Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Canada Launches ACTA Bill

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the while-everybody's-paying-attention-to-hockey dept.

Canada 91

TrueSatan writes "In an utterly craven move, the Canadian government has launched a bill to bring Canada into full compliance with the discredited, U.S.-led ACTA agreement — an agreement to which most of the world does not agree. To further pressure the acceptance of this awful bill, the U.S., on the same day, released their Trade Policy and Agenda Annual Report (PDF), which calls on Canada to comply with ACTA obligations. For ACTA to take effect, it would require six signatures from the major economic blocks. Tt appears to have no remaining possibility of getting them, yet the U.S., and now Canada, continue to push it forward. The Canadian bill features claims based on spurious health and safety concerns that have been thoroughly debunked by a U.S. report. Despite these claims being so dubious, they remain a cornerstone of the Canadian bill. Similarly, the claimed losses due to counterfeiting ($30 billion USD) stated in the bill have also been debunked. The Canadian bill seeks to give border guards an unprecedented level of control, without the possibility of judicial oversight. Despite a lack of evidence to suggest that Canada is a major source of counterfeit product, the bill puts at risk the fully-legal parallel import of generic items — pharmaceuticals, for instance. The bill would also change copyright infringement from a civil dispute to a breach of criminal law. Pity Canada if this bill is enacted!"

cancel ×

91 comments

I'm not sure I understand... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43049901)

Could the editors please present a less objective article because I'm not sure if I understand how I'm supposed to feel about the issue.

Thank you.

Soma Soma Soma

Re:I'm not sure I understand... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050203)

Thanks. Came here just to say that. Can we at least pretend not to be so damned sensationalist?

Re:I'm not sure I understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43053131)

The evil government of Canada (no, libertardians, government is _still_ not evil as a concept, it's only because this government is run by evil small-government conservatives like Stephen Harper that it's bad) has decided that it will expand the concept of "compulsory licensing" in copyright to its full extent: you download the song, you automatically agree to the license. Whether it involves paying $100, losing your house or giving up your first born child and spending the next twenty years working at the MAFIAA gulag, no matter how you get your content, if you get caught you have to pay up. "Old doctrines like the right of first sale and conscionability are the resort of the weak," Conservative finance minister Darth Flaherty said to press. "In order for innovation to truly prosper we need to have a society based on unbounded individual freedom to set licensing policies that apply automatically to everyone who touches even a copy of a derivative of a copy of their data. This concept that you should be able to just do what you want in private if it doesn't hurt anyone is just absurd; in order for there to be any incentive we need to impose on downloaders rules that we agree on as a society to ensure coercion and control." The bill also extends copyright to "infinity minus one" years, and bans the teaching of any mathematics that disputes the finite nature of said expression, as well as legally classifying all open source and otherwise permissively licensed works and software as "unowned intellectual property" that anyone can claim by being the first to record their claim in a special copyright database, located in a new government building surrounded by MAFIAA-owned property. In other news, Canada is implementing a quantitative easing program in which the government will illegally download one song per second, and so automatically grant $1.24 billion worth of liquidity to the copyright industry every day with which it can employ millions of new workers and produce thousands of new songs. "No, we will totally not secretly change our license to require the government to transfer all control to us entirely," RIAA chief Darth Sherman said.

More emphasis, please! (1)

davecb (6526) | about a year ago | (#43053857)

This is Mr. Harper, whose Reform/Alliance/Conservative party supposedly stands for individual liberty over the oppression of the corporations, fairness to Canadians and loyalty to the principles of peace, order and good government.

Their actions are a betrayal of their own members, the legalization of the oppression of citizens by corporations and the subversion of Canadian judicial independence from the U.S.

I'm sure his antediluvian core supporters will think this is a good idea, but I suspect anyone under fifty will find it at least a little suspicious!

This is really rather important: More emphasis! More emphasis!

--dave

Canada is run by a dictatorship (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43049911)

Heil Harper!

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050053)

matches the situation in the States where Obama rules by executive order. should expect that Canada would lock step with the States on just about anything.

any suggestions on countries where the governments still represent the citizens rather than laying covert plans to oppress and destroy them?

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050775)

Cuba? Trinidad & Tobago?

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year ago | (#43051933)

lol - I heard a stat once, not sure if it's true, however, it was said that Bush Jr. signed more executive orders in last term than all previous administrations combined... I'll have to see if I can verify that.

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year ago | (#43051967)

And wiki comes through...

All administrations from 1800 to 2000: 67
Bush Jr. 2001-2009: 291
Obama: 148

He's got quite a ways to go to catch up.

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | about a year ago | (#43054707)

You do realize that if your argument is "the current guy is averaging a bit better than the previous guy" or "the current guy has the potential to only be half as bad as the previous guy" (I can't tell which one you're aiming for) you don't actually have an argument, right?

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year ago | (#43055289)

No, my argument is that "Obama rules by executive order" is a fallacy - really nothing more than a conservative talking point (why I brought up Bush Jr. as a counter point). While I didn't notice the consolidated numbers initially, thanks to drinkypoo for the correction, 20 presidents have signed more executive than Obama. The average is 350 orders signed. It'd be fair to say Roosevelt, Wilson, and Coolidge ruled by executive order, but not Obama.

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050323)

Amen bro . That guy's the henchmen of the USA's establishment.

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050457)

As much as I do not like Harper, he was elected under the rules. Even if we assume the robocall, etc. stuff happened as alleged, it wouldn't necessarily be enough to take away from his majority government.

It's quite common for majority governments to be elected in Canada by a minority of voters, even 40% as in this case.

If Canadians don't care enough to change the current voting system, we deserve what we get.

No amount of whining on slashdot or CBC discussion forums will change this.

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year ago | (#43052329)

As much as I do not like Harper, he was elected under the rules. Even if we assume the robocall, etc. stuff happened as alleged, it wouldn't necessarily be enough to take away from his majority government.

11 less seats (166 won, 155 needed) and he would have lost his majority government. He wouldn't "necessarily" have lost it, but there's still a damn good chance he would have.

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year ago | (#43052333)

Make that 12. off-by-one bites me again. But my point still stands.

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052471)

"If he hadn't have won he would have lost."

--DarwinSurvivor

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year ago | (#43053361)

Did you have to stand on your head while reading my post to interpret it that way?

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43052351)

That will teach those Canadian ministers not to step over a voodoo doll of our president ;-)

That single "incident" really made the scale tip over.

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=40&threadid=35289 [ilxor.com]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Parrish [wikipedia.org]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/parrish-carolyn.html [www.cbc.ca]

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052449)

If Canadians don't care enough to change the current voting system, we deserve what we get.

Oh is that all it takes?! So we change the voting system and elect some other party and all of a sudden politicians become honest responsible people, is that it?

Tell me, what obligations do these politicians have to follow through with a single promise they make during their campaign? If I hire a maid to come and clean the house weekly, I don't hire them with a single condition that if they do a poor job I'll fire them in 4 years, why should hire someone to run the country for a minimum of 4 years any way they like?

Tell me, what obligations do any of these elected politicians have to serve the country in its best interest, other than the threat of not being re-elected? If I hire a contractor to renovate my house and he does a crap job I can take him to court and get some of my money back, will these politicians refund their salaries and expenses if the economy goes to crap?

Tell me, what happens if these politicians pass a law that results in a whole bunch of average citizens being fined or arrested, only to have the law declared unconstitutional later on? Do they get any jail time themselves? Do they get to pay any restitution? Or do they just say "our bad" and carry on to their next campaign?

I'm sure a new voting system will solve all these problems... Yeah right, spoken like a real politician! You can only fool some people mate, but not all. This form of democracy we have is out-dated, it was perfect for the 1800s and 1950s, but it's got no place in the age of instant communications, mega-corporations, and stock markets run by computers.

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43053729)

If Canadians don't care enough to change the current voting system, we deserve what we get.

Oh is that all it takes?! So we change the voting system and elect some other party and all of a sudden politicians become honest responsible people, is that it?

In our current voting system, people have to choose whether or not to vote their conscience or vote strategically. Depending on your beliefs and the circumstances, they may match up. Quite often, they don't.

In our current system, that's our starting position. If the system, relative to others, discourages voting on principle, and people don't vote on principle, then how can we expect people to run on principle?

Some voting systems mitigate this, e.g. variations of run-off, approval voting.

And who says an alternative voting system has to be a party system?

[whinging]

I'm sure a new voting system will solve all these problems...

I never said a new voting system will solve these problems.

Some voting systems allow a closer alignment between what people want and what people get.

As it stands, why would a civic-minded individual with principle run in an election where their own supporters will vote against them, often voting for somebody they oppose, in order to vote against a third option that they oppose even more?

Yeah right, spoken like a real politician!

I'm not a politician. I see majority governments winning with minority support. I see people voting for parties and politicians who they oppose because they don't want the "most wrong one" to win. I see people complain about it but do nothing about it.

"In a democracy, people get the government they deserve." -anonymous

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43053557)

Should I invoke Hitler here?

Re:Canada is run by a dictatorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43087845)

Should I invoke Hitler here?

Nope, it was commentary on Canadians, about how they'll complain about something but not really do anything about it.

In a western democracy, there are many acceptable legal ways to make the will of the people known, but Canadians don't have any will. Ergo, nothing to see here.

Canadians concepts of civic duty is limited to working, consuming, and paying taxes, or however that saying goes...

Propose != Launch (5, Interesting)

TechieRefugee (2105386) | about a year ago | (#43049947)

From my understanding of TFA, it's not official legislation yet. Honestly, I don't see this going through, so calm down, title!

Re:Propose != Launch (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | about a year ago | (#43050085)

Conservative majority and some recent added senators. Why do you think it won't go through?

Re:Propose != Launch (3, Interesting)

Beerdood (1451859) | about a year ago | (#43050173)

The conservatives didn't pass the last similar bill through, though they could have. They *could* pass any bill they like, but if there's enough public backlash they may decide against passing it. They do plan on winning seats in future elections, so they won't just pass anything unless it has a minimum threshold of public support.

Re:Propose != Launch (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#43050319)

Bingo. This bill will get the same amount of public outcry as the previous ones. And considering I can't even connect to the Government of Canada website right now, I'd say that it's already begun. Even at that, the SCC does have a long history of slapping down laws like this when they go against the interest of Canadians.

Re:Propose != Launch (2)

Dr. Evil (3501) | about a year ago | (#43053239)

I'm not sure they'll get the outcry.

They're couching the act as a consumer safety issue. They'll cite counterfeit child-seats for cars, Vic Toews will start rattling "you're with us, or you're with the child-killers".

Then the legitimate Conservative position is another layer to the whole thing. This makes big business happy, which means jobs for Canadians, and jobs make the economy tick, allowing everyone to buy the services which the government needs to withdraw from the mooching unemployed.

A bill like this could thin the border, free up trade, spur on new markets.

Finally, intellectual freedom isn't a tangible thing. Jobs are, and getting ripped off with a dangerous child seat, that's tangible too.

There's a logical consistency here. A complete disregard for the fact that corporations are impossible to control and will let people starve on the streets if they can save a buck by sending jobs to Brazil or India, but still, consistency.

There will be short term gains which provide political backing, enough that any conservative supporter doesn't need to worry about their constituency ousting them for supporting this bill.

Re:Propose != Launch (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#43050477)

Canada has their own version of Hollywood to contend with, which poses a problem.

Hollywood were among those who pressed Obama to sign ACTA without senate approval, or even letting the senate see it at all (a major constitutional violation - how he got away with that is rather shocking.) Obama won a peace prize after all, if he can be traded on the open market like that, imagine what can happen in Canada.

Re:Propose != Launch (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050893)

Canada has their own version of Hollywood to contend with, which poses a problem.

Yes. It is called Quebec.

Re:Propose != Launch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050523)

We're a few years away from the next election and people have short memories.

The traditional so-called "natural governing party" of Canada is in a mess due to their own making, and the Official Opposition lost their fairly well respected leader.

A copyright bill will not anger so many people for so long that it'll make a difference in the next election.

And do not underestimate the strategists in the CPC. They are very competent at their jobs. If the powers-that-be want this bill to be law, they will succeed. Remember, these are the people who got a majority government without Quebec. That's an accomplishment, without doubt.

Re:Propose != Launch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050881)

In Canada it is ILLEGAL to rip (CSS-protected) DVDs to your computer so you can watch them with your WD TV Live (that's for sale everywhere) or similar streaming device.

Was there any outcry? No, they'll just do it anyway. And by the time the next elections come around, have completely forgotten about it - or so the conservatives hope. And if not, just invent a couple of contentious subjects we all agree we can disagree on, while we all also agree to keep quiet about certain other subjects (anything to do with rightsholders, for instance).

Re:Propose != Launch (1)

guidryp (702488) | about a year ago | (#43050115)

What's to stop it? He has a majority and he has a an iron Hand with his MPs. None of them will vote against it unless he declares it a free vote, which he won't.

Re:Propose != Launch (2)

The Sad Nazgul (2803507) | about a year ago | (#43050215)

The Conservatives have a majority government in Canada. Unless a significant number of MPs break party ranks, which would be political suicide for those MPs, and vote against the bill it will pass. It is possible that the Senate will delay it until the current session of Parliament ends, but given the track record of the current Group of Senators that is unlikely. And even if they do show that much political courage and insight the Conservatives would probably just reintroduce the bill with a few token changes. Unless if there is a significant public outcry it is very likely that this bill will become law.

Re:Propose != Launch (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050259)

That's the problem with having a strong majority government. They can ram through just about anything with no resistance.

This is just another example of what a minority of citizens in Canada and the States worry about; governments running wild with unpublished agendas independent of political party and with no real concern about the majority of the population.

The old are lucky enough that they won't see the worst of it. The young have been indoctrinated into believing that this is exactly the way things should be. It's the generation in between that are going to suffer as their normal, freedom of choice, freedom from unwarranted surveillance, freedom from fear of unwarranted search seizure, of unwarranted indefinite detainment crumbles around them.

confirmation word: watchman

Re:Propose != Launch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43051973)

That is until the Z/Y generation gets into power and repeals all of this digital prohibition. It will take time, but the youth will be the power brokers to deal with.

In related news.... (1)

mevets (322601) | about a year ago | (#43050435)

Keystone XL passed a notable hurdle today....

There is no whore like an old whore - Brian Mulroney, former Canadian PM and (presumably still) douche bag.

Re:In related news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050929)

Don't worry, I'm sure the Liberals and Chretien's billion dollar scams, and attempts to mislead the public by trying to make people unavailable by placing them diplomatic posts was a much better government.

Re:In related news.... (1)

dryeo (100693) | about a year ago | (#43051357)

Don't worry, I'm sure the Liberals and Chretien's billion dollar scams, and attempts to mislead the public by trying to make people unavailable by placing them diplomatic posts was a much better government.

Compared to the Conservatives multi-billion scams? 5 billion spent on the G10 summit, all pretty well in one riding, 35 billion on the F-35 fiasco (swore they'd only cost $10 billion. Or perhaps how he just does not let anyone talk to the public.
Remember his promises of open government?

Re:In related news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052483)

The Liberals would have spent twice as much on the G10 and been heralded in the media for it.

The Cons have said they will re-examine the F35 in light of rising costs.

Relax.

Re:In related news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43053781)

The Liberals would have spent twice as much on the G10 and been heralded in the media for it.

They may or may not have spent more money on it. That's a hypothetical. But they would not have been heralded for it.

The Chretien Liberals balanced the budget. Whatever we want to say about scams, overspending, and all that, they inherited a legacy of deficit financing, the loss of the top credit rating, and warnings that we were gonna hit a debt ceiling. And by the time they were voted out, the budget was balanced, with several years of budget surpluses.

The Cons have said they will re-examine the F35 in light of rising costs.

People forget that the F35 was the outcome of a program that the Liberals signed up for. It was a good idea at the time, and still could've been a good idea if not for the economy and how the program was eventually executed (which was outside the control of the Canadian government, Liberal and Conservative).

I find it hard to believe that Harper didn't know the true costs. He's not stupid. He knows what he's doing.

I believe it's more likely he supported it to get the military vote and is now using the so-called "rising costs" to justify not spending the money because quite honestly, we're now back to deficit financing and that needs to be dealt with.

Re:In related news.... (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | about a year ago | (#43058057)

Do you know how much money it cost to buy into the program originally? Just shy of $700m. With no further commitment to financing other than buying 20 planes(with no real restrictions as to how LONG it took us to buy 20) at the end of the project at the preferred price.

Back when those were the terms, everyone was for it, and rightly fucking so. When they came back for the next 9 billion we should have cut our losses and fucking ran. It was Harpers government that said yes.

Re:Propose != Launch (3, Interesting)

StillAnonymous (595680) | about a year ago | (#43052419)

Why is it that we have to fight shit like this on a seemingly CONSTANT basis? Seriously, they're dredging up oppressive legislation faster than it can be struck down. You can block a thousand of these things, but all it takes is for just one of these pieces of toilet paper to slip past the goalie and it's game over for public, it'll never go away. It seems just short of impossible to get rid of any bad law.

A new US territory (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43049949)

You got plenty of oil. It's cold but we will fix that soon enough. Copyright is so much easier than manned wars. For your cooperation, we will let you keep your name.

-owners of the US

Re:A new US territory (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#43050347)

You got plenty of oil. It's cold but we will fix that soon enough. Copyright is so much easier than manned wars. For your cooperation, we will let you keep your name.

-owners of the US

It's the Intellectual Property invasion of Canada..

OTTAWA - Following sporadic cross border raids into Canada from the United States, Intellectual Property lobbyists and lawyers, along with cadres of lackeys have fully invaded the Canadian capitol city. Should they succeed most Canadians would be tried for criminal conduct where formerly a minor citation and the firm words "Don't do it again, eh!" would have been uttered. Should ACTA pass into law bystanders expect a further invasion of prison builders.

Re:A new US territory (1)

Phrogman (80473) | about a year ago | (#43051827)

Harper announced he was building new prisons a while ago, obviously it was in preparation for him ramming this law up the ass of the Canadian people.
I am so ashamed that my fellow Canadians elected this fascist fuckwad and worse yet gave him a majority government so he could ruin the country as he sees fit. The Entertainment industry has obviously spent its money well on supporting the Conservative party of Canada. Harper seems willing to blow them anytime they ask.

Released on a Friday ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43049963)

.... in the hopes of avoiding the press.

Next I wonder if the Minister is going to accuse those Canadians opposed to this as being murderers (due to the health effects) of Canadian citizens? I mean they already accused me of being in league with child pornographers.

Some Party is about to earn a $1,100 (is that the limit now?) political contribution, and it isn't the Conservatives!

Re:Released on a Friday ... (0)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43050075)

I'd rather be in league with child molesters than with people who threaten my freedom.

Why? Well, what do I have to fear from child molesters? Simple self interest, folks...

Re:Released on a Friday ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050467)

Wont somebody think of the adults!

Re:Released on a Friday ... (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about a year ago | (#43051875)

True enough, Tricky Vic has words in the Hansard that can be used to take him out. Hell; PM's bum buddy Rob Anders called Nelson Mandela a terrorist for crying out loud. I'll pay my respects to Mr. Mandela; and I would love to see how many candidates are willing to hold the feet of the Conservative Party to the flames.

The Dishonourable Prime Minister was found in contempt, unfortunately the little "Twit from Toronto" went and called the election to stay in power. If I'm not mistaken, we've still yet to hear about the Elections Canada fiasco with misdirecting voters via the use of "Robo-calls". Frankly most of the judiciary are scared to throw the book at the Cornwall Alliance allied Conservative Party.

I'll be honest, you would find me picking the mind of Elijah Harper before I sit down with "Thievin' Stephen".

Trade Policy and Agenda Annual Report? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050061)

It'd be better described if it were the Trade Report and Agenda Portfolio. Then we could honestly say, in multiple senses, "IT'S A TRAP!"

Health and safety concerns are not always spurious (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050091)

http://www.esc.org.uk/industry/product-safety/product-testing-screening/chargers/ - for example.
An analysis of what sort of charger - often with a fake logo - you get for $2 or 3.
I would strongly advise purchasing only from legitimate established retailers - at least for power supplies, and other devices where cheapness of design may lead to risk of fire or even death.

Re:Health and safety concerns are not always spuri (1, Offtopic)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#43050257)

Something like a poorly made power plug charger should already run foul of electronics certification and trade dress requirements.

Adding yet another layer that the knockoff cloners will blatantly ignore and sell dangerous products at low low prices anyway does precisely dick to resolve the problem.

What I am trying politely to say, is that such counterfeit chargers are allready illegal, and making more legislation won't solve the problem. Only tighter enforcement will solve it, and that isn't profitable.

All legislation like this will do is make more laws for flagrant abusers to ignore, and make life harder for honest people for no measurable benefit.

Re:Health and safety concerns are not always spuri (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050337)

The concern is that this goes beyond the bounds of counterfeit goods to searching your data store for what might be pirated software, music or video and God help you once they think they've found something. You'll have no way to prove that you were ever in compliance. The States is building FEMA camps to control the population. Canada is building plain old jails to contain the copyright violators and everyone with an MP3 playing device can be considered suspect.

Polite (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year ago | (#43050125)

They're just being polite, eh.

In the End, the US will have it's way (0)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year ago | (#43050189)

Surprised by the under-handed tactic? I'm not. I've known that another bill would come along, but from which direction I couldn't have guess, Canada least of all. Here in America, we can't do shit because it's not on our soil. Because major corporations are overseas, I believe that they finally found the weak point of the world. Should it pass, the dominos shall fall and we will have to submit to a Dictatorship rule.

I pray to whatever Gods or Goddesses will listen to me ask them to Not Pass this Bill!

If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbation (1, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#43050213)

If you're not familiar with the bill or with ACTA, have another look at that summary. Every other word is loaded - craven, pressure, aweful, spurious, etc.
Therefore, don't forget the it's OBVIOUSLY so ridiculously slanted as to be completely and utterly useless in understanding what it's about. It's so clear that the author is not just biased, but radically, rabidly so. Therefore, te only use for such a article is for the author similarly rabid people to enjoy reading their own thoughts. Mental masturbation, so to speak.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year ago | (#43050277)

Blame the editor.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43050595)

Anything may be sumitted.

Anything may be voted to the front page.

Anyone seeing a problem with that? Now combine it with downmods of unpopular but relevant opinions.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (3, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43050625)

This site is turning into a meme instantiation mechanism apart from the normal substrate of human minds.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (1)

Thangodin (177516) | about a year ago | (#43051993)

Well spotted. Because it is obviously the role of the state to enforce obsolete business models. Especially when the ruling party is paid by the people who are dependent upon them. No bias at all there. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | about a year ago | (#43052071)

"This site is turning into a meme instantiation mechanism apart from the normal substrate of human minds."

We e-leverage our synergies to that effect for stakeholder fulfillment.
.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (4, Insightful)

Carewolf (581105) | about a year ago | (#43050413)

It isn't bias if he is right. It may be unprofessional to call bad things bad names, but it doesn't make it biased or wrong, just unprofessional.

Mod parent UP please (1)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#43050653)

It isn't bias if he is right. It may be unprofessional to call bad things bad names, but it doesn't make it biased or wrong, just unprofessional.

This!

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43051665)

"unprofessional" has to be one of the most nonsensical, overused words of recent times. What is and is not professional changes over time and what qualifies as professional varies from individual to individual. It's almost meaningless, and yet people act as if it has an unambiguous definition.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052381)

and hes right because you say so?

I have to laugh at the sense of self entitlement of piracy advocates

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43053629)

I have to laugh at the sense of entitlement of monopoly advocates. "I should be the only one allowed to do X!!".

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052799)

You're entirely wrong, which is the problem. It is bias even if he's right. But it's very difficult to distinguish correctly-biased vs. incorrectly biased.

The GP specifically said "if you're not already familiar". If you aren't already familiar, then there's no way you can tell whether this is correct bias. Therefore a rational person discards this person as being just as likely a bullshitter as a purveyor of truth.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43052815)

When you start calling things 'awful,' you're making value judgements. When you make value judgements, you are being biased. ACTA isn't awful for everyone; that's what politics is about, different people having different preferences.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43050593)

I don't know about you, but I don't actually feel like anyone has jerked me off. It is clear how they want me to feel about it, which would be offensive in a newspaper but which I find completely acceptable in a blog. Slashdot is not and never has been a credible news outlet, because it is not a news outlet. It is a blogreggator. Yes, I made that word up to make you hate me.

Re:If you're not familiar with ACTA... masturbatio (1)

wrencherd (865833) | about a year ago | (#43055335)

It is a blogreggator.

So then the article is "blogreggation"?

Canadians are sheep too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050379)

just like the rest of the western world that allows US corporation to pervert the laws of the land to their own ends.

has to comply. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050499)

51st state. They'll keep re-introducing it till it passes.

Meanwhile, in the South... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43050649)

... Park never has been more accurate [wikipedia.org] .

Won't happen (1)

SilverBlade2k (1005695) | about a year ago | (#43050783)

Whenever the Canadian Government tries a bill like it, it ends up not going through or delayed enough to the point of the next election, then it's ignored for a while.

Re:Won't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43051571)

Thats what they want you to believe. It will never happen. But they'll keep trying until it goes through.

Maple Leaf State (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43050865)

....it seems to me that's where this is heading unless the Canadians get some backbone.

Re:Maple Leaf State (1)

legojenn (462946) | about a year ago | (#43053409)

....it seems to me that's where this is heading unless the Canadians get some backbone.

It was a mistake taking Maestro Fresh Wes' advice to let our backbone slide in the late 80s. We might have fared better with a fixed backbone.

The Jewish problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43050979)

www.jewishproblem.com

Who do you think is behind ACTA?

Ugh (0)

Zeromous (668365) | about a year ago | (#43051217)

How did this crapola get past the firehose?

Canada is a festering nanny state cesspool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43051611)

May as well close the curtains, the show is over.

ACTA Canada (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year ago | (#43051893)

We don't see a public outcry against the TPP Agreement's IPR Chapter, we don't see an public outcry against the copyright provisions in CETA, and the defeat of ACTA in Europe was just a by-line. We do seem SOME negative flak for CETA as it relates to the price Seniors have to pay for their meds.

Question: which Canadian MP is a Champion of Internet Freedom and the reigning-in of the Copyright Industry's World-Wide Ratcheting system? Answer: none!

CETA response (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43060193)

I'm sorry? Yes, we did have an "outcry" against CETA here on the Internet and in European political forums.

The Harper Government (TM) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43051921)

...does not give a FUCK about what ordinary canadians think. They are a terrible knock-off of the US Republican Party without a single original idea in their Alberta-based skulls that doesn't come from a bad idea that was though of by the US Republicans first.

Generalissimo Harper thinks that his idiotic "Conservative" party is the natural ruling party of Canada. He works for the oil companies, the religious nutcases, and his proxies in the US Republican Party. He does NOT represent anything Canadian.

I'm surprised we don't have our own DCMA and TSA here yet. Oh give it time, the Generalissimo has his marching orders coming from the Republican Party.

Piracy is being used as a tool to end Internet fre (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052029)

They're going to keep using piracy to justify taking away more rights and privacy. Every time you pirate a movie, mp3, or game, think about how your unethical actions are destroying the net we all love.

Piracy is being used as a tool to end Internet freedom, thus you are a tool if you use the Internet for Piracy. Discuss.

Public outcry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052093)

Unfortunately won't happen. Because a large majority of our population have no idea what this bill is for and even reading it doesn't give them any idea. That coupled with the conservative government doing whatever it wants since it got the majority in the last election, means that we're screwed.
Good job Canada, you wanted the conservative party in, they got in, now they are screwing us over. Our only salvation would be if the NPD, which got in from the massive voting in their favor in Quebec.

Re:Public outcry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43053809)

Good job Canada, you wanted the conservative party in, they got in, now they are screwing us over.

Less than 40% of voters voted for the Conservative Party. It's misleading to say that Canadians wanted to Conservative Party. However, you could say we deserve the Conservative Party. ;)

Dirty Rat Bastards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052427)

Fucking Conservatives! Fucking Harper! Stupid, stupid, stupid rat bastards. They have had their share of screwups lately, but they need to catch hell supreme over this. They tried pulling this draconian crap before and got stopped. This must end, now! They must be informed, very clearly, that signing this bill will guarantee 90 seats lost in the next election, never getting elected again, and repeal 20 seconds after the next election of this bill. Also they *deserve* a very rough ride for the rest of their term. They have 3 more years before a forced election, plenty of time for another party (nearly any is looking better than what we have now). They need to feel the heat.

Fully-legal parallel import of pharm. Yeah, right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052865)

By the way, the FDA is still firmly on the side of "In most circumstances, it is illegal for individuals to import drugs into the United States for personal use."
So your idea of what is fully legal, and the FDA's, are obviously different.

The government of Canada is run by Israel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43052877)

Those that run Canada have only one agenda- to cravenly support the depraved war-mongering racist zionist regime of Israel at all costs. The needs of the Canadian people don't come second- they simply do not count at all.

The consequence of this zionist corruption is that the politicians of Canada are fully for sale, and can be bought extremely cheaply by any interest group that has the approval of Israel. Hollywood, of course, is 'little Israel', so Hollywood is free to write Canada's IP 'protection' laws. The Canadian government is also fully pro-torture, pro-holocaust in Syria and Iran, and is currently engaged in a massive coverup of state genocide of 'native' children that were forceably removed from their parents and put into 'death' camps where frequently the majority of them (yes, 50%+) died.

Of course, Canada is not, and never was a real nation. Its relationship to the UK and the USA defines it as a most pathetic subservient state- easily the worst of all the major English-speaking ex-colonies of the British Empire (and given that list includes Australia, that is really saying something). Now the US war-machine is really ramping up, the US government wants visible signs of subservience from its very junior partners. The zionists that run Canada are only too willing to oblige.

civil dispute to a breach of criminal law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43054351)

A wet dream for many industries. Now they can use tax dollars to run their fishing operations instead of their own.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...