[kwlug-disc] Wikileaks and C-32

[unsolicited]

John Van Ostrand wrote, On 05/01/2011 10:38 AM:
> I'm reminded of Jean Cretian's stance against sending combat troops to Iraq. 
> I'd be proud of a government that expresses our sovereignty.

Which then killed the nuclear submarine contract? i.e. The only way to 
have patrolled the northern coast, to assert and claim our 
sovereignty? [I could have which party / government did this backwards.]

{Please, I'm not attempting to begin a flamewar here.}

> Although rebuffing the US on an issue does mean we lose a bargaining point 
> it probably won't be met with a strong reaction.

Don't think so. I don't think the DRM weanies will allow there to be 
anything less than a strong reaction. i.e. 'Hollywood' being, 
essentially, marketing, has the lobbying machine in full swing.

If I understand correctly, the U.S. attitude is changing, over a long 
time, e.g. Apple / Android no-DRM, etc.

I did find it interesting in the links that Canada has not ratified 
the WPO (WIPO?) treaties. (Someone did state that we're following 
them, we just haven't actually gone through the political process of 
ratifying them. All else being in place, otherwise.)

Which is to say ... the stated reason for the U.S. to be on Canada's 
arse about all this.

> They need our materials and 
> if they choose to suffer without them the Chinese are always in the market. 
> We have more than one customer.

That's worked out so well for us, hasn't it?

Softwood Lumber. [What a mess. And at what cost and delay.]

And the recent economic catastrophe has shown how tied we still are to 
the U.S. And will continue to have depressed growth until the U.S. 
housing market sorts itself out, in a few years, if not in a decade or 
more.

But, I understand, the economic downturn has pushed companies to work 
harder at pursuing non-U.S. markets.

But it's easier and cheaper to not do so, go with what you had, and 
whine about it in the mean time. And, in the mean time, while pursuing 
foreign markets, you've had to cut staff for lack of U.S. sales.

Then, having cut costs and staff and being more 'efficient', 'rolling 
in cash', hoarding it. (Presumably for fear that all is not yet well.)

> If anything it's a decision to be moral instead of "rolling over" and taking 
> the money.

Mmmm. Not sure about that. The essential difference is what we 
consider 'moral', and they consider 'moral', are different things.

And they'll cost so much, and cause so much aggravation, in the mean 
time. And roll it into everything else there are relationships in, 
such that the continued need to keep chewing through the same old 
issues will just wear us out. Hoping that we give in, or they slip it 
through unnoticed.

But I don't think it's going away any time soon. Given that if 
parliament did put forth a bill that the general population felt 
appropriate, the U.S. evidently has direct access to parliamentarians 
to make their lives miserable. If not directly, then indirectly.

It was reassuring, however, to see the Conservatives not acting any 
too swiftly on things, for fear of backlash and losing vote splitted 
seats in an election. (Enlightened self-interest.) I am bothered by 
whether or not that will still be true after this election.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org <kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org>
> To: kwlug-disc at kwlug.org <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Sent: Sun May 01 05:32:17 2011
> Subject: [kwlug-disc] Wikileaks and C-32
> 
> For those of us who don't follow Russell's blog: apparently there is a
> new batch of Wikileaks cables that confirm our suspicions: the US
> pressured Canada to pass copyright legislation that contained the
> digital locks sections we love so much:
> 
> http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5327
> 
> I found the following talking-points memo interesting. From
> http://www.wikileaks.fi/cable/2009/08/09OTTAWA644.html
> 
> 
> " - As we have previously shared, the USG believes that
> effective copyright legislation accounting for modern and
> changing technology would include:
>        - Prohibition of both manufacturing and trafficking of
> technological protection measure (TPM) circumvention devices;
>        - Prohibition of circumvention of TPMs that control
> access to works ("access controls");
>        - Deterrent penalties against unauthorized
> circumvention -- both civil and criminal;
>        - If there are any exceptions to TPM or rights
> management information (RMI) liability, the exceptions should
> be clearly enumerated and sufficiently limited;
>        - Overall the bill should strengthen the current level
> of copyright protection and enforcement in Canada.
> "
> 
> Whoever forms the next government will have to deal with this issue
> again, and these cables suggest that the DRM restrictions will remain.
> If we don't appease the US then bad things tend to happen.