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.'"
There is no such thing as "independent groups" in the way that the author implies (except the ones that agree with the author?), all "issue" groups have a point of view and so bias.
The author doesn't like the Copyright Lobby's "independent groups", the Copyright Lobby doesn't like the author's favorite "independent groups". Surprise, surprise.
There is no such thing as "independent groups" in the way that the author implies
Well of course. You don't put the time/effort/money into forming a group like that unless you have some kind of agenda. That agenda isn't necessarily nefarious or evil, but there has to be something that you're trying to investigate or achieve, and so you're probably going to favor ideas that help you toward your agenda. It's not strange to think that someone looking at the issues with a different agenda in mind will favor different ideas.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a a given group's agenda isn't nefarious or evil, or at the very least self-serving to the detriment of others. I personally have little doubt that the RIAA and MPAA are focussed on their own profits and aren't very concerned with the consumers' welfare or even artists' welfare. Maybe a pro-consumer group wouldn't be too interested in the RIAA's welfare either, but given that I'm a consumer and not the RIAA, I'm ok with that.
Well of course. You don't put the time/effort/money into forming a group like that unless you have some kind of agenda. That agenda isn't necessarily nefarious or evil, but there has to be something that you're trying to investigate or achieve, and so you're probably going to favor ideas that help you toward your agenda. It's not strange to think that someone looking at the issues with a different agenda in mind will favor different ideas.
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.
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.
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.
I don't really understand replies like this. I never claimed that there was anything new about this so you appear to be rebutting a statement that I did not make. Not trying to be rude or anything like that, just that the purpose of this reply is a genuine mystery to me.
So what this report truly points out, is the old world control of the message, what is seen, heard or read, is no longer the only message that gets to the public eye or, the government eye. Of course politicians give a damn, those old excuses for their clearly biased and corrupt decisions no longer wash quite so readily.
A bit of mass media B$, some upbeat talking head talking points, some junk science reports and statistics and now what, crap is crap, it all used to work so well in the eighties and ninet
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.
More freedom comes from getting the government the fuck out of things it has no business in, not giving it more things to get involved in. Enforce physical property rights? Check. Do other things? Hell no.
Reports that build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus, with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard that [nytimes.com], before?
Exactly. It's been done since time immemorial, a few cases of which are documented in Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent [wikipedia.org]. (Nice tag, whoever did it.)
The difference between now and when Chomsky wrote his book is the web, of course. Kudos to this blogger Michael Geist for helping expose a farcical consensus. Hopefully we'll see more of this kind of analysis for other lobby groups as well.
Reports that build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus, with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard that [nytimes.com], before?
It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus...
So it's pretty much like Global Warming Theology, then?
yea, don't you just hate it how the rising global temperatures, rising CO2 in the air and water, shrining ice caps, disappearing glaciers, increase in natural disasters, and Al Gore are all conspiring together to make us believe in global warming.
it's so frustrating...today is 21 degrees, while yesterday was 23 degrees. obviously, global warming is wrong.
It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus...
So it's pretty much like Global Warming Theology, then?
yea, don't you just hate it how the rising global temperatures, rising CO2 in the air and water, shrining ice caps, disappearing glaciers, increase in natural disasters, and Al Gore are all conspiring together to make us believe in global warming.
it's so frustrating...today is 21 degrees, while yesterday was 23 degrees. obviously, global warming is wrong.
I won't comment on whether global warming is caused by mankind or not. I have my opinions but I don't consider it something that I can unambiguously prove or anything like that, so to make such a statement here would be needlessly controversial and would take away from the real point I want to make. It would be about as useful as taking a position on abortion. So, I will stick to what I have no doubts about.
The politics of this issue are increasingly leading towards the taxation of carbon, typically i
Unless the things you're proposing have (as all giant, civilization-impacting Really Good Ideas do) unintended consequences.
And unless the things you're proposing are so toxic to the world economy that they erase the very productivity and marginal largess that allows us to do what we've been doing for decades: greatly reduce pollution and greatly boost efficiencies. These things can only happen when you have a thriving economy to pay for them. Obama wants
Your post is typical of a significant minority of slashdotters who are being mislead by a looby group that make the MAFIAA look like amatures, the urban ledgends you are repeating in your post were created by the heartland institute [sourcewatch.org] who are associated with the CEI [sourcewatch.org] and other anti-science front groups via the Cooler heads coalition [wikipedia.org].
Their associated web sites are too numerous to list but two of them that are quoted with depressing regularity on slashdot are icecap [icecap.us] (owned and operated by HI) and WUWT [wattsupwiththat.com], (Watts is a regular attraction at the HI's "climate confrences").
Well, past experience has shown that eventually these things affect politicians. They see variations on the same thing proclaimed by multiple groups and think they have to do something. That something is usually increasing the levy/fee/tax on blank DVDs and CDs, coupled with proclamations that you are championing Canadian home-grown talent. The difference between levy and tax? You can put GST (5%) on a levy, but you can't put GST on a tax.
The same thing happens here in the US. FreedomWorks [sourcewatch.org] is a front group for Political Insiders. The scary part of is that people that have joined this organzation have no idea they are apart of a front group.
You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya!
Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job. Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector:
You're quite literally correct of course. I was reflecting a more colloquial phrasing. I guess what I was trying to get at is that when faced with multiple alternative explanations for something, Occam's Razor is a good heuristic for picking one. Scientists sometimes employ Occam's Razor for selecting the simpler among competing but otherwise equivalent theories that match existing empirical evidence.
I tend to use it as a method of weighting scenarios. We live in a time when we don't "directly" know a great
(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":)
While technically-savy voters can sort fact from fiction, technically-illiterate politicians [cnet.com] are easily swayed [crikey.com.au]. What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation? Is it possible to educate our politicians that there are two [ornery.org] sides [ornery.org] to every [wired.com] story [wikipedia.org]? Or are they hopelessly in the lobbyists pockets.
Unfortuately there a lot of aussie rednecks who listen to Mike Munroe, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and Alan Jones, politicians can't fight that level of bullshit without killing the free press in the process.
"What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation?"
I for one knew this was all hoo hoo when I first read about how Canadians loose between $10-30 billion a year. That's $333-1000 per man, woman & child. I would barely consume the $333 myself in a year. My 99 year old grand mother would be in the order of 50c a decade these days. And my newborn child well he's a software junky at oh lets say NOTHING. Sure I could find a 16 year old girl that eats $1000 a month in itunes alone. But on average for every breathing person in Canada a number like $333 is insane.
The per capita income of every person in Canada is $39,300USD (2008 est.) or $45,674.47 CAD. before tax. These reports are basically saying that every person in Canada steals any where from 1-3% after tax income in the form of download-able music/movies and software. Assuming a 30% tax rate ( I pulled 30% out of thin air ). This is not saying that ALL consumption is illegal, All it is saying that every breathing human in Canada steals the equivalent of 1-3% of their net income on a subset of media. This is an insanely huge number people.
Bottom line is the media companies are lazy and greedy. One of the most fundamental reasons why people download entertain is quite simple. It comes in a form that is easy to use and extremely convenient. The entertainment industries really missed the opportunity back in the 90's when all this started. Instead of actually looking at this consumption path as a HUGE source of revenue that s$%t themselves and paniced. Instead of investing in this essentially new industry they took the easy route ( so they thought ) and tried to get the courts and governments of the planet to essentially make it law that traditional consumption methods must be adhered to. This at the relatively trivial cost of lobby groups and legal consults ( so they thought ).
I'm no Apple fan boy. But you gotta respect Apple when they basically said. âoeWe are doing this and you will play along and you will make a profit through us. So sit down shut up and this the damn cheque already. Oh and you have no manufacturing or shipping costs. That's now free. So The cheque is basically 100% profit.â I'm still amazed the media companies tried to stop them. Absolutely stunned. ( I'm ignoring the whole DRM thing, that rant is already done. )
So back full circle. After 15+ years of this borderline moronic adventure the entertainment industry they are still at it. ( Even my dog learns faster than these people. ) They are still trying to manipulate world governments and laws so that they can have an easy ride to the money. Guys clearly it is not an easy ride the path you are on. Wake up, Apple, Amazon are making easy money for you. They are clearly on the easy path. Stop the lying and cheating and just start delivering product in forms people want. You will make more easy money.
This echoes my own experience in challenging government policy here in Canada, and makes me sad that everywhere people don't get the whole picture because they don't receive all the information on a topic.
In my own case, I wrote to every Opposition and Cabinet Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Alberta challenging the logic of electricity deregulation a few years ago. Since Alberta is a one-party state in effect, I got replies from all Opposition MLAs, but only one from the Government, directly fr
No, the captain only commands one ship -- the head of the whole pirate bay would be a commodore. Fat lot of good watching all those pirate movies did you...
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.
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.
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."
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.
I agree with you on the pertinence of Slashdot/Slashcode's moderation system, however, Slashcode is dead now... see the related replies (mainly on the slashcode-general mailing list) of this journal entry [slashdot.org].
Yeah. Thanks to anonymous reader for pointing this one out.
On the one hand, this sort of shit needs to see the light of day. On the other hand, it give me a (rare) reason to feel ashamed of being Canadian. What the hell do these idiots think they're doing? Pulling the wool over our eyes?
Wake up and smell the coffee, you idiots. We're not going to let you get away with crap like that. Thanks for letting us know! (Shuffles off to some networking sites to start some more news stories re: this!)
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.
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.
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.
I suspect that more and more people are increasingly waking up to this reality. It's just that if the different companies and groups who make up the mass media all have one thing in common, it's that they reinforce each other. For that reason, even if lots of people are starting to wake up, you are most definitely not going to see this fact on the prime time news.
Yes, more and more people are getting a clue. Unfortunately, those more and more taken as a percentage of the population, is falling behind.
So long as kids run out to buy the latest Hannah Montana doo-diddy, so long as people are voting for an America's idol, the advertising companies know they are doing it right. Americans are suckers - you can sell anything to them with the right pitch. Canadians always seemed to be a little brighter, but maybe I was wrong. This corruption is going around the world an
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.
Surprise, surprise. (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "independent groups" in the way that the author implies (except the ones that agree with the author?), all "issue" groups have a point of view and so bias.
The author doesn't like the Copyright Lobby's "independent groups", the Copyright Lobby doesn't like the author's favorite "independent groups". Surprise, surprise.
Re:Surprise, surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The author's favorite "independent groups" are going to be grass roots organizations.
Many "grass roots organizations" are not.
Re:Surprise, surprise. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "independent groups" in the way that the author implies
Well of course. You don't put the time/effort/money into forming a group like that unless you have some kind of agenda. That agenda isn't necessarily nefarious or evil, but there has to be something that you're trying to investigate or achieve, and so you're probably going to favor ideas that help you toward your agenda. It's not strange to think that someone looking at the issues with a different agenda in mind will favor different ideas.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a a given group's agenda isn't nefarious or evil, or at the very least self-serving to the detriment of others. I personally have little doubt that the RIAA and MPAA are focussed on their own profits and aren't very concerned with the consumers' welfare or even artists' welfare. Maybe a pro-consumer group wouldn't be too interested in the RIAA's welfare either, but given that I'm a consumer and not the RIAA, I'm ok with that.
Parent
Re:Surprise, surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I don't really understand replies like this. I never claimed that there was anything new about this so you appear to be rebutting a statement that I did not make. Not trying to be rude or anything like that, just that the purpose of this reply is a genuine mystery to me.
Re: (Score:2)
So what this report truly points out, is the old world control of the message, what is seen, heard or read, is no longer the only message that gets to the public eye or, the government eye. Of course politicians give a damn, those old excuses for their clearly biased and corrupt decisions no longer wash quite so readily.
A bit of mass media B$, some upbeat talking head talking points, some junk science reports and statistics and now what, crap is crap, it all used to work so well in the eighties and ninet
Re: (Score:2)
More freedom comes from getting the government the fuck out of things it has no business in, not giving it more things to get involved in. Enforce physical property rights? Check. Do other things? Hell no.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Business, especially big business will take away your rights really quick. Sometimes like in this case in the name of property rights.
A Good Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Reports that build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus, with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard that [nytimes.com], before?
Re:A Good Strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. It's been done since time immemorial, a few cases of which are documented in Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent [wikipedia.org]. (Nice tag, whoever did it.)
The difference between now and when Chomsky wrote his book is the web, of course. Kudos to this blogger Michael Geist for helping expose a farcical consensus. Hopefully we'll see more of this kind of analysis for other lobby groups as well.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Reports that build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus, with some invisible hand guiding everything and everyone... where have I heard that [nytimes.com], before?
There's that, and also this: http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/print.html [salon.com]
Sounds familiar (Score:1, Offtopic)
So it's pretty much like Global Warming Theology, then?
Re: (Score:2)
It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus...
So it's pretty much like Global Warming Theology, then?
yea, don't you just hate it how the rising global temperatures, rising CO2 in the air and water, shrining ice caps, disappearing glaciers, increase in natural disasters, and Al Gore are all conspiring together to make us believe in global warming.
it's so frustrating...today is 21 degrees, while yesterday was 23 degrees. obviously, global warming is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is also that the reports each build on one another, creating the false impression of growing momentum and consensus...
So it's pretty much like Global Warming Theology, then?
yea, don't you just hate it how the rising global temperatures, rising CO2 in the air and water, shrining ice caps, disappearing glaciers, increase in natural disasters, and Al Gore are all conspiring together to make us believe in global warming.
it's so frustrating...today is 21 degrees, while yesterday was 23 degrees. obviously, global warming is wrong.
I won't comment on whether global warming is caused by mankind or not. I have my opinions but I don't consider it something that I can unambiguously prove or anything like that, so to make such a statement here would be needlessly controversial and would take away from the real point I want to make. It would be about as useful as taking a position on abortion. So, I will stick to what I have no doubts about.
The politics of this issue are increasingly leading towards the taxation of carbon, typically i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the things you're proposing have (as all giant, civilization-impacting Really Good Ideas do) unintended consequences.
And unless the things you're proposing are so toxic to the world economy that they erase the very productivity and marginal largess that allows us to do what we've been doing for decades: greatly reduce pollution and greatly boost efficiencies. These things can only happen when you have a thriving economy to pay for them. Obama wants
Re:Sounds familiar (Score:4, Interesting)
Their associated web sites are too numerous to list but two of them that are quoted with depressing regularity on slashdot are icecap [icecap.us] (owned and operated by HI) and WUWT [wattsupwiththat.com], (Watts is a regular attraction at the HI's "climate confrences").
Parent
does anyone pay attention? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it gets really slippery when it snows. So around here it's got another two, max three months.
Another excuse for raising taxes (Score:1)
Well, past experience has shown that eventually these things affect politicians. They see variations on the same thing proclaimed by multiple groups and think they have to do something. That something is usually increasing the levy/fee/tax on blank DVDs and CDs, coupled with proclamations that you are championing Canadian home-grown talent. The difference between levy and tax? You can put GST (5%) on a levy, but you can't put GST on a tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can put GST on a tax. Every time we buy gas we pay a bunch of taxes then we pay GST on those taxes.
US Laundering Efforts. (Score:2)
The same thing happens here in the US. FreedomWorks [sourcewatch.org] is a front group for Political Insiders. The scary part of is that people that have joined this organzation have no idea they are apart of a front group.
I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean the commercial entities with a revenue stream to protect are funding lobby groups to manipulate public opinion and corrupt the political process?
I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya!
Well, OK. I'm not that shocked. In fact I'm pretty sure this has happened before.
Exxon is pretty good at this sort of thing:-
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ [exxonsecrets.org]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding [guardian.co.uk]
And groups like the Heartland Institute ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute [sourcewatch.org] ) are whoring for so many masters I fully expect to see them expand into the "intellectual property" debate any day now.
Its pretty important for citizens to hone their bullshit detectors to try and figure out when they are the target of a snow job.
Here are a few tools I use to pretty good effect when employing my bullshit detector:
"Who benefits" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono [wikipedia.org]
"You can't get something for nothing" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law [wikipedia.org]
"The simpler theory is often correct" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor [wikipedia.org]
( be careful with that last one - it can be a slippery sucker)
Re: (Score:2)
You're quite literally correct of course. I was reflecting a more colloquial phrasing. I guess what I was trying to get at is that when faced with multiple alternative explanations for something, Occam's Razor is a good heuristic for picking one. Scientists sometimes employ Occam's Razor for selecting the simpler among competing but otherwise equivalent theories that match existing empirical evidence.
I tend to use it as a method of weighting scenarios. We live in a time when we don't "directly" know a great
How the Copyright Lobby runs the Media (Score:5, Informative)
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 [brisbanetimes.com.au]. 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 [yahoo.com] 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." [whirlpool.net.au]
While technically-savy voters can sort fact from fiction, technically-illiterate politicians [cnet.com] are easily swayed [crikey.com.au]. What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation? Is it possible to educate our politicians that there are two [ornery.org] sides [ornery.org] to every [wired.com] story [wikipedia.org]? Or are they hopelessly in the lobbyists pockets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"What's the best way to combat this sort of misinformation?"
Ridicule [rotten.com].
It took this man to point the obvious out. (Score:5, Insightful)
I must congratulate Michael Geist on this work.
I for one knew this was all hoo hoo when I first read about how Canadians loose between $10-30 billion a year. That's $333-1000 per man, woman & child. I would barely consume the $333 myself in a year. My 99 year old grand mother would be in the order of 50c a decade these days. And my newborn child well he's a software junky at oh lets say NOTHING. Sure I could find a 16 year old girl that eats $1000 a month in itunes alone. But on average for every breathing person in Canada a number like $333 is insane.
The per capita income of every person in Canada is $39,300USD (2008 est.) or $45,674.47 CAD. before tax. These reports are basically saying that every person in Canada steals any where from 1-3% after tax income in the form of download-able music/movies and software. Assuming a 30% tax rate ( I pulled 30% out of thin air ). This is not saying that ALL consumption is illegal, All it is saying that every breathing human in Canada steals the equivalent of 1-3% of their net income on a subset of media. This is an insanely huge number people.
Bottom line is the media companies are lazy and greedy. One of the most fundamental reasons why people download entertain is quite simple. It comes in a form that is easy to use and extremely convenient. The entertainment industries really missed the opportunity back in the 90's when all this started. Instead of actually looking at this consumption path as a HUGE source of revenue that s$%t themselves and paniced. Instead of investing in this essentially new industry they took the easy route ( so they thought ) and tried to get the courts and governments of the planet to essentially make it law that traditional consumption methods must be adhered to. This at the relatively trivial cost of lobby groups and legal consults ( so they thought ).
I'm no Apple fan boy. But you gotta respect Apple when they basically said. âoeWe are doing this and you will play along and you will make a profit through us. So sit down shut up and this the damn cheque already. Oh and you have no manufacturing or shipping costs. That's now free. So The cheque is basically 100% profit.â I'm still amazed the media companies tried to stop them. Absolutely stunned. ( I'm ignoring the whole DRM thing, that rant is already done. )
So back full circle. After 15+ years of this borderline moronic adventure the entertainment industry they are still at it. ( Even my dog learns faster than these people. ) They are still trying to manipulate world governments and laws so that they can have an easy ride to the money. Guys clearly it is not an easy ride the path you are on. Wake up, Apple, Amazon are making easy money for you. They are clearly on the easy path. Stop the lying and cheating and just start delivering product in forms people want. You will make more easy money.
Digging deeper in Canada (Score:2, Interesting)
In my own case, I wrote to every Opposition and Cabinet Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Alberta challenging the logic of electricity deregulation a few years ago. Since Alberta is a one-party state in effect, I got replies from all Opposition MLAs, but only one from the Government, directly fr
Re: (Score:1)
the chief Pirate of Pirate Bay!
That would be called the captain...jeez...some people never watch pirate movies.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I see you are unfamiliar with the pirate ranking system, it's captains all the way down.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
If only there were a way to watch some pirate movies quickly.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
It stands to reason that if you can mashup web content, you can also demashup.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The same could be said for opposing views (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:The same could be said for opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Parent
Re:The same could be said for opposing views (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Too bad Slashcode is dead... (Score:2)
I agree with you on the pertinence of Slashdot/Slashcode's moderation system, however, Slashcode is dead now... see the related replies (mainly on the slashcode-general mailing list) of this journal entry [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, however a minor quibble:
I wouldn't say spotlight for one to many. There's already an apt term for the idea: broadcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, this sort of shit needs to see the light of day. On the other hand, it give me a (rare) reason to feel ashamed of being Canadian. What the hell do these idiots think they're doing? Pulling the wool over our eyes?
Wake up and smell the coffee, you idiots. We're not going to let you get away with crap like that. Thanks for letting us know! (Shuffles off to some networking sites to start some more news stories re: this!)
Re:Canadian astroturfing, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Canadian astroturfing, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I suspect that more and more people are increasingly waking up to this reality. It's just that if the different companies and groups who make up the mass media all have one thing in common, it's that they reinforce each other. For that reason, even if lots of people are starting to wake up, you are most definitely not going to see this fact on the prime time news.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, more and more people are getting a clue. Unfortunately, those more and more taken as a percentage of the population, is falling behind.
So long as kids run out to buy the latest Hannah Montana doo-diddy, so long as people are voting for an America's idol, the advertising companies know they are doing it right. Americans are suckers - you can sell anything to them with the right pitch. Canadians always seemed to be a little brighter, but maybe I was wrong. This corruption is going around the world an
Re:Canadian astroturfing, eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a typo there.
You said: "The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit from the works of an artist."
I think you meant "The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit on behalf of an artist." :)