There's an argument that the whole problem with software patents is that they collapse that very difference. After all, the implementation of a software-idea is already protected through copyright (for a very, very long time!). What additional protection, then, do patents give?

Sure, in principle, but the devil is in the details. "Usage based billing" doesn't really describe what is going on here-- that's the industry propaganda term. This decision was primarily about wholesaler's ability to screw over bandwidth resellers, like Teksavvy (who I use). Under the CRTC's decision, Bell was going to cut my bandwidth cap from 250GB/month to *25*. With $2/GB overage fees. Some companies here charge around $5 (I know!!!) per gig after hitting your monthly max. Canada's incumbent telcos have tremendous power and the CRTC, under good ol' Conrad von Finkenstein, has been entrenching their power even more.

You say "you'd have to be dumb" as if your choice of consumer electronics makes you smart? Really?

I really don't get the technical details of all this, but my understanding is that Stuxnet spread, at least in part, through USB keys and the like. In that way it *was* able to attack systems not connected to the Internet.

Off-topic! Whyioughtta! The Scorched Earth Party was Jeff Vogel's usenet running gag back in the early and mid 90s.

Now get off my lawn!

"It's not the heat, it's the humidity. It's not the voltage, it's the current. It's not the meat, it's the motion. And it's not the pipe - it's the will." -the Scorched Earth Party

I'd like to simply point out that, at least arguably, *access* to health care is a big part of health care itself. "Health insurance" reform and "health care" reform are not so neatly separable.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing...? Because no, there's no copyright levy on iPods &c. right now. The Copyright Board approved one several years ago, but the Federal Courts struck it down. Right now you pay *tax* on an iPod (GST or HST or whatever depending on which Province you're in) but there's no copyright levy on it. In this bill, an NDP member (it's a private member bill; the NDP itself didn't introduce it) merely proposed to explicitly give the Copyright Board the authority to extend the blank-media levy (which already covers blank CDs) to iPods. As well as expanding the scope of fair dealing, which is badly needed (US fair use is much broader than Canadian fair dealing).

Strictly speaking, this is not a tax, but a levy. The money doesn't go to the government, but to rights collectives. The whole point is that it does make something legal: activities that are covered by a levy are not an infringement of copyright.

The issue wasn't that they can 'hold anything', but that iPods and the such aren't 'media' within the meaning of the Act. They're integrated 'devices'. I'm not absolutely convinced the Court decided the issue correctly, but I think there is valid logic there; they were probably reluctant to expand the authority of the Copyright Board to things like hard drives and consumer electronics when that wasn't really contemplated when the levying powers were established (people were thinking about things like casette tapes and CDs).