Canadian Record Industry's Secret Lobby Campaign 144
CRIAWatch writes "Michael Geist has an editorial published in the Hill Times, a Canadian
political newsweekly, about a secret lobbying campaign by the Canadian Recording Industry Association. The report details how days after the last Canadian election CRIA lobbyists worked with officials to plan an event featuring speakers on the CRIA payroll who are promoting a DMCA for Canada, dozens of government officials from seven departments, an expensive lunch with senior government executives paid for by taxpayers, as well as a private meeting with the Canadian Heritage Minister who is responsible for copyright law."
Plutocracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
So, the majority must be more or less accepting of the situation, even if it's grudging. "I know my Senator is corrupt, but at least he's familiar. I don't know
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
Not unlike a shepherd herding sheep. Keep them contained and happy, fleece them, and put them back out to pasture until the next time. Everybody wins.
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
All it takes is a few rounds of not re-electing the same bought and paid-for fools.
...to create a class that is entirely dependent upon outside finacing. You kids may not remember, but this is what the Gingrich Revolution was about. It pretty much worked, but lasted about two years. Then the new kids at school were facing competition... Predictable outcome ensues.
And that's pretty much the point of this article. Only with a more amusing pronunciation of 'about'.
Re:Plutocracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
anyone around here who has taken grade 12 history knows what happens in that instance. in the weeks leading up to an important vote, no independant MP has to buy food! thats exactly what happened in the early canadian parlament, and i don't think people have really changed all that much in the last 140 years or so...
Re:Plutocracy (Score:2)
And, funny enough, most of the examples you cite are *illegal* attempts at bribary. Illegal. Why? Because, as I already stated, in this country, the practice isn't condoned, unlike our neighbour to the south. Does that mean it doesn't happen? Of course not. But to suggest that our system is anywhere *near* as corrupt as the the US system is laughable. Furthermore, because the publ
Re:Plutocracy in New England (Score:1)
I remember one state (I think it was NH) touted recently that the annual salary of their senators is but $100. Now that guarantees that only the rich will get in.
- RG>
Corruption (Score:1)
Cost of new election (Score:4, Funny)
Actually the cost of an election has gone way down, in America that is. Only a fraction of the money that used to be spent lying to the electorate is now necessary to bribe the programmer of the Diebold election machine. Pay off the programmer and you win: 51% to 49%, each and every time.
What's the difference (Score:5, Insightful)
In my country bribery used to be a scandalous form of fraud.
Re:What's the difference (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference (Score:2)
Bribery is when it goes in the minister's pocket. Secret lobbying is when it goes into the party's pocket. The main problem is that the latter is easier to get away with (especially for the company).
Re:What's the difference (Score:2)
The difference is that lobbying has limits and gets reported according to disclosure rules.
Bribes are anything outside the ethics, lobbying & disclosure rules. So, even lobbying activites that would normally be 100% legit can create a sticky mess if it isn't done according to the rules.
Anyways, as far as any of us are concerned, most lobbying events are "secret". They aren't publicized, but are available in the public record, though not necessarily right away.
The OPED writer uses lots of innue
Re:What's the difference (Score:2)
Maybe not, but maybe something's also wrong with the law. The laws are made by the same people who receive the money. Why would they change it?
Is this behavior considerably apart from the norm?
If bribery was the norm as well, it would be right?
Re:What's the difference (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference (Score:2)
Whwn you do it on a larger scale, giving money to a whole party, which is more effective, then it is called lobbying, and it is legal.
Apparently, political parties got to make the rules, and provided they get their cut, they are OK with bribery.
It's those loners who keep it for themselves that have to be stamped out.
Re:What's the difference (Score:2)
There is nothing unusual about "secret lobbying". That is just the way that politics works. Indeed, when we were working the Open Source bill in the Oregon legislature, we lobbied in secret for months before the bill became public knowledge. And Micro$oft's lobbyists lobbied in secret to kill it after it became public knowledge. They won, of course.
If you think politics is a nice game of tiddlywinks among people who play fairly, you are hopelessly naive. Politics is about power, and the money that buy
Watch Out Canda! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Watch Out Canda! (Score:1, Funny)
"Idiot"
Who didn't see this coming? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who didn't see this coming? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're all corrupt. Trying to blame one particular party for the corruption and mess that is any government is like trying to blame the pollution in Los Angeles on one particular blue Chevy Nova.
(Why blue? I dunno. Seemed like a good colour at the time.)
Re:Who didn't see this coming? (Score:3)
It's hard to do corrupt things if you've never been in power.
Sponsor your own propoganda. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sponsor your own propoganda. (Score:2)
To be fair, the department of Canadian Heritage is supposed to give out some funding relating to Canadian culture, which Canadian music is.
Re:Sponsor your own propoganda. (Score:2)
Fine. Sponsor some musicians or something. Don't sponsor a study with an agenda backed by a cartel of multinationals seeking to line their pockets at the expense of the Canadian people.
Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry" (Score:1)
Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry" (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh
"Universal maintains its position as the world's biggest recording company, with a 25.5% share of the world market. Sony BMG is next with a 21.5% share followed by EMI at 13.4% and Warner at 11.3%. The independent sector holds steady with a 28.4% global share."
Universal Music Group, while American in origin, is owned by Vivendi, which is a French company.
Sony BMG is owned by
EMI is a British company based in London.
Last I remember Time Warner sold Warner Music Group to Edgar Bronfman, principal in Seagrams. Seagrams is based in Montreal, though I think Bronfman lives in New York, and a lot of Warner Music is in the U.S. so its kind of a Canadian-American company.
So nice try, trying to ascribe RIAA/CRIA insanity solely to America isn't really accurate. You should probably just refer to them as multinationals, the root of most evil in the world. Greed is pretty much an international disease, the U.S. just has a particularly virulent dose.
Re: Seagram's based in Montreal? (Score:2)
Re: Seagram's based in Montreal? (Score:2)
His family was one of Canada's richest, Jewish, and started moving to New York with Jr.s birth there. I guess you could say Warner is an American company.
Re:Not quite the "Canadian Record Industry" (Score:3, Informative)
Although in the age of global media, nationality is largely irrelevant. Sex, income, age, urban/suburban/rural, and your selected youth subculture has much more to do with what music you listen to than the geo-political boundries that were carved up by European powers in the last century. And the way capital works in the modern market, a company can be "American" because it is traded on the NYSE, but be owned alm
Who was there? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who was there? (Score:1)
In all honesty, I don't see the current legislation giving in to this. Then again, here in Canada the people let themselves get dumped on by the government daily.
Re:Who was there? (Score:2)
Re:Who was there? (Score:2)
The majority of the canadian people who already pay the levy on blank media, who will be criminalised for the benefit of multi-nationals, they need to be informed.
The CRIA and the Politicians will not feel any heat until canadian citizens are enraged about this, canadians who know about this story need to br
DMCA for Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DMCA for Canada (Score:1)
Well, well, well. So I have a couple of suggestions:
1. Craft a law just like the US version of the DMCA, except:
2. Make any violation of thie Act a misdemeanor with no civil penalties possible.
3. Make the penalty exactly $1 CDN and 1 minute in jail.
There. That should be the lesson the **AA needs: there is a letter of the law and a spirit of the law. They don't seem to recognize the difference.
Re:DMCA for Canada (Score:4, Informative)
Except that the current government is now revealed to be in the pockets of the multinational copyright mafia...
Re:DMCA for Canada (Score:1, Informative)
The Liberal government of the day signed... so the former government is now revealed to be in the pockets of the multinational copyright mafia...
Asshole.
Re:DMCA for Canada (Score:2)
"Now revealed"? I think that was clear before, and it lost Sarmite Bulte her seat in Parliament. But now, if they are smart opportunists (which they used to be, I'm not so sure they're smart these days) they'll take this opportunity and run with it. Probably the NDP will.
Re:DMCA for Canada (Score:1)
Absolutely true, but it does not mean the DMCA... (Score:4, Informative)
Also, the personal exemption for private copying of audio works was untouched, so one could continue to make copies of CDs and tapes without worry of prosecution.
Hey, it might be cold in Cananda, but were not stupid. When the previous bill went to committee it was brought up again and again how the DMCA in the U.S. had failed and was a model for how not to implement the digital copy controls outlined in the WIPO treaty. I don't think the current Conservative government wants to go through all that again, so I doubt that any copyright bill they propose would differ substantially from the previous one, although you can be sure that libraries, schools and universities are going to make themselves a little better heard.
Canadian Heritage (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Canadian Heritage (Score:2)
They had a musical hit, with Geddy Lee of Rush, with "take off". And a modest movie "strange brew" with Max Von Sydow.
Re:Canadian Heritage (Score:1)
It was actually SCTV [museum.tv], but you're right -- they were told by the CRTC to come up with two minutes of "identifiable Canadian content," so they improvised two guys drinking beer and wearing touques.
Re:Canadian Heritage (Score:3, Informative)
Do you have a link to back that up? Because the entire fscking show was "Canadian Content" - *ALL* of it (which you'd know if you'd ever read the CanCon [lexi.net] regulations.) CanCon has nothing (as in ***NOTHING***) to do with the subject matter of a program. At all.
The real story behind Bob & Doug goes as follows:
Because commercial time in Canada is two minutes shorter in Canada than in the US, SCTV needed two extra mi
Re:Canadian Heritage (Score:1)
Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only have most of the Canadian labels pulled out, but they don't seem to easily identify which labels they represent.
More telling though is this site http://www.cria.ca/stats.php [www.cria.ca] which has their industry statistics on CD and DVD sales. I'm not an accountant or trained in business, but doesn't it feel funny to read this sentence? "Sales information is supplied by members of CRIA and tabulated by Grant Thornton without audit." I take their said statistics with a grain of salt.
Politician: So are you saying movies and music are being pirated? Do you have less sales records as proof?
CRIA: Yes.
Critic: So who tabulates the records? Is there an audit trail?
CRIA: One person. Sorry no audits available.
Politician: Enough! The proof is in the records!
Critic: But they're not even responsibily tallied! We need more information.
Politician: We're passing the law.
Ah, Democracy!! (sigh)
Re:Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports (Score:2)
You probably already have good reason to distrust the CRIA, but just for what it's worth, when companies report sales for stuff like this (industry rollups and the like), they don't bother going through the trouble of bringing in auditors. It's expensive and, frankly, pointless for this sort of purpose. Since, as you've pointed out, you're not an accountant or trained in business, I can see why that phrase might sound weird. Nonetheless it's par for the course.
Re:Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports (Score:2)
For the record, Grant Thornton is actually an international firm of accountants [grantthornton.com], and not just "one person" at his kitchen table with a pocket calculator and a combover. The "without audit" disclaimer is merely the standard one used in order to avoid any legal responsibility on the part of the accountants in question. ie they were not paid for, and therefore did not undertake, an audit of the data supplied. It's pretty standard stuff.
Not that that necessarily invalidates the rest of your post, or validates
Re:Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports (Score:1)
Re:Telling Statistics of their Piracy reports (Score:1)
Already spoke in person with my MP (Score:2)
Re:Already spoke in person with my MP (Score:2)
But still worth less than $1,000. Even if it's not Canadian $.
Lets get on with the reforms! (Score:1)
Extra! Extra! (Score:1, Funny)
Other breaking news:
There's never been anything secret about CRIA (Score:1)
The fact of the matter is that the recording industry is actually at odds with artists and concert promoters. The reason is that if a certain amount of pirating goes on, it's a form of guerilla marketing. Net net, awareness of the artist grows because more people are listing... sales evolve from that.
The CRIA, in contrast, represents the 'successful' artists who have multi-million dollar marke
Well, Duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
It is unrealistic to assume that a state as centralized and powerful as the government of Canada wouldn't be ripe with corruption. People don't understand politics, because they try to understand politics and government as a "moral" issue that is somehow seperate from the laws of physics and reality. Any system gets large enough, and it is more and more difficult to fight entrophy. In creatures, large creatures are more prone to parasites and diseases, and require much more food energy just to survive with little added benift. In a software project, as you have more and more source code and more and more complexity, development of the software will require more and more resources just to manage the project and debug. Likewise, a large government like Canada will naturaly have vast amounts of corruption. In everything from Empires, to bread molds, to youtube internet memes, there seems to be a certain threshold for growth beyond which a system tends to lose cohesion and fall apart.
Many Canadians still don't get that they are no longer a "small" country. It is no longer the "northern wilderness" it was 100 years ago, and the government has grown to be a leviathan. Canadians think theirs is a "smaller, friendlier" government, because they tend to compare themselves to the United States which is the epitome of vast unchecked leviathan monster government. But the Canadian government has become a vast beurocracy that dominates nearly all of Canadian life - Making secret deals with the government is the only way a large buisness can survive in Canada.
If Canada didn't have a "Heritage Minister" to control the flow of information, there would be no central authority for big media to manipulate (real heritage is a spontanious cultural expression of the people, and not a commmodity like water or petroleum to be centrally planned by the state). If the government didn't have vast powers to regulate communication protocols, media, computer networks, and electronic devices, bribery and corruption would be irrelevant: There would be no point in trying to manipulate authority that doesn't exist.
Damnit. (Score:1)
Re:Damnit. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's called democracy (Score:2)
I seriously first read that as:
Kinda makes me feel like purchasing a bunch of corrupt officials. Dunno about you.
That would've been funnier, I'm sure, but as a serious comment I was a little peeved. I mean, isn't that exactly what we're trying to stop?
Re:It's called democracy (Score:3, Funny)
"It's got shit all over it."
"Well I didn't vote for it."
KFG
Re:It's called democracy (Score:3, Funny)
> "It's got shit all over it."
> "Well I didn't vote for it."
Bloody peasant.
You don't vote for the DMCA.
Re:It's called democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
If you pay taxes you are voting for it though (just read the summary, everything these lobbyists are doing is on the tax payers dime not their own).
Re:It's called democracy (Score:3)
"The Lobbyist of the Beltway, *angels sing* his arm clad in purest Armani, held forth money from the bosom of the recording industry, thus signifying that I, the DMCA, was to be the law of the land."
"Listen, strange men hanging about in offices distributing cash is no basis for a system of government. Legislative power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical economic ceremony."
"Be quiet!"
Re:It's called democracy (Score:1)
Either way, damn you...I've that skit continuing on in my head.
On second thought, let's not go to Parliment. It is a silly place.
Lobbying == Bribery (Score:5, Insightful)
you really think [COMPANYNAME] would spend millions in "contributions" if it made no difference ? do you think these companies treat it as a charity donation or as a strategic investment ?
lobbying is just another word for legalised bribery
democracy has nothing to do with it
money and material desire is the problem
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:1)
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:2)
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:2)
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:1)
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:2)
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:2)
And run yourself? Are you kidding me? You're facing people backed with millions of dollars in a political war chest who will resort to finding the most menial thing in your past to dredge up and run a negative campaign against you.
Let's face it. The day of the politicians being by, of,
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:2)
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:2)
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:3, Interesting)
democracy has nothing to do with it
Nor does "freedom of speech" - on which grounds lobbying + campaign contributions are usually defended. Bribery of a public official is a crime which should trump any claims to freedom of speech, but somehow in our twisted world, does not.
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:2)
here's my POV:
If you pay someone money, you're probably expecting something in return.
If you accept money from someone, it's real likely that you either work for them, or you will...
Other than charitable contributions (where the 'return' is the nice feeling you get), no one hands out money for nothing.
So my solution starts with removing ALL campaign contributions. And it has to be 100%, 'cause
Re:Lobbying == Bribery (Score:1)
That's not even true. There can be a big return for charitable donations. You can get tax reductions, public "good will" (warm fuzzy feelings about your Brand because you donate), etc. Take a look at those who rave over Bill Gates charitable donations. Even if you assume that he's doing it for completely philanthropic reasons, no doubt he personally recieves tax benefits from it, a
It's Called "Kleptocracy" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's called democracy (Score:2)
Re:Expensive lunch? (Score:3, Informative)
The article stated that they "enjoyed lunch and drinks at Canadian Heritage's expense in a private dining room at Le Panache restaurant."
Here's some info on Le Panache [restaurantthing.com]. Entrees are $24 - $29 Canadian, which is about $22 - $26 US. That's an average price in a major metro area. But, that's probably a lot of money to the sort of Slashdot readers who clicked on this item -- the same sort who think that $0.99 for a music track is way too expensive.
The federal government holding some sort of function "at
Re:Expensive lunch? (Score:1)
And no, I don't consider $0.99/track too exepnsive. In fact I think it's just right.
Having said that the govt holding functions isn't exactly news in itself, but surely CRIA should've been able to fund a little lunch... especially if they wanted something. (Who am I kidding, "if" haha.)
Re:Expensive lunch? (Score:1)
Re:Expensive lunch? (Score:1)
I agree that it is best not to embellish, but I don't see that here. Editorializing, certainly.
Re:Expensive lunch? (Score:1)
Re:Expensive lunch? (Score:2)
Re:Expensive lunch? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Expensive lunch? (Score:3, Insightful)