CANADIANS-URGENT

For those to lazy:

My fellow Canadians, a matter of the greatest importance has come to our attention. TOMORROW new laws will be passed by the Canadian government which will effectively OUTLAW the use of modchips and flash carts, among other things.

This

new copyright reform in the form of the Canadian DMCA has been

influenced by US lobby groups rather than the voice of the Canadian

people. What we're faced with is legislation that is potentially even

more extreme than that of the US DMCA which is what allows the RIAA,

MPAA, etc to function in the United States as they do.

This

would be a blow not only to Canada, civil rights, and copyright law,

but also YOUR rights, this fine community, and all of the businesses

that make their living by selling said products. Our digital way of

life would effectively come to a stop. They're even going as far as

proposing a minimum $500 fine per incident. While copyright reform is

an important issue, this is not the way to go about it.

In

response to this backdoor policy-making a growing movement and

coalition has been actively pursuing making the Canadian voice heard in

this legislative process. All is NOT lost; they previously attempted to

impose similar legislation back in December but this very movement's

response stopped them in their tracks. We MUST speak up! We MUST make

ourselves heard before it's too late!

As such the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights has created a simple pre-written letter sending service

that will allow for us to be heard. I implore any and all Canadians to

use this service to send a letter to Prime Minister, Stephen Harper;

Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry; and Josée Verner, Minister of

Canadian Heritage TODAY before we have no tomorrow.

BACKGROUND INFO: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2985/125/
 
fuck does this mean?

ISPs are not allowed to sell or give information to government agencies without a warrant so this doesn't mean they'll be breaking down my door because i download songs...right?
 
good luck.you waited until the last minute to make this thread. there is no way you can stop this law in a day.
 
fuck the conservative government, that is how they pass laws; under the carpet to make sure that nobody opposes it. Its time to kick them out of parlement for lack of communications.
 
hate to say it but this has been on the news for over a month now so it is not an example of the conservative party passing legislation under the carpet. Also even if they did attempt that how could you blame them. You should blame the opposition for not making it a new worthy issue. Blame the media for not reporting it as well. I mean this legislation does need to be approved by the house of commons afterall so its not like the opposition or media didnt know about it.
 
So how many important scientific and medical breakthroughs has Canada had compared to its "dumb" brother?
 
hey, I know US has come up with tons of shit we use all the time, i was just pointing out to our ignorant friend that Canada has come up with some amazing inventions that all you americans use all the time
 
I'm not ignorant and I didn't say Canadians haven't invented anything. I was quoting some other goddamn canook and pointing out that for a "dumb" country we seem to have accomplished a shit-ton more than Canada.

I have no problem with Canadians. I have a big problem with Canadians who hate on America.
 
okay so we settle our differences, good. This has implications for everyone. If Canada goes through with this, the U.S. will be under a lot of pressure as well, countries throughout the world.
 
a lot of you should have heard this in the news right now its getting pretty big

just to put it into simpler terms, if you were to buy a cd that is DRM(Digital rights media) protected, if this bill is passed you will not be able to legally put the music from that CD onto say an ipod, zune, whatever your listening device may be

this has serious consequences
 
they already passed a new law that makes it illegal to like, lend people music. Say, lending someone your ipod for a day. Putting a link on the internet to an album or something can be a 20 000 dollar fine i think.
 
When Canada's reform copyright Bill C-61 was tabled last week,

Industry Minister Jim Prentice called it a "win-win approach" that

balanced the needs of users and creators. Anyone who actually reads the

bill, however, will quickly realize that claims about balance are

simply spin. I have attempted to cut through the government's poor

drafting, public relations gloss and conflicting reports to figure out

what the proposed reforms would actually mean in practice.

To be

fair, there are some interesting and promising principles buried in the

bill. The idea of lower damages for non-commercial infringements

compared to commercial piracy is a good one. Likewise, attempting to

add provisions that legalize the everyday activities of ordinary

Canadians is the right way to go. And librarians and educators need

more flexibility to carry out their jobs without violating copyright

law.

But sadly, the potential promise of these ideas is entirely negated by the technical limitations.

Here's

a practical example. Want to rip a CD to your iPod? No problem. But

only if you own the original CD and keep it indefinitely (no garage

sales to get rid of that dusty disc collection in the basement without

first wiping your iPod clean). And it has to be your iPod, as well.

Technically, you can't rip songs to your sister's iPod, nor can your

kids load up your Father's Day gift with any songs before they give it

to you. If you want to make a backup library of tracks that you

downloaded legally from the Web, you'd better check that contract you

"agreed" to (probably with a single click and without reading the fine

print), first. Your backups might very well be prohibited -- though

you'd probably never know it until you got sued. Is all this consumer

friendly? You tell me.

The worst thing about the bill is that it

makes its own balancing provisions irrelevant. The bill essentially

says that technology trumps whatever rights consumers or competitors

might have otherwise had. So the law no longer matters. People only

have whatever rights content owners choose for them.

For

instance, if the CD you're now allowed to shift to your iPod is

technologically locked down, then, well, sorry -- you're completely out

of luck. Try to circumvent the access and copy controls, and the

well-publicized provision to limit damages to $500 for noncommercial

infringements no longer applies. You're on the hook for up to $20,000

per infringement, which is actually $60,000 per song by the time you

account for the composer, performer and record label. Multiply that by

a dozen or so songs and you get a sense of the damage awards really

possible if this bill becomes law.

There are very few exceptions

to the prohibitions on accessing locked-down content -- two examples

are protecting yourself from privacy-invasive spyware and giving access

to visually impaired persons. But even the few exceptions are probably

useless because it is forbidden for anyone to create or distribute the

tools to make access or privacy protection possible if the tools

"unduly impair" the technological measure, whatever that means.

The

provisions protecting digital locks are not just bad for consumers,

educators, librarians and other ordinary Canadians. They're bad for

businesses, too.

Legal protection for locks could conceivably

boost confidence and investment in Canada's online marketplace, but

innovative services like online movie rentals are already being rolled

out without these laws. Anti-circumvention provisions have a serious

downside. In addition to the unintended future consequences, digital

locks facilitate anti-competitive behaviour and practices like "tied

selling." That's where consumers are locked into a particular product

or service because the content is technologically incompatible with any

other vendors' offerings. This reduces competition, consumer choice and

creators' access to new markets.

It's no wonder so many content

creators -- songwriters, performers, filmmakers, authors and others --

have come out against the new copyright bill. There's nothing in it

that would actually help most creators earn the living they deserve.

There

are alternatives: What we need are not convoluted new provisions and

protection for digital locks. We need creative legal strategies to

profit -- economically, socially and culturally -- from the vast

potential of the networked information economy. The government can help

by streamlining and simplifying copyright licensing instead of making

it even more complex. Let's hope the government listens to the

overwhelming outcry against Bill C-61 before the proposal becomes law
 
canadian inventions
basketball
insulin
telephone
lightbulb
wonderbra
pacemaker
wheelchair
zipper
hockey

and no i dont hate americans. only americans who hate on canadians, shits weak.
i guess its full circle then.
 
no hate, just saying that basketball was invented in mass by a canadian born guy, but an american citizen. and wasn't the light bulb invented by thomas edison?
 
yaya
all these bills n shit being passed about stuff like this is ridiculous
i read a big article in globe and mail the other day about this and how its gonna change things alot, it got front page
 


For those of you less likely to go through the article above, heres a good newsclip which explains the situations, and just how stupid it sounds.

flash_video_placeholder.png


 
im cdn and i know all about this shit, ITS PISSING ME OFF. the government cant sue 6 million canadians 500-20,000 dollars each, its just not gonna work. my prediction is that the bill will not be passed, but a more lenient one will be enforced.

either way, i believe that music was meant to be shared, and we should be legally entitled to do so. if this bill is passed, i will protest if necessary, because theres no way in hell i am paying for all the music i download!
 
The website you posted leaves out so many facts and gives more credit than they deserve.

All your website says about basketball is, "James Naismith was looking for something to keep his bored students occupied. So he invented a game involving a ball and two open bottomed peach baskets. The rest is hoop history." what it doesn't say is, "Under orders from Dr. Luther Gulick, head of Physical Education at the School for Christian Workers, James Naismith had 14 days to create an indoor game that would provide an "athletic distraction" for a rowdy class through the brutal New England winter. It all started with two peach baskets affixed to a 10-foot-high railing and with a soccer ball in a YMCA in Massachusetts." and "Naismith became a naturalized American citizen on May 4, 1925" which would technically make him an american. I know this because i am from mass and learned about it in school. And you might want to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_bulb. it shows that a british guy made a light bulb 72 years before your canadian tried to commercialize one. the canadian failed so he sold his patent to edison so that he could fix the mistakes and actually make it work.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blbasketball.htm

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/james-naismith/

 
jesus.
naismith was CANADIAN which means it was invented by a CANADIAN. what part of that do you not understand?
as for the light bulb, woodward and evans invented one similar to the one we use today, and your right, they failed, and ended up selling the patent to edison. the point is, canadians invented the basis for the light bulb we see today, which edison expanded on, even though hes given all the credit. the fact taht a similar story was going on at the same time in britain has little to do with it as they werent directly effecting each others inventing.
honestly im so tired of arguing this. i really hate it when people hate on others, especially when im doing it, so id like to just stop all fo this. cant we all just realize that sometimes americans and canadians are both nice and sometimes a bit over the top, but both have done great things?
 
James Naismith was the Canadian physical education instructor who invented basketball in 1891. James Naismith was born in Almonte, Ontario and educated at McGill University and Presbyterian Cllege in Montreal. He was the physical education teacher at McGill University (1887 to 1890) and at Springfield College in Springfield, Massachusetts (1890 to 1895). At Springfield College (which was then the Y.M.C.A. training school), James Naismith, under the direction of American phys-ed specialist Luther Halsey Gulick, invented the indoor sport of basketball.

thats taken from the link you posted earlier.
he invented it in 1891
he got to springfield in 1890
up until then he wasnt living in the states, as he was a teacher in montreal
so your saying a year in the states make you an american citizen?
 
he was a canadian when he invented basketball
he was born in canada
he was canadian
i care so little about this now, i want james watshisface to burn in hell
 
how do you figure. there was no logic used in my previous (or pretty much any of my posts). all of those statements are supporting facts that can be used to derive your own hypothesis (weather america or canada should be credited for having invented basketball).
 
this is bad news for me. i have a Supercard DS, which is a flashcart. thats how i get all my homebrew and music on my ds
 
haha, this is so true at my school, i know all most all the kids that have ds's have that so you can d-load games, but now (hoepfully not) you wont be able to do this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top