Canadian DMCA cancelled (again) (for now)


10 Responses to “Canadian DMCA cancelled (again) (for now)”

  1. SlimSpady says:

    What does the Canadian DMCA SNAFU and Hillary Clinton have in common?

    Both flip flop more than Charlie Parker after his last hit of Morphine.

    Too soon?

  2. Alys says:

    I sent another round of succinct emails first thing this morning; I’ll continue to update and send more emails throughout the entire process if they don’t change things up. I hope that now it has been delayed they will actually take the public’s view into account in wording the bill.

  3. acb says:

    This may be a crazy thought, but what if this is a feint? Would there be any way in which they could publicly claim that the bill is off the table until late January, and then, when everybody has stopped looking, rush it through, or staple it to another bill, or what have you?

  4. Yamara says:

    Legislation really shouldn’t be passed in a way that resembles trolling on Wikipedia.

    Like a kindergarten, democracy requires constant vigilance, but it only works if you put adults in charge.

  5. Chris S says:

    By and large, because of the three readings a bill must go through, it is both not usual AND fairly difficult to force legislation through in a short time. It’s not unheard of to glom a bunch of issues together into one must-pass bill, but it’s usually a high-level political tactic, not a way to sneak something through. And because all legislation must be passed as-is (or sent back) by the Senate, it’s really, really hard to be sneaky *inside* Parliament.

    The exception can be made for special occurences – but this happens with all-party approval. This is NOT just everyone voting for it, but special all-party agreement to use a different set of rules that allow all the steps to happen in rapid succession. The bill is then whipped off to the Senate (bing!) and run across for Royal Assent from the Governor-General.

    In the Canadian system, the sneakiness tends to happen out of sight — in committee, or with regards to lobbying. Some sample Canadian sneakiness:

    - Anne of Green Gables and bill C-36; this bill contained a copyright provision that would have extended the terms of dead authors rights past 50 years for unpublished works. It was generally considered to be in reference to Lucy Maud Montgomery’s unpublished works. But it would have made copyright on unpublished works almost impossible to track and manage. There was some public disension on that, too. The relevant clauses were swapped out on third reading by actual voice reading in the House – *very* unusual – and the other parts of the Bill passed as normal.

    - Sam Bulte and the Committee; Howard Knopf was presenting before the Heritage Committee, but his materials were disallowed because he only had them in English. It’s one thing to expect your bilingual government to serve you in your choice of language, but I think it was rather extreme to expect a citizen in front of a committe to provide their materials in both languages. It had all the earmarks of the chairperson using procedural tactics to keep this material out of the record; later on, a bill could be described as “based on the evidence given to the committee” while glossing over the fact that the Committee might not have had the whole picture.

  6. OsoMan says:

    Prentice is our biatch! I say we dog-collar him and make him eat kibble out of the trunk we keep in the basement…

  7. sadmarvin says:


    Thanks for bringing it up. Anne of Green Gables is basically worse for Canadian copyright than Disney is for American. I say once we have this whole mess cleaned up we head after that red-headed copyright goblin!

  8. paperfingers says:


  9. sadmarvin says:

    So are they waiting until they can catch us off guard or what?

  10. pauldrye says:

    Is it possible to catch anyone off-guard in 2007? Too many people watching, and it only takes one to notice and get it to the BoingBoings of the world for the furor to start all over again.

Leave a Reply