Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Government Politics News Your Rights Online

Wikileaks Says Public Forced Canadian DMCA Delay 177

Posted by timothy
from the political-economy dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that a new WikiLeaks cable confirms that the Canadian Conservative government delayed introducing a Canadian DMCA in early 2008 due to public opposition. The US cable notes confirmation came directly from then-Industry Minister Jim Prentice, who told US Ambassador David Wilkins that cabinet colleagues and Conservative MPs were worried about the electoral implications of copyright reform."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Says Public Forced Canadian DMCA Delay

Comments Filter:
  • Well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Samalie (1016193) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @06:55PM (#35970036)

    At least they listened for once.

    Of course, if our politicians actually, you know, GAVE A FUCK, then they wouldn't have re-introduced the same tired shit. But hey, once at least the court of public opinion stopped a politician from being, well, a lying scumbag asshole politician

    • Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RsG (809189) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:03PM (#35970102)

      You know, this actually is somewhat promising news. It means that, if the Tories gauged it right, this is enough of an issue for the voting public to keep it from becoming law. Either they're worried about voters getting pissed off at new copyright restrictions, or they realize that bowing to international pressure from the US makes them look weak, which their rivals won't hesitate to exploit.

      Either way, as long as a minority government remains in place, it means there's less chance of a pseudo-DMCA ever becoming law.

      • Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)

        by Nerdfest (867930) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:33PM (#35970326)
        I was writing letters to my MP about this. There didn't seem to be a huge public outcry, but perhaps it really doesn't take that many letters to MPs to make a difference. I'm fairly upset about the last bill's digital lock provisions. Looks like it's time to write some letters again.
        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          Generally, the letters to major politicians around the world (in democratic countries) are read by a small time member(s) their staff. When same issue starts coming up in sufficient amount of letters, they take it to their boss, usually chief of staff.

          And if the chief of staff the amount to be sufficient to matter, he takes it to the politician. As a result, only few such issues raised by electorate is ever given any attention by the actual politician - however this also works in other direction, meaning th

          • Generally, the letters to major politicians around the world (in democratic countries) are read by a small time member(s) their staff. When same issue starts coming up in sufficient amount of letters, they take it to their boss, usually chief of staff.

            I can't speak for other nations like the USA, but as for here in Canada, you're greatly overstating the number of people staffing a Canadian Member of Parliament. You'll typically have a staffer or two at their constituency office "back home" and a staffer

            • And if your MP/MLA/MPP is not just a lump of shit. I've been helped with an issue I had with the government when I lived in the Winnipeg/Saint Boniface riding. Ron Duhamel (may he rest in peace) helped me when the government was jerking me around financially for about four or five months leaving me short on cash. I saw him in his local riding office (he was in town). He literally asked me if I was bullshitting about anything because he was going to rattle some cages. The problem was fixed in no kidding, two

            • Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29, 2011 @12:42AM (#35971872)

              It depends a lot on the MP. I called the office of the MP where I live (Scott Reid, Conservative), for help with an immigration issue. They asked me to fax in the relevant papers. I called two weeks later and they didn't know who I was. I reminded them that my two children had no mother because she was being jerked around waiting for her landed immigrant status. No action over the next two months.

              So I called the office of the MP where I work (Peter Milliken, Liberal). Within two days they had faxed the immigration office in Manila and got them to return my wife's passport (the office demanded a new medical exam, which required the passport, but the office had had her passport for three months and would not respond to my requests to return it). Granted it was couriered COD, for $150, but at least we were able to get the paperwork done.

              I have written several physical letters to Scott Reid's office and not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

              • by ppanon (16583)
                Apparently you should have been talking to Parm Gill [mangalorean.com] if you wanted help with Immigration matters but couldn't get through to the Minister of Immigration.
              • ^^

                I would normally just moderate the above, but I need to share my own experiences which were disturbingly similar...

                I have needed the help of my MP 3 times in the last few years... twice for a passport issue (needing to get a passport issued in a rush for X reason), and once concerning an issue with the office of the registrar general. I contacted my MP (Gordon O'Connor, Conservative), and was told in no uncertain terms that he was "too busy" to occupy himself with my troubles, or that he wasn't interested

              • Peter Millikan is a class act. I'm going to miss him as speaker.
            • On the anti-circumvention clause issue I spoke in person with Jack Layton and my MP (NDP critic for First Nations) at an event and both were well aware of the issue. Jack asked me to send him an email to his non-Parliamentary email address, which I did. I also sent emails to the Parliamentary email addresses of my MP, the NDP and Liberal heritage critics, and several members of the heritage committee. Stuff like this is why it's GOOD to have a minority government... In a minority, committees have much more

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ToasterMonkey (467067)

        You know, this actually is somewhat promising news. It means that, if the Tories gauged it right, this is enough of an issue for the voting public to keep it from becoming law. Either they're worried about voters getting pissed off at new copyright restrictions, or they realize that bowing to international pressure from the US makes them look weak, which their rivals won't hesitate to exploit.

        They will just wait until after elections to vote on things like these. TFS even says "delay". They WILL vote on this! Anyone who even peripherally follows politics knows how divisive issues wax and wane during election cycles to attract moderates. In this case, younger voters. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are after swing voters, it's not that your opinion is particularly popular.

        For the love of God folks, read real fucking news!

        • Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)

          by thirty-seven (568076) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @09:34PM (#35971002)

          They will just wait until after elections to vote on things like these.

          The point of the poster to whom you replied is that, as long as there is a minority government in place, they will hopefully be held back from introducing some version of a DMCA by public opinion and a fear that it would cost the governing party at election time. Because in a minority government situation, there isn't really a significant amount of time "between" elections. You might be back in an election just six months after the previous one, so it's not a situation where you can pass unpopular legislation right after an election and then expect that it will be largely forgotten by the electorate at the next election in four years.

      • by i_ate_god (899684)

        not if they get a majority government. In a majority government, they can pass the law, everyone would get upset, but nothing would change, and by the time the 4 year mandate ends, the population will have forgotten.

        but in a minority government, the dynamics are very different...

    • Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:14PM (#35970178)

      Ah. That's because the government was a minority government [wikipedia.org]. It makes government much more responsive to the public than they would be in a majority situation. The politicians worry about what the public thinks because an election could happen at any time. It's like having them on a short leash. I love it.

      Thank goodness we've had successive minority governments or they would have rammed DMCA-style legislation through at some point regardless of public opposition. And I have to give the previous governments that have introduced these copyright bills to parliament a tiny bit of credit -- slowly the bills are getting less bad with each iteration. Maybe the next one will finally be a proper balance.

      I'm also glad that politicians worry about on-line and other public activities regarding these issues. Good. They should worry. They're supposed to be listening to all of us, not only commercial interests.

      [raises glass] Here's hoping for another minority government, regardless of who wins the election on Monday.

      • Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)

        by Samalie (1016193) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:19PM (#35970216)

        If that was Stephen Harper being responsive to the public during a minority, let God have mercy on our souls if he ever gets a majority.

        Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

        • responsive to the public, not responsive to his opposition. harper cares about getting re-elected.
          • Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)

            by The Archon V2.0 (782634) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @08:28PM (#35970646)
            Harper certainly cares about being re-elected. That's why he's willing to screw with the system and try esoteric garbage like proroguing in an effort to keep his crap from catching up with him, and then blame yet another expensive election on the other parties because they refused to kowtow to him and that makes the government's fall the fault of the evil opposition.
            • yes...this is what I said, except less ranty.
              • Pardon my losing my point in my rantiness: He's NOT responsive to the public, he just manipulates them to try get the public to vote him in.

                Saying Harper is responsive to the public is like saying a chess player is responsive to his pawns.

            • blame yet another expensive election on the other parties

              What most people don't seem to understand is that Canadian elections are *cheap* compared to the boondoggles that get passed in majority governments (e.g. the gun registry). It irks me to no end end politicians try to get votes by claiming Canadians hate voting and that elections are expensive.

              • by gfreeman (456642)

                Indeed - elections are not expensive to Canada as a whole. As far as I am aware, not a single penny gets spent outside the Canadian borders, and so it's a good stimulus to the economy. It also aids unemployed Canadians who are available and eager to work for Elections Canada during the polls.

          • by tbannist (230135)

            He may care about getting re-elected but he only cares about the around 40% that he needs to get a majority. He doesn't really care much if a majority of Canadians disagree with him, as long as the 40% he needs to get elected are with him on the issue. So he's only responsive to a specific section of the public.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "If that was Stephen Harper being responsive to the public during a minority, let God have mercy on our souls if he ever gets a majority."

          Yes, while I agree with you, I honestly don't think *any* of our current main parties deserve a majority, least of all the Conservatives. When I think what any of the 3 main parties would do with majority power, I think minority government -- ANY minority government -- is the best place to be.

          I don't care if we have minority governments for the next decade, even if that

        • Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mmontour (2208) <mail@mmontour.net> on Thursday April 28, 2011 @11:04PM (#35971444)

          Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

          I was amused by a recent Conservative attack ad that accused Jack Layton of being "desperate for power" and "blindly ambitious". They've certainly been taking lessons from the US NeoCons - look at your own guy's biggest flaws and then accuse your opponents of it.

        • by guidryp (702488) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @11:30PM (#35971540)

          C-32 was still introduced in 2008:

          C-61 was another attempt in 2010:

          Both of these died with the Minority government.

          You can bet we will quickly get a new one from the new government next week.

          If it is a Majority Government, I expect we go whole hog US style copyright, so the lawsuits will start destroying the lives of Canadians for file sharing...

          If it is a Minority Government, the bill will need to have significant concessions for Canadian citizens to get passed by the Opposition parties.

          Fingers crossed for a Minority.

        • by lonecrow (931585)

          Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

          We are doing everything right so you should sit down, shut up and do as your told.

          - S. Harper

          One of the funnier sides of elections is listening to politicians be so logically inconsistent and not even being aware of it. For example our local Conservative MP droned on about how well Canada is doing and about how much was due to his governments good management over the last 5 years.

        • by Mashiki (184564)

          Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.

          What? ~13 years of a liberal majority weren't enough for you? Or did you just turn 18 and this is your first election?

      • Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)

        by whisper_jeff (680366) on Friday April 29, 2011 @12:22AM (#35971788)
        Getting less bad with each iteration??? Did you even read a summary of the most recent bill proposal? It gave consumers all kinds of rights and, in the same instant, took them away "if there was DRM". In other words, consumers would have had ZERO rights over content they bought. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

        Sorry for trying to drill the point home but it's really that serious - the most recent bill proposal absolutely threw out any pretense of consumers having any rights, what-so-ever. They disguised how bad the bill was by describing all the rights that consumers had so it felt good but, in every instance, they immediately took those rights away if DRM was present (it wouldn't have had to be strong DRM - _ANY_ DRM would have stripped away all the consumer's rights).

        Seriously, had that bill passed, we wouldn't have been able to legally record a show with a VCR, rip a CD, own an mp3 player (since it wouldn't have been legal to actually play anything...). It was disgusting.
    • by SIR_Taco (467460)

      Unfortunately, like most (all?) politicians, the are likely just telling us what we want to hear and not what they intend on doing.

      Everything sounds fine and dandy until they get elected....

      Just my 2 cents (2.1 cents USD)

      • by EdIII (1114411)

        Yeah... well your two cents is worth a lot more then what you think:

        Conservative MPs were worried about the electoral implications of copyright reform

        That means they did not give a FUCK about the ethical implications. They did not care about copyright either. What does it mean? What is its true purpose in society? How can we create copyright law that encourages innovation and creativity by protecting the artists while also nurturing and protecting a strong public domain that is critical to the very success of an advanced society? How do we do all that and balance out the motivation

      • by metacell (523607)

        That last 0.1 cent must feel realy good for you :)

    • The bit on pharmaceutical patents (further down the Cable) is worrying, too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drgould (24404)

      But hey, once at least the court of public opinion stopped a politician from being, well, a lying scumbag asshole politician

      I'm not disagreeing completely, but I just want to point out that the stated reason why he opposed the legislation was because of "the electoral implications".

      Not for ethical reasons, not because it was the right thing to do, not because it was best for the citizens of Canada, but for "electoral implications".

      So I guess that still makes him "a lying scumbag asshole politician". But, h

    • "were worried about the electoral implications"

      THAT gives you new faith in government?

      • by Abstrackt (609015)

        "were worried about the electoral implications"

        THAT gives you new faith in government?

        Yes, because it proves we still have the power to choose and that they're still aware of it.

    • by mark-t (151149)

      Delay... not actually discard.

      Bill C32, our government's latest copyright reform bill, is not really any better than the DMCA, and in a lot of ways it is much worse. The debates and panels for Bill C32 are on temporary hold until after the election, but it's inevitable that if the conservatives win this election, they will either reintroduce the bill shortly thereafter, or else they will draft up something even worse.

      • by green1 (322787)

        You seem to be under the misguided thought that this is a Conservative only bill... I have news for you. This bill WILL pass, no matter what government gets in. The only question is how may tries, and how long it takes. The official platforms of the opposition parties all include reference to copyright changes... and you can guarantee none of them involve increasing fair use or shortening copyright term!

    • At least they listened for once.

      The only reason it couldn't be passed was we have always had minority governments when they tried to introduce it multiple times.

      Monday could bring a Majority Conservative government and whatever DMCA industry lobbyist ask for in short order. :(

      • by green1 (322787)

        This failed not because of lack of support from the opposition on this particular bill. You can guarantee that if it ever came to a vote it would pass. It failed because they ran out of time because the government fell for completely unrelated reasons. Don't underestimate the dangers here, EVERY major political party supports this bill. it WILL pass, the only question is how long we can stave it off.

  • by Ruke (857276) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @06:57PM (#35970044)
    I'd sure be nice if politicians were this concerned with passing legislature that their constituents supported all of the time, instead of only during election season.
    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      If you ever invent a political system where such thing is possible, I strongly suggest you keep it to yourself.

      Because if you even whisper about it, you going to vanish. Essentially all the powerful people in the world like the current system very much, especially because they can run through things that are in direct opposition of public interests using their political puppets, and still get those puppets re-elected a few years down the road instead of having to invest in new ones.

      • The system is in place. The trick is that the public has to realize that voting is one of the least important political actions. Far more important is to be in frequent communication with your representatives' offices and convincing others to do the same. It takes a decent chunk of people making a lot of noise to convince a politician that he'll lose the next election by passing a particular measure. That requires paying consistent attention to what's happening in the off-season, and it requires a much

  • by CCarrot (1562079) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @06:58PM (#35970058)

    I guess there's got to be some advantage to having an election every 18 months...

  • Boring (Score:3, Interesting)

    by poity (465672) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:03PM (#35970100)

    Where are those bank memos we were promised?

  • The rule is (Score:3, Interesting)

    by countertrolling (1585477) * on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:07PM (#35970130) Journal

    You put the vote off on these laws until after the election.. So everybody will forget by the next election. They could've passed it without serious consequence.. Hell, nobody's protesting the wars. You think anybody gives a damn about this?

    • Re:The rule is (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Altrag (195300) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:47PM (#35970424)

      People tend to give more of a damn about things that affect them directly than things happening in other countries. Even if the "other country" thing is comparatively horrific (as in the case of copyright here vs war and killing there).

      Whether anyone knows this is happening or understands the consequences is a much bigger concern. The media and other copyright promoters do everything in their power to convince everyone that "we've got to stop the pirates" when in reality most of what they're doing will have little to no impact on pirates but will affect average users severely.

      Take a really simple example. How many pirates bother watching the 2-minute (per language up here in Canada!) FBI/Interpol warning on their movies? Probably very few -- its either stripped off or at least the "unskippable" flag is removed on almost every torrent. Yet legitimate viewers have to watch the thing over and over and over again.

      And don't even start on those DVDs where they decided to mark the ads and previews as unskippable.

      Or all of those various CD "protection" hacks in the late 90s/early 2000s that did little more than prevent the discs from playing on older (legitimate) CD players. Yet it didn't stop them from showing up on Napster within a day or two of release.

      • by dbIII (701233)

        How many pirates bother watching the 2-minute (per language up here in Canada!) FBI/Interpol warning on their movies?

        I actually didn't know that still existed because I have not seen it in a long time. A few software players let you skip over it even on real DVDs. I think Handbrake (ghb) which lets you move it to USB device to play in a set top media player doesn't even list that stuff in the track list.

  • Beware still (Score:5, Informative)

    by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:07PM (#35970134)
    They still need to be worried about this. The Conservatives won't be getting my vote next week specifically because of DMCA 2.0 (and the Internet snooping and censoring that is certain to follow).
    • by Skidborg (1585365)

      You you really believe any other party would do differently? They're all being lobbied by the same industry goons. The Liberals, Green, and NDP would probably end up doing exactly the same.

      That said, I'm voting for the Pirate Party this election.

      • by mirix (1649853)

        The liberals can be bought. I think it would have to be a cold, cold day in hell before the NDP passes anything that is both American backed and pro corporate. Simply not their thing.

      • by gfreeman (456642)

        The NDP are quite clear that this is one of their platform issues. I sincerely doubt that PM Jack Layton would push through CDMCA.

  • by Korveck (1145695) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:09PM (#35970140)
    ...actually works out fine for Canada in the last couple years. Conservatives are concerned about losing votes and decide not to bring most controversial issues to the table (e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage), knowing that the oppositions can bring down the government at any time they like. On the other hand, oppositions do not obstruct legislation or stop the government from getting things done because they are also concerned about the votes. With a majority, the Canadian DMCA would have passed with ease.
    • by mirix (1649853)

      This is less to do with it being a minority, and more to do with it not being a conservative majority.

      God help us if they ever get one. The social conservative reform freakshow will really come out if they do.

  • by BiggerIsBetter (682164) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:18PM (#35970196)

    They just pass it under urgency in the evening with about one day of notice to the public.

    Surely what WikiLeaks is really saying is something we all know: The governments of the world no longer act for the people of their countries.

    • by Wowsers (1151731)

      Damn, you just beat the UK way of introducing it's so called "Digital Economy Act". The proposed law was rambling through parliament, then a general election was called (last possible moment it could have been called).

      In a process called "wash up", all the proposed laws that were still going though parliament were rammed through in 2 days flat with next to no discussion, because they HAD to be rammed through. And so the UK is lumped with it's own version of the bastard DMCA, with no scrutiny of it whatsoeve

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @07:21PM (#35970236)

    So there's an issue that is sufficiently unpopular that they even fear they'd lose an election over it if they implemented it before the election? Hell, not even tax hikes have that effect! To some degree, most people understand that taxes have a reason to exist, some even welcome them, while most accept them as a necessary evil.

    But a DMCA would have been an issue that would have cost them the election. Well, clue me in then: If nobody that should matter to a politician (i.e. the people possibly electing him) wants it, who does he actually represent? The people? Obviously, he does not.

    • by Mia'cova (691309)

      It's a bit more complicated. I believe the pressure to do something is coming mostly from the US, citing treaties canada has signed on copyright-enforcement alliances. So right now, Canada isn't living up to its treaty obligations. Unfortunately, I don't know much about those obligations. So hell, I could be wrong on that actually. I'm all for avoiding DMCA-like law. I'm just saying the politicians may be in a bit of a tough spot trying to satisfy both the people and the existing treaty obligations. Often s

      • "So it could cost Canada in terms of completely unrelated trade issues."
        Actually we don't really care as only Saudi Arabia has more oil that we do.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ljgshkg (1223086)
          Well, there're lots more issues/trade relations between Canada and USA than just oil. We have all those lumbering businesses and many more. And most of our exports goes to USA. They're in some way holding our throat. If they act against us in other DMCA-unrelated issues, that can affect a huge number of people. Canada has a very small population, our current economy relies on USA a lot more than what many people might think.

          Talking about oil, you do notice we ship our oil to US to process, and then get t
    • by wierd_w (1375923) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @08:57PM (#35970788)

      Politicians, like all power figures, are innately tied to the influences of power. In this case, a powerful nation to the south, which has powerful incentive to push intellectual poison on the rest of the world to prop itself up. [yes, I am a citizen of that powerful country, but I can see the handwriting on the wall. The US has no real manufacturing infrastructure. Our agribiz infrastructure is no longer first rate in the world market, and our last strongholds for world relevency are intellectual property and military might. Without IP, I believe we would crumble like the former soviet union, due to the shortsighted practices of our corporations who have no sense of national loyalty, only loyalty to money-- and our politicians who are loyal to those corporations, and not the voting public. As such, the US is a sinking ship, with bandaids over huge holes of economic policy, and bilge pumps of government bailouts running 24/7. It is NOT sustainable.]

      This whole issue with "Worldwide DMCA" would dissolve rapidly if [when] the USA finally tanks. Without the US to make a fuss over it, the corporations would be unable to leverage such global policy positions on the rest of the world, and the effort would suffer huge spirals of inefficiency as every little government everywhere suddenly had the 300lb gorilla with the billy club removed from the parlament floor, and politicians had golden parachute cords cut.

      As suicidal as it seems, what is best for the WORLD right now is for my country to suffer the consequences of its own complacency, and to deminish-- in profound and spectacular fashion.

      Props to the people of Canada for telling my government to shove it. I love you guys.

    • Yeah, there's something I'm not following with this logic either. I'm going to exaggerate here but does the conservative government honestly think that:

      If all of the following is acceptable behavior and will still have them elected
      - Increase all taxes
      - Decrease health care
      - Increase politician salary and vacation time
      - Reduce job creation programs
      - Increase corruption

      Yet, the following WILL cost them the election
      -Introduce DMCA

      At least they're honest about it (indirectly): they alter their policies to get t

    • If nobody that should matter to a politician (i.e. the people possibly electing him) wants it, who does he actually represent? The people? Obviously, he does not.

      There-in lies my biggest issue with the whole thing. Not only are the politicians who are pushing for this garbage selling out Canadians to corporate interests, they can't even be bothered to sell us out to _CANADIAN_ corporations. They're selling us out to corporate America. It's so profoundly disgusting that it boils my blood. These ... people can't even be bothered to be patriotic while the screw us over...

      Seriously, if the Conservatives win a majority in this coming election, I think I would cry...

  • Nice to get this before we go to the Polls!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    All these comments about majority or minority governments, who's the better or worse person to lead the government, the question I'd ask from this Wikileaks document is why is the minister reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about the difficulty of getting such a piece of legislation passed? Why are we reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about our internal matters at all.

    If they have that much control over our Parliament then why the hell don't we just cede Canada to the U.S. and let them work out what to do wit

    • Why don't you just cede Quebec to them? Then US will have enough trouble on their hands that they'll forget about this whole little copyright problem. ~

    • by Nyeerrmm (940927)

      Because making sure copyright laws are in sync is an international issue.

      Not that I support either version of the DMCA and am glad to see some resistance to it, but in general, international cooperation on copyright matters is appropriate and necessary.

  • by caitsith01 (606117) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @08:30PM (#35970658) Journal

    ...which is that if you do actually take an interest and make enough noise, you CAN scare politicians enough to actually do their jobs, which is representing you rather than representing large corporations.

    This information should galvanize further actions against DMCA style laws (and all bad laws, for that matter).

  • Random Complaint (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fractal Dice (696349) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @09:52PM (#35971058) Journal
    Wikileaks: the election has been running for a month now. Waiting until four days before the election to start to release a tidal wave of revelant documents (and only the unclassified documents with mostly common sense stuff) feels like a bit of an ambush. We're a rational democracy (more or less), we'd like same time to digest and debate issues rather than being forced to assimilate everything in a weekend.
  • ...that people would stop calling it copyright "reform". It makes it sound as though it's broken, and this will fix it, making it all rainbow and sunshine.
    I'd agree on the first part, but not the second.

  • Is it just me? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scumfuker (882056) on Thursday April 28, 2011 @10:12PM (#35971194)
    Does it seem with the wording of the cable that Canada is expected to fall into line with whatever the US would like?
    There also seems to be a minor tone of irritation when 'the public' and 'Michael Geist' is mentioned.

    Damn you pesky citizens of a sovereign nation, getting in the way of our plans for your country...


    Seeing it explicitly laid out like that is just, well, disturbing.
  • they should at least start calling it what it is.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...