DancingSamurai.ca

The Canadian government (perhaps learning from the fiasco that was Bill C-61) is asking Canadians to comment on copyright reforms, that they’d like to push through this year.

Michael Geist has his short answer – and I generally agree with him. Laura Murray has some further comments.

Why does copyright matter?

The consultation’s first question is also the most personal since the answer will be different for almost everyone.

For me, copyright matters because I am a professor and my students need access to copyrighted materials and the freedom to use those materials. It matters because I am a researcher who needs assurance that as materials are archived they will not be locked down under digital rights management. It matters because I am deeply concerned about privacy and fear that DRM could be harmful to my personal privacy. It matters because I have created videos and need flexibility in the law to allow for remix and transformed works and do not want my content taken down from the Internet based on unproven claims. It matters because I am a writer and I need certainty of access to speak freely. It matters because I am a consumer of digital entertainment and I want the law to reasonably reflect the right to view the content on the device of my choice. It matters because I am a parent whose children have only known life with the Internet and I want to ensure that they experience all the digital world has to offer. It matters because I live in a city with a strong connection to the digital economy and we need forward-looking laws to allow the next generation of companies to thrive. It matters because I am a proud Canadian who wants laws based not on external political pressure, but rather on the best interest of millions of Canadians.

So we took our little 1-month old baby to get photos (yay!) at the local Wal-Mart (boo! – but our neighbour who is a great photographer works there). We got into a little discussion regarding (what else) copyright, and ownership of photos so commissioned.

UPDATE: Wow, this post seems to have made it to #1 on Google on the subject, and is my most popular page this week. I guess I should clarify that the below is regarding Canadian (and I believe UK) law. The default in the US (where many of my visitors are likely from) is actually the opposite, i.e. commissioned photos’ copyrights rest with the photographer in the absence of an agreement otherwise.

(more…)

So it seems the UK is enacting new legislation that anyone who has anything to do with kids even briefly needs a police check. (This may in fact be wrong, some commenters on the article seem to indicate only ppl with ‘regular’ or frequent contacts need it). While this certainly makes sense for teachers etc, Charlie Stross points out that it does not make sense for authors giving a talk at a school, for example. And there are dangers of false positives.

Perhaps more interesting is the discussion Cory’s BoingBoing post on the subject spawned. Buried in the comments is a link to an article, “The Catastrophe of Compliance” [Local cache: The Catastrophe of Compliance]:

I was asked to work with a group of young people who had been in substitute care and were now almost ready to “emancipate.” The youth were all close to 17 years of age.

[...]

At the end of treatment, this was the result of our work?! Our “protective” intervention?! Our treatment, our healing?!

They were afraid to ask for anything, even if it wasn’t for real. Those not afraid didn’t like the idea. Those willing to try weren’t sure exactly how to go about it. (They were about to be sent out on their own to ask for jobs, apartments, dates, respect, help.) They didn’t know how to say “no,” even if it wasn’t for real. (They couldn’t say “no” to their abusers, and now we were through with them and they couldn’t say “no” to anyone, even a peer with no power over them.) They couldn’t write, and they couldn’t speak, and they couldn’t look each other in the eye. And we were through with them.

Although I’m not sure I would let two 12-year olds take a 3 year old to the mall, I don’t think it’s criminal neglect:

On Saturday, June 16, 2007, I was charged with endangering the welfare of my children, a criminal charge that, in the city where I live, Bozeman, Montana, can lead to imprisonment in the county jail. The Montana Code 46-16-130(3) states that a parent can be charged with this offense if she “knowingly endangers the child’s welfare by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.”

Typically, prosecution is pursued when an adult supplies a child younger than eighteen with drugs, prostitutes the child, abandons the child’s home, or engages in sexual conduct with the child. A violation of duty of care is described as cruel treatment, abuse, infliction of unnecessary and cruel punishment, abandonment, neglect, lack of proper medical care, clothing, shelter, and food, and evidence of bodily injury.

I was charged with this crime because I dropped my three children and their two friends off at the Bozeman Gallatin Valley Mall.

Now call me conservative, but I think parents have a right to raise their children how they see fit. Only in absolutely egregious cases of neglect or abuse does the state have any business stepping in. The above clearly does not qualify.

Even the most poorly educated and impoverished person has more love for their children than the cold, cold, state… which generally sees them as future little taxpayers and workers, or emotional bargaining chips with which to pass ever restrictive laws to increase its power (for a recent example, see this).

Wake up people! There was a time when 12 year olds led countries. “Kids” are capable of as much or as little as we let them…

Outrage of the Week: Mom Arrested for Letting Kids Go to the Mall « FreeRangeKids.

Check out the Search Engine Interview with the latest conservative dunderhead in our government. Cory’s paraphrasing about sums it up:

Search Engine: Here’s some audio of your predecessor promising, on behalf of your party and your government, never to ever allow the police to wiretap the Internet without a warrant.

Minister (as though he had been off on another planet): We never promised not to do that.

Search Engine: What about all the personal information that you guys are now proposing to give to the cops without a warrant?

Minister (tragically unclear on the subject): We’re not requiring ISPs to give out any personal information without a warrant, just your real name, your home address, your IP address, your home and cell number…

Search Engine: Huh. Well there’s this really critical, high profile court ruling that calls all that stuff private information?

Minister (pretending he didn’t hear): The courts have ruled that this isn’t private information. Canadians have no legitimate expectation of privacy when they use the Internet, not when it comes to your name, address, cell phone number, etc

Search Engine: Do the cops really need to get this information without a warrant?

Minister: Oh yes. There are MONSTROUS BABY-EATING CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS WHO ADVERTISE THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT A LIVE CHILD IN TEN MINUTES and we need to be able to run down their IPs without talking to a judge first.

Search Engine: But when a child is endangered, the law already allows you to get this information without a warrant, right?

Minister: Why are you still asking questions? Didn’t you hear me? BABY-EATING CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS! Surely that settles the matter.

Apparently I’m not alone in thinking the situation of Mr. Abdelrazik is Kafkaesque. In a recent ruling, Federal Appeals Court Judge Zinn had some stern words to say about the Harper government’s treatment of this Canadian citizen (quote via Dawg’s Blog; read the whole Judgment) :

I have found that Canada has engaged in a course of conduct and specific acts that constitute a breach of Mr. Abdelrazik’s right to enter Canada. Specifically, I find:

(i) That CSIS was complicit in the detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by the Sudanese authorities in 2003;
(ii) That by mid 2004 Canadian authorities had determined that they would not take any active steps to assist Mr. Abdelrazik to return to Canada and, in spite of its numerous assurances to the contrary, would consider refusing him an emergency passport if that was required in order to ensure that he could not return to Canada;
(iii) That there is no impediment from the UN Resolution to Mr. Abdelrazik being repatriated to Canada – no permission of a foreign government is required to transit through its airspace – and the respondents’ assertion to the contrary is a part of the conduct engaged in to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik could not return to Canada; and
(iv) That Canada’s denial of an emergency passport on April 3, 2009, after all of the preconditions for the issuance of an emergency passport previously set by Canada had been met, is a breach of his Charter right to enter Canada, and it has not been shown to be saved under section 1 of the Charter. (68)

I agree with the respondents that a Court should not go further than required when fashioning a remedy for a Charter breach: Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3. In this case, the applicant is entitled to be put back to the place he would have been but for the breach – in Montreal. (68)

(more…)

WhiteCoat is blogging about his (past) negligence trial. He’s promised 1-2 posts per week in a long running series. It should prove to be interesting:

I was in the middle of writing admission orders on a patient when the secretary told me that someone needed to see me in the front.

I headed toward the triage desk when a security guard ran up, grabbed my arm and stepped in my path. “What the hell is going on?” I thought to myself. He told me that the person who wanted to see me up front was a process server. He said that he could keep her from coming back and that I could sneak out the back door after my shift if I wanted.

I thought about it for a few seconds and realized that it would only delay the inevitable. I thanked him for “having my back” and walked out to see the woman. When she saw me, she fiddled with her briefcase for a moment, finally got the latch undone, opened the briefcase, and handed me some ruffled papers. I asked her if she wanted me to sign for them and she raised her eyebrows, making it seem as if my offer was not something ordinarily done. She handed me another piece of paper. I scribbled my signature on it and walked away.

The front page of the stack of papers was a summons commanding me to appear in court. I turned the page and saw the name of a Plaintiff as the executor of the estate of another person. Not a good sign. Someone died.

The Trial of a WhiteCoat: Part 1, Disclaimer, Part 2.

The recent Conference Board Copyright Report has been in the news (at least on the blogs I read) quite a bit lately – even in some mainstream media. I mentioned it before; in brief, a so-called “independent” research board (Conference Board of Canada), on May 29th published three reports on copyright and Intellectual Property. These reports were commissioned by Canadian media associations.

The Conference Board’s reports were critical of Canada’s current copyright laws, claiming our country is a piracy haven and needs to update copyright laws to be in line with those of the USA. Sound familiar?

(more…)