Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Study Deconstructs Canadian Copyright Lobby Deception 84

Posted by Soulskill from the anatomy-of-a-slow-con dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Deconstructs Canadian Copyright Lobby Deception More

Study Deconstructs Canadian Copyright Lobby Deception

Comments Filter:
  • This is a red herring.

    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)

      by nog_lorp ( 896553 ) on Saturday July 04, 2009 @02:14PM (#28581933)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Frosty Piss ( 770223 )

        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)

      by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Saturday July 04, 2009 @02:16PM (#28581941) Homepage

      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.

      • Re:Surprise, surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by causality ( 777677 ) on Saturday July 04, 2009 @03:16PM (#28582279)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by nemsis21 ( 1560479 )
          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.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            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.

          • 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.

            You seem to value physical property rights above everything else. I personally value other rights, such as the right to live, or the right to not be owned, much higher (and yes, the latter is a restriction of property rights) and would rather prefer that the government protects those, too. Indeed, if I had

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            Business, especially big business will take away your rights really quick. Sometimes like in this case in the name of property rights.

        • Bravo!!!!

          The idea that corporations or lobby groups can 'quietly' manipulate public opinion through the media is disturbing and should be considered criminal. How are these types of actions any different than subliminal advertising?

          If some lobby or corporate entity are not honest in your intentions or identity, why should the public believe anything you say or consider doing business with you?

          Steve Balmer...are you listening?

    • The problem is not the "Research for Hire" approach, but the fact they are using multiple puppet fronts to launder their opinions or "Astroturf". The fact that these studies were bought and paid for is irrelevant. The fact that they are trying to make it sound like they are the only opinion in town is the problem.

      The fact that they are actively trying to suppress studies that differ from their party line [michaelgeist.ca], and are citing multiple studies, all bought and paid for by them to make their bias seem to have more s

  • A Good Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by value_added ( 719364 ) on Saturday July 04, 2009 @01:43PM (#28581791)

    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?

  • Sounds familiar (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 )
    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?

    • 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)

        by causality ( 777677 )

        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:1)

          by osu-neko ( 2604 )

          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...

          It's also irrelevant.

          Imagine the boat is sinking and you have people with buckets, but they're using them to take water out of the sea and put it into the boat rather than the reverse. You tell them to stop, but they claim their actions are defensible because, although they're adding to the water in the boat, the main reason it's sinking is due to the rock that the boat hit earlier and the hole in the bottom of the boat.

          Whether these people are idiots or not has nothing to do with whether their actions are

          • Well said, if only I had mod points.
          • We should be doing things to combat the problem

            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
  • I look forward to the day when astroturf is ineffective.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Well, it gets really slippery when it snows. So around here it's got another two, max three months.

  • 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)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      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.

  • 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)

    by BlackSabbath ( 118110 ) on Saturday July 04, 2009 @05:49PM (#28583063)

    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)

  • How the Copyright Lobby runs the Media (Score:5, Informative)

    by CuteSteveJobs ( 1343851 ) on Saturday July 04, 2009 @06:09PM (#28583159)
    (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":)

    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)

      by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) *
      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?"

      Ridicule [rotten.com].
    • I saw that story too, and I have to say, the solution is pretty obvious: If the profits from bootleg DVDs being sold is funding terrorism, then we all need to do the right thing. As Australians we must hold our heads up high... and torrent the movies instead. Then how will they make their terrorism funding cash? Yeah! Aussie Aussie Aussie!

  • The only reason copyright exists is to allow a 3rd party to benefit from the works of an artist.

    The artist seeks a 3rd party to exihibit his works for publicity, but this should not be withstanding ad infinitum.

    Perhaps artists need to include a clause in their contracts opening up their works (for derivitives, etc) within a
    reasonable timeframe.

    Copyright is about control. Control of the artists, control of the audience.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by twidarkling ( 1537077 )

      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)

      by upuv ( 1201447 )

      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." :)

  • It took this man to point the obvious out. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by upuv ( 1201447 ) on Saturday July 04, 2009 @10:28PM (#28584217) Journal

    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.

  • 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

  • I know, not an original idea. And probably not a perfect solution.

    But it'll do, pig, it'll do.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close