Slashdot Mirror
Study Deconstructs Canadian Copyright Lobby Deception
An anonymous reader writes "A new Canadian study deconstructs how copyright lobby groups manipulate public opinion by laundering proposals through seemingly independent groups. The study started after the Conference Board of Canada was shown to have plagiarized several of its IP reports and now shows the connections that all lead through the MPAA and RIAA. Michael Geist writes, 'It is not just that these reports all receive financial support from the same organizations and say largely the same thing. It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus on the state of Canadian law and the need for specific reforms.'"
Hah. Too bad I don't have mod points for "Troll".
Slashdot is not a lobby group or think tank. It is a news aggregator. The blurbs it posts do not claim to be original work.
These lobby groups are front organizations for the Canadian versions of the RIAA and MPAA, and cite each other even though they are essentially the same organization. This is like a scientist create a fake identity to peer review his own papers, and/or to cite himself repeatedly.
The point of Mr. Geist' article isn't that it is a new tactic, what he has done is expose all the links between the groups and their citations. Not that any politician gives a damn but maybe he can teach a few more "citizens" about how politics works.
If the average person suddenly became aware of how much deception goes on and how many underhanded tactics are routinely and daily used to manipulate mass media, let's just say that the outrage and protesting would make the Vietnam War look like a a small uncontroversial subject.
Is that an understatement or what? Once you realize it, then watch the news after a current event, you see the media in an entirely different light. If I had mod points I would be assigning one right now.
Watch "Wag the Dog" for that whole new perspective.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
"qui bono?" ("who benefits?")
Actually, it's "cui bono" (literally, "whose benefit").
Not trying to be Latin nazi, just wanted to help out. :)
(I firehosed this story too with some extra information about how the Copyright Lobby primed the Australian Media to run a ridiculous piracy=terrorism story, complete with a claim by Australian Reporter Mike Munroe that pirates could "burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds":)
Australia's Fairfax group published an article by Journalists Eamonn Duff and Rachel Browne claiming that people who download films from illegal file-sharing websites are financing terrorism. The article only quoted media industry sources and was basically a warmed-up press release. That evening Channel Seven "Sunday Night" current affairs program claimed how how movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002 which killed hundreds including 94 Australians. Reporter Mike Munro claimed pirates "could burn a DVD in 3.5 seconds."
While technically-savy voters can sort fact from fiction, technically-illiterate politicians are easily swayed. What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation? Is it possible to educate our politicians that there are two sides to every story? Or are they hopelessly in the lobbyists pockets.
The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit from the works of an artist.
Err. No. The only reason organizations such as the RIAA and the CMRRA exist is to profit from the works of another. The reason copyright was created was so that the primary artist was able to gain compensation for their works before the public was allowed unmoderated use. That's still its primary reason for existing. Without it, the 3rd parties would be able to simply take the work and use it on their own.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.