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

[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.

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]