Copyright Expert Uninvited From Canada Policy Forum

earthforce_1 writes "The vested interests of restrictive copyright are stacking the deck in Canada. The Public Policy Forum Symposium on intellectual property reform has bowed to pressure from certain interests and dis-invited noted copyright scholar Howard Knopf. The forum's stated mandate is '...to strive for excellence in government — to serve as a neutral, independent forum for open dialogue on public policy, and to encourage reform in public sector management.' For some reason, the US Ambassador to Canada and the former head of the Canadian Motion Picture Industry Association have been invited — apparently they are perceived to have a more neutral view of what Canadian copyright laws should be? More information at Howard Knopf's blog."

Comments

They have more than they deserve

[erroneus]

They know that they have more 'rights' in their copyrights than they deserve. They've spent a lot of money to make it that way. They know that if things were rendered "fair and balanced" that they'd lose a LOT of money -- not just the money they spent buying laws that favor them, but undeserved income these laws yield.

I can't hold these jackasses completely responsible for their greed. We've all got some greed in us and corruption is a problem of opportunity, not of character. I blame the legislators that make themselves available to the highest bidder and the character flaws that prevent them from correcting the circumstances that enable corruption.

Re:They have more than they deserve

[erroneus]

This isn't about the "creative artists" and it never has been. Quite the contrary, this is about the exploitation of artists. The 'copyright industry' is controlled and manipulated by a limited number of players. These are the publishers and copyright cartel that have created a system where the marketing of the works they bought completely overshadow the 'independents' such that they never have a chance without their 'help.' These are the same ass-clowns who have lobbied for laws extending copyright to like 99 years after the death of the artist. This is not for the benefit of the artist. How is any time after the death of the artist an 'incentive to create?' It's not. This is meant to serve the big dogs who make it their business to buy and promote the works of others.

Re:They have more than they deserve

[fishbowl]

>To be fair, the longer and stronger the copyright, the more the artist can sell it for. What's the point of buying something if you no
>longer own it after the person you bought it from dies?

You have to be willing to share it at some point or the deal's off. The *reason* you get copyright protection for some time is *because* you are willing to allow it to become a public common at some future time. If you are not willing to the the latter, you are not entitled to the former, because society and culture as a whole, is more important than YOU. And that is the whole point of copyright law.

Copyright law will do a very good job of protecting you, to content creator, from somebody who wants to claim that they created your works and will sue you.

Copyright does a very poor job as a weapon for you, the content creator, to use against others.

Re:They have more than they deserve

[Pofy]

>Whilst I agree with much of what you wrote, this part is wrong.
>Being able to leave money for your children and grandchildren is
>a great incentive. And at least for authors, this is the time
>where their experience is most valuable.

I suppose they can do like anyone else, leave money they have earned until they die. Why should then in ADDITION be able to leave a copyright to children and in what way does that fullfill the goals of copyright? I have never seen anyone claim copyright has as one of the purposes the possibility to give children a way to make money by restricting others use of a work.

Re:They have more than they deserve

[10101001 10101001]

... corruption is a problem of opportunity, not of character. I blame the ... the character flaws that prevent them from correcting the circumstances that enable corruption.

Lots of consistency there. No, it's pretty simple. Corruption is a problem of character. Few people have the character to resist corruption. That's why government and any other place where corruption can exist has to be open (so the corruption can be seen) and accountable (since knowing about the corruption and being unable to do anything about it makes knowing about it mostly pointless). The major problem with the US isn't a question of corruption not being open enough. It's that legislators are rarely held accountable. And a large part of that has to do with (a) impeachment and conviction being so rare while elected, (b) most people forgeting by the time elections roll around and will still vote for the person, (c) most people's willingness to vote in a criminal because they see it better to vote in a criminal on "their" team than to vote in anyone on the "other" team", and (d) once the person *does* eventually get unelected, there being no motivation (and logistically, it can be difficult to wait a few years) to actually put the person on trial.

Almost all the same points for legislators apply to top executives at corporations. It's little wonder they would behave the same way, given that companies don't have to be as open. I certainly don't believe that relying on bettering the character of others will work--at least, not until most people are willing to stand harshly on following through when holding someone accountable for their poor character. So, that leaves trying to improve the openess and the able to hold accountabiliy even when a majority only cares for a short while.

Fixing a stupid questionaire != trolling

[EmbeddedJanitor]

How can you effectively answer a questionaire that boxes you into giving stupid answers? It's a bit like:

Have you stopped beating your wife: [ ] yes I have stopped [ ] no I still beat her. So how do you answer if you've never beaten her?

All I can see here is that he tried to answer a broken set of questions.

Equal Opportunity Weeps

[JohnSearle]

There's a great deal of difference between spending the last years of your life writing for posterity but knowing you're not going to get paid for it, and writing for posterity and knowing that your grandchildren are going to be able to going to college and never have to worry about medical bills.

Equal opportunity weeps. Perhaps a country that has an interest in keeping resources in the hands of elite families also has an interest in this type of incentive.

Maybe a country that is based on equality of opportunity (Canada / USA) should put less focus on crafting incentives that involve passing family fortunes down.

- John

Re:Dont assume conspiracy

[bit01]

other side wanted more balance

I agree, it should be more balanced.

We live in a democracy; one person, one vote.

Copyright affects everybody. The population of Canada is 33 million. The industry is only a tiny fraction of the total population. A representative panel should have maybe ten representatives from the general population for every one industry representative.

Note: Industry representatives should get no special treatment simply because they're rich or because they might be excessively affected by changes in copyright law; companies are just groups of people and should have no special privileges compared to the general population.

Yes, it's tyranny of the majority. Problem is, the only thing worse than that is tyranny of a minority.

---

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.
-- Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions]

Re:OT

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's a good thing that we have sceptics, on climate change, copyright, or any other debate that isn't about absolute facts for that matter. If we ever reach the point where some prevailing consensus is considered the gospel truth because it suddenly became trendy/lobbyist fodder/a source of research funding, then we're in a lot of trouble. One of my favourite quotations comes from the late anthropologist Margaret Mead, who said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

In this case, I have little doubt now that the effects described by the pro-climate change scientists are real. However, I also have little doubt that some of the arguments made in An Inconvenient Truth were naive at best, as evidenced by the rush to invent credible explanations after criticism in the "inconvenient documentary" that followed, nor that concerns about imminent catastrophic results have been overstated in the rush to be seen to be doing something. There's some truth in there somewhere, and it's for the best that we have at least some people advocating both sides of the debate to help us find it.

Getting back on topic, I think much the same is true of an ethical/political/economic issue like copyright. It's easy on Slashdot, ancestral home of "information wants to be free" groupthink and student economics, to find ways to criticise copyright and claim it reaches too far. It's just as easy, if you work as a professional recording artist, to find an ethical argument that the world doesn't need your particular interpretation of a work for free and that copyright in that recording should last for your entire lifetime. Again, a balance needs to be struck, starting with deciding what copyright is really for (which has multiple sensible answers, not all of which are based on some vague wording in the constitution of one nation, and which are sometimes incompatible).

This is why it is a shame that we are reading this story today. It's not even necessary that the person who's been removed might have argued the way many on Slashdot would like to see the debate go. It is a shame merely because the debate will now be less balanced than it otherwise would have been.