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."

Comments

Public Interest

[Morosoph]

I have to say that it's a new line for Industry Lobbyists to be taking:

"The public interest is getting too much representation! We need funding so that we can counter it!"

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?

Repeat after me...

[Audent]

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.

Re:Repeat after me...

[gid13]

You are of course correct. It should be noted, though, that at least in the States the penalties for such copying are FAR worse than those for stealing. Despite being Canadian, I don't know too much about Canadian law on the subject except for the fact that there was a judge last year that said downloading and uploading music both qualified under personal use.

More important than definitions of the word "theft", however, is the point that the government is funding a lobby group? How do I convince them to fund me to spread my message that infringing copyright is a good thing?

Canada vs. Itself

[twicesliced]

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 ;)

Creators' Rights ?

[Groovus]

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.

Re:Wait a minute...

[koreth]

Nice generalization, but sadly not really true. From TFA:

The CRA has eight objectives, which notably include "to ensure that government policy and legislation recognize that copyright is fundamentally about the rights of creators"

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.

Re:Wait a minute...

[sasdrtx]

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.

The thing that bothers me most....

[ezratrumpet]

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.

What can we do?

[crossmr]

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.

Access to Information

[The Hobo]

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..