Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Gov't Gives Big Bucks to Copyright Lobby

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the canada-v.-itself dept.

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."

21 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a minute... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Depends by what you mean by *AA.

      The money goes to the Creators' Rights Alliance. They include groups that represent poets, songwriters and composers. I do not believe that the CRIA (the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA) is part of this alliance.

      Here in the USA, there are groups that represent the media companies (the RIAA and the MPAA), and there are groups that represent artists (ASCAP and BMI). 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.

      Many people reading this will fall into a couple of camps:

      If you are in the "hate the big record companies, respect the artists" camp (the "the artists are needy" group), then you might be okay with this.

      If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year -- is out of line, or if you believe that any organization made up of initials and which fights for copyright protection is evil (the "the artists are greedy" camp), then this news may upset you.

      I hope this answers your question.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    2. Re:Wait a minute... by stubear · · Score: 4, Informative

      bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI. The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations.

    3. Re:Wait a minute... by shark72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI."

      Correct. ASCAP and BMI collect on behalf of the artists. This is why I wrote that ASCAP and BMI represent artists (as separate and distinct from the RIAA, which represents record companies). When ASCAP or BMI comes a callin', the money goes to the artists, not the record companies.

      "The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations."

      The RIAA is a trade group that represents record companies, but it is the record companies that are responsible for calculating and distributing royalties based on CD sales. I know that many people like to use "RIAA" and "big record companies" interchangeably, but it's important to understand that for as much as the RIAA talks about how they are helping the artist, it is the record companies that they represent. Money goes to the RIAA to cover lobbying efforts, lawsuits, and so on, but you won't see the RIAA issuing checks to musicians. That is not their job.

      This is why I wrote that the RIAA represents record companies, while BMI and ASCAP represent artists.

      Let me know if I'm being unclear, or if you still believe that I'm incorrect.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    4. Re:Wait a minute... by koreth · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    5. Re:Wait a minute... by sasdrtx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Wait a minute... by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look, the guy clearly wrote "bzzzzttt...wrong," which means that you are wrong, whether or not what you wrote was factually correct. The simulated buzzer sound thingy in writing trumps all logic and automatically wins any dispute.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    7. Re:Wait a minute... by The+Snowman · · Score: 4, Funny
      That's a neat trick. How do you download something before it's been created?

      I don't know, but Mel Brooks figured it out. Go watch Spaceballs again -- Colonel Sanders pulls the Spaceballs tape off the shelf to fast forward and figure out where Lonestar crash landed. He explains to Dark Helmet that thanks to modern technology, they can have the VHS ready before the movie is done filming.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    8. Re:Wait a minute... by hearingaid · · Score: 4, Informative
      Sort of.

      Here in Canada, we actually have four parties currently represented in Parliament. This is down from the five that were there before (two parties merged; nobody got destroyed at the polls).

      However, since Confederation, the Prime Minister has been the leader of either the Conservative or Liberal/Whig party. There are other parties, and they do hold seats, but none of them have ever formed the federal government. However, some have won provincial elections.

      Handy links:

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

  2. It's all about the marketing .. by Entropy · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  3. Public Interest by Morosoph · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?
    --
    Wikileaks, no DNS
  4. Repeat after me... by Audent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Repeat after me... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why should we be treating this as a criminal act when it's clearly a civil issue?

      Because when laws change, copyright infringement will become a criminal act.

      And speaking about lobbying, let me tell you about elections in my country.

      Here in Mexico, money for political campaigns is provided by taxes. It is scandalous because too much money is given to the parties - but in a way it's still healthier than lobbying. Because with lobbying, it's corporate interests which determine who gets advertised (and therefore, elected).

      A much better idea (IMHO) for an electoral process is to spend equal amount of money in propaganda for all parties involved, to promote their platforms and ideas. Then do obligatory (for the parties) debates and let the public decide.

    2. Re:Repeat after me... by gid13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

  5. Re:Harper == Baby Bush by djmurdoch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Canada vs. Itself by twicesliced · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ;)

  7. Creators' Rights ? by Groovus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. The enemy of my enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. In Soviet Canada by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)
    1. Re:In Soviet Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      **The Hells Angels are considered the largest (and now ONLY) organized crime syndicate in Canada.

      At first I thought you'd left out the Liberal Party, but then I noticed you said organized...

  10. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?