July 27th, 2010

[eel_grass]

The aforementioned "pretty neat entry in the works" didn't pan out.
Instead, since Copyright law is so sexy, here is a pamphlet I just made about Bill C-32:

Comments

[eel_grass]

It seems that due to the same technical difficulty that afflicted my July 12th entry, you are only able to view the last page up close. Thruppence to he who will tell me how to fix that.

[nova_one]

I think you'll have to put links in to each individual picture. Right now you've got the link for the last photo wrapped around the whole series of thumbnails. Wrap links around thumbnails one at a time, like so:

[nova_one]

Temporary work-around: Go here. Until you upload new images, just go through each link in reverse order from the fifth to the first.

[eel_grass]

The least effort on my part; I love it! EVERYONE, DO THIS^.

Brute-Force Solution

[anonymous]

Make five July 27th posts---one to get each pamphlet page through.

I'll put my 0.03$ in the tip jar for the writer. :)

[nova_one]

Very informative - I learned a lot! It's nice to know that there's lots to like in there, but making it a crime to circumvent digital locks is still supremely odious. That part really has to be dumped.

[eel_grass]

I've learned for future entries that the secret is to place words between each picture.

[kutnitijna]

Copyright Law is indeed an arousing subject. But do you know what is an even sexier topic? Patent Law!!!

But anyway, back to the matter at hand... The last panel seemed pretty nifty. I agree that the digital lock provision is the only irksome part in an otherwise-decent bill. They may soften that, though, given that the US just did. Personally, I hope they at least give an exception to unlocking cell phones, or even better, force companies to unlock phones at the end of a contract, and accept customers with non-locked phones.

[eel_grass]

There is an exception for cell phones, I think. That is not enough.