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Canadian DMCA Bill Withdrawn

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the voice-of-the-people dept.

Politics 198

ToriaUru writes to let us know that Michael Geist is reporting that the Canadian Minister of Industry will not be introducing the proposed Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act legislation as scheduled. That proposed legislation, discussed here a couple of weeks back, is now reaching Canada's mainstream press. Geist doesn't speculate on why the legislation is being withdrawn, but it could have something to do with the massive popular outcry against the proposal that Geist helped to orchestrate.

cancel ×

198 comments

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

MPAA's response: (4, Funny)

zonky (1153039) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650715)

Blame Canada [wikipedia.org]

Re:MPAA's response: (1, Funny)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650761)

You know it's not a real country anyway.

Re:MPAA's response: (1, Offtopic)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650791)

Re:MPAA's response: (1)

Runagate Rampant (602123) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651161)

U.S. President: It's time to turn off that war machine, and turn on our children.
... remember when this sort of stuff was satirical

Re:MPAA's response: (2, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650797)

Too bad they had to censor that song because of the FCC. First amendment, whats that?

Here's how it will PASS... and its underway. (4, Insightful)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650809)

Like all unpopular legislature, first its tried legitimately. Secondly it is passed by governmental or bureaucratic fiat. They will simply make a regulation to cover it if actual legislation does not work. BATFE did it with guns in the USA, DEA did it with drugs in the USA, FDA does it to various foods, OSHA does it with workplaces (though the enforcement, from my days doing construction is haphazard at worst and selective at best).

So, it will go to a small blip or nonexistent blip on the radar, and a year down the road, the RCMP will be kicking in doors or seizing equipment based on a treaty ratified with Bun-fuk-u-stan, which states that they have to enforce whatever treaty was accepted for the "benefits of Canda's socialized welfare system".

That or the UN, intergovernmental panel on climate change will discover that Britney's pirated MP3's are actually causing global warming or costing Britney so much in lost royalties that she can't afford to feed those starving children that the UN has failed to care for over the years (Kofi Anan's son, however, managed to buy himself a pair of Lamborghinis with the money he received as "salary")

(And we know that a bunch of politically appointed "scientists" and bureaucrats are going to be FAR more correct on telling us why the earth is getting warmer each morning and colder each evening, because that damn glowing orb in the sky that has had variable output over several million/billion years is just too insignificant to really matter... its wooden stoves that heat up the earth and diesel engines, so shut down that goddamn sun and stop wasting that heat!!)

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway. (1)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651219)

I am a little confused by your ... err ... post. You know we're talking about Canada and not the US, right? Also, you know we're talking about digital rights right?

Where does global warming, the UN, the USA and Kofi's son come into it?

]{

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21651791)

It's all connected! For details, buy my book.

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21651235)

"the UN, intergovernmental panel on climate change will discover that Britney's pirated MP3's are actually causing global warming"

I am fully supportive of any UN action that results in less Britney Spears. Pro-piracy, anti-piracy, pro-climate-change, anti-climate-change ... doesn't matter ... if it results in less Britney Spears I'll sign the treaty.

Re:Here's how it will PASS... and its underway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21652211)

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!

Re:MPAA's response: (1)

KudyardRipling (1063612) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651081)

Just watch. Congress will be wrenched by the MAFIAA lobby to delcare war on Canada. I can hear the mumbling of their lobbyists: "Damn Hoser Pirates, we'll fix their wagons!"

Imagine Rick Moranis being renditioned to Fumbuqistan and waterboarded to extract information on who else succeeded in defeating this.

The DC ROTUNDA is beginning to look more and more like a toilet seat cover, but the flusher does not work ('cause it's made by Diebold).

Re:MPAA's response: (2, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651561)

No, their response would be:

"And it would have worked, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!!"

Good Job (0, Flamebait)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650717)

Good job you moose fuckers! I salute you.

Re:Good Job (4, Funny)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651307)

The mods around here, a bunch of hosers, eh?

well done (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650739)

All of you that raised there voice, gratz.

The rest of you that just whined but could take the time to actually help do something:
You got luck this time, you leeching mother fuckers.

Re:well done (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650757)

The rest of you that just whined but could take the time to actually help do something:

Well, I did my best to explain to President Bush that Canada was working on weapons of mass destruction and needed to be bombed immediately. However, he merely shrugged and said that would be something for Jenna to deal with when she is President.

Re:well done (5, Informative)

ToriaUru (750485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650929)

Yes, thanks, and the praise should mostly go to Dr. Geist, who's fighting it tooth and nail. And the others on the band-wagon. We all need to keep writing the M.P.'s, the Ministers, the letters to the editors. Keep it out there, in public. Not hidden/forgotten. :)

Re:well done (1)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650973)

Actually, I was going to print and send in letters to my MP (John Godfrey, Liberal), the PM, the Minister of Industry (Jim Prentice), Minister of Canadian Heritage (Josee Verner), and get >25 people from my school to sign a petition to send to my MP on Monday, but I probably won't now. I could take the time to actually do something, but it's easier to wait until a weekday, where you have more contact with other people.

Re:well done (5, Informative)

bouchecl (1001775) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651017)

Actually, I was going to print and send in letters to my MP (John Godfrey, Liberal), the PM, the Minister of Industry (Jim Prentice), Minister of Canadian Heritage (Josee Verner), and get >25 people from my school to sign a petition to send to my MP on Monday, but I probably won't now. I could take the time to actually do something, but it's easier to wait until a weekday, where you have more contact with other people.
Actually, the bill hasn't been withdrawn, it has been delayed, according to prof. Geist (be wary of /. headlines and read TFA anyway). I think your petition drive and the letter writing campaign is still in order because it could come back in 2008.

Re:well done (1)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651205)

Thanks for the info.

Re:well done (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651075)

Absolutely agreed. I emailed my MP on the matter (could have written a real letter, that's on my to-do for next time this bill inevitably shows up). This is an example of representative government actually working, we ought to be celebrating. When your government works like it's supposed to, it's everyone's responsibility to be vigilant keep it working!

My praise and congratulations go out to Dr. Geist, who successfully rallied the people. If only there were more men like him out in the world.

Re:well done (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651527)

What should I do if my MP shrugs me off saying he will ask about my question in Parliament, then tell me he doesn't have time to discuss his point of view of Copyright because of Mulroney?

Re:well done (2, Informative)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651605)

Tell him that you will not vote for a representative who cannot represent the views of his constituents, and regretfully inform him that he cannot count on your vote in the next election. That's all. Encourage more people in your community to speak to your MP about the same matter - if enough people show their interest in the issue, your MP *will* do something, or risk losing his seat shortly.

Re:well done (1)

Darby (84953) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651671)

What should I do if my MP shrugs me off saying he will ask about my question in Parliament, then tell me he doesn't have time to discuss his point of view of Copyright because of Mulroney?

Document everything and then get loud about it?

Was that a rhetorical question?

Re:well done (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651887)

Look him in the eyes with murderous intent, grind your teeth until the pain raises a frenzy in your mind, and tell him that you will personally see to hit that his name is mud and he never gets elected again, without giving a single word of details as to how you will do that. Snarl and shudder like you're just barely controlling yourself from knocking his fucking block off. Speak in a very precise way as you castigate him over the coals publicly for what he's doing and how badly he's fucking everyone there over. Do not swear or use foul language, but talk down to him as though you were a gentleman and he was a piece of dogshit you stepped in. Then stalk off as though you can no longer stand there and not hit him, without looking back.

Very effective at blowing holes in stuffed shirts. You don't do a damned thing wrong, but you make them very unsure of themselves and the power and respect they take so for granted, and you make everyone there embarrassed to be around them. People repeat it as "someone said this to him" without knowing who you are.

Re:well done (1)

thestreetmeat (1055390) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651101)

That's a bit harsh...

Some of us were going to wait until the bill was actually introduced before writing our MPs to protest. I thought it might be nice to see what's in it for myself first.

On the other hand (2, Informative)

Geof (153857) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651207)

How much stronger it looks when in a single week 10,000 people organize themselves in protest based on incomplete information. You can always contact your MP twice - once to say you are concerned about the bill, the second time to oppose it. I'm sure those of us who did write fully intend to follow up when necessary.

And we did know something about the bill. We knew a ban on DRM circumvention technology was in it because the government announced it would implement the WIPO treaty. That in itself is bad enough.

Re:well done (1)

kwandar (733439) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651255)

I considered waiting till the Bill was introduced but decided against it for the simple reason that they shouldn't be introducing this Bill without EXTENSIVE public consultation.

So, Minister Prentice received an email (and would have called him from Toronto as well, but .... couldn't get through to his voicemail) :)

Re:well done (1)

Darby (84953) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651699)

That's a bit harsh...

No, it's called having a scrap of common sense in the real world.

Some of us were going to wait until the bill was actually introduced before writing our MPs to protest. I thought it might be nice to see what's in it for myself first.

You know who's writing it and you know they're paying your elected officials to betray you with it (or you're a delusional idiot), so obviously waiting that long to do something about it is something only a fool would consider reasonable.

Good luck being a fool!

the usual (4, Insightful)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650749)

It's the usual. Legislators listen to lobbyists, at least until their constituents protest their heads off. Then they'll bother to read the actual bill.

Re:the usual (5, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650899)

Then they'll bother to read the actual bill.
Contrary to belief, there was no actual bill to read.

This was about a bill that was going to be tabled this week. Nobody knew what was in it, except for insiders (one of whom apparently leaked details to Geist.)

This shows pretty much that Geist's source is credible - if the bill wasn't as bad as he said, then Minister would have tabled it, and made Geist look foolish.

Re:the usual (3, Interesting)

ToriaUru (750485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650975)

Yeah, well, apparently, Dr. Geist looked carefully at what the Minister said. He also noticed what was in the throne speech. If you read this entry of his http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2295/125/ [michaelgeist.ca] you'll see where he noticed what was mentioned and what *wasn't* mentioned. Therefore inferring what it contained. Also, in this post of Dr. Geist's from a House of Commons debate http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2321/125/ [michaelgeist.ca] Again, what was spoken of, and what *wasn't* mentioned. Therefore inferring it. So, as to whether or not he's being fed info from the Minister's office directly? I'd not know that. But we can always hazard a guess. :) I'd say "yeah, likely".

Clarification (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651745)

Perhaps a little clarification would help here. In Canada "tabling" a bill means presenting it for consideration. In the States, "tabling" means removing it from consideration until a decision is made to reintroduce it.

rj

Re:the usual (4, Insightful)

Kristoph (242780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651243)

I would wager that in this case, even the legislator did not read the bill (which was probably written for him), until it became clear this could become a major issue for the government.

Then once he read it he realized it was as bad as everyone made it out to be he withdrew it before anyone else could read it to spare himself and the government the controversy.

]{

Doesn't look like the Minister responsible... (5, Interesting)

big_paul76 (1123489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651767)

Understands the first thing about the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF_dHu5fRAk [youtube.com]

This is a video of Industry Minister Jim Prentice getting ambushed by amateur reporters and bloggers on the way to his riding association's Xmas party, and he comes across not only as not caring about anyone who isn't a CEO, but not really understanding the issue.

He may be our "series of tubes" guy in Canada.

Re:Doesn't look like the Minister responsible... (1)

EveLibertine (847955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21652323)

I like to imagine that this video is an accurate portrayal of what it looks like when Canadians riot.

Re:the usual (2, Informative)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651659)

I actually wrote a letter to the industry minister Jim Prentice protesting this new copyright issue.

I'm not sure if he even read my fax or what but I do feel a lot better knowing that I actually said something and did something instead of just cheerleading on message boards.

-Proud to be Canadian!

Offtopic: first video from Zeppelin's O2 concert (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21650751)

Well, people wondered if the old guys could still rock. Answer: hell yes! Took it to the next level. First vid from O2 show: It's been a long time since I rock and rolled, it's been a long time since I did the stroll [youtube.com] . How appropriate!

Re:Offtopic: first video from Zeppelin's O2 concer (-1, Offtopic)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651065)

Fuck You! you made me click the link! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarg! my ears! my eyes! my mind!!!!

heheheh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21650773)

Michael Liberal Geist...

yawn

Monopolies... (5, Insightful)

eldurbarn (111734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650801)

We live in a time when "the common man" is well aware that business monopolies have a solid, historical track record of abusing "the little guy".

Copyright is simply a government enforced monopoly: allowing the copyright holder to have a monopoly on that particular piece of IP.

Like many of you, I am also a producer of intellectual property. Unlike big business, however, I don't see the need for me to have a monopoly. I am more encouraged to produce when I cannot simply rest on my butt and earn money for work that I did years ago.

As a consumer of intellectual property (gads, how I hate that term!), I simply cannot see how it benefits me to let my government grant big companies a monopoly on what is rapidly becoming our common, shared culture.

Re:Monopolies... (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650959)

The founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony also understood the danger of monopolies and decreed that of these none would be granted by government and those which arose naturally would be challenged and restricted by government. Unfortunately, they let their ideology slip and permitted 7 year long patents to be granted to encourage knowledgeable workers to immigrate to the colony. Many took up the offer and after using their 7 year long monopoly to establish themselves in the community, they fought to have their patents extended to 14 years.. then they started filing the same patent twice but with slight improvements.. the came copyright.. then came patent on all sorts of things, so many of which were hard to validate.. then the patent office dropped the requirements for working prototypes.. then the copyright office dropped the requirement for copyright registration.. then copyright terms got extended.. then they got extended again.. etc, etc.

"Slippery slope" is such a nice way to describe it.

Nothing wrong with copyright (2, Interesting)

daBass (56811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651215)

I do not see anything wrong with copyright; if I spend a lot of time and money into creating something that can so easily be copied, there should be some protection against that. I also have no problem with RIAA and MPAA going after those who blatantly share music and movies; just because the industry make enough money to be profitable through their preferred distribution channels does not mean I should just get it for free. Eventually most people will be connected to the internet so fast and sharing will be made so easy that nobody will go through the legitimate means of obtaining the content they want.

That said, I DO have a problem with legislation like the DMCA or any DRM. If I have paid for a perpetual license for personal and household use, including any guests present, for content, I should not be limited to how I should be allowed to store and play this content. Yes, giving a copy of a movie to a friend is bad, but moving it to my media server and letting him watch it in the guest bedroom when he is visiting should be fine.

Unfortunately, temptation is too great and I don't always practice what I preach; I do download, though mostly TV series that I either can not watch at all in my region or that I can't be bothered to find. I don't like downloading someone's recording, I would much rather pay a little money for it and get it straight from the source and reward the creators. Unfortunately, they won't let me. And even when they do (we have some content on iTunes), the pirated versions are of much better quality.

Take for instance "Bender's Big Score"; only R1 NTSC with no R2/4 PAL version even announced. This is a true geek show, how much money do you think they would have made overnight if they made a 4GB 720p version available for a $10 download? As a true fan I had to see this and was left with no choice but to download a pirated copy. I might buy it when it comes out, I might not, but in any case the studio and distributers have proven themselves complete retards not to offer their geek movie to the geeks in the way that geeks want.

To conclude, I feel that just because we can we should not just copy everything left right and center, but the truth is that we do and the industry mostly has themselves to blame by not keeping up with what consumers want. And that makes them retarded because the internet is the easiest form of distribution ever invented and they completely fail to exploit it.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651277)

What I have a problem with is perpetual copyright. It seems as though copyright is going to be extended forever if the corportions have their way. It started out at 17? years, and now it's something like 70 years. I know that art is important, but people don't need to profit from their work for that long, otherwise, they will stop producing new stuff once they have enough old stuff to support themselves from. If copyright ran out in 5 years, artists would have much more incentive to produce new works, instead of living off the old ones. And 5 years gives them plenty of time to profit in today's fast paced world.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (2, Interesting)

daBass (56811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651487)

I do not see why anyone should not be allowed to make a good investment and then live off it for the rest of their lives. Are we really going to force people to produce more?

It would be like doing 10 years of good investing on the stock market, retiring on $10M dollars only to be told 5 years down the track to hand all your capital gains over because you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your work; you must keep working.

And why would I pay for something new the artists created when I can have so much stuff that is only 5 years old for free?

I know the corporate IP holders are crying all the way to the bank and would do fine with a little less profit from their back-catalog, but what about the independent artists, are we going to have two rules? It would be nice to have more of our cultural heritage lapse into the public domain, but I feel it is a much more complex issue than most people realize. What you are proposing is pretty much communism and after 5 years anyone can get it for free, but it would also mean anyone can make money on it!

Imaging a 5 year rule and "Top Gun" has become public domain years ago, but most people can not get it easily, so someone WILL make money of selling copies on DVD. Not to mention TV stations broadcasting it for those not able to download or afford the few bucks for the DVD copy and selling commercials. Should the original creator really be shut out completely? And how is the TV station going to get their broadcast quality copy? Someone has the physical medium, most likely the corporate entity that created the film. Is there going to be a law that states the copy MUST be handed over or supplied at cost to the anyone who wants to broadcast it? Do you really think that in that case stations would buy much new material? I think not and it would be counterproductive to your "artists would have much more incentive to produce new works".

What about spending a lot of money scanning and cleaning up the negatives and re-releasing it on Blu-Ray or HDDVD? How is that going to work, a new copyright term for the new format, so that you may freely copy the DVD of Top Gun, but not a copy (converted into whatever format) of the HDDVD?

I do not think it is quite a clear cut as you seem to think it is!

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (1)

Darby (84953) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651841)

I do not see why anyone should not be allowed to make a good investment and then live off it for the rest of their lives. Are we really going to force people to produce more?

Define "good investment". You'll quickly realize that you're just making a circular argument.

It would be like doing 10 years of good investing on the stock market, retiring on $10M dollars only to be told 5 years down the track to hand all your capital gains over because you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your work; you must keep working.

You're either *extremely* fucking stupid or a troll.

The money the stock market investor made is equivalent to the money the "intellectual property" creator made. Nobody is talking about taking that away.

And why would I pay for something new the artists created when I can have so much stuff that is only 5 years old for free?

If the new stuff isn't that much better than you shouldn't. That wasn't even a good question. It's just an artifact of your inability to get past your initial logical fallacy.

What you are proposing is pretty much communism and after 5 years anyone can get it for free, but it would also mean anyone can make money on it!

So since anybody... or more accurately whoever does it more efficiently, can make money off of it it actually is completely unrelated to to communism. It's actually an example of a free market, which your clearly fascist tendendcies cause you to despise.


Imaging a 5 year rule and "Top Gun" has become public domain years ago, but most people can not get it easily, so someone WILL make money of selling copies on DVD.


So you're saying absolutely that it creates a free market situation once you remove government granted, market manipulating, effects.

I think not and it would be counterproductive to your "artists would have much more incentive to produce new works".

No, you clearly don't even understand what *you're* saying.

New works are promoted. Reselling the same old crap is discouraged. It follows absolutely from what you're saying. Your conclusions are completely opposed to your own arguments. Sane people change their minds at that point.


I do not think it is quite a clear cut as you seem to think it is!


His argument might not be clear cut, but yours is dead wrong and internally contradictory as a even a school kid could figure out if he had basic reasoning skills.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (1)

daBass (56811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21652119)

You're either *extremely* fucking stupid or a troll.

Please stick to arguing the case, personal attacks don't make you any more credible.

So since anybody... or more accurately whoever does it more efficiently, can make money off of it it actually is completely unrelated to to communism.

No it isn't, your interpretation is not what I argued. Taking a personal possession or efforts from someone without due compensation and for the free use of everyone is communism. On top of that someone else profiting from your stuff being taken from you without you getting any more compensation is just plain stealing. In my book anyway.

New works are promoted. Reselling the same old crap is discouraged. It follows absolutely from what you're saying. Your conclusions are completely opposed to your own arguments. Sane people change their minds at that point.

How is this absolute? I believe free content that is 5 years old will at best keep new content creation at todays level and at worst lower the amount (and possibly quality) created. This is because I believe fewer people will be buying if they can get other stuff for free. (just like not everyone wants to spend money on the new latest and greatest car and buys second hand) You believe it will encourage more new content. Both yours and mine conclusions are speculative as there is no proof either way, so, again, no need for name calling.

But my main point is: too much government interference. Why should there be a law that prevents you from selling the same old crap? If someone wants to sell the same old crap and another wants to sell better new stuff, the market will take care of it - and it does; while back-catalogs make a lot of money as a whole, that is only because there are so many individual items. Besides, that is not the case I am arguing. What I am arguing is that I do not believe copyright limits should be quite so short. It should be a free world in which we are free to sell our same old crap if people want it.

Now, can we have a meaningful discussion with name calling and insults?

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (1)

penix1 (722987) | more than 6 years ago | (#21652005)

I have no problem with "life of the author". It is the "+70-90" and registration requirement loss I have problems with. It is corporate person-hood I have problems with.

I'll tell you what I proposed in the past and continue to advocate:

1. Only the original creator can "own" the copyright / patent. And before some poor slob comes along and screams this is against "work for hire", it isn't. Corporate interests can license whatever they want from the original creator. In fact, this alone would give creators a place at the bargaining table they lack today.

2. The author dies, so does the copyright. Any term based on time for copyright is doomed because there will always be someone who thinks it isn't long enough.

3. Copyright MUST be registered if you do have time based terms. There is no other way to determine when the clocks start and more importantly, when the clock stops.

4. If it is protected by one area of "IP" law such as patents, it loses its ability to be covered by another area of "IP" law such as copyright. The choice is yours but it can't be both. The best solution would be to eliminate method patents all together but that is unlikely to happen because of the very powerful lobbies mostly from big proprietary software vendors.

5. Congress needs to ask the question, "What effect does this have on the public domain" and if the result is negative, then trash whatever they were trying to do. After all, it is the public domain that copyright and patent laws exist for in the first place. Too often politicians are too worried about the corporate well being and forget they are supposed to represent the public good in this. It is not in the public good to have perpetual monopolies.

6. Prosecute the RIAA / MPAA for the price fixing cartels they are. Enforce the RICO laws for once.

Lastly, this goes to patents. The assumption of validity of patents needs to be reversed especially since patent offices are incapable of determining validity as shown by the multitude of frivolous ones that are granted daily.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (1)

daBass (56811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21652165)

I agree with what you say, really. The only thing that bugs me is how to implement it.

First of all, you have to define who is a "creator". It seem simple for a single author of a book, but even that poses problems as books are edited and is an editor shuffling content and re-writing parts to make it better also a "creator"? And what share should they get for that effort?

It also becomes much more complex when more people are involved. Say you and I write a book together, 50/50. Now I die in 10 years time and you live for another 50 years. During those 40 years after my death, do you get 100% of the royalties, or only 50% with my share going to my next of kin or whoever I nominate in my will until you also pass away and royalties stop completely. (not a very nice deal for your next of kin!)

Now imagine the dozen writers on your average TV show. And the set designers, and the director, and the graphics artists, the list goes on and on. Where do you draw the line between work for hire and creator?

Interesting problem!

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (1)

Heddahenrik (902008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651397)

The question we as the world population has to ask ourself is:

Is it better to have 10 times less information produced and get it all available for free, or to have the information production we have today but unavailable due to costs? I think the answers is clear: We want free information! 100 000 movies for free are better than 1 000 000 movies you have to pay way too much to see. Same goes for science and education material.

Worth noting is that it will probably not be 10 times less information produced. It will be easier to produce information when it can be shared and the once producing it can get revenue from other sources (for example product placements, advertising, real life events, sponsors and development on demand). So I think there will be more information produced, but way less of the high cost stuff like mastont movies.

Also worth noting is that the alternative to free sharing of information is a spying and controlling society way worse than 1984.

When that is noted one has to realize that not only is it OK to copy, but it's also wrong to buy anything from companies who are working towards a 1984-society, buying politicians and using the corrupted US legal system to destroy people's lives. If these evil companies have less money, they can buy fewer politicians (and ISP and media and...) and that gives us a better chance to battle them.

Too many contradictions (1)

daBass (56811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651553)

I am sorry, but your post keeps contradicting itself.

Why would more information be produced if it is free to share? Any information anyone produces is free to share if the producer wants it to be. Yes, you have copyright, but you can license your information any way YOU want. Got something to share, make it public domain or give it a creative commons license. Knowing that their information is going to be copied freely might be inspiring, but it is hardly going to make anyone able to spend days, months, years of full-time work to produce it; they have bills to pay and need a day job. (not to mention a social life outside of the day job)

Also, if I can freely copy, I can freely modify. So why would I not take out the commercials?

Sponsorship won't work either. Imagine if Coke pays for "Shrek" to be made so that they can have Shrek-based competitions and put the image on their packaging. But if Shrek is not copyrighted, what is stopping Pepsi from doing all the same promotions but without actually paying for the movie to be made?

The only thing that makes sense is product placement as it is hard to remove, but god help us if we need to sit through movies with enough products placement in there to finance the movie.

No thanks, I'd rather pay my $10 at the box office.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651573)

Your vision of the perfect world is my hell. Sometimes I want to pay to see real art, not watch some crap full of advertising. The mentality that everything should be free has only served the purposes of big corporations who can afford to plaster anything and everything with advertisements, and in the process take over creative control. Artists should not literally starve, and corporations should stay out of art, so I completely back copyright if it protects the quality of art.

When you look at the low average salaries of a typical musician or Hollywood writer (or even at the negative profits of the big studios that back them), you'll realize that people who create actual IP don't make a whole lot. I blame this on the increasing mentality that art should be free, because someone else can pay for it. Artists have always needed monetary aid, and being a patron of the arts has really fallen out of favor.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (1)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651569)

I do download, though mostly TV series that I either can not watch at all in my region or that I can't be bothered to find. I don't like downloading someone's recording, I would much rather pay a little money for it and get it straight from the source and reward the creators.
The creators aren't rewarded for works on the Internet, legal or not. That's why there is a writers strike. I guess it really means that the value of these works is nothing and you are actually paying(or not as the case may be) to watch the adverts.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright (1)

daBass (56811) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651611)

That is a different issue entirely. Unless you think the writers are the only creators of TV content, that is.

Re:Monopolies... (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651293)

Apples and Oranges. The difference is, nobody actually cares about the IP you produce, it's not capable of making you much money, and you aren't dedicating a significant amount of time & resources to creating this IP.

And copyright isn't a monopoly, in the way most people think of monopoly. If I don't like RIAA music, there's plenty of indie bands I can listen to.

Re:Monopolies... (2, Insightful)

eldurbarn (111734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651557)

Goodness! Is that me you're talking to?

I make my living, completely and entirely, as a result of the IP I produce. I write books, scripts & music, I design performances, etc. I write software and web applications. I'm also a performer. This is my bread and butter.

As for monopoly, I stand by what I said. If you have one company who holds copyright to a significant fraction of our current culture, and markets that material as culture to perpetuate it for their own financial gains, and the copyright shall exist from this day forward until our grandchildren are all grown up and that copyright is enforced by law, then that is, indeed, a monopoly. To endorse such laws is selling out ourselves, our children and our culture.

IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21651565)

> As a consumer of intellectual property (gads, how I hate that term!), I simply cannot see how it benefits me to let my government grant big companies a monopoly on what is rapidly becoming our common, shared culture.

I prefer to call it "imaginary property." Feel free to use that term all you like; it's not like I own it or anything :)

Won't solve the problem of the term merging three disparate areas of law, but I don't see us getting rid of any words they teach at law school. The lawyers will hang onto obscure terms and uses for them long after society moves on.

Well, it would be reckless of the people to allow (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650855)

Capricious, unrestricted, unchallenged, and blanket permission to just take away computers because the RIAA or others want to start punishing or using as examples people who still buy SOMETHING from among the overpriced products.

Go Canada! Stand up and who your pride AND defiance.

Good news, everyone! (5, Funny)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650885)

Wow, this is almost as good news to Canada as Global Warming is!

Re:Good news, everyone! (1)

HungSoLow (809760) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651117)

You laugh, but where I live (Ottawa region) we peak at 35 to 40 celcius in the summer with ample humidity and dip as low as -35 to -40 celcius in the winter. A shift in either direction would not be pleasant!

Re:Good news, everyone! (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651423)

A shift in either direction would not be pleasant!

Last winter and last summer in Ottawa were pretty mild. The cold weather lately demonstrates that we haven't been polluting enough. To the beer-fridge store!

Re:Good news, everyone! (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651475)

Actually, here in Ottawa (coincidence that the other repliers are also here!), municipal staff report that we will be seeing a lot more freezing rain in the future, which costs a hell of a lot more to deal with in terms of salt and road-clearing vehicles than snow. Taxpayer panda is sad.

- RG>

Re:Good news, everyone! (2, Funny)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651675)

Wow, this is almost as good news to Canada as Global Warming is!
To Hell with that! Where am I supposed to live once my igloo melts, huh? Global warming is effing with our housing markets here, gawdamit.

On a side note, I was curious: I ran ' "igloo for sale" ' in Google and got 910 results. ' "Igloos for sale" ' got 1970. Granted, no actual igloos are for sale AFAICT, but still... Who. in reality, ever has a need to say those phrases? It reminds me of George Carlin's thoughts on shoving a red hot poker up your ass (I'm too lazy to link).

Canadians and Free Speech (0, Offtopic)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650923)

I hope Mark Steyn gets decent treatment: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071130_111821_7448 [macleans.ca]

Re:Canadians and Free Speech (1)

big_paul76 (1123489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651921)

I know this kind of an off-topic thread, but yeesh, surely you don't think there's anything to this load of crap article?

I could go point-by-point on matters of fact that he gets wrong, or distorts to suggest things like an Iraq-Al Queda connection, but really the point he misses is that Al Queda is not a threat long term, because they believe in nothing and stand for nothing. If you ask bin Laden what his policy would be on unemployment or monetary policy or social spending or deficits he wouldn't have an answer. They're more like the anarchists and nilists of the early 20th century, and they'll eventually die out because they have nothing to offer people.

The other thing he doesn't realize (I wonder where this guy lives) is that when you give non-white, yes, even muslim people the opportunity to integrate, they take it, because strangely enough, our lifestyle is a lot more fun than living in the mid-east. The problems you see in europe are the result of (sometimes literally) creating second-class citizens or 'guest workers' to make up for the fact that nobody wants to spend all their life working as a janitor. Europe tried to 'import' a new working class that wouldn't do pesky things like unionize and stuff. You compare the situation in Canada, where recent immigrants do much better, and the first generation born here is virtually indistinguishable from WASP-type Canadians who's families have been here for 100 years.

There's no reason to take a band of criminals, anarchists and nihilists who's best work couldn't even kill as many Americans as six months of traffic accidents, and elevate them to an actual threat to NATO, an alliance that stared down the USSR. Let's get some perspective here.

Re:Canadians and Free Speech (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651971)

If the Canadian Islamic Council (CIC) gets its way, free speech will cease to exist in Canada.

The CIC is making a bogus claim of religious and racial discrimination in order to persecute a writer, thereby launching a lawsuit on frivolous grounds. And what is the CIC complaining about? Why, writers who say that Muslims make bogus claims of religious and racial discrimination, in order to persecute writers, and launch lawsuits on frivolous grounds.

There's an odd totalitarian circularity there.

Best slap down the Muslim totalitarians now, before they pull a Rhineland, Poland, etc.

the evil person in me... (1)

GerbilSocks (713781) | more than 6 years ago | (#21650955)

..says we should hang Jim Prentice by the balls for even considering introducing this piece of crap legislation. I can't but thank the thousands of Canadians who opposed this bill.

Re:the evil person in me... (5, Funny)

ToriaUru (750485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651007)

Now, now, in Canada we are civilized! Let's just lob snow balls at him, okay? ;)

Re:the evil person in me... (3, Funny)

dadragon (177695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651377)

No, no, no! We need to pummel him with Tim Bits!

Re:the evil person in me... (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651509)

Mod parent up; it's a reference to Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans"!

Re:the evil person in me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21651613)

I am in his constituency, in fact I live a very short walk from his office (but was working during the open house unfortunately). I am ashamed to say I voted for him. Because of this incident alone I will not next time.

It's hit the news-wire now! (2, Insightful)

ToriaUru (750485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651023)

It's now on the Canadian Press newswire. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvt3LW3hjo1fIaaiwZACBiZ0R3wA [google.com] So, it'll likely be picked up by mainstream press in other countries, perhaps, now. All helping to publicize the fact that in Canada, we FIGHT for our rights! It is the True North, strong and free, after all ;)

Re:It's hit the news-wire now! (1)

ToxicBanjo (905105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651173)

All helping to publicize the fact that in Canada, we FIGHT for our rights! It is the True North, strong and free, after all ;)

Yep, we fight for our rights... unless it's during Hockey Night in Canada.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21651413)

"All helping to publicize the fact that in Canada, we FIGHT for our rights! It is the True North, strong and free, after all ;)"

Isn't it kinda hard to masturbate in an igloo?

Re:It's hit the news-wire now! (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651517)

People can still join the fight, from abroad, by joining the Facebook group [facebook.com] to pad our numbers for the next round.

Re:It's hit the news-wire now! (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651847)

All helping to publicize the fact that in Canada, we FIGHT for our rights! It is the True North, strong and free, after all ;)
I see you're not familiar with our gun laws.

Thank a minority government (5, Insightful)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651041)

Thanks to the razor thin minority government that exists here right now, they cannot be arrogant and a few thousand determined people actually can make a difference. This is the way government should be - it should be scared of the people, not vice-versa. This plus an alert press ensures they do not dare try to slide a fast one under the table for well heeled friends. One massively unpopular bill could tip the scales against them and they damned well know it.

I don't live anywhere near Calgary, but I was one of the ones who (politely but firmly) e-mailed him with my objections to a Canadian DMCA and how C-60 loomed large in my mind last election.

If the current government can ignore the Kyoto accords, they sure as heck can choose to ignore WIPO as well.

Re:Thank a minority government (1)

Scruffy Dan (1122291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651245)

Don't forget that we actually ratified Kyoto, but we have not ratified the WIPO treaty.

Re:Thank a minority government (5, Insightful)

Jester998 (156179) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651347)

I also sent an email (and sent a carbon copy via post ... hardcopy gets much more attention from politicians!). I don't live anywhere near Calgary either (Ottawa, in fact), but I definitely felt strongly enough about the issue to write to him.

Below is the text of what I sent:

--

Dear Hon. Jim Prentice:

I regret that I am unable to attend your open-house session tomorrow, 08 Dec 2007, in person; however, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern over a proposed piece of legislation regarding Canadian copyright, namely the so-called "Canadian DMCA".

I work as an IT professional, however my background is in pure Computer Science. I often spend time performing security research. A Canadian version of the US DMCA legislation greatly concerns me -- one needs to look no further than the 'US v. Elcomsoft & Sklyarov' case to see why.

References: http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/us_v_sklyarov_faq.html [eff.org]
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov [wikipedia.org]

In this instance, legitimate security research was suppressed, and the researcher arrested at the will of a large corporation. Rather than acknowledge & fix the weaknesses in their product's security, Adobe chose to use the DMCA as a sledgehammer to suppress disclosure of information they did not like.

This has obvious chilling effects -- as an analogue, if a researcher were to find a weakness in the encryption used for e.g. online banking, is it reasonable to arrest the researcher rather than fix the weakness? To my mind, it is infinitely preferable to acknowledge, fix, and continuously improve security through legitimate research. Those with criminal intent will search for these weaknesses in any event -- it is much better to discover and fix the issues in a transparent manner. As the saying goes, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." hold very true here.

Other kinds of DMCA abuse is well-documented and widespread. A few simple Google searches (e.g. "DMCA abuse") very quickly turn up many sources of information. This legislation has been used to suppress reviews or opinions which are negative towards large companies -- technically, these should be handled as a civil lawsuit for slander or libel (if they are, in fact, untrue); however, many large corporations choose to invoke a DMCA takedown notice instead, as it forces the content hoster to take down the material immediately, rather than waiting for a judgement from a court of law. It is important to note that it is *corporations* that send these takedown notices, not the courts. Under this model, 'justice' is a distant wish.

There was some research done in 2005 by the University of South Carolina which showed that 30% of DMCA takedown notices sent by corporations were improper, and even potentially illegal (unfortunately, the document seems to have been taken offline, or moved, but the previous URL was http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/releases/2005/legalFlaws.html [usc.edu] ). This is a stunningly high figure -- laws are traditionally written to ensure that there is an onus of proof before charges are filed, and that due legal process is followed. The rules of jurisprudence are critical to ensure the equitable operation of any society, but overly broad, overly powerful laws like the US DMCA allow companies with deep legal pockets to run rampant, and allows them to run a private campaign of fear and intimidation.

I wish to point out that I am not pro-piracy, but rather am opposed to legislation (and legislators) funded or supported by corporations. This is the very antithesis of a democracy, and is the current state in the US. Canada is already dangerously close to that abyss, and I do not wish to see us fall in completely.

*Original* creators of artistic works certainly desire to be paid for their works; it is for this reason that I attend live concerts, purchase T-shirts, or tip performers at jazz clubs. However, under the current system, the original artist sees little, if any, of the proceeds of CD sales, etc. The proposed legislation would server only to keep the member companies of e.g. CRIA in the money.

The artists themselves are, in fact, OPPOSED to this legislation. Members of the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, such as Sarah McLachlan and Avril Lavigne, believe that they should not attack their fans (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2007/11/19/copyright-law.html). They see file-sharing as a way of gaining wider recognition of their work -- people download something to see what it's like, and then end up buying physical albums. I know that I, myself, have purchased music based solely on something I heard from a download.

Statistics Canada actually reports that the recording industry is doing quite well as of late (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071107/d071107a.htm). Other than sheer greed, there is little reason to allow them to run rampant, as the proposed legislation would do.

My final concern with this issue is quite simple: "How does this benefit consumers?" Current information on the proposed legislation shows that there will be no fair-use exceptions built into the Canadian DMCA -- no device shifting provisions, no parody exception, no backup provisions. Personally, any physical CD that I purchase gets converted immediately to MP3 format to play on my iPod. The original CD goes somewhere safe so it is not damaged. I also 'rip' purchased DVDs to my computer to protect the original discs. Neither of these would be legal under a 'no device shifting' law. Promises to amend the law at some unspecified point in the future are not sufficient -- not even close.

I realize that this letter has been quite lengthy; however, the DMCA has been a disaster in the USA by any reasonable account. It is a very serious affront to the Canadian public that such a broad-ranging, potentially damaging law is being considered. I strongly urge you to reconsider this piece of legislation, and instead work towards something that is more balanced and fair to everyone.

Sincerely,

Re:Thank a minority government (2, Interesting)

big_paul76 (1123489) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651985)

That's some nice work. I also wrote a snail-mail copy, a friend of mine who worked for federal public works once told me that for every letter the feds receive, they assume somewhere between 1000 and 10,000 people also feel the same way, but didn't write.

here's what I went with:
First I'd like to point out a fundamental shift in the way copyright law functions. Before the age of networked computers, copyright law functioned as a restriction on publishers by authors, more like an industrial regulation. If you wanted to have a business publishing books/movies/etc, you had to accept this as the 'cost of doing business'.

However, in an age of networked computers, copyright law functions as a restriction on ordinary citizens by publishing companies, and is something citizens must accept by the act of reading something.

This is a fundamental shift in the function of the law, and the enforcement of it requires invasions into the private life and freedoms of each and every one of us.

The publishing industries claim that this is necessary to preserve their business model, but I ask you, since when is it the business of government to preserve an obsolete business model? The 'content publishers' like the MPAA, RIAA, and the CRIA believe that if a person has made a profit off the public in the past, that it is the role of government and courts to guarantee that income in perpetuity. This belief is not supported by statute or case law. When the automobile first came into production, were manufacturers of buggy whips able to sue Ford and General Motors? Were producers of whale oil able to prevent the production and sale of the electric light bulb?

Furthermore, the copyright holders claim they act for the betterment of artists, but let's be honest: The MPAA/RIAA/CRIA's members have the same relationship to artists that a pimp has to a prostitute. Does the Conservative government feel that this is the sort of relationship that Parliament ought to preserve?

Re:Thank a minority government (1)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651739)

Thanks to the razor thin minority government that exists here right now, they cannot be arrogant and a few thousand determined people actually can make a difference.
The problem with this, I think, is it isn't going to matter if it's the Tories or Liberals in power (or the Bloc or the NDP, for that matter). There's enough money and corporate influence peddling in this that it'll probably happen eventually, just like it's happened in the States. They only have to win one battle, but we have to win them all. Unless they're outlandishly detrimental, laws rarely seem to get changed, once bought.

cockroaches don't like light (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651087)

So keep the light on them.

Tag should not be suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (0, Offtopic)

Hamfist (311248) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651127)

but suddenoutbreakofhouseofcommons

You mean.... (1)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651191)

You mean the Americans didn't have to one-up [slashdot.org] us after all?

Boy, I bet they feel dumb...

Not withdrawn, delayed (4, Informative)

apankrat (314147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651199)

As per Michael Geist's own comment [michaelgeist.ca] -

I can't say with certainty why the bill has been delayed, nor whether it will be for a day or two, or for longer. I think that this presents an excellent opportunity for Prentice to engage in broader consultation and hold off introducing the bill until 2008.

Thank You All (1)

Undead Ed (1068120) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651279)

Thank you all that wrote, called, emailed or in any way communicated your displeasure to your political representatives about this terrible proposed legislation.

Ed

Yes! (1)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651317)

Wow!

I actually took the time to write a letter. Dead trees and the whole thing. To my dying day I'll claim to that it was both well written and convincing. All I said is that it seemed like a _very_ bad idea to be deciding on copyright law in the midst of one of the most dramatic changes in the real-world IP practice that I can recall. If all the IP holders are dropping DRM, maybe it's not the greatest idea to be enacting laws about legitimizing DRM... Right? I sent it on Thursday.

Here's to having absolutely no effect whatsoever on the debate. Vive la insignificance!

Maury

Discovering Facebook (2, Funny)

SlashJoel (1145871) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651603)

This bill was delayed, in part due to the outcry of thousands of ordinary Canadians. Geist set up a Facebook group last week that has grown to over 14,000 members. Check out the video [youtube.com] from Question Period in Parliament today. My favourite quote from a member of the opposition NDP: "They tabled the bill this morning now three hours later he's telling me he's got cold feet? What, did he just discover Facebook this morning?"

likely US reaction (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651643)

"Introduce this bill again, pronto, or we'll flatten Toronto!" (Canadian Bacon [wikipedia.org] ).

Re:likely US reaction (4, Funny)

Robber Baron (112304) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651851)

"Introduce this bill again, pronto, or we'll flatten Toronto!"
Please do!

- signed, the rest of Canada.

Bill could still be introduced tomorrow (5, Informative)

telso (924323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651653)

As you can see on the Order Paper [parl.gc.ca] for Tuesday, the Minister of Industry can still introduce such a bill (with some last minute changes that water down only the most objectionable content, or no changes at all), just like he could yesterday [parl.gc.ca] . It'll stay on the "waiting to be introduced list" until it's introduced, or removed. With 4 more days until the holiday break, it should be interesting to watch; I know where I'll be tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.... [parl.gc.ca]

Oh, of course, as already mentioned, the title and summary of this story are wrong, since a bill that's never been introduced cannot be withdrawn. As usual with editors, YMMV.

Re:Bill could still be introduced tomorrow (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651789)

You know, that address has always bothered me. Do they think that Canadians are too stupid to spell "parliament" or do they just want to discourage people from visiting unless they know the secret code ("parl")?

Re:Bill could still be introduced tomorrow (1)

telso (924323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651873)

I don't know about you, but I like short URLs (not that any pages except top-level ones have short URLs, as evidenced by those links). I also don't like how that page needs the "www" (as you can see [parl.gc.ca] , the same being true for Elections Canada [elections.ca] ). Then again, few people actually go to pages through the URL; they just go to Google, and as you can see, it doesn't take much work [google.ca] to find it (you don't even need "of Canada").

Re:Bill could still be introduced tomorrow (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651911)

Requiring the www is a configuration screwup.

I like short URLs too, but not ones that are cryptic. www.parliamentofcanada.gc.ca would be stupid. www.parl.gc.ca is cryptic (what's a parl??) www.parliament.gc.ca, or better, www.parliament.ca would be perfect.

Yeah, you're right. Google rules. Still, if you Google parliament and you ended up with www.parliament.gc.ca I'd be a little more confident I'd gotten what I wanted than if it turned up parl.

Last Canadian DMCA thread: (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21651823)

I keep hearing about how wonderful Canada is, compared to their neighbor to the south, and then stuff like this happens which seems to show no regard for the common citizen at all!
-Nom du Keyboard

You'll keep hearing wonderful things because we actually have a fairly highly motivated political class who more or less raises enough outrage to keep laws on the better side of sane. Sometimes it's an uphill battle though. I think this minority government wouldn't risk power over this. Hopefully they'll tone it down so much it won't be a threat or they'll ditch it.
- me

I'm glad I was right. At least for the time being. I think it's spreading from the initial alarmist into more politically potent circles now. IT's exactly the sort of legislation Conservative supporters would be against. More importantly the "anybody but the liberals" crowd that brought the conservatives into power would suddenly change into the "anybody but the conservatives" crowd. I'm glad it's a minority government. Minority government seems to do the least damage.

One Guy's Letter (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21652013)

I certainly didn't make these jackasses change their minds, but I'd like to think my letter may have helped a tiny little bit. For anybody who may want to adapt it for use against the American species of jackass, here it is:

Dear Mr. Prentice:

You are planning to enact a copyright law that has profound implications for my privacy, my property and my wallet. It is based solely on the greed and misrepresentation of industries that have an almost-unparalleled record for perfidy. I cannot believe you are unaware of the flawed assumptions and outright lies the recording and motion picture industries use to inflate their alleged financial losses due to downloading and copyright violation. You are prepared to put the country my family has bled to protect at the service of a venal and corrupt special interest group, and I will not let you do so without consequence.

If you move forward with this, I promise that not only will I vote against your party in the next election, I will work hard to oppose it in every way I possibly can. That includes actively campaigning for a party I would not otherwise support, and approaching my friends in a way I never have before to secure their cooperation in this matter.

Should you proceed, I will do all in my power to end your political career and end your party's leadership of my country.

This e-mail will be followed by a printed letter to your office.

Sincerely,

Dave (Hyades1 sounded too stupid, so I used my real name)

Foolish Canadamen (0, Offtopic)

Migor9000 (1201327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21652105)

Migor does LAUGH, for all humans are puny in Migor's eyes. Especially the Canadamen, for all Canadamen policy is derived from Gortark, the flying mouse who has become deaf

Too soon to celebrate... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21652267)

Although this delay can easily be seen as good news, it may just be a temporary thing. The article says it remains to be seen whether it has only been postponed, and for exactly how long, but it does not appear to actually be withdrawn at this time. I'm sure that Michael Geist's site will have more information on the subject over the next few days.

Not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21652321)

I want to see this legislation vanish from the docket completely. Keep up the good fight.

JDS.

tag !blamecanada is priceless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21652335)

tag !blamecanada is priceless
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>