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."
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
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
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.
In other words, this is a group that specifically says it's out to reduce the rights of the public, since the original conception of copyright is that it's a way to balance the rights of creators and the public for the greater good. This has its roots in English common law: the Statute of Anne in 1709 established the idea of limited terms for copyrights, the idea being that previously copyrighted material should become public material after a time.
This group wants to go from "the point of copyright is to benefit society" to "the point of copyright is to benefit creators." Kind of a fundamental difference that one can in good conscience oppose without wanting to screw over any artists.
Maybe you should rethink your pigeonholing. The point of the article is the government paying lobbying organizations. I don't care what they're lobbying for, that is outrageous. It has nothing to do with one's position on copyright.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
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.
If that was all this was about, then I'd agree with you. But it's not. It's about the copyright industry's repeated overreaching in their neverending quest to ensure that copyright lasts forever, and the public gets well and truly screwed out of what they are supposed to be getting out of the copyright bargain. They won't be satisfied until they've turned every media form into a DRM'd ad-fest. Now they even want us to pay for their efforts to screw us.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Yep, they are doing it again - claiming to be all about creators' rights when they are really only concerned about owners' rights. We need a copyright systems that creates an incentive to create, not just to own.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
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.
On the other hand, there is no logical reason for the original trilogy to still be protected under copyright. They are nearing 30 years of age. Should they not have fallen into public domain by now? It would certainly have made the whole original series not on DVD problem a moot point.
There are certainly those who violate reasonable copyrights, and that will never be stopped, but not all copyrights are reasonable.
Centralization breaks the internet.
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
I think the tip-off about these people is the part that says education was a "well heeled, publicly funded lobby . . . devoted to abolishing creators' rights on the Internet." He's talking about students and public libraries here; not exactly my idea of well heeled.
When I hear spin like this, I smell bullshit.