Canada's Copyright Notice Fiasco: Why the Government Bears Responsibility 73
An anonymous reader writes Canada's copyright notice fiasco, with false and misleading notices
being sent to thousands of Internet users, has attracted growing
attention with the government promising to address the
issue. This morning, Michael Geist posts internal government documents that show that the government was
aware of these risks before launching the system, but did nothing
about it. The documents show that the government decided to forge
ahead with the system without any regulations, despite repeated
warnings that additional rules on the scope of the notices was
needed.
In other words ... (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
"... the government was aware of these risks before launching the system, but did nothing about it. The documents show that the government decided to forge ahead with the system without any regulations, despite repeated warnings that additional rules on the scope of the notices was needed ...
In other words, the Canadian government is either a psychopath, or the Canadian government enjoys the citizens to get screwed
If there is a sentence I could tell the Canadian government it would be " FUCK YOU !! "
Re: In other words ... (Score:1)
Living in Canada, while gov't policy is not perfect, I think we have it pretty good. Imagine we did things like the US? Think DMCA...
Let's push the gov't to fix this minor hiccup. Also, lets support TekSavvy for fighting this in court.
Re: (Score:3)
TSI isn't fighting it - they just said get a court order and pay our costs (as they should). The fight is up to the Does.
Re:In other words ... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a blogger on Canadian constitutional matters that actually has a good description of the Tories; he calls them "lazy revolutionaries" [wordpress.com]. The Tories seem full of all this desire to reform various aspects of the Canadian government, but seem too lazy to actually do the legwork. That's how they end up in fiascos like the copyright notice incident.
While some ascribe malice to the Tories' actions, it's become very clear to me, particularly during the years of the majority government, that while maliciousness may play a part in some of what they do, a good deal of what they do is just simply incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the GOP overfloweth with talent...
Re: (Score:2)
No talent there, but a lot of stubbornness and willingness to say or do nearly anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Since when have Democrats been interested in revolution? I've voted for them as slightly less dedicated corporate whores than the Republicans, but I've never heard them even make any real noise about anything that might be called revolution, at least not as a group. Well, with the possible exception of gun control - though that would be more a case of the government revolting against the people, which I'm not sure counts.
Re:In other words ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite likely, given that the Stephen Harper Party basically is like that. You see, the real reason why the Tories are so successful is because of Stephen Harper. He rules from the top down. This means his messaging is EXTREMELY effective because no one is allowed to speak out of line. Media scrums are very carefully controlled - if you're not a "pre-approved" reporter who submitted their question ahead of time, you're not going to be picked to ask a question.
When someone accidentally does open their mouth, then, it reveals they aren't any better or knowledgeable. Harper pretty much knows this - the other parties don't have as much party discipline which leads to foot-in-mouth issues. But by muzzling his party, he ensures they don't make these mistakes.
Basically you have to assume incompetence - they're really just little automatons who follow Harper's word. When you ask them to go off-script, they get the deer-in-the-headlights look.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't think it is because of Stephen Harper. It is because his opponents were weak and disorganized. In particular, the Liberals were divided and damaged after the Gomery Inquiry, and suffered from a series of weak and unpopular leaders; Paul Martin, Stephan Dion, and Michael Ignatieff. Even Harper's victory in saving his government from a collapse in the face of a coalition government of Liberals, NDP with Bloc Quebecois support, came only because his opponents were too dimwitted to realize tha
NDP (Score:1)
Yes, but the NDP had Jack Layton, who was quite popular. Yes, he died shortly after the election, but that was after an election that the NDP still lost. He was probably more popular after his death than during his life, though.
Re: NDP (Score:2)
From what I've heard from peers, Jack Layton lost because of rumours floating about regarding his health. The fact he made it through the election was rather impressive, considering how far south his health had gone.
While I'm sure his right hand man would have done well, that unknown scared a lot of people and they decided to jump on the Harper train.
I personally am of the mind that no matter which way you vote, the government will appear incompetent no matter, because people are always out to blame someone
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've heard from peers, Jack Layton lost because of rumours floating about regarding his health.
I, for one, hadn't heard the rumours, so I don't think they held many people back from voting for him.
While I'm sure his right hand man would have done well, that unknown scared a lot of people and they decided to jump on the Harper train.
I cannot believe anyone was thinking of voting Layton but switched to Harper for any reason, never mind Layton's health. They were so diametrically opposed in style and substance, after all.
I personally am of the mind that no matter which way you vote, the government will appear incompetent no matter, because people are always out to blame someone. That, and, well, its politics.
This I agree with, but the task is to vote someone in whose mistakes benefit the most people instead of "Ooops, the rich benefited from that mistake. And that one. And this one too."
Just for once it'd be nice if "the li
Re: (Score:2)
Jack Layton certainly made an impact, but the Orange Crush was mainly a Quebec phenomena, and clearly had more to do with the collapse of the Separatist vote. But it is pretty clear that even Quebec voters are casting their nets a little more widely, and that the Liberals are not the toxic brand they were even three or four years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
"Lazy revolutionaries" says it all. I would go a bit further and say that the only real revolution Harper has begun is the steady incremental shift to permanent electioneering. This is a rather recent phenomenon (at least in my lifetime) in Canadian politics. Of course all parties in power engage in this activity to some extent, and it ramps up as the next election approaches. But Harper's Conservatives (this was not a thing that pre-Harper Conservatives did well) have really taken it to a new level in
Re: (Score:2)
The permanent electioneering is a product of fixed election dates. I live in BC, and that is exactly what we have had since the BC Liberals instituted fixed four year terms in 2001. The UK has also seen this happen since instituting four year limits on Parliament.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they just do not care. I think it is a situation where ideology trumps common sense in most cases.
Most laws and the like are not written by politicians, but the direction and marching orders are.
The bureaucrats that drafted it up, probably knew all about the issues, and told the politicians all about them.
However when you are told to do it, get it done, and get it out, I am pretty sure any nay saying falls on deaf ears. That and the patented, we'll fix it later once implemented, or we'll see what happens
Re: (Score:2)
While some ascribe malice to the Tories' actions, it's become very clear to me, particularly during the years of the majority government, that while maliciousness may play a part in some of what they do, a good deal of what they do is just simply incompetent.
In Valhalla, Ayn Rand is laughing and nodding her head...
In other words ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it comes with the office - largely regardless of officeholder or even nation. To have a realistic chance of getting the job you need to have already sworn allegiance to the unelected money- and power-brokers funding the election campaigns and sculpting the media portrayals.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to be crucially dependent on the size of the area. Towns often have decent governments, cities more rarely, states ... only the small ones. The country...no.
That said, another factor is the number of more powerful groups looking over your shoulder. If a city or town becomes too corrupt either the state or the feds are likely to step in. (I don't know how analogous this is to Canada, but I suspect it's a global property.)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a point, up to a point. I live in New Mexico, the 14th smallest state by population, and Texan money just bought the Governor's office for the second term in a row.
Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Sir, if we pass this law the media companies will do something that will show everyone that they are a bunch of lying pricks!
Uh, and that's a problem how?
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is that they knew about the problem ahead of time and didn't add a handful of words that would have made it illegal. rudimentary precautions easily fall within the realm of responsibility for governments.
Poor policy, as usual ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a government who consistently fails to make evidence based policy, who routinely allows ideology to substitute for facts, and whose definition of "consultation" is informing people of what they plan to do.
This is a government who will do anything to give business a leg up, and who think that they should be able to pass laws which don't meet Constitutional and other requierments.
They routinely pass laws which are terrible, and which won't hold up to a court. And like a bunch of winy morons, they feel their incompetently written laws should trump the guidelines for what is a valid law.
Basically they're assholes and luddites, who routinely craft poorly thought out laws.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm fairly certain that the Government has many sources of money that do not require Parliament's vote. I certainly disagree with much of what any government advertises on, but the idea that Parliament has to approve every line item problem hasn't been true since before Canada was even created.
Re:Poor policy, as usual ... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is they often spend as much (if not more) money promoting what an awesome job they're doing than they actually spend on doing that job.
They basically use public money as a PR machine for their own agenda, and their spending on advertising and promoting often outpaces the actual program spending.
So much of what they advertise is for partisan purposes.
Because it's easy to find examples of signage promoting "Canada's Action Plan at Work" where years later the sign is still up in front of an incomplete project they never actually funded.
They're all PR release, and no substance in a lot of ways.
And since they came into power on the heels of the Sponsorship Scandal, this is even more galling.
Way too many vacuous statements and claims, not nearly enough of doing anything.
Re:Poor policy, as usual ... (Score:4, Funny)
I can't remember a time when governments at the Federal, Provincial and sometimes even municipal level didn't use public funds for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. The temptation to use legislative clout for partisan gain is just simply too great.
Re: (Score:3)
When you spend more money advertising what you're doing that you spend on what you are braying about ... something is seriously wrong.
Harper shows up for the photo op, and spends money advertising it, and then fails to do anything.
That's pretty much fraud and wasting tax payer money to promote themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Ministers re-announcing projects, or announcing what amounts to political vaporware is probably as old as democracy itself. Again, not defending the Tories, just putting it forth that they are behaving exactly like their predecessors.
That seems to be the price of democracy; that politicians spend much of their time considering their re-election. As bad as that it is, the alternatives would be much worse.
Re:Poor policy, as usual ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems to be the price of democracy; that politicians spend much of their time considering their re-election.
Arguably, in a representative democracy that might be all they SHOULD be doing.
After all, the whole idea in that sort of government is that the politicians represent the will of their constituents. Rather than have a small group of men making up the laws themselves (an oligarchy), the representatives are - supposedly - little more than conduits we use to enact the laws we want. These political agents vie for the job by proving how able they are in representing our goals. In other words, we don't send 'em to the capital to make laws for us, but to pass the laws we want.
Of course where it all breaks down is that this requires an informed and involved constituency. For a variety of reasons most democracies do not - and are not encouraged - to have this. This is not due only to voter apathy, but because the politicians have made the system so complex and difficult that most people have neither the time, the training nor the desire to become involved. We-the-people are not giving our agents the explicit instructions they require; at best, we manage a collective moan about how certain things may not be to our liking.
At the same time, large organizations (corporations) - who /do/ have the time and interest to engage in the political process - are able to more easily transmit their needs to those same representatives (usually in the form of legislature conveniently written up and passed to government to pass into law). So politicians remain conduits (just to the wrong people) but due to the electoral system still need to spend most of their time proving their worth.
Ultimately, the goal should be to be make it easier for individuals to become involved in their own governance. Smaller government, simpler laws and more local authority are all ideas that may work. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to the problem and certainly those in power - who benefit from the current way things are - see no advantage in changing things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Poor policy, as usual ... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is all true, but I'm quite thankful that the courts have been doing a pretty good job protecting us from the government.
I think Harper has lost more Supreme Court and Federal Court cases than any government I can remember. Hope it keeps up that way.
Re: (Score:1)
Where's the Beef? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only information I can find saying that the regulations are not enforced is what is in Geist's article. He notes that the regulations are located here [michaelgeist.ca] and then goes on to say that the government decided to go ahead and implement without these here. [news.gc.ca] The problem is that the second article does NOT say (anywhere that I can find) that it was implemented without regs. It claims that it is the final step in the copyright modernization act which is in fact what the first government document was all about.
Either I'm missing something or Geist is making assumptions about what Canadians actually have based on the action of a US company that is already being sued for their practices. Someone please enlighten me.
Re:Where's the Beef? (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, they were told their legislation was flawed. And, as usual, they're too focused on their own agenda and ideology to let little things like a poorly written law stop them.
They knew these problems existed, and did nothing about it.
These are the kind of clowns who will write a law which is clearly unconstitutional, and then whine about activist judges who don't see the supreme glorious wisdom in their bullshit ideology.
Mostly they consistently do the same crap over and over again, and keep going "la la la" when someone tells them their laws have to stand up to scrutiny by the courts.
Stephen Harper seems to believe he can simply decree something true and have it stick. In that sense, he's pretty scary.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Stephen Harper seems to believe he can simply decree something true and have it stick. In that sense, he's pretty scary.
So just like Obama, then? Except tthe Canadian Supreme Court keep reminding him how limited his powers are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scary or not, he wins elections. That makes the voters even more scary.
Re:Where's the Beef? (Score:4, Insightful)
Managed to get up to 38% of the people who actually voted last time, with a lot of close ridings and quite a bit of fraud, though they've changed the law so that in this election we'll never know about any investigations for fraud.
We have the tyranny of the minority due to multiple political parties.
Re: (Score:1)
Managed to get up to 38% of the people who actually voted last time...
That these kind of people get one vote says all that needs to be said. I'm not going to quibble over percentages.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily. There's cheating to factor in. The people may have actually voted otherwise, but some incumbents abuse their power to rig the election. That's what's going on in the US. Bush should never have won the presidency. Currently, the majority of North Carolina's representatives should be Democratics, instead, most are Republicans. Republicans have been engaging in a number of tactics to tilt the vote their way. Gerrymandering is something both sides have done for decades, but in recent year
Re: (Score:3)
The only information you've provided in your response (beyond your dislike of the Conservatives) is that they failed to protect ISPs from a small fine (per the copyright modernization act this is $5000 to $10000) in the event that they are asked to provide information to potential rights holders or their representatives should they decide the requester is on crack and decline the request.
So, we are all up in arms about the potential of an ISP to pay a fine for telling a troll company like Rightscorp to go p
Re: (Score:2)
No, we're up in arms that incompetently written legislation, championed by idiots, and without consideration for how it will be misused ... is now being abused after they'd been warned of this exact outcome.
LOL, no, not now not ever.
The problem is when you pass a law, and refuse to put any checks and balances into it, it's a shitty law. So, inste
Re: Where's the Beef? (Score:2)
Thanks for the chuckle, you certainly have a way with words! I understand where you are coming from now. Many many years ago I was invited to give a speech to Canadian MPs in Centre Block about censorship and how to protect the vulnerable from exploitation. What I discovered doing this is that government is run by people who have time on their hands (it doesn't pay enough to attract the gainfully employable crowd). I also discovered that getting drunk with the 'lumber lobby' and the strippers they brough
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that the second article does NOT say (anywhere that I can find) that it was implemented without regs.
"The ministers announced that the regime will be brought into force without additional regulation in recognition of the flexibility ensured by the Act."
Grease the right palms (Score:1)
And you can write the laws you want. It's easy to hide it, if you are a multi-billion dollar industry that owns a lot of music, tv shows and films.
Incompetent prime minister (Score:2)
What else can we expect from a prime minister that can't even make up his mind [youtube.com]?
Wouldn't intentionaly misleading imply its ilegal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't intentionally misleading letters demanding money amount to fraud or racketeering? Perhaps if Bell and them were really concerned they could turn it around on the copyright holders.
Re: (Score:2)
Bell is just an intermediary - the plaintiffs would have to be the recipients of the notices. The problem is you then have your classic big company vs. the little guy scenario, where the imbalance of power makes pursuing justice expensive. In Canada and Australia, this is normal resolved via regulations (which were omitted in this case). (The US approach seems to rely more on class action law suits.)
Can ISPs send their own notices? (Score:5, Insightful)
I apologize for reading the article, but it says that ISPs complained that they didn't like the $5000 fine for not forwarding the messag ... but can they forward it and add their own message?
Something to the effect of 'you should know your rights', with the maximum penalty they could face, how they can fight against it, etc.
If they come up with a boilerplate message, and not something that needs to be customized for each letter being sent, then you're minimized the incremental costs. And I'm guessing that they had plenty of lawyers involved with reviewing the bills as proposed and the law that was finally passed.
I would think the 'we comply with the letter of the law, but not the intent' approach would cheaper & more effective than trying to deal with lobbying politicians who already have their minds made up. (provided you don't do something that might get you sued ... but getting sued and going to court might be better to establish the limits of the law than leaving it to politicians)
If the law's written in such a way as to prevent them from sending a message triggered by the requirement to forward the message, then you send it to *all* of your subscribers.
Re: (Score:1)
From the previous article: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
They're already including the message inside their own message that provides more information.
Anon as I'm actively moderating this story :)
Sorry (Score:2)
Not the sort of bear I expected in a story about Canada.
Never mind.
companies don't care (Score:2)
In my experience US companies don't bother to determine who they are sending notices too. I worked in Germany and we got DMCA notices etc (people in our network with personal laptops with torrents etc on them). They just say "according to such and such law you may be libel for up to X" yadda yadda even when you aren't living in the wonderland that is the US.