Canada set to introduce copyright amendments to crack down on file sharing: [Archive]

acushla

03-27-2005, 06:05 AM

Friday, March 25, 2005

Those who enjoy swapping music, books and movies online might want to reconsider.

The federal government inched closer yesterday to cracking down on file sharing by announcing several proposed amendments to the Copyright Act.

The changes would include the signing of two World Intellectual Property Organization treaties and forcing Internet service providers to keep records of those who share high volumes of copyright-protected material like songs, movies and TV shows.

The amendments would "clarify that the unauthorized posting or the peer-to-peer file-sharing of material on the Internet will constitute an infringement of copyright," say documents released jointly yesterday by Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada.

"It will also be made clear that private copies of sound recordings cannot be uploaded or further distributed."

The reforms, which will be introduced in the House of Commons later this spring, would give the music industry greater power to stop such behaviour through the courts via lawsuits. Currently, it is not illegal in Canada to upload material to programs like Kazaa and BearShare.

"Clearly, once we get implementation there will be no doubt ... it will be illegal to engage in unauthorized file-sharing," said Graham Henderson, who heads the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which represents the country's record labels.

- excerpted from The Montreal Gazette.

Here is the link to the official Canadian Goverment website dealing with these new amendments.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/home.nsf/images/rp_banner_e.GIF/$FILE/rp_banner_e.gif

The Government of Canada Announces Upcoming Amendments to the Copyright Act

The Ministers of Industry and Canadian Heritage are pleased to announce on behalf of the Government of Canada that the drafting of amendments to the Copyright Act to address the challenges and opportunities of the Internet is underway with a view to introducing a bill in Parliament later this Spring.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incrp-prda.nsf/en/rp01140e.html

PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE...? YEAH...LIKE WE'RE ALL CHEERING.

A BIG step backward for Martin and his gang of criminals...er...I mean of Liberals. So much for Canada's 'enlightened reason'. Once again we'll play the role of follower rather than leader. When's the next election?

Shadowraven

03-27-2005, 07:00 AM

acushla

03-27-2005, 07:28 AM

I would guess that it was really just a matter of time. Money talks and it's certainly starting to talk to the Canadian government like it's already bought the US government. It's really a shame that people can't (or won't, from apathy) have more control over their own governments. The news seems to control the publics access to information enough to convince most of them that there is nothing wrong with this situation. I can only assume that is so when I see corporate interests so obviously hijacking my government and having most folks around me either not seeing it, or not seeing it as a problem! I often feel like I'm swimming upstream against the current, but I keep trying.

Boy...are you ever right on. You know...I must be really naive because I truly did not believe that the Canadian government would take this step. Now, before I go any further, there is (in my mind) one piece of silver lining to this otherwise depressing story. The silver lining is highlighted:

The changes would include the signing of two World Intellectual Property Organization treaties and forcing Internet service providers to keep records of those who share high volumes of copyright-protected material like songs, movies and TV shows.

My understanding of the law as it applies in Canada now does hinge upon the 'personal' use concept. The problem with the new legislation, of course, is now we have ISP's having to keep records of their subscribers Internet habits (something I assume they are not going to be too thrilled with...and might result in court challenges). If one was paranoid, which I personally am not...but that's based on the concept that the innocent have nothing to fear) it wouldn't be too difficult to make a case that a government could use the record keeping not as a way to see who's sharing copyrighted material...but to spy on it's citizens in other area of information.

As for people having more control over their governments...(I may have the exact facts of this story confused...but you will understand the essence of what I am saying)...marijuana was illegal in England and I know it was reported on Canadian news services early one winter that the British government had decided to legalize/decriminalize simple possession by the new spring. Why...because over 7 million people in Briton smoked herb every day and there just wasn't any point in having something illegal that everybody did anyway. It was a waste of everybody's time connected with law enforcement, not to mention resources...all of which could be put to much better use. Like fighting crime for one.

What if everybody simply ignored the law? They can't put us all in jail. Can they?

Sorry...I have to go now...there's somebody knocking on my door.

rorythedog

03-27-2005, 02:08 PM

Shadowraven, keep swimming. You are not alone.

Acushla - "England", "British", "Briton"? What's it to be? You might notice I NEVER refer to Canadians as "Americans". Or "Colonials". Hell, I don't even refer to US citizens as "Americans". Please try to get this right. You have no idea how irritating this is.

As to your final point though, you're perfectly correct. If we all break any given law then that law becomes unenforcable. I live my life like this. I decide what laws are good laws and which are bad. Not my government, and certainly not someone else's.

acushla

03-27-2005, 03:03 PM

Acushla - "England", "British", "Briton"? What's it to be? You might notice I NEVER refer to Canadians as "Americans". Or "Colonials". Hell, I don't even refer to US citizens as "Americans". Please try to get this right. You have no idea how irritating this is.

Hmmm...first of all I assure you it is NEVER my intent to irritate anyone...as I am certain you know. :cool:

Not that I suppose this makes any difference or has any relavence...but I was born in Plymouth, England...which I think makes me an Englishman and/or a British Citizen.. When I write British Government it is because I don't think it is correct to say English Government...I might be wrong...but I don't think so. Not this time. As for Britain, well that would've/shoud've been used in the context of including not only England, but Wales, Scotland and all lands that make up Great Britain.

It would seem to me that as long as I am using each of these words/terms in their proper context then there would be little cause for you to get irritated. Am I missing something here?

And yes...if you WANT to irritate me (or Roj or anybody else that shows the Red and White of the Maple Leaf) then go ahead...call us Americans. As an Englishman living under British law... just make certain your door is locked at night in your home in Great Britain We Americans will be coming! (HaHaHa) :ponder:

rorythedog

03-27-2005, 03:31 PM

"When I write British Government it is because I don't think it is correct to say English Government...I might be wrong...but I don't think so.". Generally speaking you are correct. However, this law (decriminalization) has been imposed by a British government on the people of England & Wales, not Scotland. Here it's just as illegal as it ever was.

"As for Britain, well that would've/shoud've been used in the context of including not only England, but Wales, Scotland and all lands that make up Great Britain." Correct. But you didn't say Britain, you said BRITON. Which as far as I'm aware is something to do with the Invaders of England who I think came from what is now called France.

"It would seem to me that as long as I am using each of these words/terms in their proper context then there would be little cause for you to get irritated. Am I missing something here?". Yes, you are. See above.

"And yes...if you WANT to irritate me (or Roj or anybody else that shows the Red and White of the Maple Leaf) then go ahead...call us Americans. As an Englishman living under British law... just make certain your door is locked at night in your home in Great Britain We Americans will be coming!" Why would I want to irritate Canadians? As some people here know, I am in fact Canadian. I have a Canadian passport, not a British one. And I don't want a British passport, thank you very much.

To clear up confusion, the reason you see a Scottish Saltire next to my name is because I've spent 39 years of my life here, so I guess that makes me a Scot. For what it's worth. I could have had, and in fact still could, a British passport. It's my choice not to have one. But when my fellow countrymen get their colective fingers out of their arses I'll be delighted to proudly carry a Scottish passport. :ninja:

acushla

03-27-2005, 04:16 PM

BRITON?

This one’s easy…DAMM MY SPELL CHECK!

However, this law (decriminalization) has been imposed by a British government on the people of England & Wales, not Scotland.

Well…I did say: I may have the exact facts of this story confused...but you will understand the essence of what I am saying)...How was I to know Scotland wasn’t included? By the way…my mother’s maiden name was Mackintosh…and since I was born a bastard (I have my excuse…what’s yours? :cool: ) legally I could have been a Scotsman. (Or ‘out of wedlock’ as the proper mannered would have referred to it.)

"And yes...if you WANT to irritate me (or Roj or anybody else that shows the Red and White of the Maple Leaf) then go ahead...call us Americans. As an Englishman living under British law... just make certain your door is locked at night in your home in Great Britain We Americans will be coming!" (hahaha)

This was purely presented as a joke to illustrate that I fully empathized with one feeling irritated…surely the 'hahaha' gave it away? Not to mention my using all three terms in the same sentence. That was by design you know.

Once a British Subject…always a British Subject. Personally I travel on a EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Passport for the simple reason that it makes travel throughout Europe just that much easier.

I hope you're not offended. (hahaha)

Cool.

Roj

03-27-2005, 05:07 PM

Friday, March 25, 2005

Those who enjoy swapping music, books and movies online might want to reconsider.

Petition time to kill this s**t. When Sherer said she was going to do this a year ago, a form letter was sent around and her email mailbox was flooded. It's time for another demonstration of ire. I helped disseminate that letter back then (this should come as no surprize to anyone) and if someone comes up with one, I'll do so again.

Canadians need to unite against the thieving thugs known as the MPAA and RIAA and their self-sponsored legislation and let our government know that we are NOT willing to adopt those methods employed south of the border.

As an aside, I was born a British subject as Jamaica had not yet gained its independence before I shuffled onto this Mortal Coil.

acushla

03-27-2005, 05:33 PM

Petition time to kill this s**t.

I’m in. What can I do to help. (I’m good with bottles, liquids, rags and matches.)Or whatever.

I was born a British subject as Jamaica had not yet gained its independence before I shuffled onto this Mortal Coil.

Oh yes…Jamaica…what pleasant dreams I have of time spent in Treasure Beach, Port Antonio, Browns Town, Black River, Mandeville, St. Ann's Bay and of course the obligatory Ocho Rios…to name but a few. When people ask me if I have any children and I tell them ‘Not that I know of…’ my mind immediately thinks about Jamaica. (hahaha)

Shadowraven

03-29-2005, 05:48 AM

acushla

03-29-2005, 10:21 AM

I'd help you if I could, but Lord knows I've got my hands full with just my own government. The clowns that run the U.S. are so far up the industry's a** they're probably a tickle in it's throat. There's very little they wouldn't do to kowtow to industry demands.

Easy there big fellow...but I know what you mean. Every two or three years you hear about meetings between non-elected officials representing both our countries respectfully getting together to see how things between us might be made better. Us translates as Industry and Big Business. Four years ago after a round of these meetings certain people were predicting a common currency...apparently it is difficult for business to anticipate costs associated with long term business planning when they do not know what the exchange rate is going to be at any given time. After the last round of meetings, which wrapped up about two weeks ago, the buzz was that we were going to have an 'open' border. This would mean that goods would flow back and forth much quicker than they do now as there would no longer be any custom inspections.

To me...on the surface...this all seems quite logical and sensible...but I have spoken to many of my counterparts here in Canada who absolutely reel at the idea that our currency is going to be the same as the U.S....usually citing 'sovereignty' as the main reason. I on the other hand point out that if our 'sovereignty' is based on having a currency of our own...then we are all in trouble. If you know what I mean.

I think the fact that I've lived in both countries gives me a different perspective and understanding of things than somebody who has only lived in Canada and ends up jumping on the 'We dislike those bad Americians' bandwagen that the media seems to exploit. It's mindless and based on no personal experience or learning about issues to come to your own conclusion. A person who has read and studied and learned something about the issues who concludes that AmericansbandwagonAmericans are 'bad'...that's one thing. To simply read somewhere that they are 'bad' and go around like a parrot repeating that every opportunity they had...that's entirely different.

I've had similar reactions (OK...here we go) when I state that I feel that Canada...as a part of North America...should support the missile shield. (OK...ok...some of you must be thinking..oh...he doesn't really think that...he just wants to liven up the forum. Isn't that right. Roj?) The truth is I do believe this. Why is this any different from NATO? It isn't...it's just this years model...that's all. I've had Canadians (I'm really popular!) tell me it has nothing to do with them. Nobody is aiming nuclear missiles at us...so what do we care? Well...I think we would probably care if one or two or three were to go off in New York, Washington (how far South can I go.) The wind, for one, knows no boundary.

OK...got to go now.

Roj

03-29-2005, 10:34 AM

To me...on the surface...this all seems quite logical and sensible...but I have spoken to many of my counterparts here in Canada who absolutely reel at the idea that our currency is going to be the same as the U.S....usually citing 'sovereignty' as the main reason. I on the other hand point out that if our 'sovereignty' is based on having a currency of our own...then we are all in trouble. If you know what I mean.

Apart from the obvious economic issues inherent in doing that (take a good look at the way adopting the Euro adversely affected the standard of living of some of the countries that got on that bandwagon - Italy comes simmediately to mind as an example), I personally would abhor becoming a chattel of the U.S., economic or otherwise. A common currency would be just the first step on a long and ultimately unpleasant road because after that single frist step, what others would follow? A door would be opened in principle that could never be closed.

No thanks.

acushla

03-29-2005, 10:56 AM

Apart from the obvious economic issues inherent in doing that (take a good look at the way adopting the Euro adversely affected the standard of living of some of the countries that got on that bandwagon - Italy comes immediately to mind as an example), I personally would abhor becoming a chattel of the U.S., economic or otherwise. A common currency would be just the first step on a long and ultimately unpleasant road because after that single Frost step, what others would follow? A door would be opened in principle that could never be closed.

No thanks.

You know...I believe I understand where you are coming from. What I want to ask you is this: when you write that 'I personally would abhor becoming a chattel of the U.S., economic or otherwise' I would suggest that the only difference then as opposed to now would be no difference at all. Oh...except for the fact our money looked different. I think what I'm saying is, rightly or wrongly, the time of us becoming a chattel of the U.S. passed a long time ago. To cling to some misguided illusion that 'it just isn't so' is sheer folly. It's time we took our head out of the sand and started looking at reality and deciding how we can use it to forge a better future for ourselves.
Your turn.

madjo

03-29-2005, 11:03 AM

Apart from the obvious economic issues inherent in doing that (take a good look at the way adopting the Euro adversely affected the standard of living of some of the countries that got on that bandwagon - Italy comes simmediately to mind as an example), I personally would abhor becoming a chattel of the U.S., economic or otherwise. A common currency would be just the first step on a long and ultimately unpleasant road because after that single frist step, what others would follow? A door would be opened in principle that could never be closed.

No thanks.
The Euro was indeed a bad idea from the start... though I am not in favour of returning to the old situation, because it can't be done.

Also combining Canada and the US to one nation (which that would probably lead to) is a bad idea. Over the world Canada has a much better image than the US has. And if only the "industry" is behind this, and not the people of Canada, there is no good reason... Sadly it is the industry in most western countries that get to set the goals, and not the people (although these countries claim to be democracies)

Roj

03-29-2005, 11:22 AM

You know...I believe I understand where you are coming from. What I want to ask you is this: when you write that 'I personally would abhor becoming a chattel of the U.S., economic or otherwise' I would suggest that the only difference then as opposed to now would be no difference at all. Oh...except for the fact our money looked different. I think what I'm saying is, rightly or wrongly, the time of us becoming a chattel of the U.S. passed a long time ago. To cling to some misguided illusion that 'it just isn't so' is sheer folly. It's time we took our head out of the sand and started looking at reality and deciding how we can use it to forge a better future for ourselves.
Your turn.

Ahhhh, but we are different. Our political structures are different. Our ideals are different. Our approach to world issues is THANKFULLY *vastly* different. The very fact that this thread exists indicates our differences and the fact that we are NOT chattels to the extent you claim. We still respect the privacy and consumer rights of our citizens while they have LONG since passed beyond that point. Our Privacy Act (the US doesn't have one although Gramm-Leach-Bliley pretends to be in comparison), the lack of an overriding Patriot Act and DMCA and our approach state-sponsored health care (they have none) are shining examples of those differences. Our gun laws are different - we have no misguided and outdated "right to bear arms" nonsense. How long would it be before economic coercion (greater and more open that that which already takes place) would be brought to bear to "Americanize" Canada and force it to adopt "concessions" in those areas?

You see, I lived in the States for a while - the differences between our two cultures are stark and obvious to anyone who has ever done so. Those differences are what make it imperative that such a step not take place, especially in light of a foreign policy that "doesn't know here to stop" and is closely linked to economic clout when it comes to meddling in other people's affairs (I do believe the world recently received in the Middle East an object lesson in that profit-driven policy).

Quite frankly, if that happened I would pack up and find somewhere else to live.

Roj

03-29-2005, 11:28 AM

The Euro was indeed a bad idea from the start... though I am not in favour of returning to the old situation, because it can't be done.

Also combining Canada and the US to one nation (which that would probably lead to) is a bad idea. Over the world Canada has a much better image than the US has. And if only the "industry" is behind this, and not the people of Canada, there is no good reason... Sadly it is the industry in most western countries that get to set the goals, and not the people (although these countries claim to be democracies)

You make my point for me very eloquently. And yes, once a step of that magnitude is made, it cannot be un-made - it's a one-way trip.

Hence, we should not ever remotely consider making it.

rorythedog

03-29-2005, 11:31 AM

If Canada ever did go down this road then I won't be coming back.

As for NATO, a sizeable chunk of the population on this side of the Atlantic would be mighty glad to see the back of it. It's a complete waste of money. The biggest threat to the US lies WITHIN it's own borders, not outside. That's a myth. A myth propogated to support the ever-increasing demands of the corporate military that is prevalent in the US and the UK.

The Euro has raised the standard of living in more European countries than it has lowered. Italy's problems at the moment are down to corruption at the very highest level in the Italian government. Step forward Senor Berlusconi. Although in his defense he's only the latest in a long line of corrupt politicians to preside in Italy.

Finally, I'm getting tired of this line, and you've used it here Acushla, that says that the damage was done long ago and so we should all get on board and sing from the same hymn sheet. Bollocks!

Maybe I'm an idealist, but I prefer to aim high. It's what makes life worth living.

acushla

03-29-2005, 01:20 PM

Ahhhh, but we are different. Our political structures are different. Our ideals are different. Our approach to world issues is THANKFULLY *vastly* different. The very fact that this thread exists indicates our differences and the fact that we are NOT chattels to the extent you claim. We still respect the privacy and consumer rights of our citizens while they have LONG since passed beyond that point. Our Privacy Act (the US doesn't have one although Gramm-Leach-Bliley pretends to be in comparison), the lack of an overriding Patriot Act and DMCA and our approach state-sponsored health care (they have none) are shining examples of those differences. Our gun laws are different - we have no misguided and outdated "right to bear arms" nonsense. How long would it be before economic coercion (greater and more open that that which already takes place) would be brought to bear to "Americanize" Canada and force it to adopt "concessions" in those areas?

You see, I lived in the States for a while - the differences between our two cultures are stark and obvious to anyone who has ever done so. Those differences are what make it imperative that such a step not take place, especially in light of a foreign policy that "doesn't know here to stop" and is closely linked to economic clout when it comes to meddling in other people's affairs (I do believe the world recently received in the Middle East an object lesson in that profit-driven policy).

Quite frankly, if that happened I would pack up and find somewhere else to live.

I agree with EVERYTHING you say...and I did not suggest that one of those things would change. I don't believe I indicated the extent of the fact (a fact you seem to acknowledge) that we are chattels. What I did say was that the colour of our money would change. Think about it. The colour of our money wound change. Period. Now we won't have to change the colour when we need to (and business and industry seems to need to a lot) because it will already be that colour. Works for me. Nobody said anything about Health Care. Nobody said anything about the Privacy Act. Nobody said anything about our gun laws being different. The colour of our money will be different. Simple. To reject change based on the fear of things that 'could' happen would mean there would never be any change.

Roj

03-29-2005, 02:26 PM

What I did say was that the colour of our money would change. Think about it. The colour of our money wound change. Period.

No. As in Europe, there is a disparity between US and Canadian currency in terms of value. that means our standard of living would be affected since I hardly think there would be a one-to-one parity in such a change.

Nobody said anything about Health Care. Nobody said anything about the Privacy Act. Nobody said anything about our gun laws being different. The colour of our money will be different. Simple. To reject change based on the fear of things that 'could' happen would mean there would never be any change.

Those are the promises that would be made and that's how it would start.

You'll ecuse me if I say that it would not end up quite that way.

Recent (and past - several decades worth of "past") world events have taught the planet in no uncertain terms that the US government cannot be trusted in a political setting, especially where economic interests (oil comes immediately to mind) are involved.

Did I mention that Canada has a LOT of natural resources?

acushla

03-29-2005, 09:26 PM

Did I mention that Canada has a LOT of natural resources?

According to some article I read a couple of years ago we may have a lot of natural resources...most of which we now don't own. I wish I could quote the source of that statement but I do remember being incredulous and angry at the time I was reading it. Seems to me that Japan was mentioned more than once. Any idea what I am referring to?

It does seem to me that the one resource we have that we do own is water. Let's hope we don't give that away.

Roj

03-30-2005, 02:24 PM

According to some article I read a couple of years ago we may have a lot of natural resources...most of which we now don't own. I wish I could quote the source of that statement but I do remember being incredulous and angry at the time I was reading it. Seems to me that Japan was mentioned more than once. Any idea what I am referring to?

It does seem to me that the one resource we have that we do own is water. Let's hope we don't give that away.

Not really other than the observation that Far Easterners bought up huge chunks of Alberta and BC...

Roj

03-30-2005, 11:17 PM

Friday, March 25, 2005

Those who enjoy swapping music, books and movies online might want to reconsider.

OK fellow illustrious Canucks:

I've drafted a letter to the Minister concerned and am having it looked at by a lawyer. When he gets back to me in a couple of days (likely on the weekend), I'm going to post it here.

I would like all Canadians reading this to download the letter, and either sign it and send it to the Minister via snail mail or send it to the Minister's email address (I'll do my best to look those two addresses up and add them to the post with the letter).

Furthermore, it would be optimal if you would disseminate the latter as widely as possible to fellow Canadians (post it on other boards you participate on, IRC, IM, email your friends, etc.), urging them to both send and propagate it as well in the way that you hopefully will.

This is CANADA and it should not be ruled by conglomerates or small special interest lobby groups. Take a lesson from what is happening south of the border and in other countries and put a stop to that foolishness HERE before it starts.

Remember, they need US to get elected.

Stay tuned...

acushla

03-31-2005, 04:57 AM

OK fellow illustrious Canucks:

I've drafted a letter to the Minister concerned and am having it looked at by a lawyer. When he gets back to me in a couple of days (likely on the weekend), I'm going to post it here.

I would like all Canadians reading this to download the letter, and either sign it and send it to the Minister via snail mail or send it to the Minister's email address (I'll do my best to look those two addresses up and add them to the post with the letter).

Furthermore, it would be optimal if you would disseminate the latter as widely as possible to fellow Canadians (post it on other boards you participate on, IRC, IM, email your friends, etc.), urging them to both send and propagate it as well in the way that you hopefully will.

This is CANADA and it should not be ruled by conglomerates or small special interest lobby groups. Take a lesson from what is happening south of the border and in other countries and put a stop to that foolishness HERE before it starts.

Remember, they need US to get elected.

Stay tuned...

I have taken my blanket and packed some food and some bottled water and have taken up watch over my email server awaiting your letter. As soon as it arrives I will follow your instructions to the letter. Remember people, 'Together...we can!' If that should fail we could always resort back to various talents we might have. Like glass bottles, various liquids, rags, and matches. Then of course our motto would be 'By any means necessary.'

Seriously though...good for you Roj...I respect and admire people who act upon their beliefs and put the effort in to determine what course of action to take in order to exert some meaningful influence on an outcome... as opposed to people who simply complain but do nothing.

If you would like help in the financial area I'm sure people here in the forum won't mind if we take some of the money gathered for the purchase of your speakers and redirect it towards this cause. How much money do we have anyway?

If financial donations would make a difference...tell us about it.

Shadowraven

03-31-2005, 05:32 AM

Roj, I have to applaud you. You're right when you say your fellow Canuck's shouldn't just sit on their collective behinds and let it happen. It's that same kind of apathy that has helped put this country (the U.S.) into such a mess. I try, but I wish I could find more people in this country who would be committed enough to FORCE a change. Unfortunately there are too many thick-headed people here, that are way too comfortable in their own personal life, to see that a change HAS to be made. They don't want to have to make even a small sacrifice for the common good. If something needs to be done and they find out that they'll be inconvenienced, then they want nothing to do with it. Not everyone is like this, but alot of the people I'm around are. These people are too blind to see what is happening right under their noses, mainly, I think, because they don't want to see it.

So Canuck's, take it from an American, don't go our way. You won't like it.

Now some of you might think from reading my comments that I hate my country. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love my country and what I think it is capable of. If I didn't I wouldn't have joined the military. I just dislike the people running the government. They make me ashamed of what my country is doing to the world and it's own citizens. Right now good men are losing their lives in Iraq to satisfy some need of Dubya and his friends. I support our troops, but I don't support the government that sent them. I still remember the waste of lives that Vietnam was and we don't need that again.:(

Sorry about going off on that tangent, I just wanted to explain myself.

acushla

03-31-2005, 05:39 AM

Sorry about going off on that tangent, I just wanted to explain myself.

...and we're glad that you do explain yourself...and very well by the way. I don't think you ever need to apologize for it...that's what forums are for!

acushla

04-23-2005, 03:55 AM

p2pnet.net News:- In the US, the entertainment industry has succeeded in pressuring Congress to the extent that a bill which equates file sharing with manslaughter only awaits president George W. Bush's signature (http://p2pnet.net/story/4617).

In Canada, “Producing the identities of Internet users alleged of wrongdoing happens so regularly, says a lawyer for Videotron, that he's bewildered as to why other ISPs are fighting a motion from the music industry to hand over the names of people who share large volumes of songs online.”

So says the intro to a Canadian Press (http://entertainment1.sympatico.msn.ca/Music/MusicNews/ContentPosting.aspx?contentid=b4b2675ddc17492da8e4 4dca9c1684ae&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc) story on yesterday’s hearing in which the Big Four record labels attempted to convince three justices to overturn a previous Canadian court ruling to force Canadian ISPs to hand over the IP addresses of 29 customers (http://p2pnet.net/story/4584).

The court is now considering the submissions.

In the meanwhile, Videotron has always been more than happy to oblige the corporate music cartel in its efforts to introduce its anti-p2p, anti-file sharing sue 'em all campaign into Canada.

"We do it on a regular basis,” CP quotes company lawyer Serge Sasseville as saying, referring to the disclosure of personal information hidden by IPO addresses.

"It's irresponsible, and many believe to be a violation of privacy rights under a Canadian law called The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), to disclose peronal information of customers to third parties without a court order," says Digital Copyright Canada (http://www.digital-copyright.ca/)'s Russell McOrmond.

"That court order will require that the party disclose evidence of wrongdoing, and the CRIA member in this case (BMG) didn't provide that evidence.

"If it's something that's done on a regular basis, then they'd understand that evidence would be required to get past PIPEDA."

Videotron's eagerness to accommodate the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America) isn't surprising owned, as it is, by Quebecor.

For more go here: http://p2pnet.net/story/4619

Roj

04-23-2005, 04:12 AM

acushla

04-23-2005, 04:57 AM

Videotron's admission leaves them open to lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit by their customers. They can go do the anatomically impossible as far as I'm concerned and PIPEDA is gonna roast those bastards alive.

I returned to p2pnet.net and found this story, which contained a number of Revelations I was not aware of.

A request for investigation has been filed against Viralg and BMG Finland by a Finnish musician. The musician, Pekka Sallinen has asked both the police department of Helsinki as well as the National Bureau of Investigation to investigate whether the use of technology developed by Viralg and used by BMG Finland is illegal.

Specifically Mr Sallinen asks the police to investigate whether or not the companies are in violation of the Finnish criminal law which strictly prohibits any kinds of interference with telecommunications. Viralg manufactures and markets a product which, according to them, breaks P2P downloads by injecting "bad data" to people downloading copyrighted material. According to Viralg, BMG Finland has been successfully using their technology since 2003.

Even though Viralg's technique of faking file hashes works only with some of the old peer-to-peer applications, such as Kazaa, it is nevertheless illegal to take matters into one's own hands when fighting against copyright infringements. Furthermore, downloading or copying music and video files for personal use via P2P networks (or any other means) is still perfectly legal in Finland. In his request for investigation Mr Sallinen reminds the investigators that action should be taken before companies take up a habit in defending their rights by illegal means.

__________________________________________________ _______________

I have heard it said that the Christian right fanatics have groups who make it their mandate to place viruses in as many adult xxx downloads as they can.

Judging from friends of friends of friends who knows somebody...they are doing a pretty good job.

For the record...I NEVER go anywhere near those sites. Anymore. XXX is very, very inexpensive in Toronto. Not that makes any difference. I still wouldn't visit.

The truth is I never put much stock in the story about the Christian right...but now I'm not so sure.

Shadowraven

04-23-2005, 07:58 AM

p2pnet.net News:- In the US, the entertainment industry has succeeded in pressuring Congress to the extent that a bill which equates file sharing with manslaughter only awaits president George W. Bush's signature (http://p2pnet.net/story/4617).

Only in America.

'nuff said.

Yeah, that's great for you guys, but not so great for those of us that live here. Good old America, land of the free and home of the rich. At least from the way I see it. Regular folks long ago lost control of their government to the corporate elite. The trouble is that there so few people here that reconize that fact, so we just keep rollin' on down that track. If the cretins would just wake up and realize what's going on we could retake control again. Unfortunately I don't hold out much hope for that happening anymore. To tell you the truth I've begun to feel like Sisyphus. I feel like I'll never have an effect on the twits around me, but I'll keep trying. I never did know when to quit, I'm too damn stubborn. My wife says it's my heritage (German/Irish) that makes me like that.

The story you linked to is scary, but not surprising. With the corporate yes man we have in the White House I hold no illusions about whether that particular piece of delightfullness will pass or not. I already know it will. Everything else they wanted already has, what would make this any different? The idiots around me can't see that they are having their civil liberties removed one-by-one without a fight. Disgusting!

Qaz

04-24-2005, 05:04 PM

Furthermore, downloading or copying music and video files for personal use via P2P networks (or any other means) is still perfectly legal in Finland.
How long it's going to be is a whole new matter then...

acushla

01-01-2006, 11:03 PM

Earth to Roj...earth to Roj...come in Roj.

Bulte (Canadian MP) gets big entertainment bucks, promises new copyrights
Sam Bulte, the Canadian Liberal Party MP for Parkdale/High Park is having her election campaign bankrolled by the Canadian entertainment cartel. Bulte previously authored a one-sided report proposing crazy, US-style copyright laws for Canada, and now her pals from the Canadian Recording Industry Association are throwing her a $250/plate fundraiser -- just the kind of high-ticket event that the poor artists Bulte claims to represent can't afford to attend. Instead, expect this dinner to be stacked with industry fat-cats.

Bulte fired off an angry letter to the Toronto Star in 2004 when columnist Michael Geist outed her for leading the effort to rewrite Canadian copyright laws after collecting big donations from the entertainment industry. Here she is again, though: hoovering up giant corporate bucks while campaigning to deliver just the kind of copyright laws that will make crooks out of ordinary Canadians and line the pockets of massive, US-owned entertainment companies.
The sponsors of this event, to be held four days before the election?

* Doug Frith (President of Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association)* Graham Henderson (CRIA President)* Jackie Hushion (Executive Director of the Canadian Publishers Council)* Danielle LaBoisserre (Executive Director of the Entertainment Software Alliance) and* Stephen Stohn (DeGrassi producer).

Within the boundaries of the Election Act, MPs are of course free to fundraise any way they like and individual Canadians are free to contribute to those same MPs. However, with the public's cynicism about elected officials at an all-time high and Canadians increasingly frustrated by a copyright policy process that is seemingly solely about satisfying rights holder demands, is it possible to send a worse signal about the impartiality of the copyright reform process?

So, Roj...still going to vote Liberal?

Roj

01-02-2006, 02:15 PM

Earth to Roj...earth to Roj...come in Roj.
Not gonna matter.

Pretty obvious at this point that the Liberals aren't gonna win the election. The last scandal with insider trading (RCMP investigation pending) and the dirty pool campaign allegations pretty much killed them.

The good thing is that Harper won't abolish gay marriage (which will of course drive the terminally self-righteous holier-than-thou "moral majority" weenies into a mouth-foaming frenzy - HUGE chuckle) but it remains to be seen how far he shoves his head up Washington's butt.

I guess we'll just have to see.

On a related note, I see FRANCE has legalized file sharing, thus setting yet another precedent the RIAA doesn't want to see happen.

acushla

01-02-2006, 05:10 PM

The good thing is that Harper won't abolish gay marriage (which will of course drive the terminally self-righteous holier-than-thou "moral majority" weenies into a mouth-foaming frenzy - HUGE chuckle) but it remains to be seen how far he shoves his head up Washington's butt.

I guess we'll just have to see.

To address the 'gay marriage' issue...NOBODY, including Harper, can abolish gay marriage. In fact, it cannot even be called upon as a 'free' vote in Parliament. 'Gay marriage' is the law in Canada and protected under the Charter. End of story.

As for the Conservatives and their 'head up Washington's butt' I confess, I do not know myself what the answer to that is. I will tell you this though...I would rather our head up their ass than for us to be constantly poking them with a big stick.

Finally...I nearly fell off my chair when you predict the Liberals losing...I am a Conservative (duh) and wish I shared your optimism.

21 more days.

Roj

01-02-2006, 06:39 PM

To address the 'gay marriage' issue...NOBODY, including Harper, can abolish gay marriage. In fact, it cannot even be called upon as a 'free' vote in Parliament. 'Gay marriage' is the law in Canada and protected under the Charter. End of story.

...except when the Notwithstanding Clause is invoked.

Guess you forgot that.

As for the Conservatives and their 'head up Washington's butt' I confess, I do not know myself what the answer to that is. I will tell you this though...I would rather our head up their ass than for us to be constantly poking them with a big stick.

Hell no - keeps the blackguards honest.

Finally...I nearly fell off my chair when you predict the Liberals losing...I am a Conservative (duh) and wish I shared your optimism.

I can't escape reality. That last scandal of insider trading and the nastiness the Liberals are trying in their campaign (so unerringly typical of the underhanded slime the Conservatives did in THEIR last campaign - which of course cost them the election) is not exactly a forthcoming proposition.

acushla

01-02-2006, 08:26 PM

...except when the Notwithstanding Clause is invoked.

Guess you forgot that.

I'm sorry, I thought you knew:

Ottawa—Constitutional experts reiterate that for Parliament to follow Stephen Harper’s plan to eliminate the right of same sex couples to marry would require the use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause. Now that Mr. Harper has ruled out use of the notwithstanding clause, he has no legal way to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage.

Harper made his position very clear during the 1st Leaders Debate in Vancover.

Either you aren't reading much about the election and where the two primary party leaders stand on various issues...or the media is doing a very poor job of reporting the end to issues that help sell their newspapers.

I suspect...no, wait a minute...I KNOW it is the latter. With the exception of the:cool: National Post of course, and I KNOW you don't read that!:foureyes: ;) :)

Roj

01-02-2006, 08:38 PM

No, I'm not reading much about the election, mostly because I have little confidence in any of the parties. I marginally watched the "debates" and quickly becamse aware that the only contender I liked was Duceppe. Why? Because he was the only one with any conviction or gonads. If we could have a party that would stand up for CANADA the way the Bloc stands up for that misbegotten whiny Province only, I'd vote for it in a hot second.

As it stands...

rorythedog

01-02-2006, 08:47 PM

Roj

01-02-2006, 08:51 PM

Take heart Roj. You don't need to be in Canada to feel disenchantment with your political system.

Another year slips by and nothing changes. :cool:
'tis a sad sad comment on our times, my friend. :(

acushla

01-02-2006, 10:10 PM

... the only contender I liked was Duceppe. Why? Because he was the only one with any conviction or gonads. If we could have a party that would stand up for CANADA the way the Bloc stands up for that misbegotten whiny Province only, I'd vote for it in a hot second.

As it stands...

I could not agree with you more. An honest, natural and as straight speaking a politician we are ever likely to encounter.

As you know, my sister works in the National News Room of the CBC and lately she has been putting in 12 hour days 6 days a week. Her job is to go through all of the filmed day to day activities of the four leaders, including of course, all of the speeches. Same speech in Toronto as the one the next day in Saskatoon...with one or two paragraphs changed to make it relevant to the region.

Although she has been a staunch NDP supporter (little pinko mis-guided fool as she always was...) she claims the biggest respect for the way Harpers people are running his campaign...straight forward 'here is what we stand for' vote for us or not. Respect...but she would never vote for him because she doesn't particularity care for what he stands for.

No such respect for the Liberal campaign...tired old 'vote for us because you won't like the vision of Canada Harper has'. That and all the money they promised the week before the election was called.

She loves Duceppe (OK...not totally a fool...) and wishes he truly was running for PM...but he's not...so that's that. She claims he has a wonderful sense of humour...and is very intelligent.

Now...here's the kicker. I mentioned earlier that she has been a staunch NDP'er all her life. Well that was true until Jack Layton came along. After spending days and days listening to every step on the campaign trail she has come to absolutely loathing Jack...so much so that if she had to choose between him and Harper...Harper would get the vote.

Through a good part of Christmas dinner I had to listen to story after story about how vile this man really is (pompous asshole is how she put it and my sister not only does not swear she doesn't even know the words to use if she did swear! Goody goody two shoes is how I referred to her growing up.) He is so bad, apparently, that the media following him have come to wish they had chosen a different occupation...and the coverage is beginning to reflect this.

Enough...you might want to switch this over to the Canadian Politics thread.

One last thing...do vote...many people died so we would be able to.

Protocol

05-11-2006, 09:27 AM

And has it worked there? :ermm:

acushla

05-11-2006, 11:34 AM

And has it worked there? :ermm:Not certain as to what your question refers to.:confused:

Roj

05-11-2006, 08:11 PM

Not certain as to what your question refers to.:confused:
I think he was referring to the post that started this thread.

If that's the case:

1) the changes never happened

2) the changes never will happen, especially now that CRIA's fangs have been pulled permanently

Protocol

05-11-2006, 10:31 PM

I think he was referring to the post that started this thread.

If that's the case:

1) the changes never happened

2) the changes never will happen, especially now that CRIA's fangs have been pulled permanently
Yes. Exactly. I am interested to know if this ever happened. Thanks Roj, for answering.

Antman

05-11-2006, 11:31 PM

I purchase a CD/DVD/tape/MP3 whatever. What I am actually paying for is a license to listen to the material.

No record of that license exists.

If I provide the material for common and/or fair use, by whatever means, why is it incumbent upon me to prove or disprove that the recipient has equal license?

Why is podcasting legal?

acushla

05-12-2006, 11:40 AM

p2p news / p2pnet: Canada's new Conservative government is unlikely to come up with a copyright bill until the fall, says the Globe & Mail.

Full story (16 hrs. ago) http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8761

Roj

05-12-2006, 11:44 AM

p2p news / p2pnet: Canada's new Conservative government is unlikely to come up with a copyright bill until the fall, says the Globe & Mail.
Read:

"Ever".

End of line.

acushla

05-12-2006, 12:03 PM

Read:

"Ever".

End of line.Just providing a link. Allow me to ask you this...given the tone of the story would you agree that the Conservatives provide more optimism that this issue will be resolved in a way that will provide us with a far more satisfying resolution than the path the Liberals were following? (There was no other way to ask this.)

Roj

05-12-2006, 12:53 PM

Just providing a link. Allow me to ask you this...given the tone of the story would you agree that the Conservatives provide more optimism that this issue will be resolved in a way that will provide us with a far more satisfying resolution than the path the Liberals were following? (There was no other way to ask this.)
Not in the slightest and only one posessed of incredible naivete or rose colored glasses could even begin the hope, let alone, believe such drivel.

The Conservatives are pulling the classic political "not invented here we're better than the other guy" snowjob BS that ALL politicians pull and will soon fall into line with all the others, kissing the ass of big business. That is ESPECIALLY likely with the Conservatives, given their classic public platform of pro-big-money.

Come on acushla, grow up - it's 2006 and there is reality out there. The radical elements of the Reform Party are alive and well and STILL putting their feet in their mouths, a fact that becomes more evident with every passive day (abortion issues, anyone?). This will be no different. NONE of the parties are worth a damn, not the Liberals and certainly not your precious Conservatives so can the thinly veiled propaganda.

acushla

05-13-2006, 04:47 AM

This will be no different. NONE of the parties are worth a damn, not the Liberals and certainly not your precious Conservatives so can the thinly veiled propaganda.I am upset by this (changed that sentence 5 times) because you are wrong. I made my best effort to ask what I felt was a reasonable question in a manner that made it clear that I was ONLY asking a question...NOT making a statement.

If there was a better way to ask it I implore you to let me know what it would have been so I can be better equipped next time.

I acknowledged in a previous post...I am no match for you, and I read a post from you in some other thread where you explained you were tired of the 'dueling'...and I decided right there to engage you on a wholly different level...to have a dialogue rather than a 'argument of positions'.

My question about whether one government was better equipped than another to deal with this issue was simply that. I didn't have a answer, I had no agenda...I simply wanted to ask the one person here who would know the answer.

It is now all about learning...and very little about teaching.

Roj

05-13-2006, 01:11 PM

I am upset by this (changed that sentence 5 times) because you are wrong. I made my best effort to ask what I felt was a reasonable question in a manner that made it clear that I was ONLY asking a question...NOT making a statement.

You mean you weren't taking advantage of yet another situation to pimp the Conservative party? Wow - I stand corrected. In that case, only the first part of my answer - the part about the Conservatives being as crooked as any other political party - stands.

It is now all about learning...and very little about teaching.

I am long past the teaching point in my Blog experience - I moved on from that when I left 3DSS a while back. Now I just throw out opinions and facts and let the chips fall where they may.

So, to get back to your question:

No, I don't feel anything will be improved and if anything I expect things to try and get worse given the big business slant of the traditional Conservative / Alliance platform.

However, I will also say that it don't expect it to get anywhere because the Canadian people aren't Americans. We are (as has been shown by Canadian artists in this case) much less likely to be led down the typical Amrican garden path of special interest lobbies and corruption. The average Canadian in the street knows what's going on inside his or her country and will express an opinion thereof. They do know what's going on over on the next street, in the next city, the next province, the next country. And THAT by the way is a MAJOR difference between us and Americans - and why we don't succumb to the abovementioned typical political vices as easily.

Edit:

I have to add that I've seen many Americans on this forum who are very aware of what is transpiring on the world scene (InTheWoods as one example is easily one of the most eloquent, educated and erudite posters it has been my pleasure to converse with) but on many another forum and even when I visited / lived there I saw ample evidence to the contrary. Sadly, the political record of that country (internal and external) also bears me out.

acushla

05-13-2006, 03:57 PM

Roj

05-13-2006, 04:41 PM

Listen...thanks for taking me seriously...

I have ALWAYS taken you seriously. We would not have the spirited debates we do if I did not.

As for being 'long past the teaching point'...well, you may think that but I am certain that all the people (myself included) who read your posts and learn something from them...would disagree. So...you may not be teaching but we sure as hell are learning!!!;) :) :)

LOL. In that case I'll make a serious endeavor to be more compassionate and less impassioned in my delivery. In such a scenarion, "fire and forget" is NOT the way to go.

BALTY

05-13-2006, 05:08 PM

[B] "fire and forget" is NOT the way to go.
I don't understand!

signed,
The Washington sniper:evil:

acushla

05-13-2006, 05:39 PM

I have ALWAYS taken you seriously. We would not have the spirited debates we do if I did not.

Now I am a little (more) confused.

I always felt that you enjoyed most 'debates' (exchanges) with the majority of people in this forum...but then recently I interpreted one of your posts to mean you didn't really enjoy them.

I always came from the position that you did relish them as you enjoyed an opportunity to express your knowledge/views/opinions.

What is it I am failing to understand? (Other than the fact you don't suffer fools gladly.)

Roj

05-22-2006, 02:54 AM

According to some article I read a couple of years ago we may have a lot of natural resources...most of which we now don't own. I wish I could quote the source of that statement but I do remember being incredulous and angry at the time I was reading it. Seems to me that Japan was mentioned more than once. Any idea what I am referring to?

It does seem to me that the one resource we have that we do own is water. Let's hope we don't give that away.
no but I do recall laws being passed out West to limit foreign investment to prevent just such an occurrance.

acushla

12-17-2007, 12:31 AM

squeege2

12-17-2007, 05:17 PM

This week, Canada's freshly shuffled Industry Minister was set to table new copyright legislation (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071213.wgtweb1214/BNStory/Technology/home)that could have completely changed the relationship between Canadians and their digital media. But then he backed down, at least until the end of the year.

Yes, been keeping my eye on it. Only a matter of time, before they establish more aggressive downloading/copyright infringement laws.:foureyes: Seriously , I thought it might have occured sooner than this.

Roj

12-30-2007, 07:57 PM

Yes, been keeping my eye on it. Only a matter of time, before they establish more aggressive downloading/copyright infringement laws.:foureyes: Seriously , I thought it might have occured sooner than this.
Not gonna happen.

Harper's government is most charitably described as "lame duck" and he has more pressing things to worry about like his limp response to environmental issues which he is rightfully under serious world fire for.

As to the recent announcement of a possible tax on mp3 players, retail is gonna have those assholes for breakfast. There are FAR too many loopholes in their argument (let's see - are we also gonna tax hard drives, usb keys, flash memory for cameras, paper, exercise books, and daytimers? they're ALL recording media too... ).

Too funny.

Bu the bozos never quit even though they've long since lost the war...

acushla

12-31-2007, 10:25 AM

Not gonna happen.

Harper's government is most charitably described as "lame duck" and he has more pressing things to worry about like his limp response to environmental issues which he is rightfully under serious world fire for.

But the bozos never quit even though they've long since lost the war...Uh oh.

I'll spare you the embarrassment of some of your posts written as soon as the Conservatives came to power. Who would have ever thought they would still be in power two years later? Not to mention that should we have an election anytime soon the outcome would mirror what we already have. So much for the 'bozos'.

A change in copyright law did occur. You can be fined up to a million dollars if caught videotaping a movie while in a theatre. My sources tell me that Quebec is the culprit on this one. Personally, I agree with this law. But that's just me.

Again...I really do not know what circles you hang with when it comes to Canadian Politics. I'm guessing they are all pissed off liberals who can't decide whether to vent their anger at the party that is in power or to aim it at the chaos which defines their own party. Certainly any reputable media program in Canada that devotes itself to Politics certainly does not express your statement.

As to Harper's insistence on everybody participating in the 'saving' of the planet...I have written about this at length in the 'Politics...' section of the Forum. Let me just say two things: Simply because a majority of people are against you does not mean you are wrong. In fact it might just indicate that you are the only one (along with Japan) who is right.

I believe there are no analogies that can adequately convey the complexities (and anybody who does not think they are indeed complex might as well just go smoke another joint and leave the thinking to the big people.)

Imagine a Formula 1 race. The organizers explain to all the teams that the public is not happy with the race and feel it would be better to use smaller fuel tanks thus ensuring more pit stops. All the teams agree...except for three...who say there is no way they will ever resort to smaller tanks. Given the idea that the aim of any race is to 'win'...why would any of the other teams bother to reduce their gas tanks?

It's clumsy...but you see what I mean.

Put it this way...if Canadians were to wake up tomorrow to new laws that shut down all industry, all airports, made it a $100,000 fine if caught driving your car...certainly it would not take all that amount of time for us to meet targets. Great economic cost you say...well...how about one week on and one week off? We would meet our goals in twice the amount of time. We could follow this formula until we are were we are today. The bottom line is always the same...a Canadian will always choose a job over 'saving' the environment. No government anywhere is going to do anything that provides more hardship than the voting public will bear...just look at Australia's newly elected PM, the Hon Kevin Rudd. He promised that the first thing he would do when elected is to sign on to Kyoto...which he did to a standing ovation. Three days later he rescinded when he learnt what electricity prices would rise to as a result.

Save the planet? Not going to happen. Unless we all want it to happen.

Sometimes the answers in life are not what we want them to be.