I have to say that I don’t come down too far on the side of “Pride” events for anything but Gay Pride.  I’ve seen a lot of these cropping up in the last few years, and I just think that they cheapen the concept of Gay Pride significantly.Gay people feel the need to celebrate and have a parade because they are just coming around to acceptance by the mainstream.  Year after year, the media picks the worst (some would say best) floats in the parade to trounce out as proof of the immorality and horridness that is happening in our very streets.  This alone is a reason to march.

Being anything else but gay does not give you the automatic right to have a pride event for your pet religion or cause.  I think the best example I can use here is Pagan Pride.  There are a number of events tailored to Pagan Pride Days, Pagan Pride groups, etc.

This whole concept just makes me mildly annoyed on one hand, and outraged on the other.  It’s like pagans aren’t persecuted enough, so they feel that they need to create some drama.  Give me a break.  I wouldn’t have an issue if they had local pagan festivals or local pagan days, but just the fact that they are calling it a Pride day means that they are appropriating something that ain’t theirs.  Or anybody else’s for that matter.  Gay rights were hard won by notable groups of lobbyists, protesters, and other folk who weren’t afraid to stick their necks out.  They deserve a party - and to keep their phrase to themselves.

Have fun everyone!  Have a few cosmos for me.

Posted: June 28th, 2008 under Anarchy.
Comments: none

**Update** - I expressed disdain in this post that the other parties had not yet responded to my queries.  The NDP did, albeit much later.  At least they didn’t send a vague form letter that they just sent to everyone with an inquiry, like the Conservatives did.  This is proof that they don’t care what the public has to say and are just going to try to push through with the bill anyway.

In a previous post, I posted the answers from my own MP, David Sweet, and a clerk at the Liberal party to my inquiries to their parties about the Copyright Act.

I asked for further clarification on some points from Msr. Sweet and received an answer from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Josée Verner and the Minister of Industry, Jim Prentice.

Here was my original e-mail:

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Thank you for your response.  The bill does say that it will limit the damages per infraction.  However, isn’t each song an infraction?  If one is sharing 1000 songs, doesn’t that add up to $500,000 dollars?  You don’t have to respond to this if you don’t have time, but you should pass on to your party that the one point is very unclear to the public; I and I suspect many others have been looking for clarification on this point.  $500.00 per infraction is still a lot of money when you take into account that most people who download music or rip it to their computer from CD have 200-1000 songs on their computer, and I think that is what most Canadians are up in arms about.

Thank you once again for your timely response.

Sincere Regards,

Angela West

Here is their answer:

 Ms. West,

The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61 (An Act to Amend the Copyright Act).  The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.

What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?
Specifically, it includes measures that would:

*       expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the “statutory damages” a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;

*       implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy

*       clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities

*       provide photographers with the same rights as other creators

What Bill C-61 does not do:

*       it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

What this Bill is not:

*       it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.

For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home

Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.

The Honourable Josée Verner
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages and Minister for La Francophonie

The Honourable Jim Prentice
Minister of Industry

While it doesn’t immediately answer my question, I did follow the link given and found this page, which effectively does answer my question:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01162e.html

Basically I read this as saying that one lawsuit may only have 500.00 worth of damages for copying, 20 000 for DRM  cracking.  It could be argued that the tenuous recording industry may bring 1000 lawsuits in cases where 1000 songs are found on a computer, but I think we just have to pray that the fact that we live in Canada would get all but one of those lawsuits thrown out of court.

While this doesn’t make me any happier with the bill, I have to admit that the Conservative response to my questions and the clarification of the issues has been much more proactive than that of any other party.  While that does stick in my craw a bit as an avid NDP supporter, one has to give credit where credit is due.  As of press time, neither the NDP or the Liberals have anything on their websites to do with the Copyright Act.  Where are their parties going to position themselves on this issue?  I think we need to know.

Meanwhile, the best site for up-to-date news and educated opinion about the Copyright Act continues to be michaelgeist.ca - I encourage anyone who hasn’t been there to check it out.

Posted: June 20th, 2008 under Canada Copyright Reform.
Comments: 3

OK all of you man-lovers out there. It’s visual treat time.

I have decided to randomly put up posts with hot, muscular, beefy, sexy men. I am doing this as a public service to all of humanity as there are just not enough places to see these perfect models of the human physique.

This page is entirely meant to objectify the people portrayed in it. No question. They are just slabs of man flesh for our consumption, as it should be.

Candidate #1:

While a little sickly for my taste, weakness caused by anorexia may keep him from running away. That’s hot.

Candidate #2:

Because there’s something about Slavic-looking men in white shirts that reaches back to my Goth days and pulls out a horny teenager. NOMNOMNOMNOM.

Candidate #3:

Because it takes me back to hitting rewind on the volleyball scene in “Top Gun” so many times we almost destroyed my friend’s VCR.

That’s it for today, folks. Tune in next time for another stampede of hot man-flesh. Meow.

Posted: June 19th, 2008 under Love.
Comments: 1

Today I saw an article on how future capital businesses are valuing the site LinkedIn at 1 Billion dollars.  That’s a lot of zeroes. 

Then I log in to my LinkedIn account.  What do I do with this?  I import my e-mail contacts and add them to LinkedIn.  That’s about it.  I don’t actually DO anything with it beyond build a network, that one day I may plan to use for world domination, but that’s about the scope of it.  You really have to ask yourself, as I did; is that worth a FREAKING BILLION DOLLARS? 

Google may be worth a billion dollars (considering that I have no concept of money past about 5000.00, bear with me here), Facebook may be worth a billion dollars, but LinkedIn?  LinkedIn?  Seriously? 

Then my little brain started wandering back to the heady days of the tech bubble.  I remember my boss asking me, since I was the nerdiest person he knew, if he should buy Yahoo stock.  My response was yes, to buy as much of it as possible as people are attaching false value to it rather quickly, and then sell it off in a year before it tanks.  He never did buy it and he’s probably still kicking himself, because that turned out to be sound financial advice from a nerd straight out of school. 

You can see little signs of a mini-bubble blowing up again, although I wouldn’t call a one billion dollar valuation of LinkedIn little.  There’s always a story in the media about little software companies being purchased by big software companies, and these amounts are steadily creeping up and up.  Much like what happened during the tech bubble. 

Now I don’t think this means that everyone should divest themselves of tech stock entirely.  I think we need a few more watermark signs like the LinkedIn one.  But if that is any sign, I think a mini bubble burst is on the way. 

LinkedIn.  One Billion Dollars.  Seriously. 

Posted: June 18th, 2008 under Technobabble.
Comments: none