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."
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.
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.
"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.
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.
**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...
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