Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Government Your Rights Online

Canadian DMCA Bill Withdrawn 198

Posted by kdawson
from the voice-of-the-people dept.
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 Geist doesn't speculate on why the legislation is being withdrawn, but it could have something to do with the massive popular outcry against the proposal that Geist helped to orchestrate.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian DMCA Bill Withdrawn

Comments Filter:
  • by zonky (1153039) on Monday December 10, 2007 @10:13PM (#21650715)
    Blame Canada [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by corsec67 (627446)
      Too bad they had to censor that song because of the FCC. First amendment, whats that?
      • Given that you can play the whole Blame Canada song uncut in prime time on Canadian TV, I think its pretty ironic...

        PS Anne Murray likes the song too.
    • by DaedalusHKX (660194) on Monday December 10, 2007 @10:27PM (#21650809) Journal
      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!!)
      • by Kristoph (242780)
        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: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Dipsomaniac (1102131)
          When you have an axe to grind, all you see is grindstones.
        • What I'm saying is one way or another it will pass.

          For example. 3 years ago, everyone thought the so called "NAFTA superhighway" was a myth. Now its been discovered that Canada and the USA have working groups bringing it about through low level regulation and land grabs (eminent domain here has been abused forever, so its nothing new, Canada is using drug busts as far as I hear, to confiscate homes and land... and Mexico... well, Mexico doesn't need its people's permission to abuse them, not even to make
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by B3ryllium (571199)
      No, their response would be:

      "And it would have worked, too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!!"
  • well done (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Monday December 10, 2007 @10:16PM (#21650739) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by tjstork (137384)
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by ToriaUru (750485) on Monday December 10, 2007 @10:44PM (#21650929) Homepage
      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. :)
    • by p0tat03 (985078)

      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.

      • by Nikker (749551)
        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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by p0tat03 (985078)
          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.
        • by Darby (84953)
          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?

        • 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 ther
    • their*

      couldn't* (though logically shouldn't that be "didn't", otherwise how can you complain?)

      lucky*

      motherfuckers

      That is all.
  • the usual (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Monday December 10, 2007 @10:17PM (#21650749) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by schon (31600) on Monday December 10, 2007 @10:40PM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ToriaUru (750485)
        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 infer
      • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kristoph (242780) on Monday December 10, 2007 @11:32PM (#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.

      ]{
      • by big_paul76 (1123489) on Tuesday December 11, 2007 @01:02AM (#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.
      • by canuck57 (662392)

        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.

        Probably had more to do with the combination of corruption allegations and a minority government situation. The government does not want to rock the boat so to speak as many Canadians are not happy with Ottawa right now.

        While the bill is withdrawn, it will come back some day. With a majority government it would have passed unnot

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      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!

  • Monopolies... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldurbarn (111734) on Monday December 10, 2007 @10:26PM (#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... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday December 10, 2007 @10:48PM (#21650959) Homepage Journal
      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.

    • 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 b
      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        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, i
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by daBass (56811)
          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 s
          • by Darby (84953)
            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 kee
            • by daBass (56811)
              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 you
              • by Darby (84953)

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


                No, you go out and learn what an ad Hominem actually means.
                The fact that you are extremely stupid or a troll was the conclusion of the argument absolutely demanded by your statements. It was not in any way part of the argument. Your whiny little bitchery did nothing to address the sound, valid points which I arrayed against you. Obviously, you know that or you wouldn't have resorted to whining so soon.

                No it isn't, your inter
          • by penix1 (722987)
            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
            • by daBass (56811)
              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
              • by penix1 (722987)

                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?

                Not just creator but "original creator". An editor isn't creating it so he isn't the original creator. In short, the editor would need a license from the author to edit that work and it becomes a derivative work. The same hol

            • by Sique (173459)

              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.
              The main problem with this is: You can hire a killer if an author doesn't want to license to you. Then his work becomes public domain and you get what you want. The +70 after death was introduced to remove the incentive to kill creative people to get hold of their work.
          • Hey, musician here, I'm probably more going to agree with you than anything on this one(especially since you seem to be with us against this bill, I'll overlook some differences) but;

            "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."

            Your example sucks. If we wanted to use your metaphor, this is ho
            • by daBass (56811)
              Yeah, it sucks because everybody misunderstands me! ;-)

              If you make a song, make $10M bucks on it and they take the song away, you still have $10M. In this case, the song you made is the product.

              The nice thing about keeping copyright is that you make your $10M, buy the jet and then keep a steady income every year from back-catalog sales to put fuel in the jet too.

              In my stock market example, the money you made, is the product, which can be likened to your song.

              So yeah, that is confusing and that is why the ex
          • by remmelt (837671)
            > Are we really going to force people to produce more?

            HELL YES!!!!

            The entire point of copyright, a government granted monopoly, is to the artist encourage the artist to make more art. This is not so much a sit back and relax bonus, it's a keep up the good work fee.

            See the difference? Now you'll also see why it's not good to make the term too long (artists will be less likely to produce more art) and why it's ridiculous to extend it after the artist is dead, as is the case now (life + 70 years?). The fina
            • by GoofyBoy (44399)
              >The entire point of copyright, a government granted monopoly, is to the artist encourage the artist to make more art. This is not so much a sit back and relax bonus, it's a keep up the good work fee.

              Thats an interesting way of looking at it.

              But who says how long the person can take before he stops being rewarded and forced to create something else? One person could do it weekly but others, depending on the art and personality and life-situation, may need years.
              Also, it may lead to more blatently commer
              • by remmelt (837671)
                Exactly. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The length of the copyright can be argued about, I think a good ten years would be ample time for anyone to develop their art the way they want to. If there's no movement after that, it's flipping burgers time.

                How does your artist come up with his first work of art anyway? There's no up front payment with (c), you only get money after the art sells. The artist in question made something that sells in his spare time, most likely while working a daytime
          • by CastrTroy (595695)
            The difference with the stock market is that once you stop investing your money, you stop getting more money. By investing your money, you are letting others use it for their own gain, so you should be entitle to make money. However, once your money is pulled out, you stop making money off it. You are no longer providing a service to anyone. You want to keep making money, you have to keep the money invested. With music, you could write a song, which may take a certain amount of work. Time invested on
          • "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"

            It's not a great analogy really, and I think we all know that. The problem is that an investment is (a) never guaranteed a return (b) and even if it gains in value, it can disappear for no reason whatsoever (c) is taxed. While (a) is certainly true of a song/movie/book, (B) and (C) really aren't true of IP.

            I made this comment several y
      • by vux984 (928602)
        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.

        There is, its called: GETTING PAID IN ADVANCE, or at the very least paid on delivery. I write code, that's how I get paid. That's how I paid my wedding photographer, and how I paid the band that played too, for that matter. Its how I paid the architect who designed my home, and for one of the paintings on the wall.

        Its simple and it works well. In a world where things are easy
    • by kamapuaa (555446)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by eldurbarn (111734)
        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
    • 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.

      Oh really? I never had any trouble. Let me explain:

      Information can be shared infinitely, which is usually great. However, it means information has no scarcity, which in turn means no real money can be made naturally from it. Why would anyone buy it when they can get it for free of the internet? More importantly, if there's no money to be made, why would people bot

      • Yes, copyrights are good. Unfortunately, the good that they do is currently countered by the length of the copyrights. If I write a book, why should I continue to get profits from it 50 years later? Why should my (currently not born) grandchildren profit off of a book that I write today? Will getting small payments from a book written in 2007 somehow give them an incentive to create new works 70 years after I die? Of course not.

        In fact, I'd wager that 98% of works out there don't take in any significan
  • 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.
  • by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Monday December 10, 2007 @10:39PM (#21650885)
    Wow, this is almost as good news to Canada as Global Warming is!
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      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).

  • 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 ;)
  • by earthforce_1 (454968) <earthforce_1NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday December 10, 2007 @11:00PM (#21651041) Journal
    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.

    • by Jester998 (156179) on Monday December 10, 2007 @11:49PM (#21651347) Homepage
      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
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by big_paul76 (1123489)
        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
    • by sabernet (751826)
      Two letters, and a voicemail were my contributions. Small as they may be, I'm happy to have been able to contribute something. And it was easy enough to do I encourage everyone to at least do the same.
  • So keep the light on them.
  • You mean the Americans didn't have to one-up [slashdot.org] us after all?

    Boy, I bet they feel dumb...
  • by apankrat (314147) on Monday December 10, 2007 @11:24PM (#21651199) Homepage
    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.

  • 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 absolutel
  • 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?"
    • by ari{Dal} (68669)
      I love question period. That is the single best political snipe fest around. And they all have to be so damned polite, even though there's pure vitriol in their tone.

      You just can't pay for better entertainment than that. The USA needs to take a page from the parliamentary system. And for you Americans out there, the Prime Minister isn't immune from the verbal sparring either.
  • "Introduce this bill again, pronto, or we'll flatten Toronto!" (Canadian Bacon [wikipedia.org]).

    • by Robber Baron (112304) on Tuesday December 11, 2007 @01:12AM (#21651851) Homepage

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

      - signed, the rest of Canada.
    • by tkw954 (709413)
      Secretary of State: We were thinking, what could be a bigger threat than aliens invading from space?
      General Panzer: Ooh boy! Scare the shit out of everyone. Even me, sir!
      U.S. President: Jesus, is this the best you could come up with? What about, ya know, international terrorism?
      General Panzer: Well, sir, we're not going to re-open missile factories just to fight some creeps running around in exploding rental cars, are we, sir?
  • by telso (924323) on Tuesday December 11, 2007 @12:43AM (#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.
    • by ceoyoyo (59147)
      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")?
      • by telso (924323)
        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").
        • by ceoyoyo (59147)
          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.
      • Do they think that Canadians are too stupid to spell "parliament"

        No they just realize that some Canadians spell it "parlement" and so calling it "parl" is the same stem in both official languages....and before you go making wisecracks about french speaking Canadians just remember that we are asking for the government to listen to us. So we can hardly fault them when they listen to and accommodate an even bigger minority.
  • 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.

  • 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

    • by Samalie (1016193)
      Similar to my letter...except I went straight to Harper... Mr. Harper, I must state my extreme outrage at the upcoming Copyright Reform Bill as outlined in an article in The Globe and Mail from Tuesday November 27, 2007 (Online Edition). From the article: "And the buzz is that the new law will basically be a copy of the controversial U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)." Mr. Harper, the DMCA is a deeply flawed piece of legislation in the United States, and is nothing more than Government bowin
      • by hyades1 (1149581)

        Excellent letter! I also copied the PM.

        With any luck, maybe a few other people will join this thread, and a nice little series of template letters will assemble itself. It would certainly make things a lot easier for people who feel strongly about this issue but don't like to write a lot.

  • 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.
  • They'll Try Again (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Tuesday December 11, 2007 @05:33AM (#21653149) Homepage Journal
    They always try again. If people notice the first time they try to sneak it through again and again until they succeed. They've got nothing but time and billions of dollars.

    I think the correct response is every time they try something like this, push to have IP laws relaxed and clarified. Push to add transparency to the government so that the crooked deals to the corrupt politicians will be in the open for all to see. Push to make it impossible for a entity that only exists as a legal fiction to buy the law with billions of dollars. Every time they push, push back harder.

  • If the Liberal opposition party would just grow some cajones and call an election, we could dump Harper and his cryptofascist dickwad buddies. I know people - even in Texas^H^H^H^H^HAlberta who are totally sick of these assholes. Yeah, the liberals fucked up, but the PC are so stupid and have such a nasty case of cranio-rectal inversion, they make the NDP look competent. (note: I support NDP and Greens - their time will come when the PC disappears and the Liberals become the conservatives, like in Oz.)

    We

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...