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 author's favorite "independent groups" are going to be grass roots organizations.
The Copyright Lobby's "independent groups" are all almost entirely funded by the CRIA and CMPDA.
Not the same at all.
I think that we'll need to look closer at copyright ``movements'' in other parts too. But do take a moment to savour the delicious irony. It really is quite sublime, and telling in its own right.
This is really a very small demonstration. In reality, a great deal of this goes on in many different industries. It's not unlike what you will see if you do a little research on the seemingly-unrelted topic of legally binding arbitration in that the ruling overwhelmingly favors the party paying for it in all cases where this cost is not shared equally. Anytime you ever see "a new study supports X" for any sort of remotely political or controversial topic, keep in mind two tools of free minds: "qui bono?" ("who benefits?") and "follow-the-money." Look very closely at who sponsored the study, the methodology, and what the conclusion would mean for the sponsor. Also keep in mind that many "independent groups of concerned citizens" are actually front groups for various industry lobbies, particularly those which are able to launch national media campaigns.
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Not to mention that Slashdot has one very important advantage. If something is posted that is demonstrably false, anyone can post their own follow-up right there in the same forum and successfully call bullshit. The mods around here may be too trigger-happy when it comes to down-modding but they are quite good at recognizing the value of such dissent and making sure that it becomes prominent and noticable. The one-to-many, "spotlight" nature of most mass media means that there is no such ability, causing even easily debunked BS to quickly be repeated over and over again until the average person considers it something "that everybody knows."
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I agree with what you are saying there. There's one difference that I consider to be of the utmost importance, however. I would be fine with such groups if they openly stated "We are created and sponsored by the RIAA (or whomever) for the sole purpose of representing their interests." That's not what happened here. They wanted to maintain the illusion of some kind of neutral, dispassionate, unbiased consensus based on facts. That's something that a lot of people want to see badly enough that they are a bit too eager to believe it.
This really should be a crime. It should be a crime, the laws against which are vigorously enforced. I do not exaggerate in the slightest when I say that this is the very sort of thing that, left unchecked, can eventually destroy the freedom and well-being that we currently enjoy. Our governments and legal systems are greatly threatened when they can be gamed like this. Because of that, I personally consider this to be not unlike treason.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Slashdot's advantages over traditional media is not just because of the comments and mods, but also that mod points
1) are more than simple agree/disagree flags, they also indicate why the mod chose the mod they did
2) are lost if the moderator subsequently comments in the same story
3) aren't always available to a given reader, and are a limited resource
That last is key. In Canada, CBC's online news discussions are superior to CTV's site (where only select stories can be commented on, and all comments are weighted the same), but it's still just a giant popularity contest that uses agree/disagree flags. Trolls routinely hit disagree on a comment just to be asses, whereas if their "opinions" were limited in quantity and timeframe, their damage would be negligible.
Granted Slashdot has problems with collective moderator biases as well, but it's far and away a much better system of balancing the good and bad aspects of public participation.