Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Labour Congress Considers Reversal On IP Policy
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian Labour Congress is considering a dramatic reversal of its stance on copyright and IP policy. CLC is comparable to the US AFL-CIO, but Canada is over 30% unionized. The campaign 'we must change copyright and IP law to fight evil counterfeiters and copyright pirates' is actually succeeding in Canada. Quoting the CLC's new policy resolution: '... this critical issue requires a far-reaching response involving legislative and regulatory reform, policy change, and allocation of proper resources to combat the problems. The Canadian government must be given the structure and resources to mount a sustained attack on this pervasive problem, both within Canada and internationally. The criminal and civil laws in Canada must provide adequate deterrence. And consumers must be educated that counterfeiting and piracy are not victimless, nuisance crimes, but instead strike at the heart of our long term economic security.'"
The most prolific use of the strawman logical fallacy, is the strawman logical fallacy itself. Your assertion that it is so, does not make my statement any less valid. What I have stated is a FACT. Additionally, it is not a position that I am merely attributing to my "opponent". That is the actual position of copyright holders, as it has been stated many times by those claiming to represent their interests. I have refuted with logic, the position of my "opponent". My statement never met the requirements of a strawman logical fallacy, and therefore, cannot be one.
Don't try using the strawmen argument against somebody that actually knows what it means, especially when you should know it did not apply to this situation in the first place as you agreed with position and did not even refute it.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch........
If your going to evaluate the loss of revenue that piracy has caused, you MUST consider the actual purchasing power of consumers in your market. When you claim losses that exceed the purchasing power of your consumers, it is ludicrous. At the point, everyone SHOULD ignore your pleas for help since there is no logic and/or truth to your arguments.
Ummm, exactly my point. Yet, this fact does not stop Adobe from claiming that as a financial loss and misrepresenting the lie to further their own goals.
It's not simplistic. Your point does not represent a complexity that I have purposefully overlooked as it would detract from the validity of my argument. Your usage of GIMP as an example is a poor one. Not using GIMP is not hurting or "damaging" the GIMP community. The vast majority of users of open source are NOT contributing to the projects themselves. GIMP is not hurting because I am not using it.
The crux of your argument here is that although Adobe has not lost a sale, the market as a whole has lost my participation in the cheaper and free alternatives. I deny that assertion, as any program that costs money would still not be purchased, and open source projects are not hurt by the loss that specific user.
Furthermore, I never stated that a copyright holders wish for you to compensate them IS UNREASONABLE. That is a pervasive misconception when arguing about copyrights, privacy, and draconian laws that affect them. If somebody argues against the current trend of totalitarian copyright protection and the draconian laws being created, IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE A PIRATE OR SUPPORTIVE OF PIRACY.
That's like saying if I have questions about the existence of God, I must be a Satanist. It's damaging, and prevents productive dialogue between all parties when di
And what percentage of your music is paid for? I see a lot of FUD thrown up on how artists don't get compensated but it sounds kind of hollow coming from a group of people that's been stealing music anyway. Where was all the concern about "artist compensation" before enforcement started getting serious?