Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Gov't Gives Big Bucks to Copyright Lobby
5degreez writes "The Toronto Star is reporting
that the Canadian government is providing
hundreds of thousands of dollars to a copyright lobby group that claims
that education groups are 'devoted to abolishing creators' rights on the
Internet.' Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act by Prof Michael Geist
reveal that government officials recognized that the funding
established a bad precedent, yet they still plan to pay big bucks until
2008."
they're using the taxpayers' money to provide the *AA money so they can lobby for parties following their lines?
O.o This is sick, man! It's way more serious than the *AA. It's more like electoral fraud.
IMHO, the CRA should rename itself to truly reflect what it stands for. And we all know they will say they stand "against piracy". So they should name themselves the Creators Rights Alliance Againt Piracy.
..
I think that then and only then will the right message get across
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
You can be sure that other lobbies will soon be arguing the same thing. It's worked for the Creators' Rights Alliance, why not any other interest group?
Wikileaks, no DNS
copying copyright material is not theft. It is copying.
Why should we be treating this as a criminal act when it's clearly a civil issue?
Lobbying money, that's what.
I am a leaf on the wind
It's just a matter of time before the MPAA can sue us Canadians for sharing files, too. I better download all the crap I can now... Quick, someone link me a Garfield movie torrent!
was a bastion of all that is fair and just in the world?
or maybe what people traditionally associate with american versus european versus chinese versus (anywhere) behavior is actually a component of all human behavior?
nah, that ruins all of my simplistic nationalism-based stereotypical ways i think about my world, where everyone is conveniently lumped into "good guys" versus "bad guys"
heaven forbid i have to think critically about the world i live in and keep an open mind about all its peoples regardless of the issue at hand
that what we consider "bad" (usa) might sometimes do good and what we consider "good" (canada) might sometimes do bad
inconceivable!
what is this world coming too if i can't prejudice based on nationality?
</sarcasm>
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This contract was awarded under the previous government, but it's for a 3 year term. So we'll see if there are any differences between the Liberals and Conservatives.
who said, "The USA stinks! I'm going to move to Canada", well, now's the time to rethink your position.
This is one of the craziest, most twisted, least democratic things I have ever heard of an allegedly democratic government doing.
(Yeah, I know, the NSA. That's crazy. But at least I understand it. I understand why they want to do it, and why they want to keep it secret, and even if the effects are bad, and the precedent is horrible, at least the intent is not at the moment evil. But using government money to lobby the government? I just can't begin to get my brain around that one.)
So, lemme get this straight... I'm paying taxes that fund copyright holders' (specifically, SOCAN) efforts to make more money while I'm still paying a blank media tax that already puts money directly into those same copyright holders' (SOCAN) pockets? Sweet deal ;)
Seems to me the only "right" that matters in these conversations is the "creators'" entitlement to being paid in perpetuity for any and all copies of the same work over and over, in any format it may appear.
That shouldn't be a right, and it didn't used to be for nearly the entirety of human artistic existence. I'm all for abolishing it if it has become one too. The trick these lobbiests/cartels have pulled is establishing this "right" as a fact and basing all consequent discussions on this fact. Sorry guys I'm not on board - the very principles you're trying to have everyone take for granted are wrong and repugnant.
Even if "creators" never receive a cent, dinar sheckle or chicken liver for selling a copy of their work there will still be plenty of art - good art, great art - just as there has always been. And in this day of advanced distribution technology we'll all have easy access to it as well. And just possibly, eliminating the artificial "entitlement" money attached to copies will return the economics of art to a sane level, bringing the "artists" and the would be bloodsuckers who infest them back into line with the rest of society in terms of monetary value in relation to actual utility value.
Take back the terms of the discussion human beings - once you do that these cartels have no ground to stand on. Everything else is window dressing.
Why?
Articles which guarantee good ad impression numbers:
* Software "piracy"
* **AA actions
* Big evil corporation does anything at all
* a linux project is incremented by 0.0.1
* Microsoft introduces another point-release OS but increments a full version number and hails it as the best thing since the Trash 80.
(I'm kidding, I'm kidding!)
Seriously: If it's a slow news day here, why not post a related-but-not-quite-topical article which will attract a lot of eyes? Like it or not copyright law in other countries DOES (indirectly) affect us here in America. Look at the international "treaties" which are very quickly usurping our constitution. Look at the DMCA as the result of one of those treaties.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
This distinction doesn't matter to many Slashdotters, but for background it's important to understand that the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI are often at odds with each other. Generally speaking, if you're a "little guy" composer or songwriter, ASCAP/BMI are your friends, and the RIAA is not.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
If I am a composer whose works are performed or recorded by others, ASCAP protects my interests. If I am anybody else, then ASCAP protects the interests of composers from me. ASCAP is just as likely to be attacking me as they are to be attacking the RIAA. For example, let us say that I run a restaurant. In that case, ASCAP are the people who prevent me from allowing my employees to sing the "Happy Birthday" song, or virtually any other song for that matter. If I am a small-time composer or musician whose works are not performed by others, ASCAP are the people whom I live in fear of in case I have the temerity to perform a song I did not write under the very wide umbrella of what constitutes a "public performance".
I am not familiar enough with Canadian CRIA to comment on them specifically.
If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year
Wait, stop right there. "Intellectual property" owners have no rights. They have privileges. Copyrights are granted by the government, which means they are not rights. Real rights cannot be granted by anyone, because something which can be granted can be taken away. Since copyrights are priviliges and not rights, the populace have the authority to direct the government they theoretically control to limit or remove the priviliges that those copyright holders enjoy.
Since this is the best news in a long time to come out of the world fight for sane copyright law, it's time we stand up and sing a round of Oh, Canada in support of the Great White North, eh?
Help us build a better map!
So one incident of the canadian government giving money to a copyright lobby, is somehow greater and more negative than the between $75 billion and $125 billion, depending on who's counting, that the U.S. Federal government alone hands out per year in corporate welfare.
Good to hear it.
is that even though they recognize the danger of setting the precedent, the government refuses to do anything about it. Effective government must be able to correct its mistakes and inefficiencies, or it will cease being effective.
The previous Canadian government was kicked out, basically because of a scandal to misuse taxpayer's money.
At that time the excuse was at least to save the country from falling apart.
It looks like governments just don't learn from the past.
There is a simple solution though. Government revenues are collected tax. Cheating out the government from tax dollars is harsly punished. Politicians who misuse this collected tax dollars, should be prosecuted as if they were cheating tax payers.
3.2.1.Joke
In Soviet Canada the Government pays the lobbies to influence Law.
Joking aside;
Another thing happened just recently in my neck of the woods that I am really pissed about.
I live in Windsor, Ontario (Across the river from Detroit, Michigan). This past week the 'Hell's Angels' motorcycle club/gang/mafia was in town. The police setup checkpoints on the roads (that they knew the bikers would be traveling along {ingress and egress fromthe club-house}) and took the drivers license + insurance documents of EVERYBODY that drove on these public roads.
The reason: They HOPED to catch some of the bikers that had arrest warrents in other parts of the country!
I was/am LIVID. I wrote the newspaper; called the local radio station, complained to the Local members of Parliment.
We are 1 step away from East-Block communist oppression. I am surprised that they didn't just click thier Jack-Boots and say "Papers! Please!"
**The Hells Angels are considered the largest (and now ONLY) organized crime syndicate in Canada.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
I may be unclear on exactly what this group is targeting in the educational sector, but there is something seriously messed up with the government funding it. If the group is targeting fair use, then that's just dumb. The Canadian government would be greatly damaging student's access to learning material. If it is about the culture of file sharing at universities, which I think it is, Canada would essentially be targeting itself. Most Universities are public in Canada, so there is no reason to fund a lobbying group to address the problem. It is an internal one. Overall, a government funding any lobbying group, much less a well off one is messed up.
Well, until we get a separate International Politics section, I think this is probably the best spot for it. Also, you may want to keep in mind that any success by Canadian pro-copyright groups will be held up as an example by the RIAA in their next court battle. If the RIAA can point north and say "Hey look, the Canadian music industry profits went up by 0.00000000001% last year! I bet it's because their pro-copyright groups get government support! *hinthint*", what are the odds that they won't take advantage of the situation?
So that's the year when authorities will start suing Canadians for real. They got me wondering there when they'd start.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Well, until we get a separate International Politics section, I think this is probably the best spot for it.
I'd like to know why you seem to feel safe in assuming that the "Politics" section means American politics.
I haven't seen any numbers (do they exist?) about the readership here, but I would be willing to bet a sizeable sum that half - if not more - of the regular readership is NOT from the USA.
Once again - a clear demonstration - that politicians and the civil service in Canada (and the USA et al) are just puppets of the self appointed elite - the rich. The rich elite in Canada - when not busy screwing Aboriginals by stealing land and resources from the Aboriginals - love screwing the rest of us. And as usual - ironically, the elite use income tax collected the middle class to fund their white collar crookery. Some day - hopefully we will actually have a democracy in Canada - where the majority will be able to have a referendum on the budget and on "rights". Unfortunately only one country on this planet does have these democratic votes/referendums - Switzerland.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
In today's news, Government pays lobbyist group.
In other news, man bites dog.
Details at 10.
Dude, the Politics section is designated by an American flag at the top of the screen and FAQ specifically says "this section is for news relevant to United States government politics. It was created primarily to cover the 2004 US Presidential Election, but today exists for occasional stories that fit the bill." I don't see the point in making it American-only (I'm Canadian, by the way), but that's how it's designated for now.
I would, however, prefer if it was explicitly for international politics. As I mentioned before, new copyright laws in any given country could easily affect the RIAA's tactics... and vise versa.
Government paying lobbyists? It's bad enough the other way, but paying someone to try to influence yourself? Utter insanity.
Gahh, now I will never be able to complete my Céline Dion discography.
I'm in Canada, and I'm surprised that this isn't all over OUR media by now...maybe they're being kept quiet. I'll keep watching though.
We can write our member of parliament, and if that doesn't work, I can go pay him a little visit and explain my position as his constituent very well.
As a Canadian, I've seen a lot of good stories show up on CBC's website that they got from good, investigative journalism (kudos to the CBC). Yes, I realize the CBC is the state media (well, crown corporation), but I find they aren't bought by the government and they regularly air stories of interest to regular joe Canadians, and I'm also glad that the act lets them get to the important information without all the hiding and deceit I hear about in the US.
Also, I find it a bit funny that the politics version of Slashdot shows an American flag at the top where it says Slashdot, as if there weren't politics anywhere else..
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
The myth that copyright was created for the public's benefit is very persistent. See QuestionCopyright.org for a detailed explanation of the origin of this myth and its effects today.
http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel
What we might see is a situation where the Conservatives do what they can to strike this deal down, just because it was originated by the Liberals. But we shouldn't discount the possibility that a new arrangement may then happen to be made by the Conservatives, potentially with more money going towards these groups.
As horribly corrupt as the Liberals were, at least there was an element of the party that could relate to the average voter. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have no such faction. We have to keep in mind that the only reason they won their slim minority is because they were the best of the non-Liberal parties at deceiving the average Canadian.
Most Canadians are sickened by the policies of the Conservatives, and many are now realizing that voting for him was a terrible mistake. Many farmers and other rural folk are now realizing that Harper isn't a real conservative. He's a neo-conservative, at best. He talks the talk some constituents want to hear, but that's where it ends. He shares no beliefs with real conservatives or libertarians.
In the end, it doesn't matter if it was the Liberals or the Conservatives who happened to create this ordeal. The fact remains that neither party stood for what was best for the Canadian public in general, and it is no surprise that they either have taken action that is against the nation's best interest, or may very well proceed to do so in the future.
the regular mafia, the russian mafia, the israeli mafia, the PLA from china(they are the largest crime syndicate in the world right now as well as being the third or fourth largest military), some private offshoots from china, the japanese yakuza, a few central american narco orgs, and a smattering and scattering of others,not normally considered crime syndicates but do basically the same things, namely the higher central bankers and commodities and stocks scammers who all cooperate with each other and work internationally, and various intel services who all have rogue/blackops folks engaged in traditional crimes and hide behind their "official" status as alleged "good guys".
hells angels are so far down the list it ain't even very noticeable, although they and a few more get the popular press.
They are pushing for the Moral Rights of Creators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_copyright_law
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
When people were already stealing cable (the accepted term) back in the 70s and 80s, I doubt you were even old enough to discuss it. And the Russians "stole the secrets to the atomic bomb" from the US a long time before that.
Stop trying to redefine the English language to fit your narrow definitions. Both the language and the law recognize more than just depriving someone of property as theft.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
"Look at the international "treaties" which are very quickly usurping our constitution."
Usurping your constitution? You have a lot more say in that than my country does. If you or Europe change your copyright laws, we either have to follow along or face legal/illegal sanctions. The American government hasn't forgiven us for not letting them enter our waters without declaring whether they were carrying nuclear material, and that was twenty years ago. We, more than likely, lost a free trade agreement with the U.S. because we didn't blindly join their coalition of the willing and invade Iraq. Our only saving grace is that we are so far away that the senate doesn't know where we are. I seriously doubt that you were dragged into the DMCA by international treaties considering you have more leverage than any other country in the world. It is far more likely that upholding international treaties was a nicer political line at the time. WIPO is, after all, part of the United Nations and thus subject to U.S. veto.
(From the tone of my comment you might get the idea I dislike America. This is partially true. I think their constitution was a major step froward. I think their conduct during WWII was exemplary. I also think that almost everything America has done on the international stage since Eisenhower left has been for money, greed, and power.)
(On a brighter note, wouldn't Superman be the ideal suicide bomber!)
I reserve the write to mangle english.
The lobbiests pay the government big bucks.
Those slimy bunch of cowardly Frenchists can go rot in hell for all I care. They actively work against American security (opposing the Iraq war, missile defence, etc etc etc), they harbor and encourage terrorism, and they love to insult Americans at every opportunity. Canada, and all Canadians, can kiss my fucking ass. I hope they all die in a terrorist attack, let them get some of what they are so smug about. Fucking assholes.
... notice how he keeps quiet about the government funded CBC, which is a liberal propaganda machine. And the CBC's budget far exceeds the amounts mentioned by dear old Mikey in his trumped up piece of nonsense...
Sir, Harper is to the left of quite a few Democrats. You act like you've got it bad up there. And even then, the Tories have a minority government. Its not like they can do all that much.
In Canada, "moral rights" are part of copyright, so even if it were true that CRA was only interested in that, they'd still be a pro-copyright group. In fact, CRA's primary focus is on economic rights (what you USAns call "copyright") anyway; they talk a lot about moral rights because those sound good, but make no mistake about where the lobbying money actually goes.
You might consider a new tax and massively increasing the deficit a "hard turn to the right", but it's an unusual one, as it takes one well past the normal right ("conservatism") into the weird and wonderful world of the neo-conservatives and the "Reform" party.
Alternatively it might be considered a strong turn to the left, as it goes right past the Liberals and NDP to the... weird and wonderful world of the neo-liberals and the Reform party.
Whichever you way you consider this, though, it was immensely unpopular with Canadians, who tagged the PM Lyin' Brian and showed him the door, along with what had been a perfectly good political party (;-().
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
I see. This one happens to agree with you, and so she's aces.
8 5341.txt
But if she were ruling that DRM were legal, I would expect she would be villified as knowing nothing.
Plenty of people got in trouble with the law for stealing cable. It becomes a non-civil matter when it is criminalized. Which that was. And recording the screen in a movie theater.
Speak of precise language?
Here's a 2001 ruling from a US court where the court quotes Congress several times in calling stealing cable theft and the court also turns a phrase with it.
http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/9
Language games are pointless. "A rose by any other name"
The key issue should be the actual act, punishment and hopefully future revisions to copyright law in the US. Not on redefining words so as to win semantic arguments.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
...well, except that Harper acts as though he has a majority (because apparently "Canadians don't want to go to the polls again so soon" and thus the other parties are afraid to do anything to upset the current parliamentary situation; also, the liberals' not having any leadership right now is something of a problem) and doesn't like to talk to the media about what he's doing.
Just because he's farther left than some Democrats doesn't mean he's in line with many Canadians' values. I'm sorry that the American political system forces you to choose between a pot and a kettle, but that doesn't mean that a man who heads a party whose views are not in line with those of most urban Canadians should be free from criticism.
You may be better off, quite actually. America is not the only market for your exports, and since we're going broke because we have very little manufacturing base anymore, we soon won't have the money to buy your goods anyhow.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
"we should have streamlined, stable funding to an organization whose structure, purpose and activities suit our own policy needs."
In other words, a civil service agency feels that taxpayer money is best spent funding lobbyists to tell our elected (+Harper's appointees I suppose) representatives how to fund and direct that agency.
Somebody needs to shine a very bright light on the heritage ministry. It certainly appears that many of the senior officials are collecting one paycheque to represent the public interest and another to represent the Canadian MAFIAA. Either Beverly Oda has her belly to the trough or she has no control over her ministry. She should grab a brain: this whole mess started to blow up when Sheila Copps was the HM and she's now in the "where is she now?" file (oh wait...there she is...in court...being sued). Do you want to be the next broker of Canada's freedoms Ms. Oda?
Again, the language included "stealing cable" long before the RIAA got involved.
And legal precedent doesn't extend to choice of wording. It's about the interpretation of the law only.
Since Congress (the ultimate maker of the laws) has passed laws covering "theft of service" and "identity theft", then it would appear that the law sees that there there are other definitions of theft than just what you would specify it to be.
You're trying to twist language and then blaming it on someone else. I'm sure you have noticed you're going "against the flow" on this usage. Does that not indicate to you what the generally accepted definition of the word is and that perhaps you're on the minority side?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Behehehehehe
Pirated music good, publishers bad... Pirated music good, publishers bad...
Behehehehehehehe
All this discussion just to justify not paying for your music... You're a sorry bunch...