Beta
×

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!

Justification For Canadian Copyright Reform Revealed

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the sanity-is-forbidden dept.

Canada 96

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist has used the Canadian freedom of information act to obtain a secret ministerial document on Canadian copyright reform that provides the government position on virtually every controversial issue from last year's Bill C-32. The government has no good explanation for its DMCA approach and calls provisions requiring the destruction of course materials part of an 'essential balance.' On the U.S. piracy watch list, it says 'Canada does not recognize the validity of the Special 301 process and considers it to be flawed. The Report does not employ a clear methodology in its country ranking, as it relies on industry allegations rather than empirical evidence and analysis.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (4, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#37467920)

Canada does not recognize the validity of the Special 301 process and considers it to be flawed. The Report does not employ a clear methodology in its country ranking, as it relies on industry allegations rather than empirical evidence and analysis

They're really surprised that a U.S. government report is based on corporate whoring rather than empirical evidence and analysis? Wow, Canadians really ARE naive.

As to the question of why Canada is adopting anti-circumvention measures (and other provisions) similar to the DMCA, well that's an easy one. They're signatories of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty [wikipedia.org] . You remember that one, don't you? That's the treaty that a very tiny handful of people (including myself) were decrying fifteen years ago while everyone else was completely fucking ignoring it and its implications. Yeah, that's the same treaty that the vast majority of you probably still don't even know exists (much less that your country quietly signed it right under the press and public's radar). Not that I'm bitter or anything.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468030)

That's the treaty that a very tiny handful of people (including myself) were decrying fifteen years ago while everyone else was completely fucking ignoring it and its implications

Everyone still ignores it and its implications. Most people are exactly what the mass media conditions them to be: passive consumers. The majority of people simply do not care about whether or not it is illegal to produce software that can be used to circumvent copy-restriction technologies.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468034)

WIPO Copyright Treaty. You remember that one, don't you?

I've probably been around here too long, but I think the #1 reason I know about the WIPO treaty (and the organization itself) is because of the famous Slashdot troll of that name [50megs.com] .

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468054)

I didn't ignore it; I was 13...

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468274)

and you think that's an excuse?! Kids today. Stop lollygagging and get off my lawn!

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (4, Interesting)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468098)

RTFA.

Bill C-32 goes far beyond what is needed by the WIPO treaty. In fact, C-32 does not even have some exemptions that the DMCA has in it.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468180)

Wow. Over-inflated ego much?

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469108)

I'm on /. aren't I? Do you even need to ask?

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (3, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468350)

Hey, it's not all bad, WIPO enforcement is one of the reasons that China's cleaning up its act these days. It's not like the old days with DVD shops and fake software everywhere. I can't even hardly find counterfeits any more.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468934)

Even if that is true, I couldn't care less. A bill with numerous alleged flaws is not justified to me just because it attempts to stop the potential loss of potential profit.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468436)

They're really surprised that a U.S. government report is based on corporate whoring rather than empirical evidence and analysis? Wow, Canadians really ARE naive.

Not at all. They're just smart enough not to put "America are dicks regarding copyright. Fuck their legislation!" into a medium where it might be leaked to the press.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468450)

"They're really surprised that a U.S. government report is based on corporate whoring rather than empirical evidence and analysis? Wow, Canadians really ARE naive."

We aren't naive. We are too polite to tell the Americans to PFO.

Where we were naive was signing the WIPO treaty way back in 1996 without public consultation, and before most people had any idea that copyright issues would become so important to the general public. Huge revisions to copyright for the "digital age" before we really understood what "digital age" meant. Dumb. As people have become more familiar with it, we've been naive enough to think that our government has been negotiating copyright law revisions in good faith, and with an honest attempt at balance between creator and user rights. It's become more and more obvious that isn't the case. They're seriously going to introduce Bill C-32 without modification? Time to write my new MP.

The single most important part of C-32 that should change is the ridiculous idea that circumventing "digital locks" should be illegal even if the action being taken is otherwise legal. That's crazy. Either we have the rights described in copyright law and can legally exercise them, or we don't actually have them. The "anti-circumvention" rules should not trump the other parts of the act, otherwise the whole thing is a farce. Oh, yay, we have new rights for format shifting, but if someone rot13'd the data to encrypt it we would be breaking the new law anyway? They've been told over and over how silly it is (the previous minister was even asked about the inconsistency in a news conference and stuttered his way through an irrelevant answer), but the provision is still there. Idiots.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37474842)

The other thing is the Canadian Bill of Rights contains certain inalienable rights that the WIPO violates, and thus the treaty may not be legally binding in Canada.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468594)

And that agreement, and others like it, is why no nation outside of "rogue states" will be seen altering their copyright law for the good of the community any time soon.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469136)

And sadly, many of those "rogue states" will probably have more economic sanctions leveled at them than countries that do REAL evil, abuse human rights, etc.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469448)

Indeed, this because the "first" world can via those laws take rent from the "third" world. Just observe Monsanto to see the first attempts.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468616)

Wow

You're the greatest. Is there any way I can hang out with you 24/7, so that I can be the first to witness and hear your amazing prophecies?

Oh, and when you're done being completely full-of-yourself, there are a couple of restrooms at your workplace that need cleaning. And stop confusing your tooth brush with the toilet brush.

regards,

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469050)

I have a newsletter to which you may subscribe. And yes, it's poorly xeroxed.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469638)

They're really surprised that a U.S. government report is based on corporate whoring rather than empirical evidence and analysis? Wow, Canadians really ARE naive.

Who said Canadians are surprised? Wow, elrous0 really fails at reading comprehension.

Re:Wow, what a unforseeable shocker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37471104)

"They're really surprised that a U.S. government report is based on corporate whoring rather than empirical evidence and analysis? Wow, Canadians really ARE naive."

It's not that we don't understand Corporate whoring, and lobbyists, etc.. - it's just wrong. I suppose if you want to be the Icon of capitalism everything is gonna be based on the mighty dollar, can't have it both ways.

And the secret is... (1)

said213 (72685) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468006)

Money, eh?

Owned (2)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468064)

Between this secret document and the wikileaks cables uncovered [michaelgeist.ca] it's pretty clear that the US owns Canada.

Re:Owned (2)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468108)

...it's pretty clear that the US owns Canada.

Not all of Canada. Only the Conservative party. Oh yeah, and the Liberal party.

Re:Owned (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468182)

Oh, and not all of the U.S., just it's corporations...

Re:Owned (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468556)

You make it sound like there's a difference

Re:Owned (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469062)

There is, there are the corporations and there are the consumers. The consumers in the US go along with the draconian laws hoping that their stocks in media companies will gain value. When stock values go up far enough, investment bankers sell their stocks and call it "profit taking". It's taxed at 15% here and isn't included in entitlement income taxes either. We in the US are getting screwed, as well, we're just too naive to realize it and take a stand against it.

Re:Owned (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468412)

I know a guy who votes Conservative because his parents voted for them, and they are (no matter what any party says or does) just better and the morally right choice. When I confronted him over the omnibus internet implications, he said "that's a good thing. The government needs to control and monitor everyone's internet access."

He's a CS student that put up the OpenMedia flyers...

Re:Owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37469036)

RE: He's a CS student that put up the OpenMedia flyers...

Get him fired!

Re:Owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37475600)

"that's a good thing. The government needs to control and monitor everyone's internet access."

Ask him why he hasn't moved to China yet, as they do that for the good of the people and the state, too.

Re:Owned (1)

Inanna-qui-baille (2350110) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468634)

Are there any other party left ?...

Re:Owned (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468680)

Well the NDP is currently the Official Opposition federally, and I'm hearing things about the Wild Rose Party in Alberta, so yes, there are other parties up here.

Re:Owned (1)

Inanna-qui-baille (2350110) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468724)

NPD.. You mean the party that we all voted for because we wanted some changes, any changes even if we do not agree with their views, that party that their head died a couple of weeks ago ? Sounds promising... Wild Rose Party ? Never heard about it... It must be as popular as the green party or the communist party. Anyways nothing will change in this department until Canada has a real one person = 1 vote system.

Re:Owned (1)

w_dragon (1802458) | more than 3 years ago | (#37470192)

Wild Rose is a provincial party in Alberta. The Liberals have what, about 10% of the seats in the house? But you would put them as a major party above the NDP? You're an idiot.

Re:Owned (1)

Inanna-qui-baille (2350110) | more than 3 years ago | (#37470992)

So Alberta means Canada now ? Great. I really hope that Quebec will be independent some day.

Re:Owned (1)

Inanna-qui-baille (2350110) | more than 3 years ago | (#37471038)

And I'm not saying that liberal got more votes than the NPD I said that the NPD will probably not keep their seats at the next elections.

Re:Owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37471746)

The other 100 New Democrat MPs don't get sent home just because Jack Layton died. That's like saying the Republican Caucus would just go away if something happened to their leader. How'd that work out when Tom DeLay got indicted? Judging by the current train wreck in the US that's a failed theory.

Re:Owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37472022)

The other 100 NDP MPs have about 4 years of combined political experience between them.

I kid, but can you actually imagine what a disaster it would be if the NDP formed the majority party? It would be an exercise in how to flush a country's economy down the toilet.

// From BC, and still bitter about the last time the NDP were here. It took us forever to recover from the damage they caused.

Re:Owned (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469850)

Which makes me long for the days of Chretien. At least he had the balls to go against the whole stupid let's go invade Iraq, you know by pulling our US troops out of the country where Osama is.

It was the equivalent of

Bush:'Your either with us or against us'.

Chretien:'Whatever'

Re:Owned (2)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468128)

Did you read this "secret document"? I've gone through the first 10 pages (and the article summary) and it sounds eminently reasonable to me so far. I've seen no indication yet that they're doing the US's (actually RIAA/MPAA) bidding.

Re:Owned (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468266)

I've seen no indication yet that they're doing the US's (actually RIAA/MPAA) bidding.

Really?? [arstechnica.com]

Re:Owned (3, Interesting)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468276)

That document contains the planned answers to potential questions before a parliamentary committee. They're designed to hide the truth and sounce reasonable. For example, the answer to the question about non-infringing use on p 10 sounds reasonable, but avoids the question: why can't consumers break TPMs for legal uses of the material?

Re:Owned (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469256)

You may find their answer non-compelling (as I do), but they didn't avoid it. They said that if a producer went to some length to lock their work, then it's illegal to break their lock. And if that pushes the market to unlocked products, so be it.

Re:Owned (2)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469482)

The question was about why there should be government enforcement of TPMs, and there was no answer for that. It was just stated that there should be.

Re:Owned (1)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 3 years ago | (#37470066)

And if that pushes the market to unlocked products, so be it.

If history is any indicator, the music/film market doesn't get "pushed". Consumers will simply be pushed to break the law.

Re:Owned (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468386)

if that were true, this would have been made public by politicians willing to take a stand (and gain votes). Instead, it's been acknowledged in complete secrecy.

Re:Owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468598)

I doubt it is even that shady. The candian gov seems to want to 'harmonize' many times with the US gov laws. Then they go absolutely bonkers and put their own touch on it.

For example the MOT has a set of rules on how long you are to sleep in a day when driving a truck. The US has similar rules. The MOT ones take 3 pages just to describe then another 50 or so to show how to use it (making a driver keep track of 16 different countdown clocks). The US ones fit on a single sheet of paper and take 3-4 pages of use cases. Yet BOTH do the same thing. They recently harmonized it with the US rules too. They had a chance to make it simpler and easier to use and safer. They took a different approach... Even the guy who was in charge of writing the rules admitted 'yeah its complex and I am not totally sure how it all works'. I am sure now he does. But they write stuff with no idea what it is going to do. In the US we do that crap all the time too. It is extremely easy for corp interests to influence what goes on. Getting special rules for themselves (or ones that exactly match their business model). This is just the way gov bodies work. It shouldnt be but it is.

Re:Owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468644)

Yes. The formal term is "vassal state" https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Vassal_state
Canada - and a number of other countries - are U.S. vassal states.

Shocker... (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468122)

I bet the ease with which a politician justifies policy like this is directly proportional to the amount of money those that benefit most from it give to those politicians so that they can remain politicians.

Capitalism! Fuck Yeah!

Re:Shocker... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468388)

Capitalism does not create corruption, it minimizes overhead for corruption, but it doesn't create it. There just needs to be a death penalty for taking money from private interests while serving the public interest.

Re:Shocker... (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468532)

Capitalism does not create corruption, it minimizes overhead for corruption, but it doesn't create it. There just needs to be a death penalty for taking money from private interests while serving the public interest.

As opposed to getting the green light by the supreme court?

Re:Shocker... (1)

Grelfod (1222108) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468928)

That would take care of majority (if not all) of the politicians in the US for sure...

Great idea!

Stern interview.. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468398)

Years back an ex-porn star running for Gov of California was interviewed by Howard Stern. He said something to the effect of "we don't care what you think, we just want to know how big a c*k you can suck".

Turns out, that is exactly the right qualification for being a politician.

Re:Stern interview.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37469380)

I don't think being naked in Terminator makes him a porn star.
Agree with the rest.

The real irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468524)

The real irony here is linking to a document on Scribd in an article about Digital Restriction Management. Scrib is nothing but a scam to hold documents hostage in exchange for ad view and personal information.

Re:The real irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37470694)

that's OK, I added a new login to scribd, use it while it lasts (www.bugmenot.com is your friend)

u:scribdblowschunks p:scribdsucks

Book burning FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468546)

Am I allowed to make a Nazi reference here?

Yet Cdn Government offcial asked to be 301 list. (5, Informative)

guidryp (702488) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468694)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1048993--leaks-show-u-s-swayed-canada-on-copyright-bill?bn=1 [thestar.com]

A U.S. Embassy cable written in April 2009 describes a meeting between
Zoe Addington, director of policy for then industry minister Clement,
and U.S. officials.

“In contrast to the messages from other Canadian officials, she said
that if Canada is elevated to the Special 301 Priority Watch List
(PWL), it would not hamper — and might even help — the (government of
Canada's) ability to enact copyright legislation,” the cable says.

Days later, Canada was elevated on the piracy watch list.

Re:Yet Cdn Government offcial asked to be 301 list (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#37470888)

How am I not hearing about this til now! Interesting stuff!

I hate our government.... (3, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468718)

Seriously. I hate them. They aren't helping copyright by this, they are harming it.

This bill so effing retarded it's not funny. In particular, the fact that there is no intention whatsoever to allow any exemption to the digital locks provision where the copying is entirely uninfringing is so utterly lacking in even a modest amount of forethought as to wonder how the heck the people who proposed it could even have the mental capacity to have written it down in the first place.

The implication is that the content producer will determine what type of non-infringing copies might be allowed to be created, but this determination is inherently coupled with the availability of particular technology, and could quickly be rendered entirely obsolete, forcing the consumer into a situation where they face vendor lock-in with a brand that is all but irrelevant in the ever-progressing field of technology.

Canadians who even know about this bill are going to presume for themselves that the provisions of this bill are unreasonable, and will summarily ignore it, privately or otherwise, as history is more than enough of an example to show that the general public does not indefinitely continue to follow laws that they believe to be unfair. If they did, nobody would ever speed except by accident, and there would still be racial segregation on buses.

I've written no less than 3 separate letters to our government on this matter, and received exactly one response from the last one which was a form letter highlighting the so-called virtues of this bill, and did not address even a single concern in my actual letter.

I used to think Canada was a great place to live.... now I'm really not so sure.

Re:I hate our government.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468798)

I'm with you on that, it used to be a place I remembered having peace keepers and being respected worldwide, now who the hell are we? these conservatives have made canada's identity disappear in no time

Re:I hate our government.... (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469752)

You can always vote with your money. Really, if it's so important to you don't buy the product. If you'd rather have the product and just like whining, well grow up.

Re:I hate our government.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37470296)

I think it's funny how the government paints consumers in to the corner on this one.

Buy movies and all sorts of stuff! Spend money!

I'm not sure they want to see what happens if people truly could/would exercise their right to choose. I suspect what has happened to Sony is just a preview for the world..

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37471336)

It doesn't matter what *I* do... the simple fact of the matter is that the new provisions are going to be perceived as entirely unfair by most people - and that's assuming that a person even knows about the new bill, turning millions of people who aren't even infringing on copyright into criminals the very day that this bill is signed into law (since copying within the provisions of fair dealing is considered an actual exception to infringement). This bill causes digital locks to trump all fair dealing privileges.

And of course, your suggestion that I vote with my wallet is highly dependent on the availability of alternative works that do not have any locks on them in the first place, or else is tantamount to suggesting that I relegate myself to becoming technologically irrelevant, since it is a foregone certainty that once this bill passes, unlocked works will be considerably rarer and more difficult to come by.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#37472064)

"You can always vote with your money. Really, if it's so important to you don't buy the product."

This argument is meaningless because most people are stupid/incompetent/anti-intellectual or clueless. Also most kids aren't going to wait or boycott something especially if it's something they are emotionally attached to. People are not rational, so markets in many instances don't work at all.

See the Modern warfare boycott here (notice a lot "boycotting" the game actually didn't)

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/5/1258035395841.jpg/ [imageshack.us]

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37474556)

It's also the exact same argument that the conservatives themselves use to defend the bill's "fairness". It almost makes me wonder if Jmc23 is actually an alias for James Moore.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37475534)

No, I don't like what the conservatives are doing. I'm just saying the truth. Imagine if a product launched and exactly 0 sales were made in canada.

The problem is that all these whiners are a bunch of wusses. Gauranteed.that all of them will buy the products anyways because they're more concerned about their entertainment. Seriously, if you're worried then do something about it. Boycot products, set up information websites. Create a facebook group. Get a petition in your community going to put forward to your member of parliament. Organise flash mobs or picketts on launch days. Do anything except sit on your ass whining on slashdot.

I'm very concerned for Canada. The conservatives are in power because the other parties are afraid to take strong stances on issues and the voters are becoming more apathetic as they focus more on their own interests than what's good for the country. It makes me both sad and disgusted. A little more apathy and egocentrism and we won't escape the path that leads us to be exactly like the states.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37475662)

Except it won't get zero sales... not because of the digital lock provisions at any rate. I could do everything in my power to organize a boycott and it would be spectacularly ineffective, because most people will buy whatever hits their fancy, and that will be enough for locked products to succeed, When people discover that the law will not permit them to use the works as they see fit, they will simply conclude that the laws are unfair, rather than stop buying those products, and will summarily proceed to ignore them, rather than detach themselves from using anything that is related to what the law is prohibiting. (For example, how many people do you see quitting driving because they think that speed limits are unreasonable?)

As I said previously, simply personally boycotting products is tantamount to being technologically irrelevant, or do you not foresee just how widespread digital lock protections are going to extend once this becomes law?

I've written 3 letters to our government already... I had even contemplating writing another one, although I am discouraged by the fact that it will likely be ignored. I didn't vote for them, and for what it's worth, my MP isn't conservative either. Although with a majority government, the conservatives can push this bill through even though there is unanimous consent among the other parties that the bill should be amended first, or not be passed at all.

Oh... and the conservatives are in power largely because they won a majority of the ridings in Ontario, owing to the sheer number of ridings in that area. Interestingly, most voters did not actually vote for them, although they have over 50% of the seats.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37475742)

Try it. A written letter from one person does nothing. Organise something, get it on the media, have your member present at the event, there's no way they can ignore an invitation when a large part of their constituency is present. That will accomplish awarenness and awareness is always the first step to change. Don't write go there in person, you might be suprised by how easy it is to talk to your member and how much more effective. BTW, I used to work for our government.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37475934)

People with far more charisma and political pull than I could ever hope to muster have similar views to my own (Michael Geist, to name just one) and their views and concerns have gone entirely unheeded. The conservatives have a majority and are not interested in what anybody else has to say in this regard. The conservatives want this bill to pass and the only thing that can possibly stop it now is either if for some reason this bill requires a majority vote that the conservatives don't have enough seats to achieve, or else an act of god. Whining on slashdot doesn't make things any better, but anything else I might hope to try to do would just be setting myself up for disappointment.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37476696)

Michael has done his part and reached his audience, an international audience of geeks. Level of detail. Your job is not the same as michaels nor on the same level. You need to take that information and disseminate it further. everybody has to do their part.

Sheesh, did you grow up without parents? If you don't believe you can accomplish something then you can't.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37480164)

Sure Mr. Geist has reached his audience... he's even had the opportunity to speak (in person, no less) before the committee that was reviewing this bill. This is far more than I could ever hope to do (or desire to, for that matter, as Mr. Geist has expressed the key matters far more eloquently than I could ever hope to, and my own expression of concerns would doubtlessly sound infantile in comparison).

As for disseminating it further myself - I have done... to the fullest extent that I believe I may be personally capable, in fact. There is not a single person within my own social circle who is unaware of my feelings about copyright and my concerns about what the conservative government is about to do. They either don't care at all, or simply don't feel that it's anything to worry about. I have been unable to motivate even a single person within my own family to want to do something about this, to tell other people, or to do anything that might have been able to make a difference before. I'm not an avid facebook user, and my facebook friends are just a fraction of the people that I know personally, so that would not be a method for me to further disseminate it than I already have (in fact, to some such an endeavor would just look like I was ranting again about copyright and our government... a subject about which many have heard more than they care to already, and would probably hinder my intention more than help it).

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37475560)

The point is do something about it. Most of the great benefits of our country came about because people believed in them and actualy took ACTION instead of whining about it. If you think the masses are ignorant and it's important to you then it's you're responsability to educate them. Simple. Do, don't whine.

Re:I hate our government.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37472948)

wow! very mature on your part
and great fix of the problem too
very helpfull

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37473964)

It's almost the exact same response that the conservatives give, actually... they reason that if a consumer wants to enjoy fair dealing privileges, then they simply will not buy works with digital locks. This is their idea of "fair".

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

MacWiz (665750) | more than 3 years ago | (#37479170)

...they reason that if a consumer wants to enjoy fair dealing privileges, then they simply will not buy works with digital locks.

And if the products with the digital locks do not sell, the corporate uproar grows because the lack of sales is obviously due to the evil pirates stealing their stuff, which leads to a call for even tougher restrictions and suing individuals.

At least that's how it works in the U.S.

Re:I hate our government.... (2)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#37471202)

Now that the Conservatives have a majority, its as good as law.

I'm sure the majority of American's living in the US that didn't vote for Bush were thinking the same thing, when they got elected. Then more so when it happened again.

A big chunk of the Conservative support are idiots. I know, I've tried to talk to some of them. Sure there a some nutbags in the NDP and Green, but I'd wager the Conservatives have more per capita. (Well the green might have more, but that is mostly due to their such small numbers anyway)

I had a conversation (argument) with a number of Conservatives who swore up and down that the Conservatives were not "anti-union", that they had done nothing to attribute that title, and that it was all just Liberal propaganda. All 3 of them worked for unions. I tried to stress, that if you are working for a union, and vote Conservative, that not only are you voting contrary to your best interests, that also pretty much makes you an idiot.

I think recent actions by the Conservatives speak for themselves. Anyway, these people are idiots, and do not want to listen to anything contrary to the ideology that they, for whatever reason, believe in. Which sounds an awful lot like the elected Conservatives themselves, making decisions and policy, not based on fact, science, or even logic, but some ideological BS that someone infected their brains...

Anyway, what were we talking about again? :) I got my blood up I think.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 3 years ago | (#37472038)

I tried to stress, that if you are working for a union, and vote Conservative, that not only are you voting contrary to your best interests, that also pretty much makes you an idiot.

Oh really. Well then, please point out the party that happens to align up with ALL of my interests.

What's that? There isn't any? So then no matter who I vote for, I'll be voting against my interests in some way?

Who is the idiot here?

Re:I hate our government.... (2)

nuckfuts (690967) | more than 3 years ago | (#37472568)

So then no matter who I vote for, I'll be voting against my interests in some way?

Who is the idiot here?

You are the idiot if you can't see the difference between a party that doesn't align perfectly with every one of your interests and a party with a predominant agenda to actively f*ck you over.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 3 years ago | (#37484924)

Fine.

I'm Pro-Union (Democrat) and Anti-Illegal Immigration (Which takes away union jobs by undercutting prices. Republican.)

Which party should I vote for? Which one of these parties don't have a predominant agenda to actively fuck me over?

You can say "fuck", I give you a reprieve from your self-sensorship.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

nuckfuts (690967) | more than 3 years ago | (#37488142)

I'm Pro-Union (Democrat) and Anti-Illegal Immigration (Which takes away union jobs by undercutting prices. Republican.)

Which party should I vote for? Which one of these parties don't have a predominant agenda to actively fuck me over?

FFS, are you really that thick? First of all, no party is Pro-Illegal Immigration. That's why it's "illegal".

Secondly, if you are pro-union, then Republicans are your enemy [huffingtonpost.com] . Their agenda should be 100 times more frightening to you than the notion of Mexicans sneaking across the border and stealing away union jobs.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#37472728)

OK I am assuming your employment and method for earning a living would be one of the largest interests to any one individual?

It would be like a Jew in 1942 Germany joining the NAZI party because of their position Corporate Tax policy. Sure they might feel strongly about that corporate tax policy, but I am pretty sure anyone would agree that should they vote that way, not exactly in their best interests. Not sure if that counts as a Godwin....

Now while that is a ridiculously extreme example, I think my first sentence hold merit.

Is it in your best interests to vote for a party that will put you out of work?

If you disagree with that, I think you might be the idiot, and I bet most would agree with me. (Though I do agree with you in respect that very rarely will you ever see a total alignment of interests in any party)

I guess its about what is important. If you don't think that is important, then I guess whatever. However I would bet that it was important, in fact #1 importance, however they had deluded themselves into thinking that the Conservatives somehow loved and cherished unions and would never do anything to harm them.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 3 years ago | (#37476018)

Losing union status, or even losing the protected status that unions have in virtually every province of Canada isn't the same as losing your job. In fact, being able to fire people who need to be fired without having to fear the repercussions from the union may improve the chances of your company's continued success, and therefore most of those jobs you were talking about.

While unions may have their place, and certainly did in the past, there isn't anything that couldn't be done at least as well with some decent regulations. This assumes that you are able to find some officials that aren't corrupt. Of course, when you have a union, you just have more corrupt officials. Where there's power, you'll find corruption, and unions are very powerful.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#37479614)

losing union status isn't the problem. It's when you try and collectively bargain, or go on strike and the government of Canada FORCES you to go back to work, or the government of Canada writes the agreement, that is worse than what your actual employer was offering, and then FORCES you to accept it. In some cases FORCES you back to work on pain of being sued for thousands of dollars. In many cases agreeing to or creating agreements that will reduce the workforce or make it easier for you to be let go without compensation.

Air Canada, Canada Post, Court workers in Quebec, etc...

That was all in the past year. So far. That I can recall off the top of my head. They still have 3.5 years, wanna see how far they go?

Anyway, yes I am in a union, but personally have mixed feelings about unions, at least mine. I don't feel like they are really very effective anymore, for exactly those reasons above (and as a result WHY am I in a union that is powerless, that I have to pay dues for, and I have to go on strike, when I seemingly get absolutely nothing for either my money or my time).

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 3 years ago | (#37487242)

This isn't something limited to the PC party, although I expect they're worse than most. Both of my ex's parents were in a union (until her dad graduated out as junior management) and she had to listen to their complaints from childhood. They too worked for an essential service.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#37490104)

Having "essential services" in a union is stupid. They are not allowed to strike, but get to vote. For example, we have prison guards in our union. Its not like they can just go on strike. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that because they KNOW they will NEVER have to strike, but ALWAYS receive the benefits from one, every time we have a vote to strike, their vote is like 100%. Those of us that are not essential services get screwed.

Also people with jobs like, police, prison guards, ambulance drivers, nurses, etc... are essential... however their are WAY too many people that are classified as essential, that should not be, to the same result as discussed earlier. Anyway it is a mess...

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 3 years ago | (#37496342)

Yes, I can certainly see your point, and that's another thing that reduces the effectiveness of unions (if they still have any). And sadly, the main goal of those in power seems to be to gain more power...

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#37537952)

The only one I minded was the back to work legislation for Air Canada but I suspect that is more about keeping the government investments alive instead of instead of admitting they wasted money on Air Canada and letting the airline die like they should.

Government unions throw off the balance of power in favor of the union in unfortunate ways. In the private sector if the union goes on strike or drives costs up too much they risk the company going out of business and they lose their jobs and while they are on strike a competitor can come in and take up the business so the public isn't dragged into the fight. In the public sector there is no competing service to pick up the slack so the public suffers, to top it off it's easier for a politician to just throw money at the problem and leave the costs for future governments to worry about rather than fight the Union and take the heat for lost services. To top it off since government services are a monopoly covered by taxes the public is stuck paying whatever they are charging.

There is a reason that in Canada there are more Union members in the public sector than in the private and why the government has no choice but the play hardball and whip out the Essential Services legislation. The public gets this and it's why their popularity went up when they smacked down the Canada Post Union.

Re:I hate our government.... (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#37539212)

Well as for the Public sector, the politicians also are not under pressure for going out of business. Unless the services are really missed (at which point they are classified as "Essential" and not allowed to strike), they can just ignore the strike so long as they want and if it is politically OK.

For example last time we were on strike, what they simply did was keep us on strike long enough to save the amount of money that the Union was asking for, and then give it to them... Union idiots called it a success. When you put yourself out of work for 9 weeks, then they give you 9 weeks worth of pay benefits, I don't really see how you came out ahead. You could have simply saved yourself all the trouble and strife by not striking in the first place.

Anyway not all Unions are the same anyway within the Public. Teachers for example wield disproportionate amount of power basically because if they go on strike, a lot of parents have to figure out how they plan on taking care of their kids during the day. Thus you have teaching wages outstripping most other union jobs, even during the economic downturn. (we got 1% to their 3.2%)

Imaginary Property is contrary to free markets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37468752)

Capitalism [breitbart.com]

vs

Socialism [gallup.com]

Finally, the moral equivalence shows: (1)

jafac (1449) | more than 3 years ago | (#37468992)

and it is...
copyright == book-burning.

Mixed Feelings (2)

Exit_On_Right (2466888) | more than 3 years ago | (#37469806)

I have mixed feelings about this Bill. On one hand, parts of the Bill seem very reasonable. For example, reducing the maximum penalty for infringement and going after the enablers both seem like sensible approaches. Extensions to education for fair dealing also seems reasonable. The less reasonable parts obviously include not being able to make a video library from what you record from TV, and not being able to bypass digital locks for media transfers. On its face, those parts of the Bill seem ludicrous and clearly influenced by US policies and lobbyists. Deeper down, I suspect the former is rooted in how copyright law works (you must aggressively pursue all forms / violators of piracy or you may lose your ability to protect the work in the future), and the latter allows the government to prosecute people directly for breaking digital locks rather than messing about in copyright law. Looking strictly at the law, not allowing permanent TV recordings is completely unenforceable by the police (though easily enforceable through technology). The section about not breaking digital locks will make it a challenge for Canadians to acquire the software to convert our CD's and DVD's to digital storage, but for determined users, not impossible. I suspect this too will be nearly impossible to enforce in that arena. Where it will be easy to enforce is torrenting, which obviously bypasses digital locks on material and thus qualifies under that section as prohibited. The government is in an odd position. They are not accustomed to enforcing copyright law -- at least not in a non-commercial sense. Large scale piracy for profit, yes, individual for home use, no. Now they are being asked to. And for good reason - piracy is easy and pretty much everyone who knows how to do it, *is* doing it. Some more than others, but it's happening a lot. It's gone past the point where civil law can handle it -- it's time for it to become criminal. But how? They definitely don't want to be involved in individual criminal copyright cases. Too much ambiguity and complexity. So instead, digital locks. Nice and simple. We don't care about the material, we only care about the lock you bypassed by downloading (and made available while doing so) a torrented copy. You'll not have an easy time defending that. Makes sense in a twisted kind of way. That said, I agree with Geist when he says that the digital lock portion of the Bill will have the unfortunate side effect of making legitimate use of ripping music/movies nearly impossible for the average Canadian. It will be very much like winding the clock back 10 years to a point where only the computer geeks had the tools to rip their own music/movies. I'm not sure what the alternative is though. Of course, the interesting bit continues to be gathering proof that a person is downloading materials they don't have a right to. I'm curious to see how that process will work and what Canadian judges will accept as evidence.

Re:Mixed Feelings (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37471606)

I think you're thinking of trademark law on one of those points. Copyright holders can have their copyright for a hundred years and don't have to do anything.

Re:Mixed Feelings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37475404)

I think you're thinking of trademark law on one of those points. Copyright holders can have their copyright for a hundred years and don't have to do anything.

...or pay anything, like an Intellectual Property Tax. That is why Big Media can sit on so much of our culture, for so long, as it doesn't cost them a penny. You start taxing this at 0.5% per year of the value that is used in infringement cases, with a provision that the first $50,000 is free for natural persons, then see how quickly this will end.

Re:Mixed Feelings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37471962)

Don't be fooled by the good aspects of this bill. It's true that any bill has to be some kind of compromise, but there are some things in it that are so ridiculous that they should not be there at all, such as the one you mention: granting new rights such as format shifting, while simultaneously allowing anti-circumvention rules to trump any of those new rights. It's just dumb. What's the point of introducing new user rights while enabling any content creator to take them away with the most trivial of encryption? Even format-shifting current CSS-encrypted DVDs would be technically illegal, which is practically all commercial DVDs out there, so what's the damn point? I still remember a couple of years when the previous minister of industry stood up in front of reporters to talk about the new bill, and one of them asked about this inconsistency. He looked like a deer caught in the headlights. He either had no clue what was being asked or he knew damn well it was stupid, but was too afraid of his political masters to say so. Here we are a few years later, with plenty of people pointing out how silly it is, and Bill C-32 STILL has this nonsense in there. These politicians don't care. They're just doing what the media companies want them to do and hoping nobody in the public calls them out on it. Worse, now we have a majority government :-(

methodology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37471880)

(off topic)
methodology means the study and theory behind method. It is NOT a synonym for method. Canada you are a country that speaks better English than America you should no better.

Dear US Govt Shills for the IP scumbags (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 3 years ago | (#37474196)

Fuck. You.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?