Slashdot Log In
Copyright Expert Uninvited From Canada Policy Forum
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:03 PM
from the not-our-kind-of-public dept.
from the not-our-kind-of-public dept.
earthforce_1 writes "The vested interests of restrictive copyright are stacking the deck in Canada. The Public Policy Forum Symposium on intellectual property reform has bowed to pressure from certain interests and dis-invited noted copyright scholar Howard Knopf. The forum's stated mandate is '...to strive for excellence in government — to serve as a neutral, independent forum for open dialogue on public policy, and to encourage reform in public sector management.' For some reason, the US Ambassador to Canada and the former head of the Canadian Motion Picture Industry Association have been invited — apparently they are perceived to have a more neutral view of what Canadian copyright laws should be? More information at Howard Knopf's blog."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
They have more than they deserve (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't hold these jackasses completely responsible for their greed. We've all got some greed in us and corruption is a problem of opportunity, not of character. I blame the legislators that make themselves available to the highest bidder and the character flaws that prevent them from correcting the circumstances that enable corruption.
Re:They have more than they deserve (Score:5, Interesting)
This situation actually makes me a little happy. It means that my country wasn't the only one to have its politicians bought by these corporations. But at the same time, this newfound camaraderie in our mutual pwnage by the music and movie companies is quite disturbing. It reminds me of the laws in one of my favorite adventure games, The Longest Journey: corporate Law. Not laws regulating corporations, laws made by corporations regulating people.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers.
Re: (Score:2)
In a representative democracy, the ultimate blame for corrupt legislators lies with the people who vote for them.
Re: (Score:2)
The only US legislator that's elected by the country is the President. All the others represent people who live in a specific are, and can only be elected by people who live in that area, and there's a great deal of evidence that's both locally and generally available to indicate that some who are constantly re-elected have been shills to various corporate interests for decades.
"Not everyone starts out corrupt
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So now we are seeing a radical change, where the lies are being exposed, where corrupt politicians are being publicly shamed, where stacked policy forums are
Re: (Score:2)
The mass media have also been the ones who blew the whistle on corrupt public officials, e.g. Watergate, some of the things the Clintons were up to, and many, many others.
"So now we are seeing a radical change, where the lies are being exposed, where corrupt politicians are being publicly shamed"
The mass media were naming and shami
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst those individuals might have been corrupt, mass media proved the be the major facilitator in getting the most corrupt politicians re-elected by burying the truth and launching slander campaigns against honest politicians. With the internet starting to dominate 21st century mind space, the mass media lies, oh, sorry marketing are getting buried.
So now we are seeing a radical change, where the lies are being exposed, where corrupt politicians are being publicly shamed, where stacked policy forums are being exposed for what they are, corrupt marketing opportunities to sell laws to target and victimise the majority for the benefit of a greedy self serving minority.
How many mass media adds for the most disingenuous politicians have been latter dismembered across the web, and the lies shown in the adds compared to the truth of the actions.
Funny... I've been following articles about how politicians around the world are wising up to the Internet and are now using blogs, online ads and "independant" online news articles much more effectively than they were ever able to abuse mass media... because now they have no accountability instead of just very low and well-paid (off) accountability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of consistency there. No, it's pretty simple. Corruption is a problem of character. Few people have the character to resist corruption. That's why government and any other place where corruption can exist has to be open (so the corruption can be seen) and accountable (since knowing about the corruption and being unable to do a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corruption most certainly IS a problem of character, and a statement like the one above sounds like it was made by someone trying to rationalize away their own lack thereof (no personal offense, but that *is* what it sounds like).
Re:They have more than they deserve (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They have more than they deserve (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. And its interesting that this coincides so nicely with this story [www.cbc.ca].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>To be fair, the longer and stronger the copyright, the more the artist can sell it for. What's the point of buying something if you no
>longer own it after the person you bought it from dies?
You have to be willing to share it at some point or the deal's off. The *reason* you get copyright protection for some time is *because* you are willing to allow it to become a public common at some future time. If you are not willing to the the latter, you are not entitled to the former, because society and cul
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law will do a very good job of protecting you, to content creator, from somebody who wants to claim that they created your works and will sue you.
Copyright does a very poor job as a weapon for you, the content creator, to use against others.
In a world without friction, you might be correct. In this universe, isn't the actual case the OPPOSITE to what you're saying? I see very few cases where some creator has successfully defended their copyright against a corporation that is profiting off their work, but PLENTY of cases where copyrights are being used as an anti competitive weapon.
Equal Opportunity Weeps (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a country that is based on equality of opportunity (Canada / USA) should put less focus on crafting incentives that involve passing family fortunes down.
- John
Parent
Re:They have more than they deserve (Score:5, Insightful)
>Being able to leave money for your children and grandchildren is
>a great incentive. And at least for authors, this is the time
>where their experience is most valuable.
I suppose they can do like anyone else, leave money they have earned until they die. Why should then in ADDITION be able to leave a copyright to children and in what way does that fullfill the goals of copyright? I have never seen anyone claim copyright has as one of the purposes the possibility to give children a way to make money by restricting others use of a work.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
100 years of industrial revolution CAN corrupt over 4.5 billion years of naturally occurring weather cycles. A single volcanic eruption can devastate tremendous areas and upset weath
OT (Score:2, Insightful)
No, robust science is the reason I (and I dare say most people here) accept the message that has come from the IPCC and every other national science body on the planet.
It is intellectually lazy (at best cynical) to disagree with something just because some random lobbyist uses it to push an agenda. The problem with "for hire" lobbyists is they ar
Re:OT (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good thing that we have sceptics, on climate change, copyright, or any other debate that isn't about absolute facts for that matter. If we ever reach the point where some prevailing consensus is considered the gospel truth because it suddenly became trendy/lobbyist fodder/a source of research funding, then we're in a lot of trouble. One of my favourite quotations comes from the late anthropologist Margaret Mead, who said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
In this case, I have little doubt now that the effects described by the pro-climate change scientists are real. However, I also have little doubt that some of the arguments made in An Inconvenient Truth were naive at best, as evidenced by the rush to invent credible explanations after criticism in the "inconvenient documentary" that followed, nor that concerns about imminent catastrophic results have been overstated in the rush to be seen to be doing something. There's some truth in there somewhere, and it's for the best that we have at least some people advocating both sides of the debate to help us find it.
Getting back on topic, I think much the same is true of an ethical/political/economic issue like copyright. It's easy on Slashdot, ancestral home of "information wants to be free" groupthink and student economics, to find ways to criticise copyright and claim it reaches too far. It's just as easy, if you work as a professional recording artist, to find an ethical argument that the world doesn't need your particular interpretation of a work for free and that copyright in that recording should last for your entire lifetime. Again, a balance needs to be struck, starting with deciding what copyright is really for (which has multiple sensible answers, not all of which are based on some vague wording in the constitution of one nation, and which are sometimes incompatible).
This is why it is a shame that we are reading this story today. It's not even necessary that the person who's been removed might have argued the way many on Slashdot would like to see the debate go. It is a shame merely because the debate will now be less balanced than it otherwise would have been.
Parent
MOD parent up. (Score:2)
Here are a couple of reasons why...
On the subject of climate change in particular I am not a climatologist but I do have a BSc. I have been following the conversation si
Re: (Score:2)
It is also intellectually lazy to claim any study of a chaotic system can even be robust at all.
Climate change may or may not be linear. It may or may not be exponential, and it may or may not reverse suddenly because a couple butterflies made out in the jungle.
Trends are NOT proofs, they are just trends.
Troll food, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its the reason people believe that 100 years of industrial evolution on this planet can corrupt over 4.5 billion years of naturally occuring weather cycles.
...and during those 100 years we have dug up and burned a significant proportion of the fossil fuel deposits that originally built up over a ~ 100 million year period ~ 300 million years in the past (ballpark figures) - when the climate was considerably different to today. That's a geological-scale intervention - you have to be pretty blinkered to deny even the possibility that it could have geological-scale consequences.
And no, that's not intended to be an evidence-backed scientific argument - just a p
If you can't beat em, don't invite em. (Score:3, Insightful)
Quick reminder (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet another "neutral" body bought? (Score:2)
And how doo we get out of there?
Of course, at is has been (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The PPF (Score:2)
-President and CEO General Electric Canada
-Chairman of the Board Western Financial Group
-Chief Brand and Communications Officer RBC Financial Group
-Senior Vice President Petro-Canada
This really isn't as big a deal as was made out. Corporate influence in an organization like this isn't exactly a revelation. What's important is how
please take a minute to contact the PPF (Score:2)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
He probably should have said, however, "If you're a Canadian...".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If this guy was uninvited based on his views I would suspect its because the other side wanted more balance
Ahh.. you mean the way ABC brought "balance" to its debate by discussing Britney and other 'useful' things.
Or probably you mean the balanced way in which credit card issuers prevented card victims from testifying to Senate to make sure its not one-sided...
Balanced, my foot.
Corporates want the deck stacked for them. Not against them.
And they will not hesitate to steal candy from 3-year olds if it will increase their profit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, I applaud you. Everybody on Slashdot has already stopped doing the unnecessary task of RTFAing*, but you, young man, you're ahead of the times. You don't even RTFC! You, sir, will set the standards for the hive-mind in the years to come!
(* Or is it R'ingTFA?)
Re: (Score:2)
Who has the time to RTFA and RTFC when he can respond with vehemence and satire against a growing unpopular vice-president and an idotic president who stuffs his head AND a$$ into the sand and refuses to listen to the same people who voted for him.
All is fair in love and war. And with an unpopular, corporate-sponsored war, it is doubly so, hence RTFA and RTFC does NOT apply to anti-neocon tirades.
Re: (Score:2)
That could be a nice title for the... "other" version.
Re:Dont assume conspiracy - wait, what? (Score:2)
I think there are a few: geist, and the google guy.
However, for my sake, for my stupidities/understanding's sake, and everyone else, can you clarify whom and why you consider not being supportive of riaa other than the few mentioned above?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And thus you fall into the trap of assuming that because a noted expert's objective and factually defensible opinion favours one side of an issue, he must therefore have a "side" and be excluded in the interest of "balance". It is precisely this kind of muddled and uncritical thought that leads to gross errors in law and policy.
Should child molesters be given a place in the debate about whether more stringent laws against kiddie porn are a good idea? How far should we go in a specious attempt to defend
Re:Dont assume conspiracy (Score:5, Insightful)
other side wanted more balance
I agree, it should be more balanced.
We live in a democracy; one person, one vote.
Copyright affects everybody. The population of Canada is 33 million. The industry is only a tiny fraction of the total population. A representative panel should have maybe ten representatives from the general population for every one industry representative.
Note: Industry representatives should get no special treatment simply because they're rich or because they might be excessively affected by changes in copyright law; companies are just groups of people and should have no special privileges compared to the general population.
Yes, it's tyranny of the majority. Problem is, the only thing worse than that is tyranny of a minority.
---
Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.
-- Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions]
Parent
Re:Dear RIAA, get your d*ck out of Canada (Score:5, Informative)
but here is the part where the levy is a miserable failure:
independent bands.
many of my friends are in unsigned bands, playing bar shows on a regular basis, and they are actually making a living off of it. not a good living by any means, they are just scraping by, but they are doing it on their own.
But...lets say they want to burn some of their songs and sell them at their shows. every black CD has that nice levy on it, they pay it, but because they are unsigned, they get nothing back for it.
IF any of the money does make it past the labels and into the artists hands, it's going to acts like nickleback.
thats right, supporting independent music helps the big guys, too.
thank you, blank media levy!
Parent
Re:Dear RIAA, get your d*ck out of Canada (Score:5, Informative)
The blank media levy does *NOT* apply to the importers. If your friends are able to purchase blank CD's from outside of the country in bulk (like 1000's) then the levy does not apply to them since they are the importers. Also recording onto the blank media and then selling it ensures that the purchaser does not have to pay the blank media levy as well thereby bypassing the entire corrupt blank media levy system.
Seriously, tell your friends about this. It should help them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, I know it's not all that effective..
Re:no wonder, hes a troll. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Its regardless if he was trying to stack the deck against them... Where are the mature communicators of copyright? Cause I sure dont see any.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixing a stupid questionaire != trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you stopped beating your wife: [ ] yes I have stopped [ ] no I still beat her. So how do you answer if you've never beaten her?
All I can see here is that he tried to answer a broken set of questions.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
NOT A TROLL (Score:2)
He was merely pointing out the logical fallacies and biased wording of the actual PPF (I guess thats the Canadian RIAA) study that was conducted and was like well if they want to play the biased wording game this is how I would have done the survey.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, Knopf likes classical music and doesn't like pop, but that's a side issue. He mentions it on his blog, but it has nothing to do with the main issues he discusses concerning copyright. As far as copyright goes, he isn't extreme at all. He doesn't propose abolition of copyright or anything really radical. Much of what he does is just point out the facts. The talk that he was going to give is on the same topic as a recent post in which he pointed out various ways in which Canadian copyright law is actual