    (a) whether the person expressly or implicitly marketed or promoted the service as one that could be used to enable acts of copyright infringement;

    (b) whether the person had knowledge that the service was used to enable a significant number of acts of copyright infringement;

    (c) whether the service has significant uses other than to enable acts of copyright infringement;

    (d) the person’s ability, as part of providing the service, to limit acts of copyright infringement, and any action taken by the person to do so;

    (e) any benefits the person received as a result of enabling the acts of copyright infringement; and

    (f) the economic viability of the provision of the service if it were not used to enable acts of copyright infringement.

    It is all about whether your providing a "service" to aid in copyright infridgement. Not actually the users. MegaUpload = No good, Torrents/Gnutella shared among peoples personal computers = okay still.

    • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:51PM (#38822163) Journal
      C11 contains explicit exemptions to copyright infringement under a "fair dealings" guideline, but simultaneously effectively revokes all of those exemptions if or whenever the work in question has any form of digital lock. It has absolutely no fair use exemptions to circumventing digital locks. You can be breaking the law under C-11 even without violating copyright! C11 is *FAR* more restrictive than the DMCA, which contains fair use exemptions to its provisions.
      • but simultaneously effectively revokes all of those exemptions if or whenever the work in question has any form of digital lock..

        Breaking any type of "digital" lock on something, whether copyrighted or not, without the owners permission under Canadian law is illegal.

        Adding it directly onto the copyright law changes nothing, other then well nothing. Considering the users of P2P sharing who are at the moment legal to do so, are not all parties to the lock breaking, only one person is, and regardless of the copyright law, they are still in violation of computer laws by bypassing any sort of digital lock. So at best (or worst depending o

        • by JonySuede (1908576) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @07:04PM (#38823435) Journal

          Breaking any type of "digital" lock on something, whether copyrighted or not, without the owners permission under Canadian law is illegal.

          Please cite the law as I will cite the a judgment CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 :

          ...
          Under s. 29 of the Copyright Act, fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright. “Research” must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained, and is not limited to non-commercial or private contexts. Lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research within the meaning of s. 29. The following factors help determine whether a dealing is fair: the purpose of the dealing, the character of the dealing, the amount of the dealing, the nature of the work, available alternatives to the dealing, and the effect of the dealing on the work. Here, the Law Society’s dealings with the publishers’ works through its custom photocopy service were research-based and fair. The access policy places appropriate limits on the type of copying that the Law Society will do. If a request does not appear to be for the purpose of research, criticism, review or private study, the copy will not be made. If a question arises as to whether the stated purpose is legitimate, the reference librarian will review the matter. The access policy limits the amount of work that will be copied, and the reference librarian reviews requests that exceed what might typically be considered reasonable and has the right to refuse to fulfill a request.

          The Law Society did not authorize copyright infringement by providing selfservice photocopiers for use by its patrons in the Great Library. While authorization can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law. This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement. Here, there was no evidence that the copiers had been used in a manner that was not consistent with copyright law. Moreover, the Law Society’s posting of a notice warning that it will not be responsible for any copies made in infringement of copyright does not constitute an express acknowledgement that the copiers will be used in an illegal manner. Finally, even if there were evidence of the copiers having been used to infringe copyright, the Law Society lacks sufficient control over the Great Library’s patrons to permit the conclusion that it sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement. ...
           

          also there is another case in the lower court that used that judgment to allow personal backup so please cite the law you refer to

    • by AmbushBug (71207)

      Nice post but you completely missed the point of the article. The entertainment industry wants to *add* SOPA like provisions to C-11. You are correct that currently SOPA stuff isn't currently in there.

      • I am going to assume your American, cause our legal process is done differently.

        Provisions being added are quite rare unless there is bickering amongst the parties, with things being removed, and others added as a compromise at times. With the current Conservative majority, there is no need to compromise, which means the law was tabled, and will be passed as is, since this is what the Conservative party is looking for. Additionally, lobbying like is done in the United States is illegal.

        The Conservative part

        • These articles on C-11 are just fear mongering, without any real facts to back up the fear building its attempting to do. No thanks in part to people who don't know the Canadian political system, our laws, and people who are trying to find any excuse to blame the current Conservative government, when in reality, all of our international agreements for copyright laws and piracy were signed by the Liberal Party of Canada.

          The Kyoto Protocol was also signed and ratified by the Liberals, yet the Conservatives had no problem dropping that as soon as they had a majority. WIPO hasn't even been ratified by Canada.

          If the Conservatives thought it was a bad agreement, it's within their power to withdraw from it. That they haven't, and in fact tried pushing legislation through twice (and the Liberals' once), means they deserve all the scorn and blame being heaped on them over this.

    • Liar (Score:4, Interesting)

      by alexo (9335) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @07:31PM (#38823657) Journal

      Please, C-11 does nothing of the sort.

      C-11 is really just renaming some things in the original copyright acts

      Shilling much?

      Go read Section 41 [parl.gc.ca] then come back to apologize for your ludicrous statements.

      C-11 criminalizes the circumvention of DRM for any purposes whatsoever, including bunt not limited to exercising your fair dealing rights. Want to rip the DVD that you bought in order to watch it on your iPhone? Congratulations, you are now a criminal for circumventing CSS.

      Bloody liar.

  • Idiots! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tyr07 (2300912) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:22PM (#38821825)

    You can't FORCE people to buy your product. You need to make your product desirable to buy!

    Half the industry in any sector is doing this now. We're tired of being ripped off by paying to watch crappy movies, buy an entire CD when only one song is good, buy a video game to play it for five minutes then realize it sucks and so fourth. Demos are virtually gone, trailers are misleading, prices are higher out here for everything.

    There have been movies streamed off the net I've watched. I was bored and had nothing to do. You assume I would buy it, some of these movies are TERRIBLE and I would have never bought it in the first place. I'd just find something else to do. You keep assuming any person who ever watched or listened to your content would have immediately bought it giving you $$$. You're wrong, so wrong.

    I've played video games before buying them, like Mass Effect. After that I immediately bought it, and the second one as soon as it came out, and will immediately buy the 3rd as soon as it comes out too. That's because it was a quality product and I loved it.

    I did the same thing with Starcraft 2, played it at a friends, loved it, bought it. I didn't buy it at release because I wasn't sure if I'd enjoy it.

    I still haven't purchased SWTOR because I don't know if it's that good, I saw a few videos, haven't played it. For the cost versus time playing it, not worth it to me right now.

    If I could play the first few levels to try it out and see if I like it, I might buy it. I work for my bloody money and I'm tired of every single person thinking their product is so good that they deserve some of my money!

    So many artists would be ignored, people would not buy their music, or listen to it that much, watch movies by directors, go out to theater, recommend it to other people if the restrictions where always 100% you have to get some of my money before I get to know if it's worth it.

    People would just do other things more and spend less time with digital media.

    Actually, this could be doing society a FAVOR, we'll stop giving as much money to these corporations, spend more time at bars socializing or going to events.
    Then we'd spend less money on huge TV's since we use it less, less on hard drives to store media, less on monitors.

    I'm not saying it'd kill the industry, but they have this magic preconception that suddenly sales would super boom. They forget that people are strangled by high rents, gas prices and low wage jobs and that's a big chunk of why their crap isn't selling.

    • This right here is the problem. They've worked their way so deep into culture as a "you must have this product" thing that they don't realise no one really wants it. We buy their crap because we have to, in order to remain current and fulfil social functions; take away the monetary barrier and no one will look back. No one cares about the artists. We're not consuming it for art. When we do get art that we like, fans go to extremes to celebrate it: Daft Punk, Starcraft, Firefly; whatever. Unsurprisingly, the

  • I guess Canada will be the first to go back to the stone age! After they BAN the Internet, they'll have to BAN computers in-case people try to setup their own WAN by other means.
  • The internet will be so useful!

    I mean, every website will be blocked, or will be too afraid of lawsuits to post anything other than a blank page, and even when they do post material, some submarine patent or copyright troll will sue or have them taken down.

    Even this website, Slashdot will be taken down because it LINKS to a copyrighted news story. Google will be useless, because every website can be copyrighted, and you can't link to copyrighted material.

    So, the web will be entirely destroyed. The whole pur

  • You know it would be much cheaper for us all to donate to a fund and have all of the lobbyists that work for the record companies snuffed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk [youtube.com]

    • by Jeng (926980)

      Although I am truly all for this idea, you are aiming low. Cut the friggin head off by going for Chris Dodd directly, although the lobbyists are scum, they are following orders. Take out the person giving the orders and you neutralize the lobbyists.

      Of course whomever would be crazy enough to do this would spend the rest of their life in jail.

      I only suggest this because the law not only has no effect on these people, they can buy any law they want. Since the law is ineffective society needs needs other me

    • You know it would be much cheaper for us all to donate to a fund and have all of the lobbyists that work for the record companies snuffed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk [youtube.com]

      How about this as a better idea, since Google won't do it:

      Why don't we all donate to a kickstarter and set up a nonprofit to purchase these companies and release their catalogs to the public domain? Buy 'em out and shut 'em up for good I say!

  • Do we all realize (Score:4, Insightful)

    by future assassin (639396) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:38PM (#38822013) Homepage

    with out media companies there is no threat to the internet?

  • I kinda hope they succeed, pass the law and block YouTube, Facebook, and every site the feel might be infringing on a copyright.

    Why? Simple. The backlash will force the law to be repealed, and it will forever be scarred into the memory of everybody on the planet, preventing other SOPA-like laws from being passed.
  • Eh? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dynedain (141758) <slashdot2NO@SPAManthonymclin.com> on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @04:47PM (#38822119) Homepage

    Wait, I though Canada had a levy on all CDs [wikipedia.org] and magnetic media (Flash as well?) so that the recording industry could get compensation for piracy?

    They get compensation, and the power to block or take down sites? That seems like a bit too much of a handout to a particular industry for my tastes.

    • by mark-t (151149)

      You misunderstand. The purpose of the levy is to compensate for private use copying, not piracy.

      It is simply a matter of (entirely unsurprising) coincidence that people who pirate exploit these "private use" copying privileges to make themselves a copy, and then disregard the notion of "private", sharing the copies freely.

      The fact that it's effectively unworkable to actually catch most of these people breaking the law does not mean that it is not actually against the law, any more than the fact that

    • Levy on CD-Rs, yes. On DVD-Rs, no. There was a levy on storage media including mp3 players, but that was revoked several years ago and AFAIK hasn't been reintroduced.

      The recording industry in Canada long ago realized they messed up when they argued for, and won, the CD levy in the 90s. They totally missed the internet train, and DVDs. But instead of being at least somewhat reasonable about this new law, they want do double-dip by locking down media, locking up "pirates", and *still* continue collecting levi

  • And then we would see a giant, titan monolithic enterprise, backed probably by all other giants (considering they could be next )
    and start to fend off any attempts by stupid politicians to put their nose in technologies they do not understand.

    If we have a big fighting company stand ground against these old farts, they might get the notion, change the mentality and not the technology...
    There are so many other options that they could easily adopt, that would make piracy fade away.....
    but they would have to un

  • Only problem is (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @05:02PM (#38822275)

    Canadians are passive and will allow this to roll through largely uncontested, just like all the tariffs that are STILL slapped on anything that can play music in spite of the fact that most devices these days have online music stores built into them meaning the tariff is largely charged against people who are legitimately using these devices to buy music.

    The fact is Canadians should rise up against the CRTC which largely allows the Big 3 Canadian telco's to charge whatever the f*ck they want for their [insert sh*ty] services without any consumer protection and then these telcos make it difficult for any "competitive" re-sellers to operate. CRTC is limiting what services like Netflix can bring into Canada. CRTC is allowing such bullshit as SOPA like FUD into Canada. CRTC is ensuring price fixing and regular gouging of customers through mandatory fee increases.

    If there is any organization that is less in touch with the 21st century telecommunications is an organization that was set up for radio and television transmissions. If there is any organization less committed to protecting consumer rights, its the good ol' Canadian Radio and Television Commission.

    • by AmbushBug (71207)

      Canadians are passive and will allow this to roll through largely uncontested...

      Canadians have already fought off 2 or 3 attempts at passing crappy copyright legislation so maybe they aren't so "passive". C-11 is just the latest incarnation. The problem this time around is that the current government has a marjority in parliment so they can pretty much do whatever they want. Although you may be right about the CRTC, it has nothing to do with this...

  • I'm just not going to buy any new content, I won't steal it either. If there is something I just have to see I'll record it on my PVR and skip the commercials. If everyone does this together we can bring down the MPAA and RIAA. Just stop giving them money which they will use to harm you.

If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.

Working...