Read: [next] [previous] messageRe: [d@DCC] Bill C-59 currently being "debated"From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca> Joseph Potvin wrote: > RE: "the process by which it came forward." > > It was in that context that I meant it. Thanks for the clarification. By the way, Bill C-47 (An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act) is currently being "debated" and will likely be passed in a few minuted. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsGovernment.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1#C47 Another worrisome bill not for what it says, but for the potential precedent it might set. There are possible positive outcomes, such as the possibility that Copyright could be amended to clearly allow parody, but it could also be negative in that other events may ask for similar exceptions from the due process that otherwise exists in the Trademarks Act. It is the whole slippery slope problem for both of these bills. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss Read: [next] [previous] message List: [newer] [older] articles You need to subscribe to post to this forum. |