[d@DCC] Section 21 of C-8 (Was C-36)

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:33:56 -0500 (EST)

(Hated the old subject line -- sorry ;-)

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Darryl Moore wrote:

> Why don't you alert the CBC? They'd like a wacky story like this, and
> that in turn would be sure to get the attention of the Senate.

  I believe others would be better to do this.  Can someone draft a sample
letter clearly articulating the issue (no rhetoric about Micky Mouse/etc,
just the facts - they are wacky enough ;-) that we could then peer-review
and then all of us send out all over the place?

> Of course they might be too busy chasing scandals <sigh>

  Personally I think this is a procedural scandal similar to the Y2K type
crap.  This is a government bill with clauses with an expiry date were not
marked adequately, and thus they re-passed the bill past the expiry date.  
That clause should be required to be stricken in order to be passed.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Perspective of a digital copyright reformer on Sheila Copps, MP.
 http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/copps-ndp.html
 Discuss at: http://www.lulu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2757


--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca