Canadian IP Lobbyists Caught Faking Counterfeit Data

An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian IP Council, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce's IP lobby arm, has been caught floating false claims about the scope of counterfeiting in Canada. Recent claims include citing a figure based on numbers the FBI rejects ($22.5 billion), a figure the Canadian police won't support ($30 billion), and when pressed on the issue, it now points to yet another source that upon review indicates it fabricated its claims."

Comments

So if they're faking counterfeit data

[jmcbain]

then they're making legitimate data? Thanks for the mental exercise on a late Friday afternoon.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, two wrongs don't make a right - just a wronger wrong.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know that Canada was worth $30bn

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[mooingyak]

No, they just didn't use REAL counterfeit data.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[billcopc]

Let's put this into perspective:

There are an estimated 34 million Canadian citizens as of 2011. The fabricated estimates would suggest that, on average, each Canadian is responsible for $660 to $1000 worth of counterfeit goods per year, whether produced locally or imported from overseas.

Now, I don't know about you, but I personally don't bring back.$1000 worth of cheap chinese gadgets on annual trips, nor do I burn $1000 worth of movies to DVD-R for resale, though the latter was quite popular a few years back, mostly by *drumroll* unemployed immigrants who couldn't care less about copyright. I know, because those parasitic bastards would come to my store every few days for a spindle of my cheapest DVD media. Today it's probably much less popular, given how easy it is to find and download anything, and the ever-increasing broadband penetration.

So what's left ? Are there massive counterfeiting ops racking up huge volumes, to make up for lack of counterfeiting within the general populace ? Or is the IP Council crying wolf to secure handouts and protectionist legislation ? I'm no expert, but history leads me to believe the latter is the truth.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Legion303]

"I know, because those parasitic bastards would come to my store every few days for a spindle of my cheapest DVD media."

It sounds more like you *assumed*, because those parasitic bastards etc. etc. Unless one of them came right out and told you that's what they were for.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[mr.cheeks415]

well if it was his store, wouldn't he know what the parasitic bastards were buying? maybe he rang them up.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Alien Being]

Don't think of it as a logic problem. Think of it as classic literature in the making. You know, like Dickens in mid-19th century England when kings were kings and most others ate rats for dinner. It's more depressing but it's easier to understand.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

At lease they didn't steal the DVD's

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[OECD]

What, you don't expect them to simply copy legitimate data, do you?

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you probably also didn't know their money is worth more than ours....

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[NiteMair]

Aha - but we make up for that in volume!

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

More like the US in the 19th century, when men were men and sheep were nervous.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

well if it was his store, wouldn't he know what the parasitic bastards were buying? maybe he rang them up.

I saw you leave a store once with a tub of vaseline and a box of rubber gloves. Now you claim you bought this stuff to dye your hair, but we all know what you really do in your spare time.

Actually this isn't a bad metaphor to explain why "you have nothing to hide" isn't actually a compelling argument about losing our privacy.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

then they're making legitimate data? Thanks for the mental exercise on a late Friday afternoon.

Now, now - no need to be sarcastic. You need to understand that the title of editor at Slashdot is pretty much honorific.

Once you accept that, nothing that they do will ever surprise you again.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

In Kentucky and Nebraska, sheep are nervous right now.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Macrat]

I saw you leave a store once with a tub of vaseline and a box of rubber gloves. Now you claim you bought this stuff to dye your hair, but we all know what you really do in your spare time.

Finger painting?

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[davester666]

We will be once we get our Canadarm back from those losers who were too cheap to build their own.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Dutchmaan]

What, you don't expect them to simply copy legitimate data, do you?

Perhaps they were worried about being sued for copyright infringement!

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

Look dude, immigrants! brown skin! Terrorists! Fucking bad guys!

You're an american, you should already be scared.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

why "you have nothing to hide" isn't actually a compelling argument about losing our privacy.

The real joke being that you people think you ever had any privacy. You haven't lost anything you had before.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[MikeBabcock]

Knowingly presenting false data should be treated as libel against truth. Sadly, lying about data to the public isn't illegal.

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you don't expect them to simply copy legitimate data, do you?

Perhaps they were worried about being sued for copyright infringement!

It hurts me when you do that...

Re:So if they're faking counterfeit data

[Jason Levine]

Well, to be fair, if you pirate one movie they estimate they've lost ten thousand dollars in lost sales. Their math is quite simple, really. First, estimate how many works are pirated annually. Next, divide that by the amount of works legitimately sold. Multiply by the average cost of a work. Finally, toss that number aside and pull some really large number out of your posterior. I was surprised when I tried their method and learned that I'm losing $10 quadrillion dollars annually thanks to Canadian piracy. Even more surprising considering I don't really sell any copyrighted works. Imagine my surprise.

No Surprise

[memojuez]

When has a Corporate Special Interest Group ever told the complete truth?

Re:No Surprise

[interkin3tic]

When has a Corporate Special Interest Group ever told the complete truth?

In high school, I had a civics teacher who was also serving on the state legislature (it was a flyover state, not much important going on.) He said lobbyists at least at that level generally wouldn't lie to lawmakers: if a lobbyist loses his credibility with lawmakers, that really damages his ability to influence policy, they were usually a valuable source of information. His example was radar detectors in cars, the state was considering banning them. He didn't know anything about them, and until he talked to lobbyists, didn't realize that a radar detector manufacturer had a plant in that state. A significant number of his constituents' jobs could be affected.

There are clear cases where corporate special interest groups are scum, yes, but I think it's overly simplistic to imply that -all- interest groups are corrupt. I think this is more of a case of a generally corrupt industry with lobbyists. Big content is a worse blight on our culture and economy than lobbyists as a group are: plenty of lobbyists are working to make our politicians less ignorant on causes that affect you.

Re:No Surprise

[causality]

When has a Corporate Special Interest Group ever told the complete truth?

The more pressing question: when has there ever been any consequence for them after doing so?

I think revocation of the corporate charter, freezing of all assets, and selling all assets at auction with the proceeds going to charity would send the right message. You'd probably only have to do that once. The example would remain in the memories of all other such groups. They would know there is a line in the sand. It would be a bargain no matter what the cost.

Re:No Surprise

[Smallpond]

Wow. That seems harsh. What would you do to them if they lied?

Re:No Surprise

[causality]

Wow. That seems harsh. What would you do to them if they lied?

They do lie. Do you really think they are so well-meaning that they simply "accidentally overlooked" all the indications that their data was fallacious? Prior to remitting that data to legislators? Did you suppose that you and I can easily know why their numbers are not even possible, even though we are not professionals, not members of the industry, and not about to present a finalized report to legislators, while they can miss all of this as an honest mistake?

I don't like having to ask people questions like this. I don't view online discussion as some kind of "hah, gotcha" game. I don't keep score. So, it seems like something I should not have to do, and is definitely something I don't enjoy doing, but I must ask ... just how naive are you? Do you really think this is all an honest accident? Or do you suppose the theory of "they know they can try anything, throw whatever they want against the wall and capitalize on what sticks, with no risk and no consequences to themselves not even for lying through their teeth" is a better explanation of the facts? That's your call; far be it from me to tell you how you should view the situation.

Re:No Surprise

[hajus]

That's really not a very good reason to abort plans to get rid of something that wasn't worth it on its own merit. If you outlaw the item, _someone_ is going to lose their jobs. By the same token, a federal government shouldn't outlaw anything because people in the country (the constituents) might lose jobs.

Re:No Surprise

[interkin3tic]

You're right that the mere fact that it was his constituents shouldn't be a major reason, but it would hit closer to home to put faces on the consequences. Realistically, it matters. Furthermore, he and his fellow politicians didn't realize how many jobs were involved. He worked in education and legislature, what does he know about manufacturing, or the scale of the industry? It does change the balance of harms vs benefits.

Re:No Surprise

[DigitaLunatiC]

I don't like having to explain to people that they didn't understand their own post, but...

Ah, you'll figure it out.

Re:No Surprise

[kanweg]

Well, if the legislator then honestly told his constituency that not-outlawing radar detectors is worth x deaths/injuries per year to save y jobs, THEN it was a kosher thing to do.

You know what. That company came up with the idea of making radar detectors. It can come up with something else.

Bert
How about sending a postcard to a victim/relatives to thank them for their contribution to help save jobs in that state? Must console them that their sacrifice was worth it.

Re:No Surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

You wrote what you would do if a corporate interest group didn't tell the complete truth, and it was fairly brutal for a company. Then somebody poked a bit of fun at you because every company in existence has not told the complete truth (it's called sales), and they were insinuating that your response was appropriate for the punishment for outright lying but not necessarily for not telling the complete truth. In short, you answered the wrong question, or you are deluded to the fact that there wouldn't be any companies left under your Napolean-esque rule.

Re:No Surprise

[ewanm89]

As long as they don't outlaw the export of radar detectors to other states, only outlaw use on public ways (and possibly sale within the state and import). Then the factory can keep making them anyway.

Re:No Surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

*whoosh*

Re:No Surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

The joke went woosh on you:

When has a Corporate Special Interest Group ever told the complete truth? talking about truth.

The more pressing question: when has there ever been any consequence for them after doing so? talking about consequences for telling the truth.

As you can see, that makes telling the truth rather punishing, and that is why the guy wonders what you would do if they told a lie.

Re:No Surprise

[volpe]

Double whoosh. You got it wrong. Read causality's response in #36407926 more carefully. It indicates the punishment he would impose on someone for telling the complete truth . Smallpond facetiously replied by suggesting that if that's the punishment for telling the truth, then the punishment for lying must be unfathomable.

Re:No Surprise

[cbiltcliffe]

How the fuck does a radar detector cause deaths or injuries?!?

Oh...wait....

You must subscribe to the completely unproven propaganda that going 20 over the limit on the freeway increases accident rates by 400%....

Here's a hint: The selection bias in general accident rate studies is profoundly large, yet incredibly subtle at the same time. I'll let you figure out where it actually is.

Re:No Surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Causality - Smallpond was making a joke based on your misstatement. It apparently went right over your head. So let me completely ruin the joke and explain it to you. You had proposed punishing them for telling the truth. He had responded that your punishment for telling the truth was a bit harsh, and asked what you would do for lying. Dude, go read your first post again.

Re:No Surprise

[causality]

I don't like having to explain to people that they didn't understand their own post, but...

Ah, you'll figure it out.

Apparently if you make a single honest mistake, half a dozen people will come out the woodwork to make sure you know it, or in the case of some, to tell you how much of a retard you are. By implication, I suppose they're also telling me that they never lost their train of thought. At any rate, your post actually explained something useful to me and that's appreciated. If I'm wrong, I hope you or somebody else does speak up to let me know.

The rest were all redundant, merely restating what you made clear. Of course I know a bit about the sort who delight in that, and I know they desperately need every little momentary pleasure they can find. I'm glad I could give them their fix.

Slashdot: gotta love it. It keeps me on my toes. I haven't been bored with it in years.

news flash - IP lobbyist cried wolf

[Lead Butthead]

In other news, the sky is still blue.

counterfeit within a counterfeit

[WizardMarnok]

deception!

Re:counterfeit within a counterfeit

[kvvbassboy]

We need to go deeper...

Re:counterfeit within a counterfeit

[cbiltcliffe]

while ($counterfeit)
          {
          $counterfeit += $counterfeit;
}

Re:counterfeit within a counterfeit

[Anonymous Coward]

We tried to go deeper, turned out the recursion was also counterfeit.

Even more fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they have counterfeit they need to fake? (OMG I hope it is not booze) What does that give us? An IP ripoff like a cheap Chinese manufactured stuff that carried the logo and looks, but not the features?

Cognitive Dissonance

[Lieutenant Buddha]

How is it that these organizations and lobbyists can claim they genuinely feel their profits are being "stolen" when they need to use fabricated data to support their claims? This isn't incompetence, it's sickening greed. The self-interested scumbags who perpetrate this shit and the governments that not only allow but support this should both be fucking shamed.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[countertrolling]

This isn't incompetence, it's sickening greed.

It is a physical pathology of which greed, amongst other things, including criminal behavior, is a symptom.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[causality]

This isn't incompetence, it's sickening greed.

It is a physical pathology of which greed, amongst other things, including criminal behavior, is a symptom.

Hypothetically speaking, do you think involuntary sterilization is too harsh? With or without anesthesia -- I'm not picky.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[countertrolling]

Ludovico Technique should produce the desired results..

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

How is it that these organizations and lobbyists can claim they genuinely feel their profits are being "stolen" when they need to use fabricated data to support their claims?

It doesn't mean the companies aren't having their profits stolen, just that they are lying as to the extent. Probably to garner sympathy from the government.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

It does bring all of their claims into doubt.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that these organizations and lobbyists can claim they genuinely feel their profits are being "stolen" when they need to use fabricated data to support their claims?
This isn't incompetence, it's sickening greed. The self-interested scumbags who perpetrate this shit and the governments that not only allow but support this should both be fucking shamed.

This is a panic grasp by big media because they do not know how to, or just simply refuse to, compete in the age of digital media distribution. They are creatures of control, they can control cd and dvd prices and how many are manufactured. They cannot control anything in relation to the internet and it scares the shit out of them. So instead of hiring savvy young businessmen and women who know how to profit from the internet, they feel the need to lash out at everyone for their own faults.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[ScrewMaster]

The self-interested scumbags who perpetrate this shit and the governments that not only allow but support this should both be fucking shamed.

It's hard to make a sociopath ashamed of anything. What you can do is put them in jail when they start to cause too much damage.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[ScrewMaster]

This isn't incompetence, it's sickening greed.

It is a physical pathology of which greed, amongst other things, including criminal behavior, is a symptom.

Hypothetically speaking, do you think involuntary sterilization is too harsh? With or without anesthesia -- I'm not picky.

They should be told that they're the lucky winner of a Darwin Award.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[sjames]

It does mean that THEY don't believe the actual losses are big enough for government to take action on, so they exaggerate them.

In other words

[lavagolemking]

Lobbyists lie. News at 11. Good that law enforcement is starting to realize it now though. Now if only their laws were looked at with this kind of scrutiny...

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobbyists don't simply lie. That's a vast understatement. We model realities. (At least the skilled ones.) [I say "we", because I try to do the same thing, to fight them. Not that I would be one of them.]

This only works, because people can't accept that reality is relative. So they can't accept that what they perceive as reality, might actually be bad for them and force them to act in a certain way not because that's how things are, but because it was specifically designed that way.
Which means they will defend what they think is "absolute/objective reality" (something that doesn't exist) to their death.

Which means once they experienced your input as part of their reality, they will defend you to their death.

It's beautiful. Evil, but beautiful and elegant. But about the most evil thing one can do.
I personally consider it more evil than mass-murder. Because those manipulated people in essence stop being an independent entity, but become part of you. Like a possessed zombie, dead, yet walking the earth and talking your views.
At least the dead have their peace.

Re:In other words

[causality]

Lobbyists don't simply lie. That's a vast understatement. We model realities. (At least the skilled ones.) [I say "we", because I try to do the same thing, to fight them. Not that I would be one of them.]

This only works, because people can't accept that reality is relative. So they can't accept that what they perceive as reality, might actually be bad for them and force them to act in a certain way not because that's how things are, but because it was specifically designed that way.
Which means they will defend what they think is "absolute/objective reality" (something that doesn't exist) to their death.

Which means once they experienced your input as part of their reality, they will defend you to their death.

It's beautiful. Evil, but beautiful and elegant. But about the most evil thing one can do.
I personally consider it more evil than mass-murder. Because those manipulated people in essence stop being an independent entity, but become part of you. Like a possessed zombie, dead, yet walking the earth and talking your views.
At least the dead have their peace.

I doubt it will be widely appreciated but you actually do make a compelling observation. I actually wish you had posted with an account.

There's only one point where I would dispute you. Reality simply is. The only reason it may seem relative is that too many people don't have their own eyes to see. They do not know how to process and interpret information for themselves. They don't think critically. They don't understand reason, logical fallacies, bias, nor do they know how to test the objective truth of a thing. They think that's too hard. So they look to others, some trusted establishment like the government, or the media, or a charismatic leader, to tell them what they need to know and how they should feel about it. We call it advertising, propaganda, sound bites, debate framing, half-truths, agenda-driven reporting, whatever you like. If enough people are on board and agree with each other, they see no fault even when there are great faults.

It is the dependence on others to do for you what you should be well able to do for yourself that is the problem. That's why there are "gatekeepers" who get to decide what does and does not become what "everybody knows".

The hard truth is, most human beings are type-cast personalities. They are stamped from a few cookie cutters. They are individuals "just like everyone else" which means not at all. Their thoughts, beliefs, mannerisms, biases, values, ethics, principles, worldviews, perspectives, even those they would quite willingly fight for, are not their own. They are not genuinely theirs. Someone spent a lot of money, expended a lot of influence and political capital, and worked very hard to sell those ideas. It is actually a hypnotic state passionately governed by a sort of emotional logic.

The really funny thing about hyponosis is that people will always rationalize it. A professional hypnotist can look someone right in the eye, with that person's full attention, and tell them plainly "I am about to hypnotize you, and when I do, you will have an overwhelming urge to stand on your head because that is what I hypnotized you to do." Later, the person stands on their head. If you ask them why, they will always have an excuse like "this is my exercise regimen (though it never was before)" or "maybe this will fix my headache" (though they always took an aspirin before). They will never, ever admit that it was due to someone else's influence. Hypnosis works at the ego level, and the ego cannot admit that it has reigns and that someone else can hold them, that the strongest most polished influence gets to possess the reigns.

People easily become so identified with these labels and engineered perspectives that losing them would feel like a type of death. That's what drives the denial. It's the barrier to entry to waking up and realizing how much you're lied to and manipulated every day by people w

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

"absolute/objective reality" (something that doesn't exist)

Objective reality certainly does exist. If I drop a ball, it will fall - that's objective reality - no matter how much someone else believes that it will float, it will fall. If you wore a blue shirt yesterday, then in objective reality, you wore a blue shirt yesterday - even if all 6 billion people in the world think that you wore a red shirt yesterday, the objective reality is that it was blue.
Most of the work of crafting and implementing of laws is infact to pretend that objective reality doesn't exist, that it's really subjective, and demand that reality be changed to fit however it is proclaimed that reality should be.

Captcha: comply

Re:In other words

[causality]

Objective reality certainly does exist.

It's so ridiculously simple. Assuming a real love of truth, this is how it would play out:

"So there is no such thing as absolute truth?"

"That's correct."

"Are you absolutely sure?"

It isn't usually so simple. Usually, the need to win the argument gets in the way. I mean, it's not good enough to win. Someone else must lose, dammit. Right?

Re:In other words

[cheekyjohnson]

If I drop a ball, it will fall

Based on what we've observed thus far, yes. But it only takes one instance of that not happening to destroy that reality (however unlikely that is to occur). I'd say it's quite difficult to be 100% sure of much of anything.

Re:In other words

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The hard truth is, most human beings are type-cast personalities. They are stamped from a few cookie cutters. They are individuals "just like everyone else" which means not at all. Their thoughts, beliefs, mannerisms, biases, values, ethics, principles, worldviews, perspectives, even those they would quite willingly fight for, are not their own. They are not genuinely theirs.

I disagree. People are, in part, a collection of their thoughts, beliefs, etc. They arrive at these through processing their own experiences, and sometimes even their own biology plays a part as well. The cookie-cutter philosophy doesn't really hold up when you actually examine people. To find two people whose beliefs are exactly identical is actually extremely rare. Given just about any two people, regardless of their upbringing, they can find something about which they don't agree with each other.

The way that I see it, a person is, at least in part, a sum of their experiences. What defines their thoughts, beliefs, etc, is their experiences, and occasionally their biology. It means that their ego doesn't so much have reins, rather it is malleable. The hypnotist doesn't hijack the person temporarily, he actually changes them. Of course, most people would tend to conclude the opposite: that standing on your head is the person standing on their head is the mind or free will of the person "stepping aside" and allowing the hypnotist to indirectly control their body, but I think you and I both know this is not true. As you pointed out, the mind fills in its own reason. It may be that the ego is inherently proud, and accordingly in denial, but it could also be that this is the way hypnotism works: it encourages you to come up with a reason to do something, and you do it because your mind is convinced it is a good idea.

So, with that in mind, what is it that makes the claims/rhetoric of the lobbyists so evil? Let's take stock.

- They fabricate data with the intent of convincing people with that data, which is certainly evil.
- They spread misinformation, i.e. they try to convince you of something that is false? Maybe. It depends whether or not you can objectively prove what they're saying is false. Plus, even if they are guilty of that, you must ask, do we consider the words of others who do this as being as evil? Do we treat conspiracy theorists the same way? Do we treat psychics the same way? Do we treat anyone arguing a debunked study the same way? I don't think so.
- They lie, i.e. they try to convince you of something that they know is false? Again, maybe. This time, we need to know whether they know what they're saying is false. I'm sure they know their numbers are exaggerated, and while this is a form of lie, exaggeration is hardly considered evil.
- They hijack people's beliefs, so that their influence spreads insidiously? I don't think so. They are just spreading another influence, no more or less evil than say, libertarianism, environmentalism, conservatism, etc. With the exception of the fabricated data, all their other actions are employed by others, and when they are, we do not typically consider them evil.

No, what does make them evil is the other stuff, e.g. selectively suing those who cannot defend themselves for the purpose of obtaining a settlement, exerting undue influence on the political system, etc. We see their actions as evil because of the context, not so much because of the actions themselves.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I'd like to point out that I am fully aware that over 50% of the people who read my comment will dismiss me as another brainwashed victim of big media. However, I feel that a lack of dissenting opinions or some kind of intellectual diversity is far more dangerous than a group of lobbyists ever could be, so even if nobody actually reads my comment, it comforts me to know that people remember that this type of opinion exists.

Re:In other words

[kermidge]

"People easily become so identified with these labels and engineered perspectives that losing them would feel like a type of death. That's what drives the denial. It's the barrier to entry to waking up and realizing how much you're lied to and manipulated every day by people who smile as they deceive because that's what the cue card told them to do."

Nicely put.

Beyond the bleak vista of wading through this external crap daily is the added depressing annoyance from slogging through what I manufacture on my own. One wonders, on the hope of waking through layers of anesthesia, if one will ever make it out of the recovery room. It's tempting to roll over and go back to sleep.

To the original topic - a while back I happened across a report of an interview with the guy whose study, through a roundabout fashion, became the basis for the RIAA's original claims of economic losses. [I apologize for being unable to find the link] He basically said that, when pressed by the study's sponsor, he pulled a number out of.... thin air just to get them off his back. In sum, _all_ the mediacorp numbers are crap, based on a crap starting number that fueled their assumptions.

Re:In other words

[angus77]

Every ball that has been observef to have been dropped has been observed to fall. That's not relative, and claiming otherwise doesn't even achieve the status of splitting hairs.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Every ball that has been observef to have been dropped has been observed to fall.

I don't believe for a moment that you have any way of knowing that.

Re:In other words

[cbiltcliffe]

It's beautiful. Evil, but beautiful and elegant. But about the most evil thing one can do.
I personally consider it more evil than mass-murder. Because those manipulated people in essence stop being an independent entity, but become part of you. Like a possessed zombie, dead, yet walking the earth and talking your views.
At least the dead have their peace.

So we've already _had_ a zombie invasion? Shit.

And in order to prevent the zombie apocalypse, we should have just killed all the IP lobbyists? Cool.

Re:In other words

[cbiltcliffe]

We can say with 100% certainty, though, that IP lobbyists are scumbags.

Re:In other words

[ScrewMaster]

It's beautiful. Evil, but beautiful and elegant. But about the most evil thing one can do. I personally consider it more evil than mass-murder. Because those manipulated people in essence stop being an independent entity, but become part of you. Like a possessed zombie, dead, yet walking the earth and talking your views. At least the dead have their peace.

So we've already _had_ a zombie invasion? Shit.

And in order to prevent the zombie apocalypse, we should have just killed all the IP lobbyists? Cool.

You don't have to kill them. Just don't let them bite you, and for God's sake don't let them reproduce.

Yeah but ...

[PPH]

... its only Canadian money. Its not like its real or anything.

(Ducking and running.)

Re:Yeah but ...

[Yvan256]

http://www.google.com/search?q=1+cad+to+usd

Re:Yeah but ...

[Bieeanda]

Sorry, dude. That joke stopped being funny when the Loonie started trading at par with the greenback.

Actually, I take that back. It was fucking hilarious when the loonie was worth $1.10 USD.

Re:Yeah but ...

[green1]

you imply that the "greenback" is worth something...

Re:Yeah but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And because 1 inch = 2.54 cm, everyone in Canada must be taller than in the United States. The logic, it's impeccable.

Re:Yeah but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Canadian and thought that was worth a Funny mod. +1 to you

Re:Yeah but ...

[cbiltcliffe]

Eh? (Canadian here.)

That would make the US measurement worth _more_ than the Canadian measurement.
With money, it's the other way round.

Of course, you probably went through a US public school, so you wouldn't be able to understand that, anyway....
(Ducking and running.)

Re:Yeah but ...

[PPH]

Better hung, too. (I'm Canadian too, originally).

Can't contain the canuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

The corrupt Canadian Council, called the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, claims counterfeiting in Canada could be $22.5 billion. Commonly cited commoners called for Canucks to communicate closely with the commission.

Re:Can't contain the canuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was an Alliterative Mod, you get +9

Illegal and Should be able to Charge Them

[Anonymous Coward]

This is something I would love to see an action causing anyone in the executive level and people found to be fabricating this stuff to be criminally charged. Anyone at the executive level should very anything they support — especially on this level.

Obviously that won't happen.

Re:Illegal and Should be able to Charge Them

[markass530]

" Anyone at the executive level should very anything they support — especially on this level." I think you are missing some words or something

Re:Illegal and Should be able to Charge Them

[ustolemyname]

The letters F and I. Simple typo.

Re:Illegal and Should be able to Charge Them

[cbiltcliffe]

<zeep> wtf is veryfi?
* Batty bangs his head repeatedly against a wall

Whatever makes you think...

[Lead Butthead]

Whatever makes you think any laws would undergo scrutiny? As long as lobbyists and MAFIAA keeps the money coming, laws however bad or poorly written will be rubber stamped. It's called "intellectual property based economy." Get used to it. (Ironically, any one with an ounce of intellect would know this "economy" has nothing to do with intellect whatsoever.)

And will the "lose ground" because of this?

[erroneus]

I think the most important thing here is that this will not likely change anything. They will continue receiving the benefits of the sweetheart deals the lied to get in earlier instances and they may still get what they came for in this instance as well.

Here's some sarcasm:

[Legion303]

Shocking.

Re:Here's some sarcasm:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my shocked face... "Whaaaa?!?!"

Like Politicians

[arthurpaliden]

Their statements were not meant to be factual.

Re:Like Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

In their defense, they do have a majority Conservative government to back them up, so really, all they are trying to provide is some kinda rationalization (like bombing a country because they possess WMDs, that kinda thing) to get their bills pushed through to law - once in, then they can "realize" their mistake and apologize. The average Canadian is pretty willing to accept, at face value, whatever is thrown at him/her, I think.

Re:Like Politicians

[haruchai]

While the Harper Conservatives won their first majority, the other outcomes of the May 2011 election were nothing short of shocking. Perhaps not quite as historic as Obama's election but certainly a momentous chapter in Canadian politics.

Re:Like Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you referring to the anti-Bloc vote, which caused the French to turn to the only party they knew had no chance of acquiring a majority? That was nothing more than the French acting collectively, in the same manner they've used the Bloc. What I want to know is, who is deciding (and commanding) that vote? Some person or group has enough power to get the word out in Quebec, that they can basically sweep the province with whomever they want. *That* is political power.

Re:Like Politicians

[haruchai]

Don't underestimate personal charm - Jack Layton has been consistently regarded as the most likeable leader for years, he comes across as genuine, is known to hang out at local pubs and fit in with the regular guys (befitting his leadership of the working man's party) and is the only current leader who's equally expressive in both English and French.
Harper's stiff smile engenders distrust in those who like leaders to be affable and many still cite that published photo of him sending his son off to school with a handshake as an indication of his aloofness.

Re:Like Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

You're deluding yourself if you think this was a pro-socialist vote. It was French collectivism, unquestionably, but the NDP was chosen because it was the least undesirable option, not because there was any affinity with federal socialism. Personally, I won't consider any party in La Belle Province a contender until they've been in for a couple of terms.
Having said that, I think socialism in Canada has been "legitimized" because of it; those who may have been hesitant to vote hard left, due to groupthink, will now regard the NDP as an actual option on the ballot card.

Re:Like Politicians

[haruchai]

Jack Layton's NDP is a center-left party; the Quebec surge began after he appeared on the most popular French talk show in Quebec. This is Jack's chance to do what Stephen did for the alliance that is now the majority party but he will probably have to adopt some level of Harperian control until his young rookies learn how to play with the big dogs.
Note also that they have been the strongest opponents of the minority Conservatives, which made them attractive to those whose distrust Harper and were unsure about Ignatieff.

Re:Like Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

The NDP were told to run candidates in Quebec, just a warm body and a name on the ballot was required. The election was a foregone conclusion in the province. The NDP may have been elected, but they are not wielding the political stick; there is an unelected force carrying the might of Quebec's vote. At best, this was their way of spanking the Bloc for doing something extraordinarily unwise.

Re:Like Politicians

[haruchai]

When has the NDP not had a full slate of candidates? How did this secret power turn the people against the Bloc overnight?

Re:Like Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

"How did this secret power turn the people against the Bloc overnight?"
Yes, that is what my first post in this thread questioned.

Although the company line is "rookie candidates", it is clear that "warm body" is a more apt phrase. Case in point : Ruth Ellen Brosseau, utterly apart from the political scene (managed a bar) prior to the election, did not campaign but instead went to Vegas for the duration of the election, cannot speak French.
The NDP merely tossed anyone willing to place their name on a ballot into the fray. They are the front-men for the real political force in Quebec, and they only get to stay in that position if they toe the line with whomever is calling the shots.

And let me be clear, here, I'm not saying the NDP is merely a puppet; they have enough autonomy to pursue coincidental avenues of social change, or minor manipulations with little significance on French society, but if they cross whatever line the Bloc crossed, they will be pitched just as readily.

Re: (not) Cognitive Dissonance

[lavagolemking]

Cognitive Dissonance

That word. I don't think it means what you think it means...

Angels on a Pinhead?

[Ostracus]

I thought we all were in agreement that piracy was an unmeasurable phenomenon? Which of course also means that benefits are immeasurable.

In a few words

[tibit]

No shit, Sherlock. And we expected what else, exactly?

DVD Spindle Usage

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

>> "I know, because those parasitic bastards would come to my store every few days for a spindle of my cheapest DVD media."

> It sounds more like you *assumed*, because those parasitic bastards etc. etc. Unless one of them came right out and told you that's what they were for.

I'm sure they were coming into his store every few days for a spindle of cheap DVDs in order to take more video of their family dog.

Although if they're parasites, what is he who makes money on the parasites?

Re:DVD Spindle Usage

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I'm sure they were coming into his store every few days for a spindle of cheap DVDs in order to take more video of their family dog.

Aspiring 3D artists will go through spindles of DVDs either for making demo reels to find work and/or to back up gigs of data they generated to make those reels. These days hard disc space is generous enough to not really rely on removable media, but it wasn't that long ago where you needed DVD-Rs to maintain the output.

Although if they're parasites, what is he who makes money on the parasites?

They could be telling him to his face that they're downloading movie rips of stuff they've never seen or paid for before and he still wouldn't be in the wrong for selling him those spindles. The only real thing he did wrong was he made assumptions about what they were up to.

Re:DVD Spindle Usage

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> Aspiring 3D artists will go through spindles of DVDs either for making demo reels to find work and/or to back up gigs of data they generated to make those reels. These days hard disc space is generous enough to not really rely on removable media, but it wasn't that long ago where you needed DVD-Rs to maintain the output.

Fair point, although I'd be surprised if local buying was cheapest for that. I find piracy by far the more likely possibility, although there are legal non-infringing uses.

> They could be telling him to his face that they're downloading movie rips of stuff they've never seen or paid for before and he still wouldn't be in the wrong for selling him those spindles. The only real thing he did wrong was he made assumptions about what they were up to.

That's a harder sell. If we accept the idea that copyright infringement is illegal, even criminal (as it is when certain conditions are met), and we also accept that selling someone things we know they will use to commit a crime is wrong, then selling spindles to someone who tells you they're pirating with them is also wrong. In an extreme example, selling someone a gun they say they'll use to shoot their wife would not be permissible. Does the magnitude of the crime they say they will commit with the item you sell them matter in determining whether you should sell it to them?

Re:DVD Spindle Usage

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Fair point, although I'd be surprised if local buying was cheapest for that. I find piracy by far the more likely possibility, although there are legal non-infringing uses.

Part of his statement was that this was a few years ago, I'm assuming this is around 2005. Back then we had plenty of storage space, but no means other than DVD-Rs to back it up, and it took lots of them. USB drives became cheaper and more reliable, DVD-R sales have gone down. I'm sure most people who have purchased a DVD burner have tried out burning a movie, but a hundred? I have plenty of disposable income and I think a hundred is higher than my total collection of DVDs. In 2005, though, I did have more than 400 gigs of data to keep backed up.

... and we also accept that selling someone things we know they will use to commit a crime is wrong...

This is the sticky part. It's like saying "exploring the galaxy will be easy, first we invent the warp drive...." If the guy flat out says to "I am going to download a movie I have no intention of paying for and burn it to this disc", he's still not in the wrong to sell him blank DVDs.

One reason is that he is not the police, it is not his job to enforce the law. You don't want customer service people making decisions about who they think are criminals.

The second reason is that that is not actually evidence that he's about to commit a crime. Saying he will do it is not a confession, he hasn't done it, yet. He could be making shit up and it's not like the guy behind the register can see he's got a bunch of torrents going on that dude's computer.

Gun sales are a completely different animal and... guess what, they're handled in a very different way. Background checks, statements the customer makes, laws about how the purchase can only go down, etc. We don't do that with DVD-rs, so the clerk isn't even armed with the knowledge he'd need to actually deny a sale.

The third reason is that he's not even stopping a crime. A spindle of DVD-Rs does not open the door to actually infringing on copyright. It's not like you have to have a DVD-R in the drive for a torrent client to start.

Re:DVD Spindle Usage

[findoutmoretoday]

<quote><p>The only real thing he did wrong was he made assumptions about what they were up to.</p></quote>

I assume you are assuming he is assuming?

Re:DVD Spindle Usage

[cbiltcliffe]

One reason is that he is not the police, it is not his job to enforce the law. You don't want customer service people making decisions about who they think are criminals.

Hell, frequently you don't even want police making decisions about who they thing are criminals.... :-/

Re:DVD Spindle Usage

[billcopc]

Aspiring 3D artists probably wouldn't be calling their "clients" on the cell phone in my lobby to assess how many DVDs they need to buy for that week's batch of the latest Iron Man rip. They also wouldn't brag about how this "doesn't affect welfare benefits / income tax".

I have no qualms with casual copying, go ahead and burn that movie, burn my music, burn whatever, and swap discs with your friends. I draw the line when burning copyrighted material becomes a business, because that actually IS a lost sale. If someone is willing to pay $10 to some random fraudster for a movie, but they won't spend that same $10 on a legally distributed DVD, I call bullshit.

Re:DVD Spindle Usage

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If someone is willing to pay $10 to some random fraudster for a movie, but they won't spend that same $10 on a legally distributed DVD, I call bullshit.

So why are they buying the $10 pirated version instead of the $10 legal version?

Gotta love the title

[woboyle]

"... faking counterfeit data ..." Duh? Doesn't that mean the same as "... creating real data ..."? Oh well, just a matter of semantics, and computers are still pretty piss poor with that.

Re:Gotta love the title

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, do they have copyright on the counterfeit data

Oh, this is news to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations lie when they lobby politicians, get draconian laws passed that *guarantee* their revenue stream and make everyone else suffer. What an astonishing thing! Its like there is a law in the United States that corporate executives are required by law to do anything and everything in their power including lie, cheat and steal in order that shareholders always have maximum profits. Oh, there already is a law. So that would mean that corporations will lie to government at all levels, including lobbyists, law enforcement, regulatory, and any other group. Surprise!

In Other News

[hduff]

Lobbyists make claims that distort the truth; politicians remain clueless; sheeple continue being screwed, like it.

Reduce prices = Reduced counterfeiting

[Anonymous Coward]

Counterfeiting actually keeps prices low. The higher the price on a product the more the counterfeiting. The lower the price the lower the counterfeiting. Might sound logical but it'll remain a true economic principle regardless of law enforcement.

Counterfeit?

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Probably not the exact right discussion but we don't have a current DMCA/Bittorrent session atm...

Counterfeit? File-sharing? WTF do you think the conquistadors wanted gold for? The royalty is in debt and needs to counterfeit some tokens!

Protect us from the evil file-sharing...

How fitting!

[hesaigo999ca]

I always thought those figures were way off, and now they got caught with proof of it, serves them right, now no one will ever believe these claims that movie and music industries lose so much over piracy....more like they are making more now then they ever have with their creative accounting, and false companies going bankrupt http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/10/07/09/1621218/Hollywood-Accounting-mdash-How-Harry-Potter-Loses-Money
all i can say is i hope they really start cracking down on the companies that helped guide the courts to be so unfair when it comes to a grandmother downloading an mp3 and being stuck paying 50,000$!!!!!