Canadian Copyright Official Dumped Over MPAA Conflict 215
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian government's top copyright policy maker has been moved aside after revelations that she was in a personal relationship with Hollywood's top Canadian lobbyist. The development is raising questions about how the MPAA got an anti-camcording bill passed in only three weeks and what it means for the introduction of a Canadian DMCA."
the hilton effect (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
sooo (Score:2, Funny)
In Canada, 'fuck the RIAA' has different meaning?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the hilton effect (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, being pedantic here but, not hung, you should use hanged. English grammar [wsu.edu] generally uses hung for things like paintings, and hanged for people who die by hanging.
Re:the hilton effect (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re:the hilton effect (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry - but this is Canada, and the Canadian Oxford Dictionary doesn't support the use of "hung" as a past tense of "hang". Up here, she would be hanged, and that's her only choice.
(Of course, since we have abolished the death penalty, this is all moot.)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not funny. It's also not correct. From dictionary.com, the definition of hang includes:
4. to put to death by suspending by the neck from a gallows, gibbet, yardarm, or the like.
The correct past tense of hang is hung , so the original poster is right. I hereby order you to turn in your official grammar Nazi card and order you to take remedial English classes for the next 3 mont
Re: (Score:2)
(emphasis mine)
"her be?" Like the "Love Bug" in the movies? Or is this Ebonics?
(Totally with ya', man. I try to keep my grammar-Nazi hat off, but it's always more fun when there's a grammar - or spelling - error in a grammar Nazi post. Of course, in this case, it was basically a typo.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She's a dirty politician, and should never be employed again as anything more involved than burger flipper, but let's cut the hyperbole.
And yes, I'm Canadian.
Will he dump her now? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
And that is sad
Re: (Score:2)
Could be that he will retire with his golden parachute and she will retire with her bribes and they'll live happily ever after on their newly purchased tropical island with no more technology than refrigeration to make ice for their drinks.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will he dump her now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
lets say you run a shop that sells food. all the food is on shelves, ready for people to pick it up and take home. the windows are made of glass. If people don't want to pay, they can ram-raid the shop at midnight, load up all the food, and drive off. Why don't we all do this?
Because its against the law. The police will investigate, they may well catch us, they will prosecute us, they will press for us to get a custodial sentence,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's not clear that copying intellectual property hurts its creator.
The fact is that copyright and physical property are nothing alike. You can't just forbid people to copy intellectual works - they've already started by watching them. Are the quotes they remember a violation?
Re: (Score:3)
As a content creator, I can assure you that it is massively clear, but you keep clinging to some belief that copyright theft is somehow a good thing for the person you took the product from if it helps you sleep at nights.
Re:Will he dump her now? (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry it still isn't theft, no matter how many times you say it so. The term in both vernacular and legalese is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot posters routinely stick their fingers in their ears and pretend not to listen, as do digg and boingboing users, if there is ever a reasonable argument mentioned in favour of copyright. Anything that stops you taking other peoples work for free is 'teh evil' and 'teh mafiaaaaa'.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your statement that it's one-sided, while stretching the truth, is more or less accurate. That it is necessarily wrong doesn't follow. That was your error.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea that you cannot take photos, cam, or audio recordings of an event for which you are present (and so presumably recording into your memory with your own eyes and ears) is quite new, and quite bizarre. I'm not saying its wrong, necessarily, just not as obviously right as you are making it out to be.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a contract of sale, but the ticket and what's printed on it, isn't it. That'd be like a EULA - hidden conditions, crouching liability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right.
So if it's already against the law, why the hell do we need another law that does the same damn thing.
Let's stop making new laws until we can adequately enforce the ones we already have. There are existing laws already in place that would so
Re: (Score:2)
corporate whore (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will he dump her now? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Not what I was expecting.... (Score:5, Funny)
Another nail in the coffin? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they will. Then it'll go to court, and the RIAA will be judged guilty, and then they'll ignore the rulings and do the same thing again in other countries for a while, until the anti-trust.. I mean copyright... judgement term is deemed to have completed, at which point they'll launch their own version of Vista.
No Surprise (Score:5, Funny)
and No Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
MAD - Mutual Assured DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
pics or didn't happen
Again? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I'm still jealous. At least Canada apparently cleans house every so often...
Duties to be Determined (Score:5, Funny)
I see a follow-up article here.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nice one (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't actually change anything in any of the three countries. People all do the same stuff. It's just the Canadians aren't made criminals by doing the same activities as everyone else in the world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The copyright law changes were part of a free trade deal so we could sell beef, sugar and steel to the US market without restriction. The sick joke was we got a promise that a beef deal will be looked at in more than ten years time and we can forget about sugar and steel.
Re: (Score:2)
The US just bought our biggest steel company.
Sugar? We grow sugar here? Huh?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One of the largest exports. On another thread I was bitching about the quality of US education and it looks like my own country has a few problems too :(
Re: (Score:2)
Did I miss something? (Score:2)
Wasn't Canada the country which places a tax on blank optical media, based on the assumption that all of it (or some, at least) will be used for piracy? Thus, you may not be a criminal, but you're already being punished because something you're buying could be used to commit a crime??
If so, fuck them. They're as bad as the rest. Worse, even.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time for another Boston Tea Party... (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't even realize that law had passed (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually pretty close in theme and spirit (and ridiculousness) to the ad I saw. Take away the laugh track and that's what we're now showing Canadians.
Thanks for the link!
Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I didn't even realize that law had passed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed.
Not that I'm a rabid gun nut stroking my metaphorical Kalashnikov at the thought of revolt, mind you. It's just that the American political system was not designed for the one-party system we basically have now, where the Democrats and Republicans argue about largely inconsequential bullshit to occupy the min
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped going to movies as much when they started showing commercials. How bout I just watch it at home for a fraction of the price and no commercials?
And as somebody here pointed out last winter, I would steal a car if I could download one.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind even having to pay the cost of raw materials at the usual market rates (as long as I'd know how much it'd cost upfront).
Of course the trouble with private industry trying to sell a perfect replicator is someone would buy two and it stops there
But a government or cooperative sponsored one should do ok.
A private company mig
Re: (Score:2)
Next time you get patronised to hell by one of these appallingly insulting adverts, walk out of the cinema and demand a refund because the content they're showing you is offensive to your nature. The next time your DVD tells you you're a stinking criminal financing heroin dealers and condoning child labour, return it to the store and demand a refund.
Will people hate you, and think you're weird? Sure. Will all o
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it? Yes, prison time for making a shaky cam recording of a film in a cinema is dumb. But what rights are you losing? How likely is it that the government is going to be voted out because it passed the law? How likely is it that enough members of the government who are senior enough perform the act that's being legislated against that they can get it quashed before it's passed?
Yes, stupid laws and stupid punishments serve to
No, what it really means is that... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can hear it now: "Patricia Neri was in office while the Liberals were in charge and they had 13 years to do something about it..." yada yada yada
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, is this actually the case? I've been trying to dig around for Ms. Neri's party affiliation, and I can't find anything in particular, though it appears she donated to the Liberal Party in '99, implying she is, in fact, a Liberal. I had just assumed that, given she was in a fairly prominent post in a major ministry, she was a member of the Conservative Part
Tags (Score:3, Funny)
Well, the good news is that ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't even respond to direct questions (Score:3, Informative)
I wrote to the then Minister and complained about the fact that Bill C-59 had been pushed through due to lobbying and against the wishes of Ministry Staff, and the opening line stated "I'm concerned that my government would succumb to the pressures of foreign lobby groups and you've now proven that I was worried with cause.".
I received a response from Bev Oda, then the Minister of Heritage, that in no way addressed the issue of lobbying that I raised. At no point did she mention my concerns about lobbyists, and clearly attempted to deflect the issue. I think I was mislead and I'm pissed!!
I know .. why should I expect to get an honest answer from a Conservative government? Because they promised ethics and transparency in government after the Sponsorship Scandal! Liars!
Re:Doesn't even respond to direct questions (Score:4, Informative)
From Bev Oda's wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]:
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:
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Doesn't even respond to direct questions (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Level of sacrifice? (Score:2, Funny)
But what if she's a complete dog? I think then you could actually start charging people with bribery and MPAA with pimping. Come to think of it, MPAAs methods aren't too far from those of a street pimp, though MPAA a
Re: (Score:2)
Is she that ugly and desperate?
And now, does Assistant Deputy Minister Jean-Pierre Blais
got the hots for her?
She should flat out be fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my honest opinion, it's when you start expecting politicians to always act like corrupt douchebags, that you will tend to get and keep corrupt douchebags as politicians - because it becomes accepted. Instead of an uproar over corru
Re:What it means... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
As for the gun deaths. Considering I had a classmate in high school who ran for gun dealers. The laws prevent nothing. They bring guns over the border and sell them illegally. You just don't hear about how many crimes are actually prevented by guns.
Re:What it means... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying the USA, which leads the first world in gun-related crime, would actually have more gun-related crime if we didn't have so many guns?
How's that work, exactly?
Yep (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that most other countries (e.g. like the UK) have a
I'm not sure by what logic you can think that the fact that gun crime still exists in those other countries buttresses your position.
Re: (Score:2)
Our point is that crime has to be looked at as a whole. We look at crime, not gun crime.
IE you look at murders commited by a gun. By that standard, Rwanda looked good.
I look at the murder rate, to include all means. By that standard, the USA looks pretty bad against most european countries, but we've looked bad throughout our history when good stats were kept.
We do look a lot better in plain violent cr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"In total, 3,995 people were shot, of whom about half (2,187) had minor wounds caused by air guns."
Re: (Score:2)
That many people are killed by guns in any major American city in a year.
I'm not sure what you think your point is, but you're not making it very well.
Oh, and your article mentioned 4000 people shot. Half of them were shot with
Re:What it means... (Score:4, Insightful)
How well do legal fire arms work well against APCs, Abrams, and Blackhawks?
You need fully automatic weapons, RPGs, and shaped charged explosive to defeat such vehicles (which Iraqi insurgents have) which are of course illegal to own in the United States.
I might be able to get lucky and shoot someone through the eye slits of their body armor, but the only use for the legal gun is to turn it on yourself when there is nothing else to live for.
In reality, I think the 2nd Amendment gave the States to have their own militias separate from Federal control. Of course now that is generally overlooked and all National Guard armies are under command of the President (which is horribly wrong in a peace time enviroment and Jefferson is powering a small generator in his grave right now through spinning)
If every state had its own militia fully armed it could defend itself from a national army, but sadly that is not the case.
As it stands now... The 2nd amendment is about as useful as the 1st in terms of getting respect from the government.
Re:What it means... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Another Canuck mentioned it too but I haven't notice that particular group. I notice lots of corprate interests groups buying your government off. I notice civil liberties slowly fading away. But have yet to see an interested militia kick out the corrupt. I did see your vice prez exercise his second amendment rights and shoot a "friend"... you have to something fierce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We do not need guns, because we make sure to elect governments that won't abuse us, and that keeps the crime rate very low, too. This is why we have free universal health-insurance.
We do not have a
Re: (Score:2)
You admit, "I am not sure what the basis of legality for copyrights in Canada is." Well then, quit giving advice. Since mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thousands and thousands of hits a minute... and the real interesting log events are just being drowned out
Somebody here was downloading videos about a bunch of guys in a prison before I got out the big s
Re: (Score:2)
Taking them out for romantic dinners? Buying them diamond jewelry? Giving them copious amounts of satisfying orgasms?
I'm willing to bet that this lobbyist is a former sex worker of some kind, hired specifically for this purpose. Not that it made any difference to the likes of Neri. Politicians and bureaucrats have been embroiled in corruption and sex scandals since time began.
On the bright side, it's nice to see that women now have