Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government

Copyright Expert Uninvited From Canada Policy Forum 100

Posted by kdawson from the not-our-kind-of-public dept.
earthforce_1 writes "The vested interests of restrictive copyright are stacking the deck in Canada. The Public Policy Forum Symposium on intellectual property reform has bowed to pressure from certain interests and dis-invited noted copyright scholar Howard Knopf. The forum's stated mandate is '...to strive for excellence in government — to serve as a neutral, independent forum for open dialogue on public policy, and to encourage reform in public sector management.' For some reason, the US Ambassador to Canada and the former head of the Canadian Motion Picture Industry Association have been invited — apparently they are perceived to have a more neutral view of what Canadian copyright laws should be? More information at Howard Knopf's blog."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Expert Uninvited From Canada Policy Forum More

Copyright Expert Uninvited From Canada Policy Forum

Comments Filter:

  • They have more than they deserve (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Sunday April 27, 2008 @11:11PM (#23219830) Homepage
    They know that they have more 'rights' in their copyrights than they deserve. They've spent a lot of money to make it that way. They know that if things were rendered "fair and balanced" that they'd lose a LOT of money -- not just the money they spent buying laws that favor them, but undeserved income these laws yield.

    I can't hold these jackasses completely responsible for their greed. We've all got some greed in us and corruption is a problem of opportunity, not of character. I blame the legislators that make themselves available to the highest bidder and the character flaws that prevent them from correcting the circumstances that enable corruption.

    • Re:They have more than they deserve (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 27, 2008 @11:19PM (#23219902)
      Yeah, MP McTeague is really nuts (nuts enough that he also wants to make it against the law to criticize the political positions of MPs online). He is completely in the pockets of these corporations. Boing Boing has a great article [boingboing.net] on this.

      This situation actually makes me a little happy. It means that my country wasn't the only one to have its politicians bought by these corporations. But at the same time, this newfound camaraderie in our mutual pwnage by the music and movie companies is quite disturbing. It reminds me of the laws in one of my favorite adventure games, The Longest Journey: corporate Law. Not laws regulating corporations, laws made by corporations regulating people.
      • Well, its good to see that US Citizens arent the only ones who blame their politicians for things they have no control over. Would you have the government regulating who private organizations invited to speak? I certainly wouldnt want that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cHiphead ( 17854 )
          No, you have the government regulate who the private organizations can exclude from engagement on a public policy hearing. Especially for a group proclaiming non-partisanship thats called PUBLIC POLICY FORUM.

          Cheers.
    • You mean being human? Don't blame the legislators completely. Remember its really the corporations and their successfully run lobby groups that take the cake in world politics. Have you ever seen the DOJ go after Microsoft again? Successful lobbying in American politics is the cornerstone of bullshit in that country and others. Its the reason people believe that 100 years of industrial evolution on this planet can corrupt over 4.5 billion years of naturally occuring weather cycles.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by erroneus ( 253617 )
        My point here has been that a system has been created that enables lobbying to be effective. "Reform laws" have been put into place and yet they have always been careful enough to leave [loop] holes in to enable the same old cash flow to keep coming in. Separation of money and politicians are required to have good government.

        100 years of industrial revolution CAN corrupt over 4.5 billion years of naturally occurring weather cycles. A single volcanic eruption can devastate tremendous areas and upset weath

      • OT (Score:2, Insightful)

        by TapeCutter ( 624760 )
        "Its the reason people believe that 100 years of industrial evolution on this planet can corrupt over 4.5 billion years of naturally occuring weather cycles."

        No, robust science is the reason I (and I dare say most people here) accept the message that has come from the IPCC and every other national science body on the planet.

        It is intellectually lazy (at best cynical) to disagree with something just because some random lobbyist uses it to push an agenda. The problem with "for hire" lobbyists is they ar

        • Re:OT (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Monday April 28, 2008 @08:09AM (#23222672)

          It's a good thing that we have sceptics, on climate change, copyright, or any other debate that isn't about absolute facts for that matter. If we ever reach the point where some prevailing consensus is considered the gospel truth because it suddenly became trendy/lobbyist fodder/a source of research funding, then we're in a lot of trouble. One of my favourite quotations comes from the late anthropologist Margaret Mead, who said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

          In this case, I have little doubt now that the effects described by the pro-climate change scientists are real. However, I also have little doubt that some of the arguments made in An Inconvenient Truth were naive at best, as evidenced by the rush to invent credible explanations after criticism in the "inconvenient documentary" that followed, nor that concerns about imminent catastrophic results have been overstated in the rush to be seen to be doing something. There's some truth in there somewhere, and it's for the best that we have at least some people advocating both sides of the debate to help us find it.

          Getting back on topic, I think much the same is true of an ethical/political/economic issue like copyright. It's easy on Slashdot, ancestral home of "information wants to be free" groupthink and student economics, to find ways to criticise copyright and claim it reaches too far. It's just as easy, if you work as a professional recording artist, to find an ethical argument that the world doesn't need your particular interpretation of a work for free and that copyright in that recording should last for your entire lifetime. Again, a balance needs to be struck, starting with deciding what copyright is really for (which has multiple sensible answers, not all of which are based on some vague wording in the constitution of one nation, and which are sometimes incompatible).

          This is why it is a shame that we are reading this story today. It's not even necessary that the person who's been removed might have argued the way many on Slashdot would like to see the debate go. It is a shame merely because the debate will now be less balanced than it otherwise would have been.

          • I want to give you half the mods points I have gained from my post - seriously!

            Here are a couple of reasons why...

            I consider myself a skeptic in the traditional sense and find the 'gospel truth' a somewhat nauseating term when used in earnest. Specifically I subscribe to Carl Sagan's view of scientific skepticisim [wikipedia.org] and I am a fan of James Randi [randi.org].

            Quoting Margret Mead.

            On the subject of climate change in particular I am not a climatologist but I do have a BSc. I have been following the conversation si

        • Its intellectually lazy to claim that climatology which has had such a short life as a science at all is as robust as you claim that it is.

          It is also intellectually lazy to claim any study of a chaotic system can even be robust at all.

          Climate change may or may not be linear. It may or may not be exponential, and it may or may not reverse suddenly because a couple butterflies made out in the jungle.

          Trends are NOT proofs, they are just trends.
          • I am no climate change expert, but given that there's a good, simple scientific theory behind the notion that pumping enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere causes an increase in average global temperature, under what grounds do you dispute it? Have you an alternate theory that explains historic atmospheric readings better than our current one?

            Trends are trends. Measurements are measurements. Observations are observations. Proofs are proofs. Theories are theories. Models are models. I could go on wi
            • Just to elaborate on the chaos/climate/weather thing.

              The term chaotic is a description of how a system behaves mathematically, it has nothing to do with randomness. You can see a chaotic system at work in water coming out of a tap. Turn the tap on slowly utill there is a neat stream of water (clasical fluid dynamics), keep turning the tap very slowly, at some point the stream of water will become turbulent. The system is chaotic because a small change in the initial value (the valve opening) rapidly crea
          • You will NEVER get proof from science on any subject, stop asking for it.

      • Troll food, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by itsdapead ( 734413 )

        Its the reason people believe that 100 years of industrial evolution on this planet can corrupt over 4.5 billion years of naturally occuring weather cycles.

        ...and during those 100 years we have dug up and burned a significant proportion of the fossil fuel deposits that originally built up over a ~ 100 million year period ~ 300 million years in the past (ballpark figures) - when the climate was considerably different to today. That's a geological-scale intervention - you have to be pretty blinkered to deny even the possibility that it could have geological-scale consequences.

        And no, that's not intended to be an evidence-backed scientific argument - just a p

    • "I blame the legislators that make themselves available to the highest bidder"

      In a representative democracy, the ultimate blame for corrupt legislators lies with the people who vote for them.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Artuir ( 1226648 )
        Right, because evidence that they are corrupt is totally 100% visible to everyone in the country? Not everyone starts out corrupt either, you know.
        • "Right, because evidence that they are corrupt is totally 100% visible to everyone in the country?"

          The only US legislator that's elected by the country is the President. All the others represent people who live in a specific are, and can only be elected by people who live in that area, and there's a great deal of evidence that's both locally and generally available to indicate that some who are constantly re-elected have been shills to various corporate interests for decades.

          "Not everyone starts out corrupt

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )
            Whilst those individuals might have been corrupt, mass media proved the be the major facilitator in getting the most corrupt politicians re-elected by burying the truth and launching slander campaigns against honest politicians. With the internet starting to dominate 21st century mind space, the mass media lies, oh, sorry marketing are getting buried.

            So now we are seeing a radical change, where the lies are being exposed, where corrupt politicians are being publicly shamed, where stacked policy forums are

            • "mass media proved the be the major facilitator in getting the most corrupt politicians re-elected by burying the truth and launching slander campaigns against honest politicians"

              The mass media have also been the ones who blew the whistle on corrupt public officials, e.g. Watergate, some of the things the Clintons were up to, and many, many others.

              "So now we are seeing a radical change, where the lies are being exposed, where corrupt politicians are being publicly shamed"

              The mass media were naming and shami

            • Whilst those individuals might have been corrupt, mass media proved the be the major facilitator in getting the most corrupt politicians re-elected by burying the truth and launching slander campaigns against honest politicians. With the internet starting to dominate 21st century mind space, the mass media lies, oh, sorry marketing are getting buried.

              So now we are seeing a radical change, where the lies are being exposed, where corrupt politicians are being publicly shamed, where stacked policy forums are being exposed for what they are, corrupt marketing opportunities to sell laws to target and victimise the majority for the benefit of a greedy self serving minority.

              How many mass media adds for the most disingenuous politicians have been latter dismembered across the web, and the lies shown in the adds compared to the truth of the actions.

              Funny... I've been following articles about how politicians around the world are wising up to the Internet and are now using blogs, online ads and "independant" online news articles much more effectively than they were ever able to abuse mass media... because now they have no accountability instead of just very low and well-paid (off) accountability.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by rtb61 ( 674572 )
                It is all about numbers, You can't pay for a million different blogs, you can't control thousands of different forums with hundreds of millions of different members. Sure mass media is talking about politicians using the internet but how successful is the message, how quickly does a popular blogger disappear into oblivion once they are discovered to be a paid flunky or just one of thousands of different fronts for PR agencies.

                Surely you must have noticed by now how much more information about corrupt deal

          • So what the fuck can I do when there are a large number of fools who elect corrupt officials? What if MY officials are not corrupt? Not like I can go vote in their election.
            • "So what the fuck can I do when there are a large number of fools who elect corrupt officials?"

              Very little. The entire US political system is so money-driven that it's very difficult or impossible to win an election without owing favours to wealthy individuals, companies, or well funded lobby groups, so even those who start out meaning well can easily end up in a position where they're forced to represent those who funded their campaign instead of the people who voted for them.

              "What if MY officials are not

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 10101001 10101001 ( 732688 )

      ... corruption is a problem of opportunity, not of character. I blame the ... the character flaws that prevent them from correcting the circumstances that enable corruption.

      Lots of consistency there. No, it's pretty simple. Corruption is a problem of character. Few people have the character to resist corruption. That's why government and any other place where corruption can exist has to be open (so the corruption can be seen) and accountable (since knowing about the corruption and being unable to do a

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Digital Vomit ( 891734 )

      corruption is a problem of opportunity, not of character

      Corruption most certainly IS a problem of character, and a statement like the one above sounds like it was made by someone trying to rationalize away their own lack thereof (no personal offense, but that *is* what it sounds like).

    • We've all got some greed in us and corruption is a problem of opportunity, not of character.

      If it wasn't a problem of character then it shouldn't matter how much opportunity there is. The strength of character goes along with the power to resist the temptation. And those that enable the corrupt politician are those that reelect them time after time.
    • I can't hold these jackasses completely responsible for their greed. We've all got some greed in us and corruption is a problem of opportunity, not of character.

      Corruption is a problem of opportunity for those with no character.
      There, fixed that for you.

  • If you can't beat em, don't invite em. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fluffeh ( 1273756 ) on Sunday April 27, 2008 @11:52PM (#23220104)
    It's pretty simple if you have a good agenda to keep, make sure you don't invite people who oppose said agenda.
  • Well lets look at he very questions on his blog....
    Question - On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly oppose and 5 is strongly support, how much do you support laws that would enable record companies to demand and collect a "settlement" of more than $5,000 from you because a member of your household may have downloaded music and made it available for sharing on the internet?

    How about: On a measure of X currency, how much should be fined for downloading 1 song that they

    • Re:no wonder, hes a troll. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Reed Solomon ( 897367 ) on Monday April 28, 2008 @12:06AM (#23220178) Homepage
      He was merely doing the opposite of what the PPF did, stacking the deck to get answers they wanted. He merely rephrased their questions to get the opposite answer. As a Canadian I'm rather disgusted in this. Luckily I'm in a Conservative riding, and can easily change my vote if they ever try anything stupid.
      • It just seems that we have children on both sides of the copyright issue: one wanting everything for free, and the other saying "GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE".

        Its regardless if he was trying to stack the deck against them... Where are the mature communicators of copyright? Cause I sure dont see any.
        • What part of legitimate user rights, including the right to own your own computer makes one 'want everything for free'? How is desiring the right to treat data in your own thinking apparatus in the most optimal manner, as opposed to being something you're only allowed to have access to if properly licensed by a CRIA panel, and then only through a copyright-fascist filter immature? Or what about freedom from the abuse of copyright law to stifle dissent, weaken democratic institutions and generally cause ha

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Danse ( 1026 )
          People seem to have been brainwashed into believing that copyright is some sort of natural right, even though it's anything but. The only reason it exists is to serve the public interest in having new works created. So temporary, limited monopolies were granted to the creators of the works for a long enough period to give them incentive to create them (originally 14 years, extendable to 28), after which they become part of the public domain. Since then, the copyright industry has grown very large and ver

    • Fixing a stupid questionaire != trolling (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Monday April 28, 2008 @12:24AM (#23220264)
      How can you effectively answer a questionaire that boxes you into giving stupid answers? It's a bit like:

      Have you stopped beating your wife: [ ] yes I have stopped [ ] no I still beat her. So how do you answer if you've never beaten her?

      All I can see here is that he tried to answer a broken set of questions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tuoqui ( 1091447 )
      First Question: Well considering that the record companies were trying to get a jury to basically charge someone $150,000 per copyright violation on 24 songs. [wired.com] it does not seem too unreasonable to pose this question in the blog. That question is DIRECTLY based off the crap that the RIAA have pulled and if you think the Canadian version of the RIAA is any better you got another thing coming. They wanted the Levy on blank media but now they realize that by doing that they shot themselves in the foot and want t
    • On reading TFA... I have to say this guy is NOT a troll.

      He was merely pointing out the logical fallacies and biased wording of the actual PPF (I guess thats the Canadian RIAA) study that was conducted and was like well if they want to play the biased wording game this is how I would have done the survey.

  • Quick reminder (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pembo13 ( 770295 )
    You don't need copyright to make music. And you don't need copyright to write software. The face of the matter is, you don't need copyright to do any of the things copyright covers. These things aren't reliant on the existence of copyright. Copyright does however give some an advantage over others.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off CPF among other things" -RIAA
  • I'm getting a bit tired of this. First ISO is bought by microsoft, now a copyright forum by the RIAA. Do the big corporations already have the entire world in their pockets?

    And how doo we get out of there?

  • I'm very interested, and actually invested in this subject, and I'm rather shocked of two things:

    1 - I learned of this from /. (no offence) I deal with people in the Canadian music industry every day that have their balls hanging in the wind (read: over-invested) and I didn't hear even a whisper about this. This has people scared silent.

    That doesn't mean it's especially catastrophic, but at least a 6 out of 10.

    2 - The only posted information about this fiasco is from the horse himself, and it reads

  • email your MP (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    email your MP. This forum is a result of previous outcry over proposed legislation. The bill was supposed to slide through parliament but MP's were scared by the backlash. Now they've arranged a fair & impartial (??? with the US ambassador offering the opening remarks, and the VP of the motion picture industry 'moderating' the first panel ???) symposium to garner support for the US-based and backed bill. U.S. copyright laws are so messed up that the president didn't even know he was breaking his own

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by chdig ( 1050302 )
      No, please don't email your MP.
      If you read Knopf's blog, you'll find that he's extreme, and much of what he writes is full of vitriol (as others have posted). This blogger is exactly the WRONG person to have up against the music corporations because he spews out idiotic comments that will hurt the cause of fair copyright far more than it will be helped.

      Try reading Knopf's article on CBC radio two, where he writes that "serious" music equals classical music, and all other types are not to be taken as "s

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by belmolis ( 702863 )

        Yes, Knopf likes classical music and doesn't like pop, but that's a side issue. He mentions it on his blog, but it has nothing to do with the main issues he discusses concerning copyright. As far as copyright goes, he isn't extreme at all. He doesn't propose abolition of copyright or anything really radical. Much of what he does is just point out the facts. The talk that he was going to give is on the same topic as a recent post in which he pointed out various ways in which Canadian copyright law is actual

  • The article makes this sound as though the Canadian government was somehow involved in all this. The Public Policy Forum [ppforum.ca] is much more akin to a lobby group. It's directors include:
    -President and CEO General Electric Canada
    -Chairman of the Board Western Financial Group
    -Chief Brand and Communications Officer RBC Financial Group
    -Senior Vice President Petro-Canada
    This really isn't as big a deal as was made out. Corporate influence in an organization like this isn't exactly a revelation. What's important is how
  • Please take a moment to email the PPF about your disappointment. It's great that this is getting attention, but we need to take action. Even sending an email to the PPF is a step. Their contact page is here: http://www.ppforum.ca/en/contactus/ [ppforum.ca].
  • International corps. try and succeed in subverting a free democracy but not all of the time.Government corruption and morel weakness is a human and very traditional aspect of democratic governance that must be continually fought to protect the freedom on us all. The big guy need representation as well as the individual but should have no more weight then the individual.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close