News

Prentice’s DMCA Deception

With only two weeks left in the House of Commons calendar until the summer recess (technically the House could sit for an additional two weeks but few expect that to happen), Industry Minister Jim Prentice is likely to introduce his new copyright bill next week or during the first week of June.  While Prentice continues to claim that he is actively working on a bill that meets the needs of creators and consumers, the talk in Ottawa is that the bill is done. The DMCA provisions that generated so much opposition last December are still there as Prentice is seemingly unwilling to take a stand against the U.S. pressure by siding with Canadian business, consumers, and education groups.

How will Prentice attempt to sell the Canadian DMCA?  Word is that the six months since the initial bill was shelved has yielded some changes, most notably reforms such as the legalization of time shifting (ie. recording television shows with a VCR/PVR) and possibly device shifting (ie. transfer a song from a store bought CD to an iPod). 

Neither of these provisions come close to meeting the concerns of the many groups that have spoken out on copyright over the past six months.  Moreover, the Prentice Canadian DMCA is still likely to render Canadians infringers where they seek to use these new exceptions in the digital realm.  For example, last week there were reports that NBC inserted copy-controls into some of their television programming that rendered Windows Vista Media Center users unable to record television shows.  Under the Prentice plan, users that seek to circumvent the digital lock to record the television show (as he will claim they can) will still violate the law.  The same is true for copy-controlled CDs – try circumventing the copy-controls to shift the music onto your iPod and you're violating the law even with a device-shifting provision.

If the exceptions are undermined by the Canadian DMCA provisions, why is Prentice throwing them in?  The answer is pretty clear.  Prentice hopes that the media coverage will focus on these new "modernizing" provisions that he will claim benefit consumers, rather than on the DMCA-style anti-circumvention provisions that will lock down consumer products, harm research and security, raise privacy concerns, and create a restrictive new legal environment. 

With the bill seemingly only days away, now is the time to again tell Prentice and your local MP that Canadians will not be so easily deceived.  Countries such as New Zealand and Israel have recently enacted legislation with far more balance than what Prentice has in mind.  It only takes a few seconds to send an email to Prentice, the Prime Minister, and your local MP, letting them know that Canadians won't be deceived by a Canadian DMCA and that Canadian copyright reform should reflect fair copyright principles (and after you click send, print out the email and drop it in the mail without a stamp to House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A0A6).

31 Comments

  1. A. Canadian says:

    “Canadians will not be so easily deceived.”

    I beg to differ. Canadians are easily deceived and I cite as precedence the fact that (enough) Canadians were fooled into believing that the current government would be a good thing for Canada that they managed to squeak into office.

    It is abundantly obvious that the current government has no interest whatsoever in what is good for the Canadian public. This comes as no surprise since the current government ‘s masters reside primarily outside the borders of the country.

  2. Save your energy
    Mike,

    I think we all need to save our energy, and fight this bill once its introduced (if that’s what needs to be done). If thousands of e-mails have not done the job already, why send a few more when Canadians are not paying attention.

    I think a better shift in our energy would be towards the media, and educating the public once this bill is introduced and in the public eye again. I think the best option would be to bombard the media that do not cover “the full story” with e-mails, and phone calls. I think that would probably be the best way of fighting this currently.

    Let Canadians see this bill for what it is, then fight the fights we need too. It’s not worth stirring up this type of interest when we have no proof this bill will mirror the DMCA or be as bad as you say it’s going to be.

    The last time we did this was for a reason, to get our voice to the table. We’ve all had the chance now to voice our concern, and if that doesn’t show in this bill the Government will ultimately fail in it’s objectives in creating a balanced approach, and create chaos in these industries effected. Let them. Let history unfold as it should. Let these industries spend large amounts of money at a time when they can’t do so. We consumers will be waiting for them on the other side of all of this, and will be prepared to fight:

    Tanya Andersen RIAA story spans the globe:

    [ link ]

    Consumers will fight here in Canada. We’re ready and prepared to do so, should a balanced approach not be introduced.

  3. Todd Sieling says:

    Thanks for the alert, Michael. I understand Jason K’s perspective, but I think that the position for fair use and balanced copyright law needs to be stated, re-stated and stated again to a very hard-headed minority government that prides itself on not listening to criticism. That aside, I do like the idea of urging media to cover the story, and will be doing just that with our 3 major news channels here in Vancouver.

  4. Any News organization caught creating a “bias” approach to reporting on this subject may also be subject to a complaint with the Radio-Television News Directors Association, for not upholding their “code of ethics”.

    [ link ]

    From my journalizm days, most major news organizations do belong to this association, and as a journalizm student, we were all taught to uphold the “code of ethics” when selecting stories, and reporting on them.

    The first point on the code of ethics:

    ARTICLE ONE (Accuracy)
    Broadcast journalists will inform the public in an accurate, comprehensive and fair manner about events and issues of importance.

    One would expect now that both sides WILL be presented to the public.

    Jason K

  5. Correction, the complaints with regards to bias reporting and the code of ethics mentioned above in mainstream broadcast media, such as radio/television are handeled and upheld by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council:

    [ link ]

    Jason K

  6. Suggestions for letter content?
    I’d like to write letters and emails as suggested. Would anyone care to suggest some key points that we particularly want to emphasize?

    Some I’m aware of off the top of my head are:

    - Lack of consultation with non-industry-lobbyists on the bill’s substance

    - Foolishness of following in the footsteps of the US, particularly now that the ill effects of the DMCA are apparent and several of the original architects of the law have expressed regret over it

    - Canada is recognized and respected internationally for the reasonable balance in its existing copyright laws

    Michael’s 8 point Fair Copyright Principles are also good points (I won’t reproduce them here since I don’t want Michael to sue me for copyright infringement, ha ha ha….)

  7. Boilerplate, yes
    I’m all angry and willing to write, but also suffering from a sub-optimal brain functionality at the moment. What can I pass on to Libby Davies so she’ll get all vicious about this?

  8. censorship says:

    deletion
    United States of America will run the world now…

  9. Promateus says:

    Strategy
    Mr. Geist
    You touched something quite important related to the upcoming political struggle, namely, the coverage which the strategists will try to get. I think no one better than you (and perhaps the CIPPIC could be a ressource you put to that use in the near future) can anticipate and propagate the likely angles around which politician will try to present the anticipated bill. This is just an idea but it seems to me that journalists (especially mainstream) might need a little help if they are not to just repeat  as is usualy their way of [re]presenting the news  the rhetorical presentation of the promoters of the anticipated bill. Perhaps the (light-)parodying of an announce would do much good to diffuse strategists and agenda setters if it were to be made in advance. This could be couppled with in depht refutations on a point by point. By anticipating the selling strategy and presenting it for what it is i think this could impact, at least, the journalist community. N-a-way, just a thought, patent it if you like.

  10. Letter
    I would like to send letters as suggested. If someone can draft one up I will gladly send it out and pass the link around to friends.

  11. 4 Letters sent and drafts forward to friends and family. Thanks for all your work Michael!

  12. Sent!
    Wrote to all respective parties, once again.

    I support the idea that keeping pressure on the media is worth the effort.

    Thanks for all the hard work, Michael!

  13. Anonymous says:

    What Bill?
    Seems a little early to be writing my MP…where is the Bill? What does it say?

  14. Steven G. says:

    I’m beginning to think this is pointless, Canada will end up with a DMCA that is in line with the US, why? Because the individuals in power have no respect for our freedoms and no idea about todays technology.

    I’ve written my local MP with no response in months, along with the Industry Minister, again no reply. I had to call and TALK to my local MP and even then, they seemed bewildered as to anything I was talking about, how can we have folks making decisions on such matters if they aren’t educated enough to understand any concepts? WTF, that call ended with me being sorely disappointed in our democratic system… I mean most of these folks are still using VCRs!

    Keep up the fight folks.

  15. To: A. Canadian

    And I suppose you felt that the last government had our best interests at heart. I wonder who got us involved in the Middle East to begin with…

  16. Mike Ravkine says:

    What I just sent him..
    What I just sent:

    Dear Mr. Prentice,

    I think we can all agree that Intellectual property is what Canada’s (and in fact, the world’s) future is made out of. As a result, any laws or other measures passed or even considered have to keep in mind the welfare of the public at large. The only way in which this can be accomplished is if government honors their promise to hold a dialog with Canadians on issues of copyright law reform, and not be bullied around by large corporations both south of the border and here at home. The rumored attempts to rush through legislation, if true, will not sit well with Canadians when they’ve figured out what you’ve done (and don’t worry, there are plenty of technologically savvy people in this country that would help spread the word).

    The right thing to do is to make sure that the needs of all interested parties (producers, consumers, promoters and so on) are addressed, and this can only be achieved through extensive public dialog. There are already websites devoted to this topic, such as Michael Geist’s Fair Copyright for Canada Principles ([ link ]) and these websites can be used as a springboard for these discussions.

    Thank you for your time,

  17. The good fight
    Well, apart from all “boogie men are in control” messages, I completely agree with a lot of what has been said on this page.

    I will be writing my MP (who is a complete dufus, but that has nothing to do with his party affiliation), the PM, and Prentice. As well I will be writing the local media. But something that hasn’t been mentioned (even by those afraid of the boogieman) is that I will also try to find out who in the opposition (you know, those people that control the balance of power, and have the ability to overrule the minority government) represents the same portfolio as Prentice (in the NDP, Lib, and Bloc) and let them know my views as well. The “leaders” of the opposition I will als include.

    I will do this now, and one the bill is introduced.

    Thanks for keeping on top of this. With people like you “keeping the lights on”, people don’t really have to be afraid of all the boogie men that don’t really exist.

  18. Tylor Bradbury says:

    Is there anywhere I can read a copy of this bill? I see all these articles about how bad it is but personally I\’d like to read the proposed bill before taking action…

  19. rural James says:

    proposed draft
    Michael, I hope you don’t mind if I’ve plagiarized a bit.

    Dear Honourable Minister,

    In December, when your proposed copyright reform bill was introduced, there was strong consumer backlash and the bill was shelved for revamping. It is expected that you will introduce a slightly modified version of this bill again before session lets out in the next few weeks in order to satisfy pressure from industry representatives. Herein lie a few suggestions proposed, by amongst others, intellectual property lawyer Michael Geist:

    1) Anti-circumvention provisions should be directly linked to copyright infringement. The anti-circumvention provisions have been by far the most controversial element of the proposed reforms. The experience in the United States, where anti-circumvention provisions effectively trump fair use rights, provides the paradigm example of what not do to. It should only be a violation of the law to circumvent a technological protection measure (TPM) if the underlying purpose is to infringe copyright. Circumvention should be permitted to access a work for fair dealing or private copying purposes. This approach – which is similar (though not identical) to the failed Bill C-60 – would allow Canada to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Internet treaties and avoid some of the negative “unintended consequences” that have arisen under the U.S. law.

    2) No ban on devices that can be used to circumvent a TPM. Canada should not ban devices that can be used to circumvent a TPM. The reason is obvious – if Canadians cannot access the tools necessary to exercise their user rights under the Copyright Act, those rights are effectively extinguished in the digital world. If organizations are permitted to use TPMs to lock down content in a manner that threatens fair dealing, Canadians should have the right to access and use technologies that restores the copyright balance.

    3) Expand the fair dealing provision by establishing “flexible fair dealing.” Led by the United States, several countries around the world have established fair use provisions within their copyright laws (Israel being the most recent). The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Canada’s fair dealing provision must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner. Yet the law currently includes a limited number of categories (research, private study, criticism, news reporting) that renders everyday activities such as recording television programs acts of infringement. The ideal remedy is to address other categories such as parody, time shifting, and format shifting by making the current list of fair dealing categories illustrative rather than exhaustive.

    4) Establish a legal safe harbour for Internet intermediaries supported by a “notice and notice” takedown system. The creation of a legal safe harbour that protects Internet intermediaries from liability for the actions of their users is critically important to foster a robust and vibrant online world. Indeed, without such protections, intermediaries (which include Internet service providers, search engines, video sites, blog hosts, and individual bloggers) frequently remove legitimate content in the face of legal threats. Canadian law should include an explicit safe harbour that insulates intermediaries from liability where they follow a prescribed model that balances the interests of users and content owners. The ideal Canadian approach would be a “notice and notice” system that has been used successfully for many years on an informal basis.

    5) Modernize the backup copy provision. As part of the 1988 copyright reform, Canadian copyright law was amended to allow for the making of backup copies of computer programs. In 1988, backing up digital data meant backing up software programs. Today, digital data includes CDs, DVDs, and video games. All of these products suffer from the same frailties as software programs, namely the ease with which hard drives become corrupted or CDs and DVDs scratched and non-functional. From a policy perspective, the issue is the same – ensuring that consumers have a simple way to protect their investment. “Modernizing” copyright law should include bringing this provision into the 21st century by expanding the right to make a backup copy to all digital consumer products.

    6) Rationalize the statutory damages provision. Canada is one of the only countries in the world to have a statutory damages provision within its copyright legislation. It creates the prospect of massive liability – up to $20,000 per infringement – without any evidence of actual loss. This system may have been designed for commercial-scale infringement, but its primary use today is found in the U.S. where statutory damages led to the massive liability for one peer-to-peer file sharing defendant and leaves many defendants with little option but settlement. Before Canada faces similar developments, we should amend the statutory damages provision by clarifying that it only applies in cases of commercial gain.

    7) Include actual distribution in the making available right. The new bill will likely include a “making available” provision that will grant copyright holders the exclusive right to make their works available. While there is reason to believe that Canadian law already features a making available right, any new provision should require actual distribution, which ensures that liability only flows from real harm.

    In closing, I pray that when you find ‘a balance between industry and consumer’ that the balance is not in a bank account but rather keeping in mind the rights for fair-use of voting, tax-paying Canadians.

    Sicerely,
    blah blah

  20. Calgary Facebook Group says:

    Letter Sent
    Dear Mr. Prentice,

    News that you are planning to introduce a new version of your failed copyright bill to the House of Commons next week is currently generating public outrage on Facebook, Michaelgeist.ca, and numerous other web forums.

    I’m sure you have already received thousands of other e-mails regarding this matter, but there are a number of SERIOUS flaws in this bill that need to be remedied:

    1) Anti-circumvention provisions should be directly linked to copyright infringement. The anti-circumvention provisions have been by far the most controversial element of the proposed reforms. The experience in the United States, where anti-circumvention provisions effectively trump fair use rights, provides the paradigm example of what not do to. It should only be a violation of the law to circumvent a technological protection measure (TPM) if the underlying purpose is to infringe copyright. Circumvention should be permitted to access a work for fair dealing or private copying purposes. This approach – which is similar (though not identical) to the failed Bill C-60 – would allow Canada to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Internet treaties and avoid some of the negative “unintended consequences” that have arisen under the U.S. law.

    2) No ban on devices that can be used to circumvent a TPM. Canada should not ban devices that can be used to circumvent a TPM. The reason is obvious – if Canadians cannot access the tools necessary to exercise their user rights under the Copyright Act, those rights are effectively extinguished in the digital world. If organizations are permitted to use TPMs to lock down content in a manner that threatens fair dealing, Canadians should have the right to access and use technologies that restores the copyright balance.

    3) Expand the fair dealing provision by establishing “flexible fair dealing.” Led by the United States, several countries around the world have established fair use provisions within their copyright laws (Israel being the most recent). The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Canada’s fair dealing provision must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner. Yet the law currently includes a limited number of categories (research, private study, criticism, news reporting) that renders everyday activities such as recording television programs acts of infringement. The ideal remedy is to address other categories such as parody, time shifting, and format shifting by making the current list of fair dealing categories illustrative rather than exhaustive.

    4) Establish a legal safe harbour for Internet intermediaries supported by a “notice and notice” takedown system. The creation of a legal safe harbour that protects Internet intermediaries from liability for the actions of their users is critically important to foster a robust and vibrant online world. Indeed, without such protections, intermediaries (which include Internet service providers, search engines, video sites, blog hosts, and individual bloggers) frequently remove legitimate content in the face of legal threats. Canadian law should include an explicit safe harbour that insulates intermediaries from liability where they follow a prescribed model that balances the interests of users and content owners. The ideal Canadian approach would be a “notice and notice” system that has been used successfully for many years on an informal basis.

    5) Modernize the backup copy provision. As part of the 1988 copyright reform, Canadian copyright law was amended to allow for the making of backup copies of computer programs. In 1988, backing up digital data meant backing up software programs. Today, digital data includes CDs, DVDs, and video games. All of these products suffer from the same frailties as software programs, namely the ease with which hard drives become corrupted or CDs and DVDs scratched and non-functional. From a policy perspective, the issue is the same – ensuring that consumers have a simple way to protect their investment. “Modernizing” copyright law should include bringing this provision into the 21st century by expanding the right to make a backup copy to all digital consumer products.

    6) Rationalize the statutory damages provision. Canada is one of the only countries in the world to have a statutory damages provision within its copyright legislation. It creates the prospect of massive liability – up to $20,000 per infringement – without any evidence of actual loss. This system may have been designed for commercial-scale infringement, but its primary use today is found in the U.S. where statutory damages led to the massive liability for one peer-to-peer file sharing defendant and leaves many defendants with little option but settlement. Before Canada faces similar developments, we should amend the statutory damages provision by clarifying that it only applies in cases of commercial gain.

    7) Include actual distribution in the making available right. The new bill will likely include a “making available” provision that will grant copyright holders the exclusive right to make their works available. While there is reason to believe that Canadian law already features a making available right, any new provision should require actual distribution, which ensures that liability only flows from real harm.

    Mr. Prentice, I urge you to think long and hard about the above points before introducing your new bill. How do you want history to remember you? As the man who introduced the foolish intellectual property bill that enraged consumers and crippled Canadian industry; or as the leader who crafted a brilliant piece of legislation that other nations hold as an example of the “right” way of doing things?

    The latter can only be achieved by listening to ALL of the parties involved.

    -XXXX YYYY
    Calgary, Alberta

  21. Reid Ellis says:

    the heart of the matter
    Dear Honourable Ministers,

    After reviewing Michael Geist’s summary of the proposed legislation , I would urge you all to not pass this new copyright bill. Anti-circumvention has not proven itself to protect artists or copyright holders in the US.

    Indeed, the emergent solution has been to remove barriers to copying (i.e. Digital Rights Management) and embrace a business model where consumers can purchase unencumbered media – e.g. Amazon’s music store, iTunes Plus, and recently Napster. We are likely to see a similar result in the movie industry.

    Enshrining a defunct business model in law will waste money and effort that could be better spent elsewhere.

    Thanks,
    Reid

  22. Anonymous says:

    Ryan
    Fantastic post Mike, and we agree with quite a few of your comments that the main step is to educate the public, hence we copied it onto our website which speaks about copyright/RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA as well, please do check it out.

    Regards,
    Ryan
    [ link ]

  23. John Pinkney says:

    Will it pass?
    What I am curious about is, since this is a minority Gov’t, and the legislation is so unpopular, what are the chances of it actually passing? Are the Liberals on board with this thing, or are they going to try to gain political points by opposing it (lets hope!)?

  24. PorkBellyFutures says:

    Tylor Bradbury: No, there is nowhere you can read a copy of the bill. Nobody who has posted here (including Professor Geist) has read it either. The outrage in this thread is based on speculation and hearsay.

    The bill will be available when it gets tabled.

  25. Bruce Atherton says:

    Here is my letter, already sent
    It seems like every time we turn around, the government is thieving from the taxpayers. Your latest version of your copyright bill is a case in point.

    What are you thieving? Our rights, sure, but not just our rights, you are thieving our property. And we are sick and tired of it. We are asking you, in our polite Canadian way, to kindly knock it off.

    The amendments you have made to your bill that appear to allow for time shifting and moving purchased works from one device to another in fact do no such thing. Why? Because the same bill would make it illegal for anyone to figure out how to do those things.

    The examples that demonstrate that statement to be true are numerous. Here are just a couple of them:

    – For years people running the Linux operating system on their computers could not play DVDs that they had legally purchased. When the copy protection on DVDs was broken, finally allowing us the right you claim to allow in your bill, the person who broke it was charged under terms very similar to those you are about to write into Canadian law.

    – Even now, our cable companies lock us into a copy-protected version of High Definition TV signals. Unless we use their equipment, we cannot do any time shifting. In the U.S., support for a technology called \”Cable Card\” is mandated for every company that provides cable television services, thus guaranteeing citizens the right to move high definition TV content to devices of the purchaser\’s choosing. If anyone in Canada attempted to get the legally purchased signals out of the cable boxes and onto a device of their choosing, they would have to do it by circumventing copy protection and thus be subject to prosecution under your bill.

    So clearly you are thieving our fair use rights, but why did I mention the theft of property? It is because of the distinction between copyright and the work the copyright applies to. Copyright is not the work, it is a LIMITED exclusive monopoly right on the work. The creator of the work initially owns the copyright, as well they should. But who owns the work itself? The public. Which means that every time the government gives more to copyright holders by expanding the meaning or term of the copyright, they necessarily have to take it from the public and make the work worth less. That is our property you are messing around with.

    If you really want meaningful copyright reform, I offer the following suggestions:

    1. Make copyright non-transferable.

    This would guarantee that the creator of a work always had ownership of their copyright. The reason this is important is that copyright tends to flow to wherever there is a bottleneck in delivering the work from the creator of the work to the consumer. For music this was traditionally in distribution, although the Internet is changing that. For books and magazines it is in publishing, and in video content such as movies or TV it is in the initial cost of creating the work. By making copyright non-transferable, the creator would always have the ability to do whatever they liked with their work, without being forced into transferring it away to the entity (usually a corporation) that holds the bottleneck.

    2. Revert works back to the public while they still hold some value.

    We the public give this exclusive right to content creators for a reason: we see value in encouraging the creation of more works. If copyright terms were determined on an 80/20 rule, having the term end when on average a work would have realized 80% of its value during the lifetime of the creator, then the public could get full use of the work while it still had some value. By my rough estimate, these terms appear to give the copyright holders 80% of the value of the work for different content types:

    Software/Magazine Articles: 5 years
    Movies/TV/Records: 10 years
    Books: 20 years

    Of course, a proper study could determine what those copyright terms actually should be.

    Lest you think that I am anti-copyright, let me assure you that as a Software Architect I rely on the existence of copyright for my livelihood. My objections to your copyright bill and my suggestions for amendments to copyright law are all based on recognizing the need to balance the rights of the copyright holder with the rights of the public. Please don\’t make the mistake being made with your bill of skewing the rights too far in one direction.

  26. Tyler Mitton says:

    My letter – feel free to use it!
    Dear Mr. Prentice,

    News that you are planning to introduce a new version of your failed copyright bill to the House of Commons next week is currently generating public outrage and I sincerely hope you are listening.

    I have heard that time shifting and device shifting may be allowed in the new version of the bill, but these two changes are meaningless considering the DMCA provisions which make it illegal to time shift and device shift if it means circumventing copy-restrictions.

    Were these changes implemented merely to give the impression that the public voice has been heard? The media will not fall for that, and there are tens of thousands of people that will make sure of it. We are all willing to go to the media directly to express the public perspective of how this has been dealt with.

    I urge you to think long and hard about these issues before introducing your new bill. How do you want history to remember you? As the man who introduced the foolish intellectual property bill that enraged consumers and crippled Canadian industry; or as the leader who crafted a brilliant piece of legislation that other nations hold as an example of the “right” way of doing things? The latter can only be achieved by listening to ALL of the parties involved.

    Regards,

  27. David Gibson says:

    Key Points
    “””I’d like to write letters and emails as suggested. Would anyone care to suggest some key points that we particularly want to emphasize?”””

    Sure: (1) I like to get stuff free. (2) My Mom bought me a computer.

  28. Dallas Hockley says:

    trackback to another example
    A lot of great examples and content from people in their letters. I’ve added my voice and posted the letter over on my blog for others to draw from as well. The trackback to the entry on my own blog is at [ link ]

    Normally I’d just add the trackback, but that’s not enabled, probably due to the spammers running the quality blogs to ground too often.

  29. These letter should be sent to all membe
    These well written letters need to be sent to all members, because Harper and Prentice are the ones who want US style government initiatives and laws, so we need to send these letters and emails to all the other members so that they understand the issues and can vote against them. You aren’t going to change the minds of Harper and Prentice because they are “THE” evil “BUSH” clones that we need to get rid of in the first place.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Grinder
    “Save your energy

    Written by Jason K on 2008-05-20 14:44:33

    ——————————————————————————–
    Mike,

    I think we all need to save our energy, and fight this bill once its introduced (if that’s what needs to be done). If thousands of e-mails have not done the job already, why send a few more when Canadians are not paying attention…..”

    Great idea! This technique should work well in this instance as well as a lot of other things in life. For instance Fire Fighters should wait until the spark turn into a flaming inferno before trying to fight it. “Nip it in the bud” is way over rated! I mean what challenge is there in dealing with a situation when its small and managable!

  31. NatalieMann says:

    reply this topic
    One understands that modern life seems to be not very cheap, however some people require cash for different stuff and not every one earns enough money. Thus to receive fast loan or just sba loan would be a correct way out.