Wikipedia

Talk:An Act to amend the Copyright Act (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Should the current tag be added?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

yes or no? Noian (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd prefer {{current bill}}. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Added. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Updating of facebook numbers

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Although this has not proven to be a problem yet, I think if everyone would agree that the numbers be updated no more than once per day, it should help the article be developed in other, more relevant areas. Noian (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be reasonable to only update it weekly, replacing "More than # people have joined ..." with "as of <date>, more than # people have joined ...". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Eh..I was thinking that I'd get shot down by [various anonymous activist editors] saying no more than once per day, but guess not, once per week is better. Noian (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think it depends on how much the count has increased since the last update. For example I don't think a 2% increase would warrent an update unless it's part of a larger edit or the count hasn't been updated in days, while a 10% increase probably would warrent an update even if the count was updated an hour ago. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
IMO we should not update the figures with numbers from after the election call, or keep post-election numbers in a separate "legacy" or "aftermath" section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
By the way, would it still be possible to get more recent pre-dissolution membership statistics? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sources for the detail section

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

$20,000 for downloading videos off of YouTube? Really? This needs a citation. Also, the figure of $20,000 isn't mentioned anywhere in the bill, the only cash values I was able to find are $200, $500, $5,000, $10,000, $25,000 and $1,000,000. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The $20,000 figure is from previous legislation, thanks Noian. I have removed the claims of larger fines for downloading from peer to peer networks and YouTube, as the CBC source article states that the $20,000 fine is only for uploading. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I'm not confused anymore....Noian (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
When I said uploading/downloading, that was for p2p, as p2p is both at same time, not youtube, sorry. I put them together cause they were the exceptions mentioned. Should have put the downloading in a note. Noian (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

moving up to b class article

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

anyone know where to start making needed changes? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

It'd say that the criticism section needs a massive cleanup. I've been having difficulty figuring out exactly how to go about it though. I feel it should read more as a bulleted list of points with numerous supporting quotes, but it is hard to pick out the points from the current chaos. Maybe it should be scrapped and started again? Mwalts (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree that its hard....perhaps start a rewrite on a sandbox somewhere and have a few people work on the rewrite there, maybe in chronological order of criticism appearing (and afterward trying to group related things together) and then when its in fit shape, move it over. I did something like that to the Vuze page. It should be easier since everything is already researched and sourced here though, I had to research everything in my rewrite/try to remember things off the top of my head (which is why I wrote verify in many places on the Vuze page))ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

add {{wikify}} for details?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

{{Wikify}} Not sure, but over at deluge(software) there's a section that's like the details one (list) which has wikify tag....ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

no ref to Bill C-61 in the 39th Parliament WP

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Someone who knows what they're doing User:Noian? should add a brief 1-2 line summary of C-61 to the main Parliament article where it talks about a bunch of bills that didn't make it thru, and then a Main article link to this article. Sorry, I don't have the time or the energy. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Disclaimer: I'm not Canadian. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  Done but needs information on second reading time (and so does main article)/other readings, etc. that I don't know about since I'm not Canadian. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What happened to the authors' rights?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Details section says: "a performer is given the sole right to..." - does it mean that the authors' rights were (proposed to be) effectively trashed ? Sorry, cannot read the linked legalese :)) NVO (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No idea, this article hasn't really been touched in a while, the update tag is still there, hoping a Canadian editor comes along and updates this. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that authors' rights are "trashed". It just means that a performer retains certain rights over their performance. For example, if you wrote a play you couldn't tape the performance and put it on YouTube without the permission of the performer even though you are the author. Stephen Rasku (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

in force or not?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think the article should state whether or not the law has come into force by now or not. This can nowhere be found in the article! --boarders paradise (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it hasn't, see the first paragraph, "The bill died on the order paper when the 39th Parliament was dissolved prematurely and an election was called by the Governor General Michaëlle Jean at Prime Minister Stephen Harper's request on September 7, 2008.". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on An Act to amend the Copyright Act (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on An Act to amend the Copyright Act (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on An Act to amend the Copyright Act (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_Act_to_amend_the_Copyright_Act_(39th_Canadian_Parliament,_2nd_Session)&oldid=1211388772"