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

[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

[OECD]

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

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

[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

[davester666]

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

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

[Smallpond]

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

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

[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.

counterfeit within a counterfeit

[WizardMarnok]

deception!

Re:counterfeit within a counterfeit

[kvvbassboy]

We need to go deeper...

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.

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

[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

[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:Yeah but ...

[Yvan256]

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

In a few words

[tibit]

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