Delays to Canadian DMCA Could Doom Act 128
Jabbrwokk writes "Michael Geist reports legislation to create a Canadian version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been delayed again, possibly because of massive public outcry, and possibly even because of opposition from the industry itself. Canada's biggest ISPs have banded together to oppose the proposed new legislation and suggest their own solution, which include allowances for expanded fair dealing, private copying, no liability for ISPs and legislation that concentrates its wrath on commercial pirates instead of penny-ante downloaders and seeders.'"
Once more ... (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine, proposing laws that might actually be fair and balanced? What will those crazy Canucks do next?!?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Imagine, proposing laws that might actually be fair and balanced? What will those crazy Canucks do next?!?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The extent of her power is basically just being able to bitch if she wants to, but we dont have to actually listen to her.
"The Canadian constitution places the Queen as head of state, and all Canadian laws and treaties must be approved by her. In reality, an appointed governor acts as her representative, and for all intents and purposes, decisions made by the Canadian parliament are never opposed. Thus, the Queen exercise
Re: (Score:2)
Having a powerless figurehead is an idiotic waste.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We dont pay the Queen anything, she is simply a Figurehead... consider her the Eagle to the US... you dont pay the Eagle anything, hell you are killing them all... but you still put the damn thing on anything you can find...
However, we do pay for whatever she needs when she is actually within our Borders, ie: "All Expenses Paid"... transportation, housing, protection, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The population is growing by a large amount, not lowering. It's basically the opposite of what you are saying.
Re: (Score:1)
My point was, that you put it on your money, your Coats of Arms, schools, etc its your National Emblem...meaningwhile anhilating the species, doesnt matter if it was now, or 40 years ago... its been your emblem for some 200 years, just like Canda has had a relationship with the British Monarchy for about the same amount of time... but we sure as hell dont assassinate members of the Mon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Once more ... (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed, the Queen probably won't crap on your car.
Re:Once more ... (Score:5, Funny)
driving a toilet .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The population is growing by a large amount, not lowering. It's basically the opposite of what you are saying.
Re:Once more ... (Score:5, Funny)
When was the last time you saw a queen breeding center make releases into the wild to help restore local royalty populations?
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but who the hell would want to put the Queen on a hotdog bun?
-
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I dunno about that. It gives the People somebody to throw beer bottles at when they're pissed off at Government while the real Bad Guys leave town...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Once more ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree, for two reasons. One is that, as another poster pointed out, a head of state's job includes a lots of things other than exercising power: hosting state diners, doing good-will tours, giving out awards. Why not keep these roles with a specialized non-political head of state, and separate out the head of government roles (making foreign and domestic administrative policy decisions) into a political position with power.
Secondly, and more controversially, I think that there are great socio-political benefits to having a "figurehead" who represents the state and/or nation. Having spent a fair amount of time living in both the United States and Canada, it is my opinion that the US political culture is actually more suited to a constitutional monarchy than Canada is. There seems to be a sizable group of Americans who have an almost mystical respect for the presidency, treating it as a holy office that must be kept sacred. This can lead to horror and hatred that anyone would question George W. Bush "during time of war" and also to an overreaction to Bill Clinton's sexual affair sullying the presidency. In a constitutional monarchy, such people can worship the office of the head of state without interfering with or polarizing valid political criticism, since the person who gets criticized for making political decisions, the prime minister, does not occupy an office revered as representing the state/nation, in the way that some people view the presidency or monarchy as doing.
As an aside, a large majority of developed, democratic countries has figurehead heads of state, even though most of these countries are republics, not constitutional monarchies. They have a parliamentary system with a prime minister making most executive decisions, but instead of a monarch they have a president, sometimes directly elected by the people (Ireland), chosen by Parliament (Germany), or elected by an electoral college (India). In these systems the president is mostly a figurehead, with about the same power (or even less) than the Queen has in Canada.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In view of your failure to elect a competent President and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next.
Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and
Re: (Score:2)
The Queen of Canada? hahaha. Sure, we keep her picture on the $20 bill, and some of the coins, but that's about it.
The office of Governor-General is "where the buck stops" nowadays in terms of the monarchy, and while its' a position appointed by the queen, its only after the "advice" of the Canadian government - in reality, its a political sinecure made by whoever's in power at the time. The "queen" would be ill-advised to ignore the "advice."
Its the same with the "oath of allegience to the queen" tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of their Monarchy?
Hey, I'm a municipal libertarian-leaning sovereigntist, but I think the ridiculous monarchy situation is kind of cool, given other political circumstances. Among other things, it means:
Practise Safe Government: Use a Kingdom! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most telling is how the ISPs and judges have stood on these issues in the past. A judge in Canada recently compared the use of file sharing software having illegal uses to a photocopier in a
Re:Once more ... (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree with you, I think there is an important point to be made about why this is much more possible in Canada that the US.
In the US 90% of all media are controlled by just six companies; they make virtually all the movies, music, and television seen by Americans. They also have a sizable stake of the ISP business. This gives them both economic motive to accert the kind of control they do, and the muscle to do it (both monetary muscle, and the immense power they can have over public opinion via what they choose to put on the news).
In Canada the situation is very different. We don't have any media conglomerates comparable to those in the states. Our movie industry, after being practically dead for half a century, exists now primarly as a cheap shooting location for American productions. While we have a music industry, in every measurable way foreign, especially American, music has dominated for a very long time. While we have plenty of home grown television stations, except for cbc they tend to show only as much Canadian content as CRTC regulations require; its quite telling that of the top 20 shows in Canada the past few years only two are Canadian (Hockey Night in Canada and Corner Gas), and before Corner Gas became such a hit HNIC spent something like a decade all alone.
In a very real way there is a huge irony to the way American media companies have come to hate Canada. The situation in Canada, where we only produce a tiny fraction of the media we view, is entirely because of economic bullying from American content producers; quite simply they drove Canadian companies out of business. So our media companies have practically no stake in the production of content and as such barely care about things like DMCA. The media companies not having a stake means that not only do they not see draconian measures as not helping them, but it would hurt them in so far as it would create expenses for them with little reward.
On more than one occassion various industry groups in the US have threatened to cut Canada off if we don't do something about copyright infringement. And while I really don't think they have the balls to do it, I think it would benefit us greatly if it did; possibly breathing new life into industries long dominated by American content.
Re:Once more ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I double-dog dare them to. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating 26-million easily-accessible customers (English-speaking Canadians). But, more importantly, they wouldn't do it because they know that their rhetoric is bullshit.
We have been lucky (Score:5, Interesting)
I am tremendously proud of Canadians for standing up in the thousands to let it be known they do not support the adoption of the failed copyright regime suffered by citizens the United States. Our action has been essential to preventing the adoption of this law - so far.
But we have also been very lucky. The previous government introduced a bill (admittedly not as bad as what is reported to be in the current plans). An election was called before it could become law. Timing may again be on our side: the current minority government is likely to fall in the near future. If so, the clock would probably be reset.
For us to really win this, we need meaningful consultation (i.e. where we not only talk, but the government listens) to ensure the views and interests of all Canadians are taken into account. Very few politicians understand why most Canadians would care - I suspect many of them are not quite sure what to make of the current outcry. Until recently, media stories seldom even reported that the issue had another side. Until our politicians acknowledge the significance of copyright and the public passion over the issue, we must keep fighting.
Re:We have been lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ordinary people can do their part, however small it may be.
As they say, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the Conservatives for keeping it.
Hell just blame the government in general
Seriously Canada (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Seriously Canada (Score:5, Funny)
We're a mite peeved at the US right now - you were supposed to KEEP Celine Dion! It was a win-win ... we got rid of her, and she kept your old people indoors at the casinos, feeding their Social Security checks to the one-armed bandits.
And you've gone and devalued your dollar to the point where Canadians earning the Canadian minimum wage can afford to vacation in the US ... or buy a foreclosed house as a vacation home ...
What next - reimpose the draft so we'll be flooded with asylum-seeking draft-dodgers? What's up with that, eh? Are we going to have to burn down the White House again?
We're just a bunch of Canadian Idiots (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only female PM in our history (Kim Campbell) was one that took over after the previous PM retired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its the beer stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been pleasantly surprised how the Internet has been affecting politics in the US lately, and I hope that it's a long term ongoing effect. I hope that WHATEVER it is in Canada is something that spreads southward like those geese they have, or something.
Re: (Score:1)
Plus, we have had 2 Minority Governments in a row... which just amplifies it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unluckily a majority government isn't much different then a dictatorship excepting having to call an election sometime in the next 5 yrs.
Re:Its the beer stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
And when we get rid of a party, they are gone. In 1993, one of the Conservative parties passed unpopular tax laws. They went from controlling 57% of the seats to controlling
Re: (Score:2)
There are those of us who hold out hope that the Intarwebtubetrucks will help bring on that scale of blow back, but history is a stern teacher, and bribery is addictive.
Perhaps the founding fathers had more foresight than anyone gives them credi
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's less about having multiple parties... and more to do with parliamentary procedure. In Canada, if the ruling party proposes a bill and is defeated, the entire government MUST RESIGN and an election is held. It only takes ONE bill to bring down the government and give the other guys a shot. The logic is that if the ruling party tables a bill that fails to pass, then clearly the ruling party is no longer in favor with the people. This has a tendency to keep out the most insane of laws.
And whil
Re:Its the beer stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
In Canada, if the ruling party proposes a bill and is defeated, the entire government MUST RESIGN and an election is held. It only takes ONE bill to bring down the government and give the other guys a shot.
This is true and has always been the case historically. What I don't understand is the complaints from the current opposition whenever the government declares that a vote will be a confidence matter. Every vote used to be a confidence matter.
Actually, I lied when I said I don't understand it. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an article about the last government refusing to call an election after losing a vote. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/10/confidence-vote050510.html [www.cbc.ca]
Right now I think what is happening is that all sides want to blame the other side for causing yet another election. Historically the voters get p
Re:Its the beer stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and look what happened to the Liberals when they got comfortable. I don't think the number of parties in control ma
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you kindly.
- RG>
Political parties in Canada (Score:2)
4 Actually [wikipedia.org]:
Conservatives
Liberals
NDP
Bloc Québécois
Unfortunately, we blew our chance to fix the system [wikipedia.org]. So we're stuck with a system where a party that got 10.5% of the popular vote has 16.5% of the seats while one that got 17.5% of the votes has less than 9.5% of the seats (not to mention the Greens with 4.5% of the votes and zero seats).
The Bloc is not a National Party (Score:2)
The Bloc is not a NATIONAL political party. They may be a major one since catering to the whims of Quebec is aways a factor in getting anything done in parliament, but they're definitely not a national party and never will
Re: (Score:2)
Dear RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Regards,
Canadian Parliament
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
$1 CDN = $1 USD (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We would, but your currency is worth more than ours at the moment, which is why the bribe wasn't big enough.
Tell ya what, we'll hold onto Celine Dion for you. Good enough?
Re: (Score:2)
Take my rights. Please.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080213.DONATIONS13/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/ [theglobeandmail.com]
Where Elections Canada told the Liberal party that 'sky is the limit' donations for political fund raising is illegal(the cap is 1,100), and not to do it. In political circles this is just as big a hoopla right now. It's pretty cut and dry.
Hey, Canada isn't perfect! (Score:4, Insightful)
If the law were fair, making a copy of any copyrighted work on media bought in Canada would be totally legal.
Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Retail Stores (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no requirement that you copy onto levied media. You can make a personal copy onto any audio recording medium. See the Copyright Act [cb-cda.gc.ca], it's not that hard to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hear the RIAA is working right now on a fix for that. Something about legislating DNA extraction devices into all new recordable media.
-
Re: (Score:2)
If the law were fair, making a copy of any copyrighted work on media bought in Canada would be totally legal.
May as well get the nit-picking out of the way. It's not a criticism of your post, but for readers of the thread, we may as well get it right.
"
I think it's fashionable to refer to it as a tax, but it doesn't meet my definition. The Federal Government collects the money on
Re: (Score:2)
The Federal Government collects the money on behalf of CIRA [equivalent to RIAA in the US] who distributes it as they see fit to artists.
The RIAA equivalent is the CRIA, not the CIRA, and they're not in charge of distributing the levy. It's the CPCC that gets the money. Record companies get a small portion of it.
If you were to live in Canada and own a "legal copy", it would be easy to describe:
A copy you, and only you, made personally for your own personal use. You and only you must have operated whatever equipment was used to create the copy, and you must keep the copied version in your possession or destroy it.
You're talking about a private copy. You're also allowed to buy copies from a store, and those might be legal. But there's nothing in the law that says you have to keep the private copy in your possession. You just made that up.
Some of the examples you list have a grain of t
Re: (Score:2)
Copying for Private Use
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, th
Re: (Score:2)
Since I don't believe there are any cases where someone has "gone to jail" for giving a private copy to someone else, I am not sure which are the "usual legal decisions" to search to find examples. Can you point to even a single one? I'd be astounded to see a case where someone has even been fined or
Appologies to John Lennon (Score:2)
http://www.copyrightreform.us/ [copyrightreform.us]
Wishful thinking.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wishful thinking.... (Score:5, Informative)
A lobby group my have more "access" to the lawmakers, by virtue of the fact that they have their offices in Ottawa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wishful thinking.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Free markets are a good thing. But sometimes, even just *presence* of a government willing to interfere is enough to make everybody play nice.
Not quite so simple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simplified, but not idealized - I was trying to make a point in a paragraph, not give a treatise on political organization in Canada.
Of course there are going to be ways to influence - but the jaws surrounding elections
Re: (Score:2)
I believe several have left public office for plum jobs in industry, for example - often with businesses connected to their job in government. For them, reelection didn't matter.
While that's not preferred, at least it only happens once per crook. ours in the U.S. can sell out over and over.
Re:Not quite so simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Having the tool won't remove ALL bribery... But without the law, it just means the bribery(ahem "Lobbying") is legal... I just wish I understood why most US citizens have been so convinced their system is superior for so long that when someone shows them an idea they can use, they refuse to even consider the matter...
I'm Canadian (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is the case at the federal level - provincial legislation is still a bit of a patchwork. My home province (Saskatchewan) still allows campaign contributions from corporations, trade unions, etc. - it's my understanding that many other provinces either ban (Quebec, Manitoba) or restrict (Ontario, New Brunswick) non-personal contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, while the campaign financing restrictions are a Good Thing, they are fairly recent.
- RG>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Just to clarify (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The DMCA was a mistake (Score:1)
Kind of an unintended consequence of the law the media cartels wanted.
DMCA won't work up here. (Score:2)
There is an additionnal factor in Canada that is extremely different from the US, and which may very well trigger a massive civil disobedience for an eventual CDMCA: multiculturalism (that is, no "melting pot").
Immigrants are encouraged to retain their culture; there is no definite effort to force immigrants into making them into WASPs. So, ethnic communities are not something marginal (go see the chinatown in Toronto for a good example).
When all those people will be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's not racism.