×

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!

Canadian Gov't Considers Plan To Block Public Domain

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the victory-for-dead-authors dept.

Canada 169

An anonymous reader writes "Canada celebrated New Year's Day this year by welcoming the likes of Ernest Hemingway and Carl Jung into the public domain just as European countries were celebrating the arrival of James Joyce and Virginia Woolf, 20 years after both entered the Canadian public domain. The Canadian government is now considering a plan to enter trade negotiations that would extend the term of copyright by 20 years, meaning nothing new would enter the public domain in Canada until at least 2032. The government is holding a public consultation with the chance for Canadians to speak out to save the public domain."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

169 comments

For me, this begs the question (5, Insightful)

jtseng (4054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38611922)

Who's paying for this legislation? Is it the same cast of characters that does the same shenanigans in the US?

Re:For me, this begs the question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38611944)

I would support your comment if not for your idiotic "subject".

Re:For me, this begs the question (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38611952)

This raises a question. Unless you are down on your knees, pleading hopelessly with a language construct. I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!

Re:For me, this begs the question (0, Flamebait)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612108)

Language evolves. Everyone knows what he meant. Shut the fuck up.

Re:For me, this begs the question (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612244)

Language loses value as we stop using it correctly. People can no longer use the phrase correctly. Now politicians can give half answers and people don't know how to describe it. Thanks for making English suck.

You probably also think a "hacker" is a mean guy that steals money from your bank account too, don't you? And that virii is the plural for computer virus. And when you illegally download a Metallica song, you're a thief. I mean, language evolves. Get over it.

Re:For me, this begs the question (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612446)

Language loses value as we stop using it correctly. People can no longer use the phrase correctly. Now politicians can give half answers and people don't know how to describe it. Thanks for making English suck.

If that's how you feel, why don't you still talk like Chaucer? You would have to sound a lot more like Dutch and German as well by the way to stick to the "pure" Chaucerian English.

Re:For me, this begs the question (3, Interesting)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612906)

You don't go far enough. The first recorded usage of "begs the question" was in Greek. Archaic Greek.

We have a perfectly good term for the anachronistic meaning of "begs the question", and that is "circular argument". The common usage of the phrase makes much more sense than the official usage, if only because the official usage requires a unique definition of "beg" which is basically never used outside of that context.

Re:For me, this begs the question (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614050)

We have a perfectly good term for the incorrect usage of "begs the question", and that is "raises the question". For the technically correct usage of the term, there is no exact synonym in English. From Wikipedia:

"Circular reasoning is different from the informal logical fallacy "begging the question", as it is fallacious due to a flawed logical structure and not the individual falsity of an unstated hidden co-premise as begging the question is."

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38613012)

Welcome to the English language. Clearly you're not familiar with its history or evolution. English is an ever changing and adaptive language get used to it (you pedant). There are some cultures such as the French, and Germans which try to maintain a static language, but it really doesn't work very well. Why not adopt one of them?

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

TrueSatan (1709878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613450)

A case in point is your use of the term pedant as it had an original meaning that is now obsolete...it meant a teacher, particularly a schoolmaster.

Re:For me, this begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38613906)

Language loses value as we stop using it correctly. People can no longer use the phrase correctly. Now politicians can give half answers and people don't know how to describe it. Thanks for making English suck.

You probably also think a "hacker" is a mean guy that steals money from your bank account too, don't you? And that virii is the plural for computer virus. And when you illegally download a Metallica song, you're a thief. I mean, language evolves. Get over it.

How do you know the person who made the comment is a native English speaking person?

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614008)

And Shakespeare would say that you sound like a fool and should stop using language incorrectly.

Re:For me, this begs the question (4, Insightful)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614066)

I get what point you were trying to make, but you couldn't have picked a worse example. Do you have any idea how many new words Shakespeare coined?

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38614156)

> And that virii is the plural for computer virus

Ummmm...because it is? (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/virii)

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614162)

go read on Chomskian Linguistic you might have a different opinion after yours lectures.

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614804)

On the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand, yeah, language evolves.

Hopefully we can all agree that when someone uses the phrase "begs the question" they're resorting to hopeless cliché, trying to bask under a well-worn phrase in the expectation and forlorn hope that its scuffed surface still has enough glimmer to illuminate their words. Hint: it doesn't.

Re:For me, this begs the question (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612264)

Language evolves.

Stop being an enabler, asshole. Do you also White Knight for idiots who misuse to/too/two, their/there/they're, your/you're? Language is a tool as any other, learning to use it properly is fucking important. Shrugging it off as 'evolution' is just plain lazy, and you should be ashamed.

Re:For me, this begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612466)

I suppose you have never used a screwdriver as a pry bar or a wrench like a mallet? That is not the proper use of said tool but it still gets the job done.

Re:For me, this begs the question (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612972)

Of course not. I'm an armchair English snob, I'm too busy correcting people on the internet to use hand tools.

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612702)

<quote>English suck .....  use it properly is fucking important</quote>

What has fucking to do with correct language usage ? 

Re:For me, this begs the question (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612990)

Yep. When people are lose with language, words loose their meaning.

Re:For me, this begs the question (3, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613016)

Language evolves. Everyone knows what he meant. Shut the fuck up.

Indeed. He meant "I don't know what this phrase means but I'm going to use it anyway".

Re:For me, this begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38614468)

when i use "begs the question" i usually mean "this will piss off the grammar nazis"

Re:For me, this begs the question (-1, Troll)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612210)

Wow. Why don't you go back to school? Instead of complaining that you don't understand a phrase that is undoubtedly hundreds of years old.

Re:For me, this begs the question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612532)

Why don't you go back to school instead of not realizing what everyone is talking about because you're just as bad as the OP?

Re:For me, this begs the question (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612296)

This raises a question. Unless you are down on your knees, pleading hopelessly with a language construct. I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!

It beggars belief.

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

Lexx Greatrex (1160847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613602)

This raises a question. Unless you are down on your knees, pleading hopelessly with a language construct. I beg of you to please know what the phrase "begs the question" means. Please!

That is a perfectly cromulent phrase.

No, it IS the USA. (5, Informative)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612012)

Wikileaks shows the US government and especially the State Dept. work on behalf of the big moneyed interests which historically were US organizations but not so much today. I'm just waiting for the day a leak shows them going to bat for Chinese interests.

Just recently we have news of them actually threatening Spain to be more draconian and not that many years ago they were threatening Spain again but that time it was to allow GM foods wholly "owned" by Monsanto to the point where they were directly planning with Monsanto execs on the maneuver.

Other nations do it a little but nobody has topped the USA at it; one of the few things we are still #1 at. (see France and the privatization of water.)

Re:No, it IS the USA. (2)

dbet (1607261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612192)

"I'm just waiting for the day a leak shows them going to bat for Chinese interests."

Why wait? Corporations are international. All you need is one satellite office in Wisconsin and you can funnel money into the U.S. to pay politicians to do things.

And of course that's fair, right? I mean, the U.S. pressures everyone else, it's not unreasonable that other places pressure the U.S.

Re:No, it IS the USA. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612346)

"I'm just waiting for the day a leak shows them going to bat for Chinese interests."

Why wait? Corporations are international. All you need is one satellite office in Wisconsin and you can funnel money into the U.S. to pay politicians to do things.

And of course that's fair, right? I mean, the U.S. pressures everyone else, it's not unreasonable that other places pressure the U.S.

Chinese were buying influence in US elections in the 1990's.

US organizations are for Chinese interests. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612408)

Why bother with a free people when you can kill anyone that objects, or threaten to move the work elsewhere - as bids to divide the people amongst themselves?

Re:For me, this begs the question (5, Insightful)

doconnor (134648) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612054)

Corporate political donations are banned in Canada and individual donations are limited, so it's not the money. It's just that the elected leaders happen to believe corporations should get whatever they want.

Re:For me, this begs the question (5, Insightful)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612136)

Wait, and you believe for a second that they change anything?

They can't make donations, but they can let politicians into their swanky dinner parties for free.

And they can let the politicians and their families borrow their stately manor in the Muskokas.

And so on and so forth. Don't think for a second our corrupt collection of assholes in parliament aren't still benefitting HUGELY from these corporations.

Re:For me, this begs the question (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612224)

Plus this is a media lobby - they can offer discounted TV slots, or better slots, or favorable news coverage. It doesn't even have to be a shady under-the-table deal - any politician can work out that the media will be on good terms with him if he is with them.

Re:For me, this begs the question (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612670)

Wait, and you believe for a second that they change anything?

They can't make donations, but they can let politicians into their swanky dinner parties for free.

And they can let the politicians and their families borrow their stately manor in the Muskokas.

And so on and so forth. Don't think for a second our corrupt collection of assholes in parliament aren't still benefitting HUGELY from these corporations.

Left out the corporate jobs they seem to move into with relative ease once out of office...

Re:For me, this begs the question (2)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612716)

I have to declare the value of every meal I get taken out on by our clients & other 'gifts' if the total per day comes over £40... and even have to pay bl00dy tax on the benefit I've received... how come these swine get away with this?

Note, there are moves afoot in the UK to start chasing our politicians on these house & boat lendings and other entertainment schemes to get them for the tax on the equivalent benefit in kind...

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613112)

How do they get away with it? They're in charge, they make the rules.

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612960)

Or that nice cushy no show job with an obscene wage when they leave politics.

Re:For me, this begs the question (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38613292)

Not to mention that Brian Mulroney was caught taking envelopes full of hundreds of thousands of dollars, cash, in shady hotel rooms.

If he was caught doing it, they are all doing it, just not getting caught. The laws don't really mean that much in this regard.

It is the money (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612308)

It is the money being used to buy off US politicians, who then put pressure on Canadian politicians. The US is Canada's biggest trading partner and visa versa, so what the US wants has a big impact on what the Canadians do.

Re:For me, this begs the question (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612374)

Corporate political donations are banned in Canada and individual donations are limited, so it's not the money. It's just that the elected leaders happen to believe corporations should get whatever they want.

You've never met a politician who wasn't rewarded for loyalty after they left office. This is the retirement plan for a large share of the US House and Senate.

Re:For me, this begs the question (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612740)

Who's paying for this legislation? Is it the same cast of characters that does the same shenanigans in the US?

It's the Extreme Right of the Stephen Harper Conservatives. They are pro-corporate and anti-consumer. Some of the Harper Conservative initiatives:
- eliminate universal health care
- support warrantless internet surveillance
- support Internet Usage Based Billing (reversed stance do to public outcry just before election, though the government passed a watered-down UBB-type measures afterwords)
- increase criminal penalties for recreational drug violations (and spend billions of dollars on new penitentiaries during an economic crisis)
- eliminate and weaken gun control legislation (he stated, for example that people who refuse to register fire arms with the government will make criminals out of innocent citizens)
- supported increased censorship of the Internet and movie industries
- unequivocal support for the state of Israel and rejection of any Palestinian claims
- constantly campaigns to lower taxes on corporations
- wants to eliminate any form of social welfare
- took a leadership role in rejecting Kyoto
- is a global warming denier
- is anti-abortion (and of course, is pro-death penalty)
- likes to do business with the corrupt Chinese government and their corporations
- The Wikileaks people discovered that the Harper Conservatives secretly urged the United States to put Canada on a worst-offenders list of copyright violators and bittorent users (to help with the pro-copyright propaganda campaigns)

Here are some Stephen Harper quotes:

Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.

[Regarding the lies that the second Iraq War was based on, and the terrorism that resulted from it:]
On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction.

We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.

===

I believe that all taxes are bad.

In terms of the unemployed... don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

[S]ome basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk... Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.

Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.

Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.

Same sex marriage is not a human right. ... [U]ndermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on multiculturalism and the practices in those communities.

These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of âoechild povertyâ...

If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away⦠This is oÂne more reason why Westerners, but Albertans in particular, need to think hard about their future in this country. After sober reflection, Albertans should decide that it is time to seek a new relationship with Canada. â¦Having hit a wall, the next logical step is not to bang our heads against it. It is to take the bricks and begin building another home â" a stronger and much more autonomous Alberta. It is time to look at Quebec and to learn.

"activist judges" [I can't seem to find a direct quote, but there are references to Harper complaining about "liberal activist judges".]

And finally, not Harper himself, but one of his henchmen calling people who are against U.S. style copyright laws as "radical extremist".

Sadly, when Stephen Harper and his party talk about "radicals" and "extremists", they are really just talking about themselves. Words alone and rational dialogue will not stop them.

References:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper#On_Taxes [wikiquote.org]
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho [brainyquote.com] ... arper.html
http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0049 [harperindex.ca]
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5185/125/ [michaelgeist.ca]

That's quite the extensive list... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613586)

And given its length, I was bound to find one thing that I agreed with.

I personally happen to support the notion of the death penalty as well for a limited number of types of crimes.

Pretty much everything else in that list I either disagree with or had not previously formed any position.

For what it's worth, I didn't vote Conservative.

Re:For me, this begs the question (1, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613716)

Wow. You're really taking things out and out and got modded for it too huh?

Long rifle registry. The 5 billion dollar liberal boondoggle that has done nothing but cost tax payers money, caught no one, and hassled no one but farmers, and hunters.

The HRC, who's done nothing but turned around and hassled citizens who give their opinions on things and run them through kangaroo courts parallel to the legal courts, with no due process? Tell me AC, how is it fair to go on 'trial' but have no legal recourse in defense. It only gets more fun, when you have someone who works for the HRC who deliberately posts inflammatory martial, and works for the HRC, then sues the person.

Same sex-marriage is not a human right. It's also not the preview of the federal government. It's a provincial decision. In Canada, the provinces have in general more control over what's said and done than the feds.

Kyoto is a scheme to suck money from wealthy nations. Europe figured it out. Japan figured it out, too. Canada was simply the first nation to pull out of it.

Well Americans sure don't seem to want to do business with Canada. After all, they seem to still be bell aching over the Keystone XL pipeline that would create jobs that you sorely need, but China is willing to buy our products and resources. You tell me. If there's an open market, who do you sell to?

Oh as for Israel and the palestinian thing? That's about the right of it. After all, how does one support a non-entity that technically doesn't exist in the first place. Remember. Israel was supposed to be all of israel+jordan, but ended up as jordan and israel. And the only reason why there's palestian refugees in the first place, is because they sided with arabs, when the arabs launched their first war to commit genocide against the jews(aka israeli's) and lost, and then a second time, and a third time, and when arafat tried to overthrow the kingdom of Jordan, and got his ass tossed out.

Meh. There's enough to debunk in half truths and half claims I can go on. There is some truths, but like all politics, half is bullshit, and half is truth.

Re:For me, this begs the question (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614312)

The 5 billion dollar liberal boondoggle that has done nothing but cost tax payers money, caught no one, and hassled no one but farmers, and hunters.

Why does the SQ, the SPVM and the OPP all wants a copy of this useless boondoggle ? and by the way the goal was not to catch anyone but to reduce risk in case of domestic violence and mental health issues...

The HRC, who's done nothing but turned around and hassled citizens who give their opinions on things and run them through kangaroo courts parallel to the legal courts, with no due process? Tell me AC, how is it fair to go on 'trial' but have no legal recourse in defense. It only gets more fun, when you have someone who works for the HRC who deliberately posts inflammatory martial, and works for the HRC, then sues the person.

Agreed, the HRC should be dissolve and existing laws and tribunal used instead...

Same sex-marriage is not a human right.

Equality before the law is....

Kyoto is a scheme to suck money from wealthy nations. Europe figured it out. Japan figured it out, too. Canada was simply the first nation to pull out of it.

While I don't agree with the usefulness of concentrating our anti-pollution effort on the CO2, once you get into an international agreement you stick to it or you will loose your credibility...

Oh as for Israel and the palestinian thing? That's about the right of it. After all, how does one support a non-entity that technically doesn't exist in the first place. Remember. Israel was supposed to be all of israel+jordan, but ended up as jordan and israel. And the only reason why there's palestian refugees in the first place, is because they sided with arabs, when the arabs launched their first war to commit genocide against the jews(aka israeli's) and lost, and then a second time, and a third time, and when arafat tried to overthrow the kingdom of Jordan, and got his ass tossed out.

I you ask me we should vitrify that place and just forget about it and never try to create a state using force again!

eh. There's enough to debunk in half truths and half claims I can go on. There is some truths, but like all politics, half is bullshit, and half is truth.

Just like your post and mine !

Re:For me, this begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38614506)

Based on your comments I did some research and realized that your statements completely invalidate anything that I have said in my earlier post. Based on your analyses I now realize:
- Palestinians are (in your words a "non-entity" ) and in Newt Gingrich's words an "invented people" because Christian Fundamentalists and Jewish extremists say so. The Winners write the history books. Thanks for correcting me on that one.
- Marriage is not a human right because it is a provincial matter. I'll tell my parents that.
- Gun control is bad because the Liberal Party mis-managed funds. Makes sense to me.
- Human Rights are bad because there are people whose agendas that you (or I) may not agree with. Now I realize that it's good to through the baby out with the bath water.
- Kyoto is a scheme to suck money from wealthy nations. Sure, but where's the leadership?
- Canada should do business with corrupt countries (like China) because it makes Canadian corporations rich and further erodes human rights in China and the living standards of normal people in Canada. I now realize that the trickle down economy of the far right is something I should support. Canada should lose its sovereignty to the United States because the music industry in Canada will make money off of copyright monopolies, and some of this money will eventually contribute to the trickle-down economy of the 99-percenters. Makes sense to me.

As you said:

Meh. There's enough to debunk in half truths and half claims I can go on. There is some truths, but like all politics, half is bullshit, and half is truth.

How apropos! And congratulations on your Mod points.

To answer the other AC:

I've found liberals past pretty horrific when it comes to deficits which I dont believe in.

Federally the Liberal Party has been pretty good (actually reducing Canada's debt), instead of increasing it like the Conservatives do by lowering taxes and increasing spending on the "law and order" agenda of more police and more jails and penitentiaries. With the Ontario government the Liberals have been far better than the Conservatives of Mike Harris at balancing the budget.

As for voting, I tend to go for the least evil, which can vary. I'm not aligned to any political party, although I don't ever remember voting for a Conservative (the more moderate conservatism of former lame-duck Joe Clark I would consider).

Re:For me, this begs the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38614046)

Who do we vote for then is the question, I've found liberals past pretty horrific when it comes to deficits which I dont believe in.

Also I dont agree with NDP as I believe in less government rather than more.

Who does someone like me vote for?

Asking the public to save public domain (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38611962)

The public domain needs to be defended from the government? That thing that supposedly represents the will of the public?

Holy shit, what a world we live in.

GIve me a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612074)

This is getting beyond stupid.

This would be a disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612116)

If it applied retroactively. IMSLP and Wikilivres, of course, would have to scour their archives for all those infringing works (it might be a bit easier for IMSLP because of the [TB] tag, but still.)

should apply to new works only (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612176)

even if (err, when) this law is passed, it should apply only to works published after it came in effect.
(yeah, right).

Sadly, this will pass (5, Informative)

sinij (911942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612218)

Sadly, this is all but done deal. Traditional Canadian values are being traded for closer ties with US. Conservative Harper government has an ability to pass this, in exchange getting border harmonization (less restrictions on shipping) with US.

Re:Sadly, this will pass (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612324)

With any luck, it will be like Canada's pot laws, which exist on paper just to prevent the USA from freaking out, but aren't actually enforced in Canada. Lawyers, judges and lawmakers don't know this, but cops do, and that's really all that matters.

Re:Sadly, this will pass (3, Interesting)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612452)

Harper wants to enforce minimum sentences on all drug offenses, including jail time. Really.

Re:Sadly, this will pass (4, Informative)

oldspicepuresport (1551767) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612650)

I'm no fan of Harper but that's just not true.

Minimum sentences apply only under aggravating circumstances... like selling drugs on school property, selling drugs while armed with a gun, or selling drugs on behalf of organized crime.

Sorry to let reality get in the way of your paranoid delusions. Really.

Re:Sadly, this will pass (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38613076)

Neither is your comment true, unless cultivation of marijuana is something you'd consider an aggravating circumstance. I wouldn't. Anyone caught growing 6 marijuana plants or more will receive a sentence of *at least* 6 months, with no room for judicial discretion to give a lower sentence. Anyone caught growing 200 plants or more has a minimum sentence of 2 years (which, by the way, is higher than the minimum for raping a child - skewed priorities, much?).

Additionally, they are changing the regulations concerning medical marijuana such that persons legally allowed to possess and cultivate marijuana under current regulations will no longer be allowed to cultivate marijuana.

Put the 2 above regulations together, and a person who cultivates 6 or more marijuana plants for medical use will receive a 6 month jail sentence for doing so.

Re:Sadly, this will pass (4, Informative)

Suddenly_Dead (656421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613140)

Minimum sentences apply only under aggravating circumstances...

That's not true, unless you count recidivism as aggravating, and I would argue that in this case it really shouldn't be.

(a) subject to paragraph (a.1), if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and
(i) to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if
(A) the person committed the offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, as defined in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code,
(B) the person used or threatened to use violence in committing the offence,
(C) the person carried, used or threat- ened to use a weapon in committing the offence, or
(D) the person was convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for a designated substance offence, within the previous 10 years, or

Minimum 1-year if someone has been caught with drugs twice. The minimums you're talking about are also there: two years for on/near a school or any public place with minors, or if minors were involved at any point.

It's also minimum 1-year for trafficking, and I'm assuming that would include "was smoking his marijuana with his buddies".

Re:Sadly, this will pass (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612520)

Don't count on it. What do you thing the planned new prisons are for? They will not stay empty for long.

Re:Sadly, this will pass (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612566)

Whether or not it's a done deal is kinda up in the air, but remember Canada already has it's own very version of "media protectionism" in place called Cancon and it's very protective of that even without, outside influence.

Re:Sadly, this will pass (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612728)

Sadly, this is all but done deal.

Traditional Canadian values are being traded for closer ties with US. Conservative Harper government has an ability to pass this, in exchange getting border harmonization (less restrictions on shipping) with US.

Vibes of the Helms–Burton Act, 1996. In effect: Canadian companies doing business in Cuba could not do business with US Government or US Corporations - which in this multinational world is like trying to dance through a minefield.

The whiff of influence is possibly due to sentiment, like you state, in the interest of happy cross border trade ($$$) rather than in the interests of the people of Canada.

But what is really sad ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612754)

Is that as a Canadian citizen I needed to learn about this on Slashdot, so much for public consultation!

Re:Sadly, this will pass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38613864)

Meh, I've got a semi-prediction that Canada will become part of the USA before I'm dead... so within the next 50 years. We're trying relaly damn hard to be identical to the USA lately it seems, so my prediction is off to a good start.

Copyright by Installment (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612220)

Same song different tune.

Re:Copyright by Installment (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612396)

Same song different tune.

Time for the Swedish Copyists to open a Mission in Ottawa.

Re:Copyright by Installment (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612616)

Song, tune, and all related insignia, characters and distinctive likenesses thereof ©2012 Music Canada or its members. All rights reserved in perpetuity, legally or otherwise.

at some point (4, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612482)

America has forgotten something important about canadian parliament. Namely, that it is a wholly divorced entity from the united states and free to make laws, rules and regulations sans-input from it; which is coincidentally completely divorced from the concept of 'soverign nationality.'

if the wikileaks cables expose anything, its the fact that america hasnt just been instructing the cadence to which the world will march, its been fitting the boots and tightening the slacks in which the world marches as well.

So as an american taxpayer who believes in a free and democratic, soverign nation for all those who seek it, I can only hope canada will through consideration completely disregard this attack on the rights and freedoms of canadian citizens.

Re:at some point (5, Insightful)

Nugoo (1794744) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614044)

America has forgotten something important about canadian parliament. Namely, that it is a wholly divorced entity from the united states and free to make laws, rules and regulations sans-input from it; which is coincidentally completely divorced from the concept of 'soverign nationality.'

More importantly, so has Canada.

Re:at some point (4, Informative)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614268)

>I can only hope canada will through consideration completely disregard this attack on the rights and freedoms of canadian citizens.

The Harper Government - yes they want to be called The Harper Gov instead of Government Of Canada will do no such thing, This will pass. Why? Well look what happened after the Wikileaks cables shwed that Canadian politicians where working hard to let the US see early drafts of our bills and OUR politicians were asking the US to put US on the 301 list. This hit a few news sites but NOTHING happened.

Can't we just drop the pretenses... (3, Interesting)

itsme1234 (199680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612544)

... and just print some money and hand it to these bozos to leave us alone? I mean we can't pretend anymore that there's any fairness at all. Copyright was some kind of a deal in which both parties contributed with something: "the people" agreed to let "the authors" have some kind of unnatural monopoly over how some specific information is distributed with the understanding that they'll get back after a while some more interesting information in return. Free for share and for recycling in any way we see fit.
Already life of the author plus 50 years or whatever is whatever relevant jurisdiction is ridiculously high and defeats the spirit of copyright. Heck, there's freakin' JULES VERNE still under copyright (and really hard to find if you are on the wrong continent).
Life + 70 years is just a spit in the face. It should be like patents, about 20 years, with the need for explicit extensions. And a DRM-free copy of the original should be provided in escrow to some state organization which should make sure at the date when the copyright expires the DRM-free copy is available for everyone. Or you chose your poison: copyright will not protect you if the copy you distribute has DRM. Either it's mine to do whatever I am legally allowed to do OR you don't come crying that you want to sue a printer in some campus for "distributing copyrighted work".

If I'm not mistaken Canada is also one of the countries where if you want to back-up your pictures (for example) to CD it's presumed that you infringe copyright and you have to pay some fee no matter what, isn't it? I think this goes back to my original argument that there's no rhyme or reason to the laws, just get what you can for whatever pretext.

Re:Can't we just drop the pretenses... (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613070)

If I'm not mistaken Canada is also one of the countries where if you want to back-up your pictures (for example) to CD it's presumed that you infringe copyright and you have to pay some fee no matter what, isn't it?

It's also one of the countries where it is legal to share music. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Re:Can't we just drop the pretenses... (1)

itsme1234 (199680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613328)

Of course it's one of the countries in which is legal to share music, as it's legal to share in ALL countries. The problem comes when you start to qualify the statement: "depending on the license", "without compensation", "for free", etc.
Are you saying that you're allowed to share (obviously without compensation or any previous agreement) the latest Metallica album:
a. on your web site?
b. in your shop (street corner, class, company, etc)? Even assuming you're using "taxed" CDs?

Re:Can't we just drop the pretenses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38613506)

no, the levy quite clearly refers to personal use, i.e. not for public or commercial use
  a. public
  b. commercial/public

for all public and commercial uses, the onus is on the licensee to ensure that they are in accordance with the various terms of the commercial and public licenses

that is how i understand it to be anyways.

Speaking as a Canadian... (5, Informative)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612660)

...I urge every Canadian reading this to send an e-mail expressing your (reasonably worded and well-considered) views to consultations@international.gc.ca. I also suggest that you write to or e-mail your Minister of Parliament, and any other MP's that are involved in the process of destrying the Public Domain in Canada.

In the past these letter writing campaigns have resulted in unfavourable and unfair Internet legislation in Canada being rejected, and although the current Conservative majority does not bode well for maintaining a healthy Public Domain, it's still worhwhile trying. In my view these issues are like elections - if you don't weigh in and make yourself heard, you have no right to complain about the outcome. So please raise your voices in an effort to stop this ill-conceived attack on the public good.

If the US does it, ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38612678)

the Harper government will, too.

it's fscking retroactive you tw@ts... (4, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612752)

I'd have less objections if the legislation changed the length of term for NEW items, BUT didn't change the length of EXISTING copyrights...

If Canada... (1)

Grekan (2349348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612788)

If Canada follows through and adds 20 more years to our copyright we may as well give up our status as a sovereign nation and either become the 51st State or join the European Union. Foreign interests have no place in Canadian law. I wrote my e-mail of complaint - and so should you.

LIMITED TIMES you morons! (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38612854)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

And yes, I know our Constitution doesn't apply in Canada but that line embodies the reasoning behind copyrights; the promote the progress of science and the arts. Not to ensure decades worth of revenue for a fucking publishing company that didn't even create the work in the first place.

Re:LIMITED TIMES you morons! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38613652)

The constitution was written before massive heartless multinational corporations needed to squeeze every drop of proffit out of the slaves that they refer to as their artists / inventors. Someone need to look out for their interests, so companies like Monsanto can re-engineer their products, copy right them, eliminate the inferior product before the patent expires, and engage another 20 years of patent profiteering. If governments don't ensure the rights of money hungy capitalist entities, who will?

As a Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38613042)

The reason the government of Canada passes so many laws favourable to the US is that since roughly 85% of our exports are to them, if they add some new tariffs or restrictions they could wreck our economy. They've already started doing this with some regulations regarding lumber, and they could simply start problems in other areas. So while Harper may be a shill for the US or not, no Canadian government can really stand up to pressure from the US without deeply hurting our economy. My guess is that this is simply some back-door strong-arming from the US, like they've been doing lately to places like Spain.

Re:As a Canadian (1)

Grekan (2349348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613342)

If they [the US] started adding tariffs on everything they'd be violating NAFTA and we could just as easily do the same back. Although it would probably hurt us more than them.

Not Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38613678)

Michael Geist wrote the article. Please credit him: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6225/125/

If you need an argument... (4, Insightful)

Froggie (1154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613754)

... consider this one, which is purely economic:

If copyrights are extended by 20 years, the entire Canadian public is deprived of value, which is handed mostly to holders of existing copyrights. What are you getting in return?

If the answer is 'nothing', then why would your MP, whose sole job is to represent the Canadian public, vote for this?

If the answer is 'more creativity', then that statement would need considerable backup before it's worthwhile changing the status quo, considering the loss involved. Last I checked there was no shortage of new novels, films and so on, and no indication that more money for the creators in the long distant future would change that.

And if the answer is 'appeasing other countries', then someone needs to justify the value of such appeasement.

Anything else would seem to be a dereliction of the MP's duty.

Additionally (1)

Froggie (1154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38613806)

If you're purely looking to give more value to new works, then you don't have to change the copyright term for old ones. The creators knew what they signed up to when the work was created: changing that deal now cannot possibly be fair.

Re:If you need an argument... (2)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614376)

What are you getting in return?

The Conservative MPs get cushy jobs after they retire from politics or get their ass booted out of parliament by displeased voters. What the mere citizens get is irreverent.

E-Readers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38614014)

This is all about the publishers ability to get every last dime they can from an author. People with e-readers/books can download these works for nothing, and that has these publishers in a tizzy. They have stocks of these books that they can't rid of.

Harper is caving to these interests.

I might be amenable to this... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614094)

... if they could also see to it that another 20 years is tacked onto the term of my mortgage.

And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38614300)

Alright, perhaps I don't see the issue here...it would be nice to be able to keep works in the public domain but does having them stay copyrighted seem to stop anyone? Considering the current state of things, this seems like a mere formality...

Save Your Breath (3, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614326)

The government is holding a public consultation with the chance for Canadians to speak out to save the public domain."

Tee hee. It's so cute when people think that they can make a difference. The Tories have majority, which means that they will do exactly what they want, when they want, and only what they want.

This thing is a done deal, and no amount of punditry and internet petitioning is going to change it.

Consultation, the Canadian way (3, Insightful)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38614718)

We all know the drill by now.

The government will listen intently to everybody, then do exactly what Big Copyright told them to do.

...laura

Here's a solution... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38614888)

Instead of just automatically extending copyrights for all content for another 20 years, why wouldn't the government allow for a copyright holder to apply for *and pay for* the extension of the copyright.

A lot of copyright holders simply want to sit on their exclusivity and not do anything with it. If the content is really worth something, this will encourage the copyright holders to weigh the opportunity cost of extending the copy right (probably worth it for truly good content) or letting it expire. This would encourage copyright holders to make better use of the time period they can profit from the content. And if they find it's really worth it, they can pay to continue profiting from it. Otherwise, give people access to it!

An interesting tangent fact: the original Goerge A. Romero classic Night of the Living Dead is in the public domain because the copyright did not appear on the title screen in the film, a requirement to maintain copyright at the time.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...