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

Re:They have more than they deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, MP McTeague is really nuts (nuts enough that he also wants to make it against the law to criticize the political positions of MPs online). He is completely in the pockets of these corporations. Boing Boing has a great article on this.

This situation actually makes me a little happy. It means that my country wasn't the only one to have its politicians bought by these corporations. But at the same time, this newfound camaraderie in our mutual pwnage by the music and movie companies is quite disturbing. It reminds me of the laws in one of my favorite adventure games, The Longest Journey: corporate Law. Not laws regulating corporations, laws made by corporations regulating people.

Re:no wonder, hes a troll.

[Tuoqui]

First Question: Well considering that the record companies were trying to get a jury to basically charge someone $150,000 per copyright violation on 24 songs. it does not seem too unreasonable to pose this question in the blog. That question is DIRECTLY based off the crap that the RIAA have pulled and if you think the Canadian version of the RIAA is any better you got another thing coming. They wanted the Levy on blank media but now they realize that by doing that they shot themselves in the foot and want to keep it and get more punishment for copyright infringers *OR* get rid of it so they can make it more draconian and compatible with the US version of the DMCA/Copyright Acts. Remember that all those 'settlements' they've been offering college students have been approximately $2000-3000 hit on their pocket books. It is not out of the realm of possibility that they would ask for a $5000 'settlement' which is a fancy name for 'extortion fee'

Second Question: See first question + All the Slashdot stories about John Does being sued as a collective to get the names then breaking the cases up and suing them all individually or offering the 'extortion package'

Third Question: Basically a plain jane DRM question. Nothing controversial here. The question he's trying to ask is do you buy the physical media (in which case its subject to first sale doctrine) or do you buy 'listening rights' which means you should be able to transfer your purchase between different media and different devices you own.

Maybe there is a bit of vitrol in there, but it is ALL based on facts that have already happened in the US. If it can happen in the US it can happen in Canada too. Its our job as Canadians to keep ourselfs The true north strong and free instead of reversing that position like the US did with the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave when they kept bending over in the name of terrorism. The RIAA is effectively committing domestic terrorism, you cant goto a college without worrying you're gonna be targeted for 'extortion fees' infact you probably have to budget for it at the rate they're suing people.

Re:Dont assume conspiracy

[hyades1]

And thus you fall into the trap of assuming that because a noted expert's objective and factually defensible opinion favours one side of an issue, he must therefore have a "side" and be excluded in the interest of "balance". It is precisely this kind of muddled and uncritical thought that leads to gross errors in law and policy.

Should child molesters be given a place in the debate about whether more stringent laws against kiddie porn are a good idea? How far should we go in a specious attempt to defend the indefensible?

Of course, at is has been

[tygt]

As it has been for at least 800 years, starting with the Guelphs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelphs_and_Ghibellines) if not before.

Re:They have more than they deserve

[Rary]

The 'copyright industry' is controlled and manipulated by a limited number of players.

Exactly. And its interesting that this coincides so nicely with this story.

Re:no wonder, hes a troll.

[Danse]

People seem to have been brainwashed into believing that copyright is some sort of natural right, even though it's anything but. The only reason it exists is to serve the public interest in having new works created. So temporary, limited monopolies were granted to the creators of the works for a long enough period to give them incentive to create them (originally 14 years, extendable to 28), after which they become part of the public domain. Since then, the copyright industry has grown very large and very powerful. It has used its money to get copyrights extended repeatedly, so that they now last longer than a normal human lifespan, and penalties for violating these laws have become extremely harsh.

Where is the public interest in this? Where is the compromise? It's been destroyed by the money involved. Nobody needs a 90+ year copyright as incentive to write a book or a song, or to create a movie. Nobody. No corporation forecasts earnings anywhere near that long, and therefore wouldn't green-light anything that was going to take more than the tiniest fraction of that time to make its money back. People just haven't been aware of what's going on, but recently we've started feeling some of the pain. I hope it gets painful enough that we see a real backlash against the industry that has done this.