Canadian Copyright Official Dumped Over MPAA Conflict

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."

the hilton effect

[User 956 (568564)]

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

[dunng808 (448849)]

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

[Pig Hogger (10379)]

I want her hung.

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

Re:the hilton effect

[alshithead (981606)]

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

[FreezerJam (138643)]

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.)

Will he dump her now?

[garcia (6573)]

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?

[MicktheMech (697533)]

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?

[badfish99 (826052)]

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.

Re:Will he dump her now?

[k8to (9046)]

If a site is anti-copyright it must be wrong?

Sorry it still isn't theft, no matter how many times you say it so. The term in both vernacular and legalese is incorrect.

Not what I was expecting....

[downix (84795)]

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...

No Surprise

[Ethanol-fueled (1125189)]

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

and No Effect

[Nymz (905908)]

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.

Duties to be Determined

[loid_void (740416)]

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.

Nice one

[obeythefist (719316)]

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.

I didn't even realize that law had passed

[freeweed (309734)]

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

[fyoder (857358)]

"Those anti-piracy ads are getting really mean." [youtube.com]

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

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

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

[alexo (9335)]

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].

No, what it really means is that...

[Abcd1234 (188840)]

... 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.

Re:What it means...

[SpottedKuh (855161)]

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...

[alshithead (981606)]

"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...

[SpottedKuh (855161)]

[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:Doesn't even respond to direct questions

[Emetophobe (878584)]

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, v

Re:Doesn't even respond to direct questions

[badfish99 (826052)]

Are those figures right? Does it only cost $250 or $500 per donation to bribe a Canadian politician? Wow, I could afford to buy a couple of laws in Canada at that rate! I should have thought it would cost a luxury yacht, or some bars of gold in a Swiss bank account, at least. The Canadians should look at a properly-run country like Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia to see how things should be done.

Re:Doesn't even respond to direct questions

[Dr Caleb (121505)]

One thing the last government got right was campaign contributions. No corporation can donate more than $500 to an individual campaign, no person can donate more than $2500. Period. There are severe consequences otherwise.

In exchange, Parties are paid $1.50 per vote they receive, per year. It at least resembles a system intent on reducing corporate influence. What it ends up doing is giving corporate CEO positions to former members of Parlament, like the former Canadian Ambassador to the US and Premier of Ontairo, being on the board of the Carslyle Group.