Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikileaks Says Public Forced Canadian DMCA Delay

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the political-economy dept.

Canada 177

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that a new WikiLeaks cable confirms that the Canadian Conservative government delayed introducing a Canadian DMCA in early 2008 due to public opposition. The US cable notes confirmation came directly from then-Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who told US Ambassador David Wilkins that cabinet colleagues and Conservative MPs were worried about the electoral implications of copyright reform."

cancel ×

177 comments

first post forces shit delay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970020)

I'm pushing cotton but I wanted to release a frosty piss before I shit my pants... oh fuck!!!!

Re:first post forces shit delay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970062)

Funniest first post for ages

Well (5, Insightful)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970036)

At least they listened for once.

Of course, if our politicians actually, you know, GAVE A FUCK, then they wouldn't have re-introduced the same tired shit. But hey, once at least the court of public opinion stopped a politician from being, well, a lying scumbag asshole politician

Re:Well (5, Interesting)

RsG (809189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970102)

You know, this actually is somewhat promising news. It means that, if the Tories gauged it right, this is enough of an issue for the voting public to keep it from becoming law. Either they're worried about voters getting pissed off at new copyright restrictions, or they realize that bowing to international pressure from the US makes them look weak, which their rivals won't hesitate to exploit.

Either way, as long as a minority government remains in place, it means there's less chance of a pseudo-DMCA ever becoming law.

Re:Well (4, Informative)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970326)

I was writing letters to my MP about this. There didn't seem to be a huge public outcry, but perhaps it really doesn't take that many letters to MPs to make a difference. I'm fairly upset about the last bill's digital lock provisions. Looks like it's time to write some letters again.

Re:Well (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970562)

MPs have to read those letters and they do have a lot of swing. MPs will use these letters to back anything, even if they are trying to push something the public doesn't want... if only the opposition writes to them then they can use it as "proof". Writing helps a ton. Ask anyone in the public service if they've received an MP inquiry, anyone who has dealt with these know they come from letters/complaints to MPs and they get dealt with very quickly in most cases.

Re:Well (5, Interesting)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970800)

MPs are toothless. If the party leader in Canada tells them to vote a certain way, or talk a certain way, they have to. Otherwise they get kicked out of the party. It has happened before; look at John Nunziata (Liberal fired by Prime Minister Chretien for voting with integrity), and Garth Turner (Conservative fired by Prime Minister Harper for daring to think on his own). Then next election no one will pay for their election campaign and they're for sure out of a cushy job. It doesn't matter much that they aren't given any opportunity to speak in the house during question period if they are independent (only MPs in parties get anything more than around (literally) two or three minutes talking time each year during question period).

I have no idea why we have to pay to have MPs elected in ridings. It would save a lot of money if we just elected the leaders and gave them each a weighted vote commensurate with what percent of the popular vote they got. If we get a majority government in Canada it amounts to a limited term dictatorship. If it is a minority government like we just had, it is a limited term oligarchy [tfd.com] . We need reform so that we can have true representative democracy, where the MPs can really vote the way the people who elected them want them to. Then we wouldn't have the BS where everyone in the house yells to get the attention of the party leaders so they can be good dogs and maybe get a bone, and keep their jobs. The party leaders should have no say in how members vote and represent their ridings, nor in who the riding associations (Conservatives, Liberals, etc.) pick to run in elections. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way right now. Our democracy is broken.

Vote NDP! (4, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971170)

You obviously want to vote NDP this election but just don't know it yet. One of the things on Jack Layton's platform is election reform, specifically proportional representation [www.cbc.ca] which is exactly what you want. With proportional representation, issues won't be "rounded-out" by arbitrary dividing areas up into ridings. National issues say with about 10% interest will get 10% power in Parliament. Not swept under the rug as-is now because the member you want to vote for is half-way across the country and there isn't enough interest in your area to have someone on your ballot. Vote the NDP in, get the election system fixed and then vote as you will. Layton has a PhD in Political Science if you read that article by the way so he knows where the rough spots are.

Of course, voting in the NDP to fix the election system takes foresight to see that you can vote in the next election for whoever you want with a better system. Most voters don't want/can't see beyond one election so it's a difficult proposition to push.

Re:Vote NDP! (5, Insightful)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971642)

You missed my point. What I am concerned about is NOT proportional representation. That is the least of our worries. I want representational democracy. I want my MP to be able to vote his/her own mind, not be told by the party leader how to vote . Once our representatives can actually represent us, and not their party leader back at us, then we can worry about improving how we get them there.

If Layton said he would introduce a constitutional amendment that all votes in Parliament (house and senate) were to be truly free votes, then I would vote for him. Proportional representation is not the same as representative democracy. They may be related, but they are not the same. Don't get me wrong, the Instant Run Off Voting [wikipedia.org] is OK, and I would agree to it. IROV is the version of Single Transferable Vote [wikipedia.org] system that we would use in Canadian elections; since we only have one winner for each riding election.

Re:Vote NDP! (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971716)

Thank goodness there are people on the internet I DON'T know that want instant runoff in Canada. I was starting to think that the only people who wanted that were a small group of people in my small circle of friends. Also - I totally agree on free votes, I happen to be (hopefully) represented yet again this election by an MP that has voted against his party (Liberal) quite a few times when it was called for, but I think it should happen a heck of a lot more often.

Re:Vote NDP! (1)

seyyah (986027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971998)

I'm not sure about every issue, but I do know that NDP members voted freely on laws such as the long-gun registry.

Re:Vote NDP! (2)

RedACE7500 (904963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972098)

It's up to the party leaders to allow their members to vote freely or not. It's tradition for the leaders of the parties to allow free voting on bills introduced by private members, but this is not always the case (for example, the Liberals voted the party line on the long-gun registry). The reason party leaders can so tightly control their members votes is because the party leaders decide who gets to be in their party. We don't have primary elections like in the US where anyone can run in the Democrat or Republican primary to get their name on the ballot in the general. The party leaders decide who gets to run for them. As far as I know, this system is the choice of EACH PARTY. If the NDP wanted to hold primaries to determine who would run under the NDP name in each riding, I don't think there's anything stopping them... but they don't do this, because it would mean they couldn't control their members' votes.

Re:Well (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970584)

Generally, the letters to major politicians around the world (in democratic countries) are read by a small time member(s) their staff. When same issue starts coming up in sufficient amount of letters, they take it to their boss, usually chief of staff.

And if the chief of staff the amount to be sufficient to matter, he takes it to the politician. As a result, only few such issues raised by electorate is ever given any attention by the actual politician - however this also works in other direction, meaning that issues that do reach politicians' ears are usually taken with a significant degree of seriousness.

You can only assume that it was indeed the AMOUNT of letters in this case, i.e. enough people caring about the issue to complain to actually reach politicians' ears and to make them CARE.

Re:Well (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970780)

Generally, the letters to major politicians around the world (in democratic countries) are read by a small time member(s) their staff. When same issue starts coming up in sufficient amount of letters, they take it to their boss, usually chief of staff.

I can't speak for other nations like the USA, but as for here in Canada, you're greatly overstating the number of people staffing a Canadian Member of Parliament. You'll typically have a staffer or two at their constituency office "back home" and a staffer in their office in Ottawa and that's about it. There will be some pooled staff to support things like travel, but these are non-political staff. An MP will not have a "Chief of Staff" unless s/he's a federal Minister. I recently wrote a letter to my MP and a week later he phoned me. That's not uncommon if your letter is well-written, non-wingnuttish, and under the MP's jurisdiction (i.e. not city potholes).

Re:Well (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970932)

And if your MP/MLA/MPP is not just a lump of shit. I've been helped with an issue I had with the government when I lived in the Winnipeg/Saint Boniface riding. Ron Duhamel (may he rest in peace) helped me when the government was jerking me around financially for about four or five months leaving me short on cash. I saw him in his local riding office (he was in town). He literally asked me if I was bullshitting about anything because he was going to rattle some cages. The problem was fixed in no kidding, two days. Then again, in Kitchener a few years back I needed some assistance from my MP and/or MPP for a medical issue. All I got was a form letter from them saying how they are working on getting Canada/Ontario a better medical system with less waiting times. I ended up getting treatment in Buffalo. So yeah... if you get a fucktard who is only interested in keeping his seat for six years till he/she gets their full parliamentary pension, you get nothing.

And for anyone who watches poker Duhamel is pronounced do-Ham-EL each piece distinctive (especially the EL). Not run together like the mumble they do on TV where the HAM is emphasized and the other two syllables aren't. Sorry... one of those things that sets me off is listening to announcers butcher French names.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35972062)

wait, but, wait, damnit, I thought canada had a perfect medical system and the USofgoamerica was shit.

Re:Well (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971872)

It depends a lot on the MP. I called the office of the MP where I live (Scott Reid, Conservative), for help with an immigration issue. They asked me to fax in the relevant papers. I called two weeks later and they didn't know who I was. I reminded them that my two children had no mother because she was being jerked around waiting for her landed immigrant status. No action over the next two months.

So I called the office of the MP where I work (Peter Milliken, Liberal). Within two days they had faxed the immigration office in Manila and got them to return my wife's passport (the office demanded a new medical exam, which required the passport, but the office had had her passport for three months and would not respond to my requests to return it). Granted it was couriered COD, for $150, but at least we were able to get the paperwork done.

I have written several physical letters to Scott Reid's office and not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

Re:Well (1)

fatwilbur (1098563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970992)

Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder how many letters they did get. I don't write to my MP that often, but on this issue I did write my MP and the Industry Minister.

Re:Well (1)

lonecrow (931585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971982)

And don't forget to vote this Monday May 2nd!

Re:Well (1, Insightful)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970848)

You know, this actually is somewhat promising news. It means that, if the Tories gauged it right, this is enough of an issue for the voting public to keep it from becoming law. Either they're worried about voters getting pissed off at new copyright restrictions, or they realize that bowing to international pressure from the US makes them look weak, which their rivals won't hesitate to exploit.

They will just wait until after elections to vote on things like these. TFS even says "delay". They WILL vote on this! Anyone who even peripherally follows politics knows how divisive issues wax and wane during election cycles to attract moderates. In this case, younger voters. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are after swing voters, it's not that your opinion is particularly popular.

For the love of God folks, read real fucking news!

Re:Well (3, Insightful)

thirty-seven (568076) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971002)

They will just wait until after elections to vote on things like these.

The point of the poster to whom you replied is that, as long as there is a minority government in place, they will hopefully be held back from introducing some version of a DMCA by public opinion and a fear that it would cost the governing party at election time. Because in a minority government situation, there isn't really a significant amount of time "between" elections. You might be back in an election just six months after the previous one, so it's not a situation where you can pass unpopular legislation right after an election and then expect that it will be largely forgotten by the electorate at the next election in four years.

Re:Well (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971700)

not if they get a majority government. In a majority government, they can pass the law, everyone would get upset, but nothing would change, and by the time the 4 year mandate ends, the population will have forgotten.

but in a minority government, the dynamics are very different...

Re:Well (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970178)

Ah. That's because the government was a minority government [wikipedia.org] . It makes government much more responsive to the public than they would be in a majority situation. The politicians worry about what the public thinks because an election could happen at any time. It's like having them on a short leash. I love it.

Thank goodness we've had successive minority governments or they would have rammed DMCA-style legislation through at some point regardless of public opposition. And I have to give the previous governments that have introduced these copyright bills to parliament a tiny bit of credit -- slowly the bills are getting less bad with each iteration. Maybe the next one will finally be a proper balance.

I'm also glad that politicians worry about on-line and other public activities regarding these issues. Good. They should worry. They're supposed to be listening to all of us, not only commercial interests.

[raises glass] Here's hoping for another minority government, regardless of who wins the election on Monday.

Re:Well (4, Informative)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970216)

If that was Stephen Harper being responsive to the public during a minority, let God have mercy on our souls if he ever gets a majority.

Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

Re:Well (2)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970434)

responsive to the public, not responsive to his opposition. harper cares about getting re-elected.

Re:Well (4, Insightful)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970646)

Harper certainly cares about being re-elected. That's why he's willing to screw with the system and try esoteric garbage like proroguing in an effort to keep his crap from catching up with him, and then blame yet another expensive election on the other parties because they refused to kowtow to him and that makes the government's fall the fault of the evil opposition.

Re:Well (2)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970662)

yes...this is what I said, except less ranty.

Re:Well (2)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971234)

Pardon my losing my point in my rantiness: He's NOT responsive to the public, he just manipulates them to try get the public to vote him in.

Saying Harper is responsive to the public is like saying a chess player is responsive to his pawns.

Re:Well (1)

thechink (182419) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971350)

In other words: He's a politician.

Re:Well (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971076)

"If that was Stephen Harper being responsive to the public during a minority, let God have mercy on our souls if he ever gets a majority."

Yes, while I agree with you, I honestly don't think *any* of our current main parties deserve a majority, least of all the Conservatives. When I think what any of the 3 main parties would do with majority power, I think minority government -- ANY minority government -- is the best place to be.

I don't care if we have minority governments for the next decade, even if that means we have elections more frequently. But I do want them to get the message that if they don't play nice in parliament together, we'll take it out of their hides (i.e. whichever parties play less nicely will get less seats to work with). In that respect, yeah, I hope it's a minority government by a party other than Mr. Harper's, because his behavior has been increasingly bad. The prorogation was ridiculous. Judging by some of his comments on coalitions being "undemocratic", that guy doesn't even understand Canadian parliamentary democracy. Heck, the UK, from which our parliamentary system is derived, *is* in a coalition right now, and there has been a coalition government before in Canada too. Wait, but I know Harper knows this. He's not ignorant. Thus it is apparent the guy will say any damn fool thing in an attempt to get re-elected. On top of that, he doesn't like answering questions from the media? Too damn bad. It's one of the ways you communicate with the electorate. It's your JOB to talk to the media. You're supposed to answer tough questions, not evade questions entirely. I especially liked the way he repeated his answers in English and in French after the leader's debate in order to get away with answering only 3 questions from the reporters. Hell, even Giles Duceppe answered questions posed in English in English, and questions posed in French in French, and thereby answered more than twice as many as Harper did. The contempt with which he treats his audience is pathetic.

Anyway, obviously I reveal my preference, but I'd still take yet another Conservative minority government with Harper over any kind of majority government. Yes, it took a long time, but with 2 failed copyright reformed bills, even his government seems to be getting the message, which is indeed an accomplishment. I have to give them credit for waking up to the fact that, yes, Canadians actually do care about copyright reform and the details of it. I still remember Prentice, who presented the copyright bill, standing up there like a deer in the headlights when a reporter asked him why Canadians should be pleased about new rights for format shifting if they couldn't excise those rights because breaking the "digital locks" in those same DVDs would be illegal. Priceless!

You know. I think it would teach Harper a lesson to have to slink back to parliament with a minority and have to try to get along with the other parties again after he's slagged them so severely during the whole campaign. Talk about burning your bridges. He obviously thought from the pre-election polls that he was within reach of a majority and didn't have to care about them any more, and while the election results aren't counted and it's fair to say a lot is possible, I don't think he's getting the majority he was hoping for. Again.

And if he wins a majority? Uh, I'm moving to the USA. (Just kidding)

Re:Well (4, Insightful)

mmontour (2208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971444)

Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

I was amused by a recent Conservative attack ad that accused Jack Layton of being "desperate for power" and "blindly ambitious". They've certainly been taking lessons from the US NeoCons - look at your own guy's biggest flaws and then accuse your opponents of it.

Really wasn't responsive, still intro'd it twice (3, Insightful)

guidryp (702488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971540)

C-32 was still introduced in 2008:

C-61 was another attempt in 2010:

Both of these died with the Minority government.

You can bet we will quickly get a new one from the new government next week.

If it is a Majority Government, I expect we go whole hog US style copyright, so the lawsuits will start destroying the lives of Canadians for file sharing...

If it is a Minority Government, the bill will need to have significant concessions for Canadian citizens to get passed by the Opposition parties.

Fingers crossed for a Minority.

Re:Well (2)

lonecrow (931585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972002)

Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

We are doing everything right so you should sit down, shut up and do as your told.

- S. Harper

One of the funnier sides of elections is listening to politicians be so logically inconsistent and not even being aware of it. For example our local Conservative MP droned on about how well Canada is doing and about how much was due to his governments good management over the last 5 years. Then immediately warned of the dire and irreversible damage that would be befall Canada if they didn't get a majority. So which is it? Can you manage well despite a minority government? or does a minority government mean woe for all? Cause you can't have it both ways.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970952)

[raises glass] Here's hoping for another minority government, regardless of who wins the election on Monday.

You missed the part where the liberals were going to support it as well, then?

Re:Well (4, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971788)

Getting less bad with each iteration??? Did you even read a summary of the most recent bill proposal? It gave consumers all kinds of rights and, in the same instant, took them away "if there was DRM". In other words, consumers would have had ZERO rights over content they bought. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Sorry for trying to drill the point home but it's really that serious - the most recent bill proposal absolutely threw out any pretense of consumers having any rights, what-so-ever. They disguised how bad the bill was by describing all the rights that consumers had so it felt good but, in every instance, they immediately took those rights away if DRM was present (it wouldn't have had to be strong DRM - _ANY_ DRM would have stripped away all the consumer's rights).

Seriously, had that bill passed, we wouldn't have been able to legally record a show with a VCR, rip a CD, own an mp3 player (since it wouldn't have been legal to actually play anything...). It was disgusting.

Re:Well (2)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970182)

Unfortunately, like most (all?) politicians, the are likely just telling us what we want to hear and not what they intend on doing.

Everything sounds fine and dandy until they get elected....

Just my 2 cents (2.1 cents USD)

Re:Well (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970984)

Yeah... well your two cents is worth a lot more then what you think:

Conservative MPs were worried about the electoral implications of copyright reform

That means they did not give a FUCK about the ethical implications. They did not care about copyright either. What does it mean? What is its true purpose in society? How can we create copyright law that encourages innovation and creativity by protecting the artists while also nurturing and protecting a strong public domain that is critical to the very success of an advanced society? How do we do all that and balance out the motivation to protect artists (really the distribution channels) *temporary* rights we granted them to control distribution and protect profits against the rights of our citizens that we ostensibly here to protect as well?

No.

From that line the only fucking thing they cared about was if it pissed off enough Canadians to cause their fat corrupt lazy asses to be kicked out of government.

Your two cents is a bargain basement price for a +5 insightful.

Re:Well (2)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970246)

The bit on pharmaceutical patents (further down the Cable) is worrying, too.

Re:Well (3, Interesting)

drgould (24404) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970724)

But hey, once at least the court of public opinion stopped a politician from being, well, a lying scumbag asshole politician

I'm not disagreeing completely, but I just want to point out that the stated reason why he opposed the legislation was because of "the electoral implications".

Not for ethical reasons, not because it was the right thing to do, not because it was best for the citizens of Canada, but for "electoral implications".

So I guess that still makes him "a lying scumbag asshole politician". But, hey, whatever works.

Re:Well (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971182)

Good point

Re:Well (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970736)

"were worried about the electoral implications"

THAT gives you new faith in government?

Re:Well (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971128)

"were worried about the electoral implications"

THAT gives you new faith in government?

Yes, because it proves we still have the power to choose and that they're still aware of it.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971348)

Sadly, yes... considerably more faith. I seriously thought that every politician was out to rape me for the fun of it... all of my life... but this has opened my eyes... I actually have a say... this democracy isn't just a show to appease the moderately disgruntled...

Re:Well (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971270)

Delay... not actually discard.

Bill C32, our government's latest copyright reform bill, is not really any better than the DMCA, and in a lot of ways it is much worse. The debates and panels for Bill C32 are on temporary hold until after the election, but it's inevitable that if the conservatives win this election, they will either reintroduce the bill shortly thereafter, or else they will draft up something even worse.

Not really about listening, Minority Government. (2)

guidryp (702488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971462)

At least they listened for once.

The only reason it couldn't be passed was we have always had minority governments when they tried to introduce it multiple times.

Monday could bring a Majority Conservative government and whatever DMCA industry lobbyist ask for in short order. :(

Beholden to the Public They Serve (5, Insightful)

Ruke (857276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970044)

I'd sure be nice if politicians were this concerned with passing legislature that their constituents supported all of the time, instead of only during election season.

Re:Beholden to the Public They Serve (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970600)

If you ever invent a political system where such thing is possible, I strongly suggest you keep it to yourself.

Because if you even whisper about it, you going to vanish. Essentially all the powerful people in the world like the current system very much, especially because they can run through things that are in direct opposition of public interests using their political puppets, and still get those puppets re-elected a few years down the road instead of having to invest in new ones.

Re:Beholden to the Public They Serve (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971856)

The system is in place. The trick is that the public has to realize that voting is one of the least important political actions. Far more important is to be in frequent communication with your representatives' offices and convincing others to do the same. It takes a decent chunk of people making a lot of noise to convince a politician that he'll lose the next election by passing a particular measure. That requires paying consistent attention to what's happening in the off-season, and it requires a much larger time investment than voting once a year or so.

The politicians are certainly shirking their responsibilities to the public by ignoring what it wants until they are beaten over the head with it. The public is equally guilty of shirking its head-beating duties.

Some advantages... (2)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970058)

I guess there's got to be some advantage to having an election every 18 months...

Re:Some advantages... (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970110)

That's right baby. And we won another sweet battle. The traffic cap limits that Bell/Rogers wanted to force over independent providers like TekSavvy. They were forced to stop the bill, and with the coming elections, it is effectively put in the garbage bin, where its place is, if you ask me.

Re:Some advantages... (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970248)

We are winning some victories. Now if we could just get rid of the CRTC entirely and let REAL competition in...

Re:Some advantages... (4, Insightful)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970322)

Right, because deregulating an industry is a "great" idea. *rollseyes*

The problem with the CRTC is not that it exists, but that it is a captured regulator. It is a regulatory body controlled by the industry it's supposed to regulate.

Re:Some advantages... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970396)

Funny how that works, huh.

Re:Some advantages... (2)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970422)

I didn't say deregulation. I said get rid of the CRTC.

You are entirely correct in your assessment of the CRTC. If you didn't have the CRTC (but still a regulartory body protecting consumers) then we could ditch all the farked suck-off-Canadian-corporations rules and bring other global players into the TV/Cell/Phone/Internet/etc space.

Re:Some advantages... (1)

Clueless Moron (548336) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970558)

As an example, some years ago the corrupt CRTC allowed Rogers to buy out Fido, thereby creating a GSM monopoly. And this was supposed to somebody benefit Canadians? Unbelievable.

Get rid of the bastards. Replace them with almost anything; it couldn't be worse.

Boring (2, Interesting)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970100)

Where are those bank memos we were promised?

Re:Boring (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970292)

Where are those bank memos we were promised?

Are you talking about the ones Anon released? Or are you talking about some super secret archive of misdeeds?
Here you go - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/bank-of-america-anonymous-leak-mortgage_n_835220.html
If HP isnt your cup of tea do your own googling.

Re:Boring (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970512)

Don't you mean wikileaks?

Re:Boring (1)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970908)

Hey thanks, that went under my radar until now. However, a cursory glance puts those emails at being from 2010. I was referring to the ones WL was hinting at back late last year, I remember they said the emails were from 2006 and earlier, before the whole meltdown thing, which makes them especially juicy.

The rule is (3, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970130)

You put the vote off on these laws until after the election.. So everybody will forget by the next election. They could've passed it without serious consequence.. Hell, nobody's protesting the wars. You think anybody gives a damn about this?

Re:The rule is (4, Insightful)

Altrag (195300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970424)

People tend to give more of a damn about things that affect them directly than things happening in other countries. Even if the "other country" thing is comparatively horrific (as in the case of copyright here vs war and killing there).

Whether anyone knows this is happening or understands the consequences is a much bigger concern. The media and other copyright promoters do everything in their power to convince everyone that "we've got to stop the pirates" when in reality most of what they're doing will have little to no impact on pirates but will affect average users severely.

Take a really simple example. How many pirates bother watching the 2-minute (per language up here in Canada!) FBI/Interpol warning on their movies? Probably very few -- its either stripped off or at least the "unskippable" flag is removed on almost every torrent. Yet legitimate viewers have to watch the thing over and over and over again.

And don't even start on those DVDs where they decided to mark the ads and previews as unskippable.

Or all of those various CD "protection" hacks in the late 90s/early 2000s that did little more than prevent the discs from playing on older (legitimate) CD players. Yet it didn't stop them from showing up on Napster within a day or two of release.

Beware still (4, Informative)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970134)

They still need to be worried about this. The Conservatives won't be getting my vote next week specifically because of DMCA 2.0 (and the Internet snooping and censoring that is certain to follow).

Re:Beware still (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970538)

You you really believe any other party would do differently? They're all being lobbied by the same industry goons. The Liberals, Green, and NDP would probably end up doing exactly the same.

That said, I'm voting for the Pirate Party this election.

Re:Beware still (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971038)

The Liberals, Green, and NDP

I'm not Canadian so am somewhat ignorant but I vaguely remember an earlier story not that long ago that said the Canadian Greens and NDP were in opposition to most of the changes in the CDMCA.

Re:Beware still (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971236)

I agree with you and I am hopeing for another Minority government. I think that has been the only thing saving us from this US shit for the past few years :( I think if any party gets a majority, that's it for Canada.

Re:Beware still (2)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971454)

The liberals can be bought. I think it would have to be a cold, cold day in hell before the NDP passes anything that is both American backed and pro corporate. Simply not their thing.

Re:Beware still (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971778)

They still need to be worried about this. The Conservatives won't be getting my vote next week specifically because of DMCA 2.0 (and the Internet snooping and censoring that is certain to follow).

But it was the Conservative MPs putting the brakes on, and the Liberal side saying "no problem".

Do you honestly think that somehow an NDP government would magic away all concerns? Even today, some NDP voicebox said that rights should focus on the artist before everyone else. It seems to me that nirvana is further away than people think.

Minority Government... (5, Interesting)

Korveck (1145695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970140)

...actually works out fine for Canada in the last couple years. Conservatives are concerned about losing votes and decide not to bring most controversial issues to the table (e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage), knowing that the oppositions can bring down the government at any time they like. On the other hand, oppositions do not obstruct legislation or stop the government from getting things done because they are also concerned about the votes. With a majority, the Canadian DMCA would have passed with ease.

Re:Minority Government... (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971468)

This is less to do with it being a minority, and more to do with it not being a conservative majority.

God help us if they ever get one. The social conservative reform freakshow will really come out if they do.

NZ Govt is more efficent (4, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970196)

They just pass it under urgency in the evening with about one day of notice to the public.

Surely what WikiLeaks is really saying is something we all know: The governments of the world no longer act for the people of their countries.

Re:NZ Govt is more efficent (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971226)

something we all know: The governments of the world no longer act for the people of their countries.

Unfortunately, the state of most countries suggests that the majority of the citizens in those countries neither know nor care that this is the case.

And changing that would be an enormous task.

Re:NZ Govt is more efficent (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972122)

By which you are implying that there has ever been a time where they did?

Human beings are selfish short-sighted hypocritical little sons of bitches. Our politicians do a damn fine job representing us. And it's going to stay that way until we get to the point where there's Minds that are too complicated for meatbags to tamper with to run the show ;-)

Help me out here, I have a problem understanding (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970236)

So there's an issue that is sufficiently unpopular that they even fear they'd lose an election over it if they implemented it before the election? Hell, not even tax hikes have that effect! To some degree, most people understand that taxes have a reason to exist, some even welcome them, while most accept them as a necessary evil.

But a DMCA would have been an issue that would have cost them the election. Well, clue me in then: If nobody that should matter to a politician (i.e. the people possibly electing him) wants it, who does he actually represent? The people? Obviously, he does not.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970296)

Some people welcome them on other people (not just donks -- I wish everyone would pay the 20% that I do). When I was poor(er) and qualified for all kinds of credits that pushed my effective tax rate down to single digits, I thought they were reasonable. I'm sure the 47% of people that pay no income tax (especially if they get a refund) welcome them.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970532)

Some people welcome them on other people (not just donks -- I wish everyone would pay the 20% that I do). When I was poor(er) and qualified for all kinds of credits that pushed my effective tax rate down to single digits, I thought they were reasonable. I'm sure the 47% of people that pay no income tax (especially if they get a refund) welcome them.

When I was a college student, I used to get refunds, and that made sense, I had no extra money. Now I'm at a high bracket, and I'm happy with paying my taxes. If I'm well-off enough to be in a higher bracket, that means that I can't complain...I have a lot more spending money than I did in college, and actually have savings for retirement! Obviously taxes are not ruining my life.

That said, although I'm all for contributing to needed services, I don't want my money wasted on pork. So I very much support government transparency and decreased spending. If the decreased spending leads to lower taxes, yay. Lower taxes leading to cuts in needed programs, that's not so good.

And yes, the problem is that nobody can agree on which programs are the ones we need and which ones are the ones that are pork. There is no perfect solution.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (2)

Mia'cova (691309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970368)

It's a bit more complicated. I believe the pressure to do something is coming mostly from the US, citing treaties canada has signed on copyright-enforcement alliances. So right now, Canada isn't living up to its treaty obligations. Unfortunately, I don't know much about those obligations. So hell, I could be wrong on that actually. I'm all for avoiding DMCA-like law. I'm just saying the politicians may be in a bit of a tough spot trying to satisfy both the people and the existing treaty obligations. Often stuff like this is held hostage before other agreements can be made. So it could cost Canada in terms of completely unrelated trade issues.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970690)

"So it could cost Canada in terms of completely unrelated trade issues."
Actually we don't really care as only Saudi Arabia has more oil that we do.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (3, Insightful)

ljgshkg (1223086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971578)

Well, there're lots more issues/trade relations between Canada and USA than just oil. We have all those lumbering businesses and many more. And most of our exports goes to USA. They're in some way holding our throat. If they act against us in other DMCA-unrelated issues, that can affect a huge number of people. Canada has a very small population, our current economy relies on USA a lot more than what many people might think.

Talking about oil, you do notice we ship our oil to US to process, and then get the final product back from them at a much higher cost eh. We have the oil, but ironically, we're the real "oil importer", and they're the actual "oil exporter".

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970788)

Politicians, like all power figures, are innately tied to the influences of power. In this case, a powerful nation to the south, which has powerful incentive to push intellectual poison on the rest of the world to prop itself up. [yes, I am a citizen of that powerful country, but I can see the handwriting on the wall. The US has no real manufacturing infrastructure. Our agribiz infrastructure is no longer first rate in the world market, and our last strongholds for world relevency are intellectual property and military might. Without IP, I believe we would crumble like the former soviet union, due to the shortsighted practices of our corporations who have no sense of national loyalty, only loyalty to money-- and our politicians who are loyal to those corporations, and not the voting public. As such, the US is a sinking ship, with bandaids over huge holes of economic policy, and bilge pumps of government bailouts running 24/7. It is NOT sustainable.]

This whole issue with "Worldwide DMCA" would dissolve rapidly if [when] the USA finally tanks. Without the US to make a fuss over it, the corporations would be unable to leverage such global policy positions on the rest of the world, and the effort would suffer huge spirals of inefficiency as every little government everywhere suddenly had the 300lb gorilla with the billy club removed from the parlament floor, and politicians had golden parachute cords cut.

As suicidal as it seems, what is best for the WORLD right now is for my country to suffer the consequences of its own complacency, and to deminish-- in profound and spectacular fashion.

Props to the people of Canada for telling my government to shove it. I love you guys.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971186)

yes, I am a citizen of that powerful country

I'm not sure I buy that. One thing that is almost always consistent about Americans is that they are ridiculously Nationalist, even the ones who openly hate both Democrats and Republicans still tend to claim that the country is the greatest place on Earth in spite of a crappy political situation. What exactly makes it so great is usually left completely nebulous, or is laughably naive, but that's beside the point. The point is that unless you have expatriated, your attitude is uncommon from what I've seen so I suspect misrepresentation.

Also, using self-deprecation to admit you aren't as great as you pretend to be is one thing (and helpful for keeping your feet on the ground) but actively wishing to be worse off then you currently are isn't so much self-deprecation as depression.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (3, Interesting)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972084)

Yeah, he was lying about being American. That makes a whole lot of sense. That's why he wrote in American English, knows about American economics and politics, and has a deep passion for American policy. He was lying because. . .well, who knows? But you know it's true because. . .he didn't fit a stereotype? Sure, there may be more Americans than any other nationality on Slashdot, but it's not exactly where you go to find stereotypical Americans. If you want an American stereotype go to a truck stop or a Wal-Mart.

Part of the whole 'land of the free' thing is that one is free to have their own opinion. Even if it's self-depricating and wishes ill on the country as a whole.

Side note: Almost all Americans want it to get worse. The Republicans want things to get worse so they have an excuse to shrink the government by way of massive cuts (Bush burned all that cash for a reason). That's their goal and the only way to achieve it is for the government to be in a financial crisis. It worked! The Democrats want it to get worse. Quality of life, even for the poorest Americans, is good enough so that most don't complain and don't see the need for a big education or health care overhaul. Until things get worse socialized medicine is a dream. Until it gets worse, no one will see the value of education and therefore no one will want their tax money to fund it. Independents want it to get worse. Until the Democrats and Republicans screw things up much worse than they already have, the old Simpsons line of, "Go ahead, vote independent, throw your vote away!" will ring true.

Everyone wants things to get worse because no one has a solution for our current problems without making it worse. The majority is far too complacent to care and will continue to be so until things get worse. Until the economic problems, the government spending, the piss-poor education and health care, and lobbyist-centric government interfere with the average American's life in a way they understand (the hard part: it's one thing to understand that you can't find a job, understanding why is difficult -- especially with the talking heads on TV all making sensationalist claims and that's where people turn for their 'information'), then nothing will change.

The foundation isn't solid. The house has to be taken down to repair it. But it will never happen as long as 'socialist' is a dirty word in this country.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (1)

MisterJohnny (2029510) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971966)

I beg to differ for your comment on the US having no real manufacturing infrastructure - We make damn good airplanes!

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970816)

Yeah, there's something I'm not following with this logic either. I'm going to exaggerate here but does the conservative government honestly think that:

If all of the following is acceptable behavior and will still have them elected
- Increase all taxes
- Decrease health care
- Increase politician salary and vacation time
- Reduce job creation programs
- Increase corruption

Yet, the following WILL cost them the election
-Introduce DMCA

At least they're honest about it (indirectly): they alter their policies to get themselves elected and let everything go to hell afterwards. Not like it matters by that point .... they have the job! There's probably a lot of parties that won't acknowledge holding stuff back until an election.

That said, this has me worried about the Conservatives (I have voted for them in the past I'm not a 1 party person). About the crap they are really holding back. The DMCA is no where near the monster they haven't yet let surface.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971818)

The DMCA is no where near the monster they haven't yet let surface.

This is patently foolish. The same reasons that curtail their (presumed) excesses are the reasons that limit the excesses of any party that want to retain power -- minority or majority. The last time the NDP formed government in BC, they forgot the fact that there is always another election. Consequently, when people next went to vote the NDP were reduced to two seats. Whatever else critics say, no one can call the Conservatives stupid, so even in a majority government they are not going to do anything that would seriously cost them on the next voting day.

Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (2)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971804)

If nobody that should matter to a politician (i.e. the people possibly electing him) wants it, who does he actually represent? The people? Obviously, he does not.

There-in lies my biggest issue with the whole thing. Not only are the politicians who are pushing for this garbage selling out Canadians to corporate interests, they can't even be bothered to sell us out to _CANADIAN_ corporations. They're selling us out to corporate America. It's so profoundly disgusting that it boils my blood. These ... people can't even be bothered to be patriotic while the screw us over...

Seriously, if the Conservatives win a majority in this coming election, I think I would cry...

May 2nd (2)

zanian (1621285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970348)

Nice to get this before we go to the Polls!

Re:May 2nd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971338)

well said

We forgot something important about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970400)

All of the previous Slashdot articles which talked about how it was all just a ploy to brown nose the Americans. I don't have the links on hand, but when talking about it with Stephen Harper, (the Prime Minister), the only instructions the minister received was to make the US happy.

who's running the government? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970542)

All these comments about majority or minority governments, who's the better or worse person to lead the government, the question I'd ask from this Wikileaks document is why is the minister reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about the difficulty of getting such a piece of legislation passed? Why are we reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about our internal matters at all.

If they have that much control over our Parliament then why the hell don't we just cede Canada to the U.S. and let them work out what to do with Quebec?

Re:who's running the government? (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971456)

Why don't you just cede Quebec to them? Then US will have enough trouble on their hands that they'll forget about this whole little copyright problem. ~

Re:who's running the government? (2)

Nyeerrmm (940927) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971634)

Because making sure copyright laws are in sync is an international issue.

Not that I support either version of the DMCA and am glad to see some resistance to it, but in general, international cooperation on copyright matters is appropriate and necessary.

I hope people get the message... (3, Insightful)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970658)

...which is that if you do actually take an interest and make enough noise, you CAN scare politicians enough to actually do their jobs, which is representing you rather than representing large corporations.

This information should galvanize further actions against DMCA style laws (and all bad laws, for that matter).

Re:I hope people get the message... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971278)

Unfortunately, you missed the point, and content of the message; what is says is that when a politian (or party) is on the fence they can't shove this shit down our throats since a strong opposition will use it as an excuse to bring the government down. However, if the government has a majority; then they can do whatever they want (this is the way Canada's government basically works) and thus the opposition would bark, but could not really do anything... and then 5 years later no one remembers or has just dealt with it and thus doesn't affect the party. The message itself has stated it was only a "delay"; and you can bet that ANY party that gets a majority will be bringing these laws, and quite a few other draconian ones, in within the first year of being in office... then they lay low for 3-4 years and then make some nice gestures to the public in their last year so they get voted in again. Rinse, lather, repeat... unless we have a minority; then the government has to actually work and balance things since anything too onerous will force the opposition to kick them out of power and we're back to another election. Personally, I would gladly take elections every 2-3 years and have nothing but minority governments versus having any of the parties, as they are right now, have a Majority.

Re:I hope people get the message... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971972)

+++ to this.

About a year or two ago, an MP in my country was going to front up legislation on an issue very dear to my heart and I felt that I had to speak up. So I wrote a carefully worded, succinct and eloquent e-mail to his government listed e-mail address explaining exactly why and how this was generally bad and more specifically, how this was bad for him. There was no response, and I assumed he had a team of flunkies filtering e-mail on his behalf. Surprisingly, a few months later there was a response .. a hastily looking drawn up 'formal'esque form-style letter with a PDF explanation document attached. The legislation eventually didn't pass .. and it kind of 'disappeared' off the table. Almost certainly for a bevy of reasons (and not specifically my e-mail) but the e-mail had been attentively read.

So I've continued. Whenever legislation in my realm of expertise pops up, I contact the relevant politicians with similarly detailed letters explaining a perspective probably mostly alien to these lobbyist pecked public servants. Perhaps co-incidentally, several plans by public servants in my country have headed in the right direction, rather than ending up falling off a high cliff without a parachute.

I've come to realize that there are many politicians fishing in the dark with a cloistered perspective of the subject matter on which they are working. These politicians are human, and if the only opinions they understand are from lobbyists then that's the basis upon which the legislation will be drawn up. Providing a well reasoned dissertation for a different perspective can really assist your politicians in understanding the issues at stake.

Stop being apathetic and get involved. Don't want to get involved? Then quit complaining.

Random Complaint (4, Insightful)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971058)

Wikileaks: the election has been running for a month now. Waiting until four days before the election to start to release a tidal wave of revelant documents (and only the unclassified documents with mostly common sense stuff) feels like a bit of an ambush. We're a rational democracy (more or less), we'd like same time to digest and debate issues rather than being forced to assimilate everything in a weekend.

I wish, I wish, I wish... (1)

Col Bat Guano (633857) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971094)

...that people would stop calling it copyright "reform". It makes it sound as though it's broken, and this will fix it, making it all rainbow and sunshine.
I'd agree on the first part, but not the second.

Is it just me? (3, Interesting)

scumfuker (882056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971194)

Does it seem with the wording of the cable that Canada is expected to fall into line with whatever the US would like?
There also seems to be a minor tone of irritation when 'the public' and 'Michael Geist' is mentioned.

Damn you pesky citizens of a sovereign nation, getting in the way of our plans for your country...


Seeing it explicitly laid out like that is just, well, disturbing.

LEt this inform the politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971352)

The future is with the nerds. Fuck with us and god save you.

(Neat to see the battle rooms playing on slashdot today. )

copyright fascism is not copyright reform (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971496)

they should at least start calling it what it is.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...