Maximus makes maximum gesture in Montreal
Help for the reconstruction of the firebombed United Talmud Torah library in Montreal came today from an unlikely source. Russell Crowe phoned the school's principal and made a contributory pledge toward the reconstruction fund.
The library was destroyed by vandals in early April.
|
Help for the reconstruction of the firebombed United Talmud Torah library in Montreal came today from an unlikely source. Russell Crowe phoned the school's principal and made a contributory pledge toward the reconstruction fund.
The library was destroyed by vandals in early April.
Bubble gum pop showdown
Hilary Duff or Lindsay Lohan?
[I'm gonna go with Lohan, although, the Lizzie McGuire movie wasn't half bad. I just can't stand the "Stuff by Duff, now at Zellers" commercials.]
[Yes, I am THIS exhausted.]
|
Hilary Duff or Lindsay Lohan?
[I'm gonna go with Lohan, although, the Lizzie McGuire movie wasn't half bad. I just can't stand the "Stuff by Duff, now at Zellers" commercials.]
[Yes, I am THIS exhausted.]
Only Mr. and Mrs. Nice Guys (and Galz)
An error in protocol that we all make.
From this morning's Gazette:
Minister Goodale's speeches ..." "Minister McLellan announces ...." "Minister Valeri to award ...." This ugly and ahistoric usage has in the last few years somehow wormed its way into the usage of p.r. people in many, perhaps most, of the federal cabinet ministers' offices. It's pervasive on government web sites.
Yes, there are bigger problems in the world. Call us purists, or sticklers. But the traditional usage in our system is not to refer to a cabinet member as "Minister Tremblay."
This is a gross Americanism, and while we welcome much of what the U.S. has to share with us, we don't like this. Down there, it's "Secretary Powell" and "Secretary Rumsfeld" and so on. Did this usage slip north across the border with cabinet-level visitors from Washington, who usually come well-attended by U.S. reporters? Trying to be courteous, these scribes would have addressed questions to "Minister Manley" or "Minister Graham" - and suddenly the virus was loose, undetected until widespread.
The correct usage in direct address in this country is ''Minister" or "Mr. Valeri.'' To those attuned to Parliamentary traditions, the foreign usage sounds alien and unwelcome.
|
An error in protocol that we all make.
From this morning's Gazette:
Minister Goodale's speeches ..." "Minister McLellan announces ...." "Minister Valeri to award ...." This ugly and ahistoric usage has in the last few years somehow wormed its way into the usage of p.r. people in many, perhaps most, of the federal cabinet ministers' offices. It's pervasive on government web sites.
Yes, there are bigger problems in the world. Call us purists, or sticklers. But the traditional usage in our system is not to refer to a cabinet member as "Minister Tremblay."
This is a gross Americanism, and while we welcome much of what the U.S. has to share with us, we don't like this. Down there, it's "Secretary Powell" and "Secretary Rumsfeld" and so on. Did this usage slip north across the border with cabinet-level visitors from Washington, who usually come well-attended by U.S. reporters? Trying to be courteous, these scribes would have addressed questions to "Minister Manley" or "Minister Graham" - and suddenly the virus was loose, undetected until widespread.
The correct usage in direct address in this country is ''Minister" or "Mr. Valeri.'' To those attuned to Parliamentary traditions, the foreign usage sounds alien and unwelcome.
Blogmania
Well it's no secret that I've fallen prey to the craze -- but, I'm not alone. No I swear, there are others that are even more addicted to blogging than I am! Don't believe me (I see you rolling you eyes at your screen)?
Check out this piece from the Christian Science Monitor.
(I am amenable to intervention-type therapy)
|
Well it's no secret that I've fallen prey to the craze -- but, I'm not alone. No I swear, there are others that are even more addicted to blogging than I am! Don't believe me (I see you rolling you eyes at your screen)?
Check out this piece from the Christian Science Monitor.
(I am amenable to intervention-type therapy)
The Habs. Finally.
I wasn't gonna gloat, but I've been driven to it... mostly by my own selfish pride in the hometeam. Take that, Bruins. Bada bing.
|
I wasn't gonna gloat, but I've been driven to it... mostly by my own selfish pride in the hometeam. Take that, Bruins. Bada bing.
The End of an Era
With the sands of time of this academic year rapidly falling through the proverbial hourglass, it is time to say goodbye to the McGill Daily. At least for the summer.
Here is a link to my final piece of the 2003-2004 season.
|
With the sands of time of this academic year rapidly falling through the proverbial hourglass, it is time to say goodbye to the McGill Daily. At least for the summer.
Here is a link to my final piece of the 2003-2004 season.
"I believe you, Anita" on Condi
So I'm a little slower on the uptake these days, but I AM in exams. No matter, this is still an interesting read written by your friend and mine, Professor Anita Hill. (Published in the Boston Globe)
Stakes high as Rice talks to 9/11 panel
By Anita F. Hill, 4/7/2004
DAY BY DAY, news report by news report, the stage is being set for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's highly anticipated testimony before the 9/11 Commission. It promises to bring the public closer to knowing answers to highly emotional questions of what kind of antiterrorism efforts President Bush employed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and whether he should have done more. This may well turn out to be a vital test of our country's commitment to fairness and accountability, and we dare not botch it.
But the intensity of the attention paid to the moment Rice takes the stand suggests another question -- that is, whether the combined glare of the political and media spotlights will illuminate the truth or rather blind the public to it. Sworn testimony is not the only factor being weighed. Public satisfaction with this process will turn not only on the candor of the witnesses, but on the independence and skill of the hearing tribunal and the unbiased tenacity of the press.
As the national security adviser to a sitting president, Rice's title and high visibility give her instant credibility. The competence and professionalism she's displayed now for more than three years along with the resources of the White House to assist her before, during, and after her testimony will weigh heavily in her favor.
But as the first woman and first African-American to serve in the role, she will have to battle stereotypes about her competence that loom in the imagination of skeptical viewers. And this new level of visibility may test whether she is truly an insider in the White House power structure or a marginal player.
A laudable result of civic participation, the bipartisan investigatory panel was formed through the private actions of a handful of survivors of victims of the attacks who transcended individual political history and leanings. Each member of the 9/11 Commission asserts that the panel has no set political agenda.
But, as did the testimony of counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, Rice's testimony may test the commission's resolve. If it attempts to frame the testimony as a "he said/she said" battle pitting Clarke's word against Rice's and calling it a draw, this highly qualified body will have failed. The panel has before it a record of facts, as presented in documents and augmented by testimony, which must be viewed and analyzed.
Eventually the commission will have to evaluate the adequacy of judgments made prior to 9/11 and determine how we best move forward. In this context, without a showing of gross incompetence or malfeasance, accusations of perjury amounting to frivolous criminalization of policymakers' judgments have no place. Such behavior encourages more secrecy and threatens any hope for public accountability.
This commission will likely resist indulging in spurious charges and biased assessments about competence. Other important players in this scenario may not. Veteran anti-terrorism expert Clarke's testimony spawned political and media portrayals of him as an overly ambitious, greedy, "chicken little" whose testimony was beyond believability. Rice may meet with false characterizations that appeal to gender or racial bias. Already allusions to her being "clueless" about Osama Bin Laden and references to her by the nickname Condi smack of condescension.
Rice and each witness before and after are storytellers in this very public arena. As has already been revealed, the stories that each tells about the same events can differ significantly depending on perspective. But the real stakes of this exercise, the road we will take to fight terrorism and the confidence the public has in its processes for truthfinding, demand some accuracy.
To fully comprehend the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks, the commission and the media must be clear about their roles. Perhaps as much as the witnesses themselves, those two entities will shape the story on which the public will come to rely. But this is not an episode that is capable of instant analysis. The full story may take months, even years to uncover.
We are best served by a commission that views all the information available, not just the version conveniently declassified by the White House. The media, in their position of trust, must get beyond the political operatives' spin to expose facts relevant to the testimony. If we lose confidence in the hearings process and the surrounding coverage, we may lose the opportunity for needed change and make a mockery of the commendable effort that led to the commission's creation.
Anita F. Hill is a professor of law, social policy, and women's studies at the Heller School of Policy and Management at Brandeis University.
|
So I'm a little slower on the uptake these days, but I AM in exams. No matter, this is still an interesting read written by your friend and mine, Professor Anita Hill. (Published in the Boston Globe)
Stakes high as Rice talks to 9/11 panel
By Anita F. Hill, 4/7/2004
DAY BY DAY, news report by news report, the stage is being set for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's highly anticipated testimony before the 9/11 Commission. It promises to bring the public closer to knowing answers to highly emotional questions of what kind of antiterrorism efforts President Bush employed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and whether he should have done more. This may well turn out to be a vital test of our country's commitment to fairness and accountability, and we dare not botch it.
But the intensity of the attention paid to the moment Rice takes the stand suggests another question -- that is, whether the combined glare of the political and media spotlights will illuminate the truth or rather blind the public to it. Sworn testimony is not the only factor being weighed. Public satisfaction with this process will turn not only on the candor of the witnesses, but on the independence and skill of the hearing tribunal and the unbiased tenacity of the press.
As the national security adviser to a sitting president, Rice's title and high visibility give her instant credibility. The competence and professionalism she's displayed now for more than three years along with the resources of the White House to assist her before, during, and after her testimony will weigh heavily in her favor.
But as the first woman and first African-American to serve in the role, she will have to battle stereotypes about her competence that loom in the imagination of skeptical viewers. And this new level of visibility may test whether she is truly an insider in the White House power structure or a marginal player.
A laudable result of civic participation, the bipartisan investigatory panel was formed through the private actions of a handful of survivors of victims of the attacks who transcended individual political history and leanings. Each member of the 9/11 Commission asserts that the panel has no set political agenda.
But, as did the testimony of counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, Rice's testimony may test the commission's resolve. If it attempts to frame the testimony as a "he said/she said" battle pitting Clarke's word against Rice's and calling it a draw, this highly qualified body will have failed. The panel has before it a record of facts, as presented in documents and augmented by testimony, which must be viewed and analyzed.
Eventually the commission will have to evaluate the adequacy of judgments made prior to 9/11 and determine how we best move forward. In this context, without a showing of gross incompetence or malfeasance, accusations of perjury amounting to frivolous criminalization of policymakers' judgments have no place. Such behavior encourages more secrecy and threatens any hope for public accountability.
This commission will likely resist indulging in spurious charges and biased assessments about competence. Other important players in this scenario may not. Veteran anti-terrorism expert Clarke's testimony spawned political and media portrayals of him as an overly ambitious, greedy, "chicken little" whose testimony was beyond believability. Rice may meet with false characterizations that appeal to gender or racial bias. Already allusions to her being "clueless" about Osama Bin Laden and references to her by the nickname Condi smack of condescension.
Rice and each witness before and after are storytellers in this very public arena. As has already been revealed, the stories that each tells about the same events can differ significantly depending on perspective. But the real stakes of this exercise, the road we will take to fight terrorism and the confidence the public has in its processes for truthfinding, demand some accuracy.
To fully comprehend the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks, the commission and the media must be clear about their roles. Perhaps as much as the witnesses themselves, those two entities will shape the story on which the public will come to rely. But this is not an episode that is capable of instant analysis. The full story may take months, even years to uncover.
We are best served by a commission that views all the information available, not just the version conveniently declassified by the White House. The media, in their position of trust, must get beyond the political operatives' spin to expose facts relevant to the testimony. If we lose confidence in the hearings process and the surrounding coverage, we may lose the opportunity for needed change and make a mockery of the commendable effort that led to the commission's creation.
Anita F. Hill is a professor of law, social policy, and women's studies at the Heller School of Policy and Management at Brandeis University.
M.I.A.
My apologies, but I'm in full hibernation mode these days desperately trying to survive finals. My constitutional exam is now, mercifully, done.
Only 4 more to go... Sheesh.
Updates to follow on the weekend.
|
My apologies, but I'm in full hibernation mode these days desperately trying to survive finals. My constitutional exam is now, mercifully, done.
Only 4 more to go... Sheesh.
Updates to follow on the weekend.
The Real City of God
As the credits rolled on City of God, my friend turned to me with his 10-second Ebert.
"it was really great cinematically, but it was just too violent."
"Yeah, it was hella violent, but it's based on a true story. You can't overdo violence when your script is real life." I answered.
And life is imitating art, imitating life today in the favelas (shanty towns) outside of Rio. Here's the Reuters report:
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuters) - More than 1,200 heavily armed police moved in on two slums in Rio de Janeiro on Monday after eight people were killed in shoot-outs between rival drug gangs and security forces over the weekend.
The escalating violence in Brazil's second-largest city and most famous tourist destination has led authorities to plan the construction of a 10-foot wall around the slums, said Rio de Janeiro state's deputy governor, Luiz Paulo Conde.
"We need to build it immediately," Conde told reporters. "The wall isn't to stop the violence, it is to mark off territory."
Police said they had stepped up their presence to 1,200 officers moving into the slums, or favelas, since Friday, when the turf war began after traffickers from the Vidigal slum tried to seize control of the neighboring Rocinha favela's drug and arms trade. Eight people, including two police, have been killed so far in the violence, police said.
With a population of about 150,000, Rocinha is considered one of Latin America's largest shanty-towns and had until recently been relatively peaceful. Indeed, tourists were able to visit the hillside favela on day excursions and local businesses, such as McDonald's, had thrived.
Police said close to 120 drug dealers were hiding in Rocinha.
"The idea behind the search is to squeeze out the traffickers on various fronts," said Renato Hottz, head of the military police force in Rio.
Known for its sun-kissed beaches, lush jungle-covered mountains and hedonistic Carnival bash, Rio has also become infamous for crime.
The city has one of the highest murder rates in the world, with about 44 killings per 100,000 people a year.
But construction of the wall immediately met resistance from Rio Mayor Cesar Maia, who called it "unbelievable."
"They want to create some sort of theme park on drug and cocaine trafficking," he said.
Conde, who is also the state's environment secretary, said the wall was necessary to shield environmentally protected forests from the expanding slums.
"We won't allow the unlimited expansion in the name of drug trafficking," he said.
"We will limit everything. The forest is part of Rio de Janeiro's beauty. It's an important economic factor for the city."
|
As the credits rolled on City of God, my friend turned to me with his 10-second Ebert.
"it was really great cinematically, but it was just too violent."
"Yeah, it was hella violent, but it's based on a true story. You can't overdo violence when your script is real life." I answered.
And life is imitating art, imitating life today in the favelas (shanty towns) outside of Rio. Here's the Reuters report:
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuters) - More than 1,200 heavily armed police moved in on two slums in Rio de Janeiro on Monday after eight people were killed in shoot-outs between rival drug gangs and security forces over the weekend.
The escalating violence in Brazil's second-largest city and most famous tourist destination has led authorities to plan the construction of a 10-foot wall around the slums, said Rio de Janeiro state's deputy governor, Luiz Paulo Conde.
"We need to build it immediately," Conde told reporters. "The wall isn't to stop the violence, it is to mark off territory."
Police said they had stepped up their presence to 1,200 officers moving into the slums, or favelas, since Friday, when the turf war began after traffickers from the Vidigal slum tried to seize control of the neighboring Rocinha favela's drug and arms trade. Eight people, including two police, have been killed so far in the violence, police said.
With a population of about 150,000, Rocinha is considered one of Latin America's largest shanty-towns and had until recently been relatively peaceful. Indeed, tourists were able to visit the hillside favela on day excursions and local businesses, such as McDonald's, had thrived.
Police said close to 120 drug dealers were hiding in Rocinha.
"The idea behind the search is to squeeze out the traffickers on various fronts," said Renato Hottz, head of the military police force in Rio.
Known for its sun-kissed beaches, lush jungle-covered mountains and hedonistic Carnival bash, Rio has also become infamous for crime.
The city has one of the highest murder rates in the world, with about 44 killings per 100,000 people a year.
But construction of the wall immediately met resistance from Rio Mayor Cesar Maia, who called it "unbelievable."
"They want to create some sort of theme park on drug and cocaine trafficking," he said.
Conde, who is also the state's environment secretary, said the wall was necessary to shield environmentally protected forests from the expanding slums.
"We won't allow the unlimited expansion in the name of drug trafficking," he said.
"We will limit everything. The forest is part of Rio de Janeiro's beauty. It's an important economic factor for the city."
Music makes the people come together, yeah
In the fine tradition of Rock the Vote comes Music for America, a non-profit, westcoast based organization hoping to attract the younger demographic to the polls come November. MfA is different from its Rock the Vote counterpart as it is explicitly partisan (Rock is officially non-partisan, but pretty damn partisan nonetheless).
Since I support anyone that tries to increase youth participation in politics, I strongly urge all y'all to check out both of these websites -- especially Music for America's. They don't have the big MTV sponsors or 14 years of history behind them.
|
In the fine tradition of Rock the Vote comes Music for America, a non-profit, westcoast based organization hoping to attract the younger demographic to the polls come November. MfA is different from its Rock the Vote counterpart as it is explicitly partisan (Rock is officially non-partisan, but pretty damn partisan nonetheless).
Since I support anyone that tries to increase youth participation in politics, I strongly urge all y'all to check out both of these websites -- especially Music for America's. They don't have the big MTV sponsors or 14 years of history behind them.
Saturday night inspirations
Work hard. Play harder.
~compliments of a friend.
|
Work hard. Play harder.
~compliments of a friend.
Al-Jazeera is more objective!
OH am I ready to rant. Watching NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw just now when their military commentator, retired general Barry Macaffrey delivered his nightly run down on the situation in Iraq. The general concluded his comments with the following phrase. And I quote: "Thank God for the United States Marine Corps."
ON NETWORK NEWS! THANK GOD FOR THE US MARINE CORPS!
Forgive me for being naive, but doesn't that smack just a little bit of... oh, I dunno, PROPAGANDA?!??
|
OH am I ready to rant. Watching NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw just now when their military commentator, retired general Barry Macaffrey delivered his nightly run down on the situation in Iraq. The general concluded his comments with the following phrase. And I quote: "Thank God for the United States Marine Corps."
ON NETWORK NEWS! THANK GOD FOR THE US MARINE CORPS!
Forgive me for being naive, but doesn't that smack just a little bit of... oh, I dunno, PROPAGANDA?!??
The Pool Room in Cyberspace
Looks like my piece on the Montreal Pool Room from the McGill Daily has been posted to a discussion board. Check it out.
|
Looks like my piece on the Montreal Pool Room from the McGill Daily has been posted to a discussion board. Check it out.
Questionable Question Period
Responding to an Andrew Coyne rant on the poor state of Parliamentary debate in Canada, Paul Wells offers some valuable - and obvious - solutions to the current time constraints imposed during question period. It's so refreshing to read constructive criticism in lieu of vapid ranting. From his blog:
"One reason (one tiny, partial reason) Tony Blair comes off so much better than — than — than some Canadian politicians I could name is that he simply has more time to speak.
The absurd 35-second clock that ticks down every time anyone rises in Question Period is a very recent amendment to the rules. It was introduced in 1993 as a concession to a five-party Parliament. Now there are four parties. Simple arithmetic should dictate that the clock be set at 45 seconds per question and response.
This would give MPs who are interested in real conversation almost one-third more time to spit it out. And it would give MPs who cannot speak the English or French language 10 more seconds to twist in the wind. MPs I've polled are against the change I propose, preferring rapid-fire streams of crap to even the most minimally useful exchange of ideas. Shame on them."
|
Responding to an Andrew Coyne rant on the poor state of Parliamentary debate in Canada, Paul Wells offers some valuable - and obvious - solutions to the current time constraints imposed during question period. It's so refreshing to read constructive criticism in lieu of vapid ranting. From his blog:
"One reason (one tiny, partial reason) Tony Blair comes off so much better than — than — than some Canadian politicians I could name is that he simply has more time to speak.
The absurd 35-second clock that ticks down every time anyone rises in Question Period is a very recent amendment to the rules. It was introduced in 1993 as a concession to a five-party Parliament. Now there are four parties. Simple arithmetic should dictate that the clock be set at 45 seconds per question and response.
This would give MPs who are interested in real conversation almost one-third more time to spit it out. And it would give MPs who cannot speak the English or French language 10 more seconds to twist in the wind. MPs I've polled are against the change I propose, preferring rapid-fire streams of crap to even the most minimally useful exchange of ideas. Shame on them."
A Birth in the Brandeis Family
Mazel tov to Brandeis alumna Debra Messing, a.k.a. Grace Adler of a little show on NBC, who gave birth to a baby boy yesterday! It is the first child for Messing and husband Daniel Zelman (not a Brandeis grad, but like, he should be. Whatta shablinsky!).
|
Mazel tov to Brandeis alumna Debra Messing, a.k.a. Grace Adler of a little show on NBC, who gave birth to a baby boy yesterday! It is the first child for Messing and husband Daniel Zelman (not a Brandeis grad, but like, he should be. Whatta shablinsky!).
From Chancellor Day to Dubbai
For you McGill lawyers, here's a fascinating profile from the latest alumni magazine of a law graduate who is the first western woman to practice law in the Middle East.
|
For you McGill lawyers, here's a fascinating profile from the latest alumni magazine of a law graduate who is the first western woman to practice law in the Middle East.
Angela Anaconda and me
There is an animated children's series called Angela Anaconda, and it runs on various networks in Canada and the States. I watch it occasionally on the cartoon network.
Since it first caught my attention 3 years ago, the show has at once amazed and frightened me. Amazing because of the quality of animation and dialogue. Frightening because, well at the risk of seeming terribly self-centered, the main character loooks EXACTLY like me. Angela Anaconda may as well be the animated version of a 10 year old me, and that's just scary.
Think I'm crazy? Check out the CBC's new Angela Anaconda interactive game. You'll see.
|
There is an animated children's series called Angela Anaconda, and it runs on various networks in Canada and the States. I watch it occasionally on the cartoon network.
Since it first caught my attention 3 years ago, the show has at once amazed and frightened me. Amazing because of the quality of animation and dialogue. Frightening because, well at the risk of seeming terribly self-centered, the main character loooks EXACTLY like me. Angela Anaconda may as well be the animated version of a 10 year old me, and that's just scary.
Think I'm crazy? Check out the CBC's new Angela Anaconda interactive game. You'll see.
My Favourite Corner
It's official. My favourite corner is where Mont Royal meets de L'Esplanade. As a kid, we'd go for drives through the "old neighbourhood". Up St. Laurent and down St. Urbain, my bubby could name the occupiers of every apartment in every building on every block. The corner of de L'Esplanade and Mont Royal was the center of the universe, as it was home to both the Jewish "Y" and the first Jewish Public Library.
As the 'hood morphed into the trendy Plateau that it is today, I started hanging out on that same corner with friends who occupy the apartments held by my bubby's friends and relatives eighty years ago. It is almost as much a part of my life as it was hers. And Duddy Kravitz's.
It's the corner upon which my first novel begins. It's a corner from where the views of a) Beauty's Luncheonette b) The Cross and c) The tower of the Olympic Stadium are equally optimal.
It is, for me, the epitome of the Montreal experience.
What's your favourite corner?
|
It's official. My favourite corner is where Mont Royal meets de L'Esplanade. As a kid, we'd go for drives through the "old neighbourhood". Up St. Laurent and down St. Urbain, my bubby could name the occupiers of every apartment in every building on every block. The corner of de L'Esplanade and Mont Royal was the center of the universe, as it was home to both the Jewish "Y" and the first Jewish Public Library.
As the 'hood morphed into the trendy Plateau that it is today, I started hanging out on that same corner with friends who occupy the apartments held by my bubby's friends and relatives eighty years ago. It is almost as much a part of my life as it was hers. And Duddy Kravitz's.
It's the corner upon which my first novel begins. It's a corner from where the views of a) Beauty's Luncheonette b) The Cross and c) The tower of the Olympic Stadium are equally optimal.
It is, for me, the epitome of the Montreal experience.
What's your favourite corner?
Move Over, Otis.
Now don't get me wrong, I love Otis Redding with every fiber of my being. But. There is someone I might love a little bit more, and one song that might be a teeny tiny bit better than Dock of the Bay -- if such greatness can even be measured.
Aretha Franklin's rendition of Bridge over Troubled Water. Paul Simon's outstanding lyricism coupled with Aretha's vocals... (with my apologies to Art) it's just... magic...
|
Now don't get me wrong, I love Otis Redding with every fiber of my being. But. There is someone I might love a little bit more, and one song that might be a teeny tiny bit better than Dock of the Bay -- if such greatness can even be measured.
Aretha Franklin's rendition of Bridge over Troubled Water. Paul Simon's outstanding lyricism coupled with Aretha's vocals... (with my apologies to Art) it's just... magic...
Canada: Safe Haven for Evil Music Swappers [rock on]
In a surprising decision yesterday, Canadian Federal Court ruled that online file-swapping practices are no different from "a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory."
This point of view, of course, deviates sharply from the decisions reached in the United States in such high-profile affairs as the Napster case. U.S. judges did find the Napster file-swapping service to constitute copyright infringements.
Every major daily has carried the story, but anyhow, here's a link to the Houston Chronicle's write up, which emphasizes the widening cross-border judicial gap on this matter.
PS: My compliments to The Honourable Judge Konrad Von Finckenstein.
|
In a surprising decision yesterday, Canadian Federal Court ruled that online file-swapping practices are no different from "a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory."
This point of view, of course, deviates sharply from the decisions reached in the United States in such high-profile affairs as the Napster case. U.S. judges did find the Napster file-swapping service to constitute copyright infringements.
Every major daily has carried the story, but anyhow, here's a link to the Houston Chronicle's write up, which emphasizes the widening cross-border judicial gap on this matter.
PS: My compliments to The Honourable Judge Konrad Von Finckenstein.
![[Click for official biography]](http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/justices/photo-De.jpg?1299748013-0.1-974446364)