WHERE IS CANADA, ANYWAY?


Where is Canada, anyway?

Yesterday the IPKat posted an item about the Canadian Mounties' pursuit of infringers of copyright in karaoke in Canada, together with photo bearing the caption "The Mounties enforcing copyright in Canada". He - and other recipients of his email circulars - then received the following note from a reader, Paul Jones (Jones & Co, Bay Street, Toronto):
"The IPKat should consider a refresher course in jurisdiction and geography. The Mounties have never had any jurisdiction in Alaska, which was first a Russian and is now an American territory. Perhaps it meant to write the Yukon or the Rockies?".
Resisting the temptation to sound triumphalist, the IPKat is pleased to inform his readers that Alaska is indeed in Canada: it is a place in Prince Edward Island. You can find it by visiting the Natural Resources of Canada Atlas site here and typing Alaska into the site search box. This Alaska is not to be confused with Alaska Point, up in the snowy reaches of Nunavut.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police operate both in Prince Edward Island and in Nunavut, the IPKat has learned, though he has his suspicions as to which of the two is more prone to experience outbreaks of illicit karaoke.

Merpel says, what about all the other place names stolen by the Canadians, no doubt to secure advantage when it comes to geographical indications? She's thinking of York, Halifax, Edmonton, Liverpool, Shelbourne, Bridgewater, Airdrie, Surrey, Richmond, Lorraine, Stratford, Peterborough, Pembroke, Pickering ... not to mention London!
WHERE IS CANADA, ANYWAY? WHERE IS CANADA, ANYWAY? Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, July 28, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.