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!

Canadian Copyright Official Dumped Over MPAA Conflict

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the duties-still-to-be-determined dept.

Movies 215

An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian government's top copyright policy maker has been moved aside after revelations that she was in a personal relationship with Hollywood's top Canadian lobbyist. The development is raising questions about how the MPAA got an anti-camcording bill passed in only three weeks and what it means for the introduction of a Canadian DMCA."

cancel ×

215 comments

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

Tor like oatmeals! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737243)

Tor like oatmeals!

Re:Tor like oatmeals! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737393)

Well if it isn't Inspector Clay. Fancy meeting you here.

the hilton effect (3, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737247)

The development is raising questions about how the MPAA got an anti-camcording bill passed in only three weeks and what it means for the introduction of a Canadian DMCA.

Well, it's kind of obvious. She's only against the use of camcorders in movie theaters. if you know what I mean.

Re:the hilton effect (-1, Flamebait)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737355)

Anyone in the Ottawa region want to take the law into their own hands?

http://411ca.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?firstname_begins_with=1&firstname=Patricia&name=Neri&city_zip=Ottawa&state_id=ON [whitepages.com]

Re:the hilton effect (0)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737411)

How about no? Besides the obvious issue of vigilante "justice", do you really want the copyleft movement to be known as a bunch of gangsters? Shame on you.

Re:the hilton effect (2, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737915)

I'm a Canadian, not a copyleft movement. She's a traitor. I want her hung.

Re:the hilton effect (4, Funny)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738319)

I want her hung.
Not hung. Have her walk the plank. Arrrrr!!!!!

Re:the hilton effect (4, Funny)

alshithead (981606) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738489)

Okay, I posted just last night that I try to not put on my grammar Nazi hat as frequently as I used to...

However...

"I'm a Canadian, not a copyleft movement. She's a traitor. I want her hung."

You want her hanged if you want her executed by hanging. You want her hung if you want her be a hermaphrodite. :)

Re:the hilton effect (1)

BungaDunga (801391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739275)

Or perhaps just hang her up by the ankles?

Re:the hilton effect (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739433)

You want her hanged if you want her executed by hanging. You want her hung if you want her be a hermaphrodite. :)
Just to out-Nazi you, "hung [reference.com] " is also a correct term for this, just less common.

Re:the hilton effect (3, Funny)

FreezerJam (138643) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739501)

Is there such a thing out-out-Naziing?

Sorry - but this is Canada, and the Canadian Oxford Dictionary doesn't support the use of "hung" as a past tense of "hang". Up here, she would be hanged, and that's her only choice.

(Of course, since we have abolished the death penalty, this is all moot.)

Re:the hilton effect (3, Funny)

dunng808 (448849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737693)

And earlier today we had Virgin Digital closing shop. [slashdot.org] Way too much sexual innuendo for this crowd! Somebody bring a bucket of cold water, and pour in a cupfull of saltpeter.

Re:the hilton effect (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737837)

She's not going to enjoy her next job then

Will he dump her now? (4, Funny)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737261)

According to multiple sources, the personal reason involves a personal relationship with one of Canada's leading copyright lobbyists.

While Neri's personal life is no one's business but her own, this does raise troubling questions about the quick passage of Bill C-59, the anti-camcording legislation, since Neri appeared as a witness before a Senate hearing on the bill with the lobbyist in the room.


I'd be interested in watching the speed at which she is "dumped" by the lobbyist now that she has no power to help advance his career.

Re:Will he dump her now? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737309)

I don't know, sleazy corrupt politician and MPAA lobbyist ... they seem like a natural couple.

("Talk dirty to me!" "Fair use! Consumer rights!" "Ohhh that's it you filthy slut ...")

Re:Will he dump her now? (1)

Drawkcab (550036) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737511)

Well yeah, but the point is that she's now a sleazy, corrupt EX-politician, so the situation has changed for the lobbyist.

corporate whore (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737525)

Either way she's still a corporate whore.

Re:Will he dump her now? (4, Informative)

MicktheMech (697533) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737755)

Well yeah, but the point is that she's now a sleazy, corrupt EX-politician, so the situation has changed for the lobbyist.

Sleazy or not, she's wasn't a politician. She was a Director-General, part of the civil service; a bureaucrat. She's not even an appointee, order in council doesn't kick in until ADM.

Re:Will he dump her now? (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737315)

Sadly enough I wouldn't doubt it. One would hope that this isn't just a case of, well, 'that', but having seen some of the lengths lobbyists have gone to it doesn't seem that improbably.

And that is sad :(

Re:Will he dump her now? (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738539)

"I'd be interested in watching the speed at which she is "dumped" by the lobbyist now that she has no power to help advance his career."

Could be that he will retire with his golden parachute and she will retire with her bribes and they'll live happily ever after on their newly purchased tropical island with no more technology than refrigeration to make ice for their drinks. :P

Re:Will he dump her now? (2, Insightful)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739513)

Please, come on. This legislation was supported by all parties, which in the current Canadian political climate is virtually impossible. The reason it passed so quickly is it's simply correct. There is no inherent right to enter to a place of public performance and make an unauthorized recording, and *IT SAYS SO ON THE BACK OF YOUR TICKET*. So, by making such a recording, you are already breaching the contract you agreed to when you bought your ticket. This bill simply added some penalties if you succeeded in making such a recording, and started selling or distributing copies.

Don't get me wrong - I'm against DRM, the DMCA, etc. If I buy a CD (or vinyl or cassette), I figure I've paid the record company and the artist, and if I want to copy the music or video to an iPod or my hard drive, or so I can have a copy in my car without having to drag my entire CD collection every time I saddle up, that's my right. I paid to have a permanent copy of the work.

But live performance is something different - I haven't contracted to have anything beyond that performance, and I don't feel I've paid for the right to make a copy. I doubt you'll see any kind of DMCA act pass nearly as quickly; in fact, I doubt it will pass it all, and that's regardless of who's shacked up with who.

Re:Will he dump her now? (4, Insightful)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739623)

Neither is there an inherant right for business models to be propped up by government legislation, especially when there is already the remedy of breach of civil contract.

Not what I was expecting.... (4, Funny)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737265)

I was expecting some kind of payola, maybe free vacations, a car, ya know, the usual. But when the Canadian Lobbyist told his bosses he'd really give it his all...

Another nail in the coffin? (3, Interesting)

Rodyland (947093) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737281)

Surely, eventually, people will have to realise what the **AA are up to and call shenanigans on the whole show. And towards that end a story like this is nothing but good news.

Re:Another nail in the coffin? (2, Funny)

driftingwalrus (203255) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737769)

I find your faith in humanity touching.

Re:Another nail in the coffin? (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737805)

I find your lack of faith...wait...hang on...the RIAA? Oh, well it's fine then...carry on...

Re:Another nail in the coffin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737963)

People who use the term "shenanigans" are statistically heavy Cheeto's consumers.

Re:Another nail in the coffin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20738171)

Oh, stop this tomfoolery - says who??

No Surprise (5, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737283)

Given that the lobbyists are always in bed with the lawmakers ;)

and No Effect (3, Insightful)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737483)

While Patricia Neri has been removed for this ethical violation, I doubt this indiscretion will have any effect on future legislation. Policy makers will still make their decisions based upon lobbying deals and merit. As for the MPAA, it's not like their reputation could get any worse.

Re:and No Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20738931)

Actually, in Canada it is illegal for a federal politician to accept corporate or union donations.

MAD - Mutual Assured DMCA (2, Interesting)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739139)

Actually, in Canada it is illegal for a federal politician to accept corporate or union donations.
Hmm, are you confusing 'lobbying deals' to mean 'buying off'? An example of a deal, that the MPAA might lobby for, would be an cross-country agreement declaring mutual respect for the others copyrights. By respect, that means pursing prosecution of pirates and infringers.

Re:No Surprise (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737665)

Given that the lobbyists are always in bed with the lawmakers ;)

pics or didn't happen :P

Again? (2, Informative)

MunchMunch (670504) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737285)

I swear, I must be getting old, because didn't this just [copyrightwatch.ca] happen [boingboing.net] ?

Well, I'm still jealous. At least Canada apparently cleans house every so often...

Re:Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20738299)

Truth be told the only reason this made the news is they couldn't hide it. Thats the only reason this has surfaced. Canadian politics is as crooked, and "in bed" as anyother country, even the one just south of us. Make no mistakes

Nice, real nice. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737335)

It's no longer just MAFIAA but a mafia too. Good folk!

Don't support mafia, all the stuff you can buy from them can be downloaded easily with bittorent. It might be illegal in your country. Or might not be.

Let the allmighty dollar speak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bittorent [wikipedia.org]

Duties to be Determined (4, Funny)

loid_void (740416) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737367)

From the article, "has been removed from her position to become a special advisor to Assistant Deputy Minister Jean-Pierre Blais with "duties still to be determined."


I see a follow-up article here.

Re:Duties to be Determined (2, Funny)

TriezGamer (861238) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737471)

And half of slashdot will label it as a dupe ... nothing new here.

Nice one (3, Insightful)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737407)

Would be nice to see if it changes anything, I've always liked Canada's stance. Australia seems much too happy just following along with the USA.

It doesn't actually change anything in any of the three countries. People all do the same stuff. It's just the Canadians aren't made criminals by doing the same activities as everyone else in the world.

Re:Nice one (2, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739135)

Australia seems much too happy just following along with the USA.

The copyright law changes were part of a free trade deal so we could sell beef, sugar and steel to the US market without restriction. The sick joke was we got a promise that a beef deal will be looked at in more than ten years time and we can forget about sugar and steel.

Re:Nice one (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739289)

"so we could sell beef, sugar and steel"

The US just bought our biggest steel company.

Sugar? We grow sugar here? Huh?

Re:Nice one (2, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#20740107)

Sugar? We grow sugar here? Huh?

One of the largest exports. On another thread I was bitching about the quality of US education and it looks like my own country has a few problems too :(

Re:Nice one (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#20740119)

On the other hand perhaps the "Australia" bit in my reply was missed and you thought I was talking about Canada.

Did I miss something? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739643)

It's just the Canadians aren't made criminals by doing the same activities as everyone else in the world.

Wasn't Canada the country which places a tax on blank optical media, based on the assumption that all of it (or some, at least) will be used for piracy? Thus, you may not be a criminal, but you're already being punished because something you're buying could be used to commit a crime??

If so, fuck them. They're as bad as the rest. Worse, even.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739657)

Yeah. In return, you can pretty much copy anything you like.

Re:Did I miss something? (3, Insightful)

dargon (105684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20740017)

Yep, a tax that some want to also place onto MP3 players with storage > 30GB. Of course, the CRIA just woke up and realized that this little tax effectively legalizes all music downloads in Canada, so now they're fighting it :)

Canadian Copyright Officially Dumped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737435)

I guess we can all dream.

Isn't this obvious? (2, Insightful)

BlueshiftVFX (1158033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737455)

I mean is anyone acctually surprised that this is how things get done? OMG she got caught doing what we all do! says the other government officials. sexual favours for getting bills passed and what not.

Re:Isn't this obvious? (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737695)

Who was getting the sexual favours here?

Is she that ugly and desperate?

And now, does Assistant Deputy Minister Jean-Pierre Blais
got the hots for her?

She should flat out be fired.

Re:Isn't this obvious? (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738363)

And now, does Assistant Deputy Minister Jean-Pierre Blais got the hots for her?
Not a chance; we, the french, are pretty discriminate about who we shag.

Re:Isn't this obvious? (1)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738191)

Well yes, actually. I understand that many people in other parts of the world accept that their politicians take bribes to pass laws, but I'm glad that here in Canada we apparently do not tolerate it, and remove these people from power. That's how a government should be run.

In my honest opinion, it's when you start expecting politicians to always act like corrupt douchebags, that you will tend to get and keep corrupt douchebags as politicians - because it becomes accepted. Instead of an uproar over corrupt individuals, people just say 'meh, they're all like that'. Personally, I think politicians ought to be held to the same standards as the rest of us, and when they fuck up, they should face the consequences.

wooohooo! (1)

GodLogiK (650517) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737475)

This is awesome news! I'm so happy :) Finally a solid link, and something gets done about it. Very good!

It's time for another Boston Tea Party... (2, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737487)

The issues are the same - an unfair balance between parties. Once we (here in Canada) get up to ridiculous levels of copyright terms as you already are in the US then it's either reform time or - forbid - killing time. Culture is being locked up, fourteen years is enough for copyright. If it was still set at this reasonable time imagine what you could be downloading right now legally: all music, books, and movies from 1993 and before. This is fair not a defacto perpetual license to rip people off.

talk about... (1)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737513)

Sleeping with the enemy.

Re:talk about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737655)

Since when have legislators been the enemies of the **AA?

Correction: (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737515)

The development is raising questions about how the MPAA got an anti-camcording bill passed in only three weeks...
This development begs the question about how the MPAA got an anti-camcording bill passed in only three weeks.

Re:Correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737981)

Oh, I see what you tried to do, that's a nice attempt, but it failed miserably. :)

What it means... (0, Troll)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737619)

Is Canadians should re-establish their rights. First, their right to Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Glock. Then tell their public officials that not only do they want the camcorder bill rescinded, and the Canadian DMCA dropped. But also a law passed rescinding ALL of the MPAA's copyrights for copyright abuse.

Big Troll but it's truly what should be done. I am not sure what the basis of legality for copyrights in Canada is. Here in the U.S., our patent and copyright laws are supposed to be for a limited time. And for the purpose of further invention and the arts. (No other purpose.)

Well,...it's not. And just as nearly all of our rights are slowly being eroded by re-interpretations, expansions, etc. *shrug* Just wait until the DFSA (Digital Free Speech Act) is passed restricting free speech to only verbal. I mean, the Constitution never explicitly allowed for digital speech. Therefore, it's clear that expressing your point of views online is NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. (Ain't revisionist interpretation a !@#$%.)

Thankfully, a small segment of the American populace endeavor to maintain our 2nd Ammendment rights in order to ensure the rest of our rights.

Re:What it means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737683)

In Canada, democracy means we don't need weapons to change public policy...Maybe it's different in the US, I don't know.

Re:What it means... (3, Interesting)

SpottedKuh (855161) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737719)

Thankfully, a small segment of the American populace endeavor to maintain our 2nd Ammendment rights in order to ensure the rest of our rights.

How's that working out for you? I mean no disrespect, but as a Canadian looking south, from my point of view it doesn't look like your 2nd Ammendment is doing anything to curb your government screwing with its citizens (Patriot Act, anyone?). In fact, it seems like the only result of the 2nd Ammendment is a lot of gun deaths. I'd like to hear your point of view on this.

Re:What it means... (1)

Oldav (533444) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737771)

SSShhhh, dont bring that up, the gun deaths are doing the world a favour, dont discourage them! Gun deaths of US citzens shooting each other are far more effective than terrorism 50k/year. Every US citizen should have a machine gun and use it regularly on their fellow citizens. Perhaps we could start a "guns for the poor in the US" charity(-:

Re:What it means... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737863)

Actually, it works well. We still have them. So we have one final defense.

As for the gun deaths. Considering I had a classmate in high school who ran for gun dealers. The laws prevent nothing. They bring guns over the border and sell them illegally. You just don't hear about how many crimes are actually prevented by guns.

Re:What it means... (4, Insightful)

SpottedKuh (855161) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738099)

[Re: Whether 2nd Ammendment rights protect citizens' other rights in the U.S.]: Actually, it works well. We still have them. So we have one final defense.

I gave a lot of thought to your answer. In the end, what puzzled me was how you treat the right to own guns as an end in itself, rather than as a means to an end. What I mean is this: your reply seems to indicate that even if you lose all of your other rights, except the right to own guns, that this is somehow still a small victory for you. But, it seems to me that the original intention of your 2nd Ammendment was to be proactive -- namely, that the right to own guns should prevent your government from ever taking away your rights (fearing rebellion from an armed militia). At least in my opinion, as a non-American observing your politics from afar, this has failed (beating the Patriot Act example to death, here). What victory is there for your rights if you have a complacent (but armed!) population?

You just don't hear about how many crimes are actually prevented by guns.

Indeed, this is a very good point. It is much easier to produce statistics on how many gun deaths occured, rather than on how many crimes were prevented by guns. This argument seems to be a cornerstone of people who support arming the population.

Unfortunately, your statement was more accurate than you intended, perhaps. I don't hear about how many crimes are prevented by guns. In order for me to consider your argument that guns prevent crime as a valid argument, I would need at least some indication that the number of crimes preveted is large.

The only "indication" that I've ever seen produced is a thought game, which I've only ever heard as some variant of: "Would you rob that liquor store, if you knew the clerk was packing?" Yet, were that rationale valid, there would be far fewer liquor store robberies per capita in parts of the world where people are armed to the teeth (all other factors being equal, to rule out secondary causes of crime such as poverty, etc.). If I could see that evidence, or if anyone could point me in the right direction to it, then I would be able to assign a lot more weight to your argument.

Re:What it means... (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738449)

But, it seems to me that the original intention of your 2nd Ammendment was to be proactive -- namely, that the right to own guns should prevent your government from ever taking away your rights (fearing rebellion from an armed militia). At least in my opinion, as a non-American observing your politics from afar, this has failed (beating the Patriot Act example to death, here).
That's because those who like guns don't think that the patriot act is bad...

Re:What it means... (2, Interesting)

ageoffri (723674) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738737)

Actually many of us who are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment despise the Patriot Act. Acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment is important does not mean that we want to give up other rights. The Patriot Act overstepped the bounds of the Federal government just like the Gun Control Act of 1986.

Re:What it means... (1)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738157)

You just don't hear about how many crimes are actually prevented by guns.

So you're saying the USA, which leads the first world in gun-related crime, would actually have more gun-related crime if we didn't have so many guns?

How's that work, exactly?

Yep (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738179)

Re:Yep (1)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739431)

Hilarious...

The point is that most other countries (e.g. like the UK) have a /far/ lower gun crime rate than the US.

I'm not sure by what logic you can think that the fact that gun crime still exists in those other countries buttresses your position.

Re:Yep (1)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739473)

BTW, bear in mind that in the UK and Ireland, the general legal definition of "firearms" includes things like pellet-guns and air-rifles. A high-profile "gun crime" a few years ago involved the fatal shooting of a toddler with an air-rifle in Scotland.

Re:Yep (2, Interesting)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739487)

And from the article:

"In total, 3,995 people were shot, of whom about half (2,187) had minor wounds caused by air guns."

Re:Yep (1)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739963)

You posted a link which says, across the entire UK, 81 people were killed with guns in a year.

That many people are killed by guns in any major American city in a year.

I'm not sure what you think your point is, but you're not making it very well.

Oh, and your article mentioned 4000 people shot. Half of them were shot with ... air guns. I guess I'm pretty lucky to survive that bb shooting I endured as a kid, eh?

Re:What it means... (3, Insightful)

alshithead (981606) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738623)

"How's that working out for you? I mean no disrespect, but as a Canadian looking south, from my point of view it doesn't look like your 2nd Ammendment is doing anything to curb your government screwing with its citizens (Patriot Act, anyone?)."

Theoretically, it's supposed to provide that when the majority of the population realizes that their democratic republic has become a tyranny, enough citizens will still be armed to foment revolution. Now, having said that I have to also state that I don't believe that the USA has reached that point. Ask me how it seems to working again if the next election is delayed or canceled for some reason.

Re:What it means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737777)

Is Canadians should re-establish their rights. First, their right to Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Glock.

Thankfully, a small segment of the American populace endeavor to maintain our 2nd Ammendment rights in order to ensure the rest of our rights.
A whole lotta good that's doing for ya. It's stopped the DMCA in its tracks. Oh wait...

Re:What it means... (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737791)

Thankfully, a small segment of the American populace endeavor to maintain our 2nd Ammendment rights in order to ensure the rest of our rights.

Another Canuck mentioned it too but I haven't notice that particular group. I notice lots of corprate interests groups buying your government off. I notice civil liberties slowly fading away. But have yet to see an interested militia kick out the corrupt. I did see your vice prez exercise his second amendment rights and shoot a "friend"... you have to something fiercely evil when the guy you shot apologizes to you.

Re:What it means... (2, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738399)

Is Canadians should re-establish their rights. First, their right to Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Glock. Then tell their public officials that not only do they want the camcorder bill rescinded, and the Canadian DMCA dropped. But also a law passed rescinding ALL of the MPAA's copyrights for copyright abuse.
We do not need guns, because we make sure to elect governments that won't abuse us, and that keeps the crime rate very low, too. This is why we have free universal health-insurance.

We do not have a DMCA either, so we can download music, backup our DVDs, talk about DeCSS and watch DVDs from India, Luxembourg or China.

Re:What it means... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20739883)

Poor, poor stupid. Are all canadiots as stupid as you?

Really, when you suck your "elected officials" cock, how does it taste?

Silly, silly boy.

Re:What it means... (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738403)

Tell you what. Why don't you keep your 'get out yer guns and slaughter the bastards' solutions on your side of the border. In case you haven't noticed, things are actually different in Canada! For starters, we don't have a DMCA-like bill. It was actually DEFEATED!!! Also, Ms. Neri was removed from her position, and (more significantly) Bev Oda was "shuffled" in the last parliament reorg.

You admit, "I am not sure what the basis of legality for copyrights in Canada is." Well then, quit giving advice. Since most of your opinion is based on how fucked up your country is, why don't you apply your advice to your country and leave us the fuck alone.

Oh yes, and have a nice day.

Re:What it means... (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739217)

Once again we get the origin myth that a freezing band of civilians in the woods with hunting muskets took down an Empire singlehanded. Can't you guys just wave a flag instead of using real and dangerous guns as your symbol?

Re:What it means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20739425)

"Canadians should re-establish their rights. First, their right to Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and Glock."

canada already has more guns per capita than the usa. they just don't shoot each other with them quite as often so you don't notice. in civilised nations the ballot box is used in preference to the barrel of a gun to 'maintain their rights'. it would appear that inhabitants of the united states have used neither, given the eight year brutal rape of your constitution and the bill of rights. you will never be able to hold off the government and it will not hesitate to crush you with overwhelming force (especially in america) if you do.

so you know the right end of a pistol, big whoop, maybe you can even fire it accurately wearing ear protection and standing upright. can you run 5 km, belly crawl and then do it? better yet, can 10 of your buddies do that too? there's a reason why militias tend to look like this [boingboing.net] . the makings of hardened guerrilla fighters? i think not. why won't this silly fantasy of a band of suburbanite, beer keg revolutionaries bringing the government to heel die already?

Female official messing around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737639)

So that's why Virgin Digital [slashdot.org] is shutting down!

So screwed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737689)

This whole thing is so screwed.

I didn't even realize that law had passed (5, Interesting)

freeweed (309734) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737775)

Funny, I figured that legislation had no hope in hell of going anywhere.

So there I, after paying my $15 to watch a movie this weekend, and this commercial comes on. Guy in a prison cell. Looks hardcore, like a gang thug or something. The tag line is to the effect of "cameras can watch this dude all day long now... because he DARED bring a camera into a movie theatre".

I just about bust a gut laughing, then realized it was serious: there's a "Operating a recording device in a movie theatre is now illegal in Canada" message at the end.

How fucking pathetic.

Fuck them. I'm officially downloading from here on in. HEY SHITHEADS: I JUST PAID TO SEE YOUR FUCKING MOVIE. PLEASE STOP THREATENING ME WITH A FUCKING PRISON TERM.

Yes, I'm that angry. Even having a minority government didn't stop this horseshit from passing.

Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (3, Funny)

fyoder (857358) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738029)

Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (1)

freeweed (309734) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738417)

Wow.

That's actually pretty close in theme and spirit (and ridiculousness) to the ad I saw. Take away the laugh track and that's what we're now showing Canadians.

Thanks for the link!

Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (4, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#20738261)

Well, remember that when you vote next time (which probably won't be long from now, seeing as it's a minority government and all). Contrary to what our American friends think, it's MUCH easier to vote out a government that's doing things you don't like than it is to conduct an armed revolution.

Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (3, Informative)

alexo (9335) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739009)

Well, remember that when you vote next time (which probably won't be long from now, seeing as it's a minority government and all).
And while you're voting, help change our system a little bit for the better [yourbigdecision.ca] .

Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (2, Insightful)

Catnapster (531547) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739149)

...it's MUCH easier to switch a government that's doing things you don't like for a different government that will continue to do things you don't like than it is to conduct an armed revolution.
Fixed.

Not that I'm a rabid gun nut stroking my metaphorical Kalashnikov at the thought of revolt, mind you. It's just that the American political system was not designed for the one-party system we basically have now, where the Democrats and Republicans argue about largely inconsequential bullshit to occupy the minds of the voting populace while silently coming to perverse agreements like the DMCA. Our government is out of control, and we have little to no guarantee that it would even recognize the results of an election if it would bring outsiders to a position of sufficient power.

Makes us a little jaded toward "well why don't you just vote them out?"

Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739723)

watch ukraine to see what revolutions usually do.

Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739469)

"HEY SHITHEADS: I JUST PAID TO SEE YOUR FUCKING MOVIE. PLEASE STOP THREATENING ME WITH A FUCKING PRISON TERM"

I stopped going to movies as much when they started showing commercials. How bout I just watch it at home for a fraction of the price and no commercials?

And as somebody here pointed out last winter, I would steal a car if I could download one.

Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20740137)

maybe you should try being angry at cunts like thepiratebay who go so out of their way to take other peoples work for free, that the industry has had to resort to this. OH NOES! TPB ARE TEH HEROES!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111

No, what it really means is that... (3, Interesting)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737803)

... while it's clear a conflict of interest has occurred here, at least the government has been forced to remove Ms. Neri as the heritage minister, since it's an apparent violation of ethics laws. Contrast this to, say, the US, where such things are the norm, and are practically expected from elected officials.

IOW, while something clearly egregious has occurred here, I would argue that the removal of the heritage minister is a clear victory for the people. In addition, this may result in greater scrutiny of the current government, and may serve as an interesting piece of ammunition against a government that was, in theory, supposed to be the ethical alternative to the corrupt Liberals.

Tags (3, Funny)

zygotic mitosis (833691) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737819)

Canadia? Shouldn't it be Canadiaa? :)

Re:Tags (0, Offtopic)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739479)

*rolls eyes* my last mod point just expired too - mod parent up Funny +5 hehe

Well, the good news is that ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737829)

this raises the (ahem!) barrier to entry for other lobbyists who might want to follow in his, ah, footsteps.

Doesn't even respond to direct questions (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20737901)

I wrote to the then Minister and complained about the fact that Bill C-59 had been pushed through due to lobbying and against the wishes of Ministry Staff, and the opening line stated "I'm concerned that my government would succumb to the pressures of foreign lobby groups and you've now proven that I was worried with cause.".

I received a response from Bev Oda, then the Minister of Heritage, that in no way addressed the issue of lobbying that I raised. At no point did she mention my concerns about lobbyists, and clearly attempted to deflect the issue. I think I was mislead and I'm pissed!!

I know .. why should I expect to get an honest answer from a Conservative government? Because they promised ethics and transparency in government after the Sponsorship Scandal! Liars!

What do you expect from government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20738215)

why should I expect to get an honest answer from a Conservative government?

You shouldn't.

Neither should you expect one from a Liberal government.

Deceit just the same, but different reasons.

Re:Doesn't even respond to direct questions (3, Informative)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739447)

I was actually going to raise the issue with Bev Oda in a seperate thread. She's been taking bribes from the broadcasting industry since 2004, maybe earlier... It's amazing how long she has remained in office even though she is clearly receiving contributions from broadcasting corporations.

From Bev Oda's wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] :

2006 fundraising controversy

In November 2006, Oda planned on holding a fundraising dinner for broadcasting executives, just weeks before a major review of broadcasting rules. The event was cancelled, but a number of donations were still made.

If you go to the Elections Canada [elections.ca] website, you can see all of the corporations and individuals who donated to Bev Oda's Durham riding in 2006 (Unfortunately there's no direct link so you have to use their search feature). Select "Ontario" under Provice/Territory. Then select "Conservative Party of Canada" under Political Party. Now under Electoral District select "Durham". Leave the years 2006 to 2006. Hit the search button and then select Durham "Conservative Association / 2006". With that entry selected, hit the Add button. Finally, hit the lower right search button (not the top one).... (It's a horrible interface to access this public information...)

Now you should see the following three options:

By return summary Allows you to search summary information on contributions made to registered associations
By return details The easiest way to view the complete details of contributions and expenses for registered associations
By contributor Allows you to search for contributions made to registered associations

Click on "By return details".

Here's the list of corporate contributions (from Part 2b - Statement of Contributions Received - Details of Contributions from Corporations)

1 EMI Music Canada Jan. 3, 2006 500.00
2 EMI Music Canada Jan. 10, 2006 1,000.00
3 Gorritane Bros. Ltd. Feb. 24, 2006 300.00
4 Radio Marketing Bureau Oct. 12, 2006 250.00
5 Alliance Atlantis Oct. 25, 2006 500.00
6 Insight Productions Co. Ltd. Nov. 2, 2006 500.00

5 of those 6 corporate donations are from media corporations. It might even be 6 out of 6 but I couldn't find any details on "Gorritane Bros. Ltd.".

Also, much more disturbing is the list of individual contributions (Part 2a - Statement of Contributions Received - Details of Contributions from Individuals). The following are just the individuals who I could identify as working for some media corporation or group:

23 Gail Asper Oct. 31, 2006 250.00
5 Leonard Asper Jan. 26, 2006 2,500.00
Leonard Asper is the President and CEO of CanWest, a major Canadian media company (they own Global TV). It appears he also got his wife to donate to Bev's riding.

13 Andre Bureau Oct. 16, 2006 500.00
Andrea Bureau is the former chairman of the CTRC and is now the President and CEO of Astral Communications Inc (now known as Astral Media). Astral owns several Canadian radio and television stations.

14 Lisa De Wilde Oct. 16, 2006 250.00
Lisa De Wilde was a former president and CEO of Astral Communications (now known as Astral Media). She is now the CEO of TVOntario. Interesting how she and Andre Bureau both made donations on the same day. Lisa was the former President and CEO of Astral while Andre is the current president and CEO, and they both managed to make donations to Bev Oda on the same day?

16 Robin Jackson Oct. 20, 2006 250.00
Robin Jackson is the Executive Director of the CIFVF (The Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund). Here's a quote 'The Canadian Independent Film & Video Fund (CIFVF) is a dynamic private sector funding body which supports non-theatrical film, videos and new media projects created by Canadian independent producers to enable lifelong learning.'

18 Norman Jewison Nov. 14, 2006 250.00
Norman Jewison worked at the CBC before moving to Hollywood. He's supposedly a famous director, though I've never heard of him. He also founded the Canadian Centre for Advanced Film Studies.

15 Greg Kane Oct. 20, 2006 500.00
Greg Kane is the head of Stikeman Elliott's Telecommunications and Communications Group. He has appeared before a number of federal and provincial regulatory agencies including the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Copyright Board.

19 Bryn Matthews Nov. 20, 2006 250.00
Mr. Bryn C. Matthews is the Co-Chairperson of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board. He is also a member of The Harold Greenberg Fund, a division of Astral Media Television that provides story optioning, and script development funding to writers and producers of Canadian Motion Pictures, as well as equity funds in the form of investments in the production of Canadian theatrical movies, and television programs for children and families. Bryn Matthews also used to be the president and COO of CTV Ottawa between 1987 and 1996.

4 Judy Naiberg Jan. 10, 2006 400.00
Judy Naiberg is the Director of Legal & Business Affairs for Sony BMG Canada.

21 G. O'Farrell Oct. 25, 2006 250.00
Glenn O'Farrell is President and CEO of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

1 C. Prudham Jan. 5, 2006 1,000.00
I believe C. Prudham stands for Christine J. Prudham, the Vice President of Legal & Business Affairs for Sony BMG Canada.

12 Gary Slaight Oct. 13, 2006 500.00
Gary Slaight is President and CEO of Standard Broadcasting. Standard Broadcasting is now owned by Astral Communications (renamed to Astral Media).

11 Jay Switzer Oct. 12, 2006 500.00
Jay Switzer was a former CityTV program manager who went on to become the President and CEO of CHUM Television.

That's 13 of the 23 individuals who donated to Bev Oda's riding. Can anyone please explain to me why so many media companies were donating to Bev's Durham riding in 2006? Bev Oda just so happens to have been the Minister of Heritage and she was working on reforming Canada's broadcast and copyright laws. I'm sure that's just a coincidence...

It's Hollywood! (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20737921)

Send in the man-whore to get something through a legislature? Hell, they do that five times before breakfast.

-jcr

MPPA thuggery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20739237)

Great! She is are doing to the Canadian Public what her Lover has been doing to her.

Criminals. I just suffered a DDOS from these people. I don't even BitTorrent movies, but they're sloppy and don't give a damn who the collateral damage is.

Re:MPPA thuggery (1)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 6 years ago | (#20739529)

I've been watching a DDOS on our public IP block for about 2 weeks now. I can't say for sure that it's these guys but it's certainly causing me grief. Not the least of which is that all the connection attempts to the firewall are logged. It's eating disk space and CPU time as well as network bandwidth.

Thousands and thousands of hits a minute... and the real interesting log events are just being drowned out :(

Somebody here was downloading videos about a bunch of guys in a prison before I got out the big stick and ended that. Didn't stop the DDOS happening though.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>