Canadian DMCA Won't Include Consumer Rights 192
An anonymous reader writes "As protests
mount over the Canadian DMCA, law professor Michael Geist is now reporting
that the government plans to delay addressing fair use and consumer
copyright concerns such as the blank media tax for years. While the
U.S. copyright lobby gets their DMCA, consumers will get a panel to
eventually consider possible changes to the law. Many Canadians
are responding today with a mass
phone-in to Industry Minister Jim Prentice to protest the policy
plans."
The tighter you clench your fist... (Score:4, Insightful)
(apologies to Lucas, et. al.)
Re:The tighter you clench your fist... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's so hard to talk on the phone with your teeth clenched like that.
Those pesky rights of citizens (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Government is an institution larger then any one person, powered by the wealthy. It's really hard for the common man to make a difference.
But, you can still try.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We had our version of the Republicans here when I was a kid... called them the Progressive Conservatives.
We killed that party so dead that the name hasn't been used in over a decade, and the Right-Wing political scene split in
Re: (Score:2)
Vote with your wallet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Support other creative artists who choose to license their work under Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] style licenses. My personal policy for one site I manage is that all article content must be CC licensed.
Most importantly, tell people about your views. Ordinary people on the street. People you work with. Anybody, everybody. You enjoy a system of government where you're allowed to speak your mind... that's sort of a "use it or lose it" proposition in my opinion.
Does this mean you should stop contacting your elected officials. Hell, no. But take your personal, proactive action of your own instead of just waiting around for your elected leadership to make good decisions for you.
Re:Vote with your wallet. (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that the EFF has some kind of presence up here, but we really need a Canadian group that can do the leg work in Ottawa. (As great as the EFF is, anything American based will be ignored.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely you jest. The RIAA and MPAA have no problems getting our politicians to listen to them.
The MPAA lobbied to get the anti-camcording bill pasted in record time, and the government seems to completely ignore [musiccreators.ca] Canadian musicians while listening to CRIA (which represents no Canadian labels).
Like most politicians, ours listen to money, regardless of where it comes from.
Contact info for MPs and news media (Score:2)
You can find a list of the main actors, plus contact information for members of Parliament and news organizations here [blogspot.com] (scroll down).
The most important person to contact is your MP. I've heard it's better to get him or her to forward your letter to the minister responsible (Jim Prentice) than it is to send it to Prentice directly. Doing both can't hurt. Paper mail and faxes are the best, though phone calls are good too. Don't forget to contact newspapers big and small. In all cases, be polite and to
Why Canada's Copyright Revision is Bad (Score:5, Informative)
But the machine is inflexible. It doesn't know whether it's ok for a student to copy a journal article, for a researcher to look for security or privacy flaws, for a Microsoft customer to play music on an iPod. So the software prevents activities which are otherwise perfectly legitimate and legal. Where copyright grants control over some uses of a work, this technology (DRM) grants control over all uses. And the U.S. version of this law, the DMCA, by banning all circumvention regardless of the purpose, makes that control inviolable.
That's the first problem.
The second problem is that to decode the content, this software must be present in every device that plays it back. It's in your cell phone. It's in your DVD player. It's in your computer. In order for the law to be effective, it forbids you to interfere with the operation of the devices you own. It becomes illegal to unlock your cell phone to use it with a different wireless provider. It becomes illegal to play DVDs on operating systems other than those made by Apple and Microsoft. The only one who can determine what your devices can and can't do is someone else. You lose control of your own property.
But that's not all.
Access must only be given to the right people (companies that make the technology - DVD players, operating systems, etc.) but not to the wrong people (you and me). Who decides? The answer must be a single company or organization. They make the rules about who can play back content - and who can encode content too. You can't publish protected music for the iPod without Apple's permission. You can't make a device to play it back without Apple's permission either. These companies and organizations have tremendous monopoly power. Control of the content requires control of the technology (and of our property), which becomes control of the market.
That control does not lie with artists, authors or musicians. In fact, because the technology is primarily American, it doesn't lie with Canadians at all. This law would place Canadian innovation and Canadian culture in a position of dependency relative to the United States.
That's only the part of the law we know about. There will be more.
Oh yes, I should mention - the copy prevention mechanisms don't work. They might stop you and me from making legitimate use of material, but they don't stop the serious pirates from profiting off someone else's work - after which ordinary folks can use those pirated copies, which, because they are digital, are perfect. This raises the question: are these technologies and laws really meant to stop piracy - are they really meant to benefit creators - or are they intended to consolidate the power of the monopoly and cartel positions of certain publishers and technology companies?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I could copy & paste that whole thing into an email to my MP, but I'm worried that you'll sue me for copyright infringement. :-) And if you put some javascript in there to prevent copying the text, well, I'd be in *big* trouble for circumventing it!
(Ok, I realise that /. isn't exactly big on copyright banalities, but it'd be nice if you *explicitly* said it was ok... you kind of implied it in the GP post, but it's not actually explicit.)
Feel free to use my text (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These laws do intend to stop piracy. The fact that they don't (and can't) do so is ignored by politician and citizen alike. The politician needs money to get elected (thus pandering to special, moneyed interests), and the citizen elected the politic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you might be able to get it into your local paper (maybe), but by-and-large, "the media" are the folks who benefit from these changes. The media IS the industry that's pushing for it! I guess acting local is the way to start, but I cannot honestly see a strong argument being put forth on national television.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets see how badly they want to lose the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only will they lose, but they will never get back into power again. Remember what we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sorry, here's the non-offensive version: (Score:3, Interesting)
See, dear mod, now you can mod me something other than flamebait, because I've removed all but all offensive material from m
Hrm (Score:2)
However, that said, if the Conservatives go ahead and find a way to push this through, there could well be ramifications to their entire party.
Re:Hrm-High Ranking??? (Score:2)
I thought high ranking meant he had power and others should fear him. You make it sound the other way around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But if he is high ranking it means that he is in a position to be made an example of. and making examples is pretty much what scares others into behaving.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Low/High ranking means nothing in Harper theocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
When some MP from maritime wanted a better deal for his area than was being offered (and the provincial gov't there wanted it as well), Harper threw him out of the party. Then under pressure, did the exact deal that MP wanted. When asked if the MP that was thrown out would be allowed to rejoin the party, Harper essentially said that he will *never* be part of his party ever again.
Or, he was saying that gov't would be accountable to its people and all other stuff, BS as it turns out. The day after he got a *minority*, he *appointed* a *non-elected* person to Senate *AND* into his cabinet!!! No one from the Conservative party disagreed even the former Reformers - quite sad.
Or, he said that global warming is not real. Then when public sentiment changed, so did he and now he proclaims that his party will somehow fit it now and that is a serious problem. Major flip-flopping there too. No one disagreed on that magic 1984-style switch.
Or, let's help the poor by cutting GST but screwing them with income taxes. Poor older people on fixed income are probably hardest hit here. Instead of drastic cuts in GST, he should have cut income taxes, but I guess it looks better if you pay $0.02 less on cup of coffee than $100 on a paycheck. The only people that disagreed were the conservatives - none were MPs.
One can go on and on here. While Liberals where in power, he said that Canada betrayed US by not going with the 2003 invasion (something that US didn't even want anyway). Now he said he never supported that. Essentially, Harper to Canada is like Bush to US. You disagree with him, and you are the enemy. He is always right. The only thing saving his butt right now is the giant surpluses that started when Paul Martin was the finance minister (good finance minister, very bad prime minister
So essentially, high ranking or low ranking in Harper gov't means nothing. You have to follow the Harper dogma or you'll be kicked out. Any criticism is NOT tolerated.
Will this DMCA pass? Depends. Depends if it gets a vote and that depends only if Harper wants it passed. If he does, it will go to a vote no matter what the Justice minister thinks. The only ones that can stop him are the opposition parties (its minority gov't) - fortunately Liberals are aiming for an election soon so it may be more effective trying to prod their Justice critic over this (or maybe even Dion?) than the Conservatives.
I would categorize my self as a definite fiscal conservative, but Harper is definitely NOT a conservative. He's as much of a conservative as Bush is, which is kind of sad.
PS. If you are not Canadian, this post probably has some references you do not understand. That is OK
Re:Low/High ranking means nothing in Harper theocr (Score:2)
What did you expect? You guys are as weird and dumb as the US "libertarians" who end up putting the freedom of capital ahead of the freedom of people.
Re:Low/High ranking means nothing in Harper theocr (Score:3, Interesting)
When some MP from maritime wanted a better deal for his area than was being offered (and the provincial gov't there wanted it as well), Harper threw him out of the party. Then under pressure, did the exact deal that MP wanted. When asked if the MP that was thrown out would be allowed to rejoin the party, Harper essentially said that he will *never* be part of his party ever again.
You could put any prime ministers name in above and it would still be materially correct. While Canada has a senate, it popula
Re: Harper theocracy (Score:2)
party when the merger was proposed.
For some unknown reason I wasn't
invited to vote on it, although
people who had just joined were.
Including people who had breached
the party constitution by simultaneously
being a member of the Reform party.
Draw you own conclusions, folks...
--dave
Matches Finland's dangerous precedent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for peer reviewed journals and scientists in agreement. Last I heard it was very detrimental to your career if you disagreed with global warming in any way. We have had reports of scientists losing their jobs, having their lives threatened, different credentials being threatened to be revoked and so on. It isn't like anyone is free to object un
Re: (Score:2)
However, I'm not exactly sure I can accept the idea of that article as being proof. I mean, what would you do if the US post office decided to do a study on drug dealers and asked "everyone who is a drug dealer" to fill out a form describing their acts of dealing drugs and mail it back to them. I know we aren't talking about dealing drugs but we are talking about ruining people's lives and so on.
While I will admit that the article seems through, it does mis
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. Well, yes it does diminish the validity of scientific debate. How are supposed to have an honest debate when people are in fear of their lives to say anything contrary to the standard position? However true or widespread that might not be doesn't really detract from the issue that some people might not be participating one a level necessary for objectivity.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice. For w minute there I was stating to wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust the people pushing the political agends which seems to be quite a bit of them. I don't trust the people who want to quite decent by labeling then "deniers" in comparison with Holocausts deniers or the people who want to set up death courts to have mock trials and kill non believers. I don't even trust those that associated with them, there seems to be a sort of brainwashing going on and people are getting sucked into the cult of global
Re: (Score:2)
Well, more or less, it comes down to why should we believe the organizations representing the thousands of scientist who have taken political stances. It isn't a matter of ten thousand scientist saying, This is happening and it is bad. It is scientist working for organizations saying it but the organizations are saying do this and that because it benefits us or some ideology we have adopted
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this stuff is out there. More common is that the people doing the peer review are the ones who get shut down because of some BigOil connections. They are the ones saying that X in this peer reviewed study isn't correct. But I understand what you are saying. If those people were able t
Re: (Score:2)
a note to the reader:
party discipline as the Canadian or Brit understands it doesn't exist in the United States.
"free" votes in Parliament are rare. strays are dead meat.
Whiners (Score:2, Troll)
What kind of expectation of special treatment is that? If consumers want rights they can pay for them just like everybody else!
Designed to fail? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I am surprised there is so much hubub over this because there is no way a divisive bill like this would pass in the current fractured parliament.
Bah! (Score:2)
All joking aside, this is absolute garbage. Trying to stop people from making money through copyright infringement, I.E. attacking actual criminals, including the organized kind is fine. Trying to make a criminal out of me and my friends because we pirate music and movies? No way. If they get this thing through, I'll vote just about anyone in who'll actually get rid of it. Even if that means putting up with the liberals for 11 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Sent to my MP, and the two ministers (Score:5, Informative)
I am writing as a resident of Vancouver and citizen of Canada.
I would like to express my strong opposition to the changes to Canadian copyright law being proposed.
Canadian laws must work for the benefit of all Canadians. Not for specific industries at the expense of everyday citizens, and especially not foreign-owned corporations.
Artists, musicians, filmmakers and performers have a right to profit from their creations. But digital technology and the Internet have revolutionized the production and distribution of media, rendering obsolete the physical products around which copyrighted works have been based in the past.
The burden is on publishers and creators to innovate and find ways to profit from their works that are acceptable to consumers and consistent with a world in which sharing media is free of cost and effort. It should not be the Government of Canada's role to prop up antiquated business models or forcibly subsidize industries that are unable to adapt to 21st Century realities. Crippling technology and placing onerous and chilling restrictions on the ability of citizens to communicate does not serve the public interest.
I am concerned that this new bill to change copyright law will favour industry and lacks any meaningful input from consumer groups or experts on modern copyright law such as Dr. Michael Geist (U of O). Any bill should consider first the rights and interests of the Canadian public and consumers, before US lobby groups or international bodies.
In the words of Canadian science-fiction author and writer Cory Doctorow, "The US's approach to enforcing copyright in the digital age has resulted in 20,000 lawsuits against music fans, technology companies being sued out of existence for making new multi-purpose tools, and has not put one penny into the pocket of an artist or reduced downloading one bit. The USA stepped into uncharted territory in 1998 with the DMCA and fell off a cliff -- that was reckless, but following them off the cliff is insane."
Thank-you.
Re:Sent to my MP, and the two ministers (Score:5, Interesting)
Snail mail of course.
And all Canucks out there, if you mail a letter to an MP - it does not require postage. Just drop it in the mail, and it gets delivered.
Where possible, choose snail mail over email, snail mail gets more attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful here... that's the kind of thinking that got the US into a mess with copyright laws. Copyright grants a limited monopoly, but that's not a right to a profit.
Mass Phone in! That was me, (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservative membership? What the hell? I was raised to consider that a person's political affiliation was a somewhat personal thing. Seems like most people I've known are like that... but then there are people all over the place "registering" as having a certain political affiliation? That seems pretty messed up to me. Way to make things just that much easier for your private rights as a citizen to be even more quickly eroded.
Should being active in politics be discouraged? I have a voice with a vote, but I have a louder voice as a party faithful registering dissent. My peer group(perhaps not my generation) is very openly political. I have lively but polite debates with all sorts of people. Speaking to an MP for 10 min likely has as much effect on democracy as 50 years of voting. Like it or not it's a human system. So i vote, I send letters, and i affiliate myself with the parties whose ideas i find most attractive. I affiliated
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, political involvement is great, I think a lot of people don't think about it, or avoid the topic too much. I understand though that it's just not something a lot of peoeple have interest in worrying about. Of course, then they don't really realize that ther
Two words: minority government... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I would be surprised if the bill even makes it out of committee because the minority Conservatives have to beg, borrow and steal support from any and all parties for any bill to become law; they are effectively politically neutered. This has created some rather unique partnerships over the last year, with the Conservatives finding support for some bills from such ideological enemies as the left wing NDP and the separationist Bloc Quebecois. The current Parliament has been limping along like this for too long and a political showdown is coming in the form of an election. The problem is the only other party that can challenge the Conservatives, the Liberals, are laboring under an ineffective leader, an essentially non-existent platform and a divided and disorganized membership.
Second, even without the dagger of a potential election hanging over it, this legislation will almost certainly be amended, picked apart and thoroughly scrutinized by the opposition and other parties looking to embarrass the Conservatives or score political points. This is where public furor will have the most effect. If the public and affected parties can hammer home the reality of what this bill is proposing, it will leave the committee stage with amendments to the most egregious portions of the bill. Regardless, I can't think of a single piece of legislation the Conservatives have introduced since they took power that has not come back from committee without amendments. They simply do not have the votes to overturn such changes.
I am not trying to be unrealistically optimistic here, but I just don't see a need to panic -- yet. Call, write or email your MP and let them know your opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See, now that Harper put it in the throne speech, he can do whatever he wants, and if the Liberals (and the other parties) oppose it, bang, election time, and the Liberals probably don't want to go to an election over copyright reform. See, the trick about Harper's throne speech gimmic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Magic 8-Ball says: I don't think so (Score:2)
If Harper and his cronies want to suggest supporting DMCA -sans any rights for voters - just to keep Hollywood happy is akin to a non-confidence vote, he's welcome to try that argument with voters.
I'm guessing that won't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The other parties are in such a mess that the Conservatives would easily win a majority if an election were called,
and they know it. They're just waiting for a time to call the election that won't annoy the voters too much.
Also, it's hard to convince the average person that a DMCA law is a bad thing, cause it's pitched as "protecting starving artists, no one would disagree with that, rig
Don't forget to cc Scott Brison (Score:2, Informative)
Here is the *REAL* page that counts. (Score:2, Informative)
LEGIS info -- 39th Parliament - 2nd session (from Oct. 16 on) House of Commons Government Bills [parl.gc.ca]
This is where you see the bills passed for the parliament review. As of now (Dec 7), there is no mention of any intellectual property/copyright bill.
This is a page to watch!
It's now mentioned now on the notice paper (Score:4, Insightful)
The bill was listed on the Parliamentary notice paper [parl.gc.ca] and scheduled to be introduced on Monday, though it may end up on Tuesday:
Who Needs Copyrighted Works? (Score:2)
Just don't buy any copyrighted stuff. Period. Just don't buy it. I rarely buy music. I don't pay for shows on TV and I don't go to the movies. It's not worth the aggravation and honestly, the product isn't all that great any more anyway.
Find something else to do. There's always booze.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, doesn't the US DMCA make it illegal to remove the infamous Sony Root Kit tro
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the DMCA is total crap, but its really becuase the guys that are pushing for it are in the same sort of boat as the old steam engine fireman trying to get a job on a diesel engine. You just don't need someone to shovel coal. It's just an artificial thing that isn't there. Copyright is about keeping someone with a printing press from printing the
My Letter (Score:3, Insightful)
---
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."
Other kinds of DMCA abuse is well-documented and widespread. A few simple Google searches (e.g. "DMCA abuse") very quickly turn up many sources of information. This legislation has been used to suppress reviews or opinions which are negative towards large companies -- technically, these should be handled as a civil lawsuit for slander or libel (if they are, in fact, untrue); however, many large corporations choose to invoke a DMCA takedown notice instead, as it forces the content hoster to take down the material immediately, rather than waiting for a judgement from a court of law. It is important to note that it is *corporations* that send these takedown notices, not the courts. Under this model, 'justice' is a distant wish.
There was some research done in 2005 by the University of South Carolina which showed that 30% of DMCA takedown notices sent by corporations were improper, and even potentially illegal (unfortunately, the document seems to have been taken offline, or moved, but the previous URL was http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/releases/2005/legalFlaws.html [usc.edu]). This is a stunningly high figure -- laws are traditionally written to ensure that there is an onus of proof before charges are filed, and that due legal process is followed. The rules of jurisprudence are critical to ensure the equitable operation of any society, but overly broad, overly powerful laws like the US DMCA allow companies with deep legal pockets to run rampant, and allows them to run a private campaign of fear and intimidation.
I wish to point out that I am not pro-piracy, but rather am opposed to legislation (and legislators) funded or supported by corporations. This is the very antithesis of a democracy, and is the current state in the US. Canada is already dangerously close to that abyss, and I do not wish to see us fall in completely.
*Original* creators of artistic works certainly desire to be paid for their works; it is for this reason that I attend live concerts, purchase T-s
I'm a published author, and laws against on-line c (Score:3, Informative)
My book, "Using Samba" is available free on-line, and
therefor attracts readers.
Because it's horribly bulky to print oneself, my readers
happily buy professionally printed copies from my publisher.
This caused the book to have been O'Reilly's best seller
for the quarter in which the first edition came out.
I do not wish the Government of Canada to restrict in any
way my freedom to distribute on-line copies, or to let
others, well meaning but without understanding, interfere in
my electronic distribution of the book. That blatantly
interferes with my making money from it.
Sincerely,
David Collier-Brown
Going at 2:30 for a group message: join us! (Score:3, Informative)
My proposal is to deliver one message and have everybody just walk out without asking questions or getting into debate. We'll leave behind a printed copy with names, addresses, phone numbers on it of people who couldn't be there. It's not a "petition", its just a threat. (Why mess around.) The proposed text I posted at the CUUG mailing list is:
Mr. Prentice, my companions and I are members or friends of the Calgary Unix Users Group,
basically an organization of mostly middle-aged computer professionals that operate and
program the kind of servers that run large corporations and the Internet itself. As
members of the high-tech industry, we have been monitoring the copyright debate for
over a decade now and we are all convinced that most industry-backed copyright
legislation is bad for the industry itself.
The same kind of people opposed radio 80 years ago because it 'gave away free music' and
the VCR 25 years ago when Jack Valenti infamously described it as being to Hollywood
what the Boston Strangler was to women. Your proposed legislation could easily damage
both hi-tech and artistic content industries alike as much as the proposed laws against
VCRs and radio would have if legislators of those times had been foolish enough to
enact them.
We see it as our duty as citizens, therefore, to let you know that if anything remotely
resembling this legislation is passed by this government that we will have to cast
aside all our former political preferences in favour of ending conservative party rule.
We are not talking about changing our votes. We are talking about donating to your strongest
opponents, fund-raising for those opponents, working for those opponents. Your own seat
here in Calgary is no-doubt safe, so we as rational engineers will of course devote our
efforts to seats where the conservative party is weakest. At our age and income, we can
simply afford to travel to those ridings at election times and devote a few vacation days to the
noble cause of firing you, if you do not reconsider this ill-advised legislation.
Thank you for your attention.
Message hand-delivered to the Minister (Score:2)
audience, taking questions.
It was an Xmas party, I think mostly with his supporters.
However, it was clear many others were there to talk copyright, (some "We Demand Fair Use"
posters left out in the hall.) and people were more or
less lined up to have a few minutes talk with him, and Prentice was taking them all on
at arm's length, eyeball-to-eyeball. Everybody was polite.
So we went with that, too. Four of us showed up. We w
Re:Canadian DMCA? (Score:5, Funny)
that's what, about 85% of the US DMCA?
You haven't seen the latest exchange rate. It's actually a bit more than 100% of a US DMCA.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Canadian DMCA? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
D00d
A real conservative has no truck with that "corporation" nonsense at all. A man is FULLY responsible for his actions. Creeping corporatism is the slippery slope to fascism!
Re: (Score:2)
So those Canadians who truly are conservatives, please vote for a party other than the so-called "Conservative" Party of Canada in future elections. They just aren't conservative in any way.
I for one have no intentions of voting for the Corrupt Party of Canada. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/281331 [thestar.com] and rememebr Harper (current PM) and Mulroney are the best of friends.
Her is a Canadian voters dilemma, Liberals are not different, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal [wikipedia.org]
Our government
Re:FIRST TROUT! (Score:5, Informative)
I plan on attending and srongly urge any fellow Calgarians to come to the open house.
Re: (Score:2)
Please Mod Parent Up
Re:FIRST TROUT! (Score:5, Informative)
1318 Centre Street NE, Suite 105, Calgary, AB
Website here: http://jimprentice.ca/ [jimprentice.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry forgot the address. Also remember to bring your donation to the food bank! You don't want to look like a bastard =)
1318 Centre Street NE, Suite 105, Calgary, AB
Website here: http://jimprentice.ca/ [jimprentice.ca]
I'll be there in spirit. The roads are way too slick for me to come down from Edmonton. But I made a call, sent a letter, and whispered stuff into the ears of the wife of a liberal senator....
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to check your calendars - it's Friday, December 7th.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Give 'em a break. They'll never get Statehood if they don't play by the rules!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How Wonderful Canada Is (Score:4, Insightful)
Canada is a wonderful country which is run by plutocrats rather like its counterpart to the South. The vast majority of the money and power is concentrated into a few hands. The social contract gives ordinary people a slightly better shake than their American counterparts get, but if you think it's a Utopian wonderland, you should really hang out there for a few years.
The wedge is simple. Billions (with a b) of dollars are transferred from the US film and television industries to Canada for making feature films and serials. Don't think for a moment that those who send that money up there haven't had a friendly word with their MP, PM, and Premier about how they feel about Canadian copyright law, and wouldn't it be a shame if all this film work wound up in Austin or Rhode Island?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Canada is a wonderful country which is run by plutocrats rather like its counterpart to the South. The vast majority of the money and power is concentrated into a few hands. The social contract gives ordinary people a slightly better shake than their American counterparts get, but if you think it's a Utopian wonderland, you should really hang out there for a few years.
Your statement is right on the money. Mod parent up.
For our American readers, imagine you get one vote for all of the US federal governme
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived in the US and in Canada. Because they are different countries and things are put together differently, it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, income taxes are a lot higher in Canada. Everyone knows that. However, while Americans with professional jobs and high salaries will tend to be W-2 (T-4) employees, their Canadian counterparts will frequently be independent cons
Re: (Score:2)
Once you've entered the middle class, you get shafted either way, and keep getting shafted until your net worth goes into the millions. What Canadians pay in taxes, Americans pay in fiddly supplemental fees and what not (example: I just wrote a $500 check to the PTA at my daughter's public school so that support staff can be paid, and books and whatnot can be bought. And no, I am not a particularly generous contributor to the school's fund).
That happens in Canada too. But the unions make sure the teacher
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like government officials?
Re: (Score:2)