'Such an investigation should be public and open to input from Canadians.' - James Clancy
"This past week it was reported that Bell Canada, without advance warning of its intention, will be “throttling” Internet access for Sympatico users who utilize file sharing software during peak hours. Bell’s reluctant admission of its plans follows Rogers' equally hesitant partial disclosure that it is traffic shaping." NUPGE
For people who think Unions are not important to a country's freedom, think twice.
If the companies are going gang up against ordinary people's rights and Digital Age freedoms, well it would appear that it is not going to be an easy play. Not now. Not evermore we can pray.
I personally just canceled all of my economic connections to one of the "traffic shapers," Bell Canada. I will have to do without TV for a while as they provided that too.
Perhaps the new owners of Bell , the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan will make a difference here. If they fail to, perhaps the current and retired teachers of the Province of Ontario, members of the Ontario Teacher's Federation will have a say here over the management of their pension assets. The Teacher's Federation includes
The Ontario Government is the other owner of the Teacher's pension plan.
Maybe Premier McGuinty would have a view to share over the management of this newest asset "half owned" by the Province of Ontario through its ownership interest in the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.
Is he ducking? I have not noticed a word of his to the issue. Is John Tory, a former Rogers' Executive, going to have something to say as Provincial Leader of the Opposition , without a seat in the House? Or Howard Hampton the Provincial NDP Leader?
A PR moment for NUPGE:
The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is a family of 11 component unions. Taken together we are one of the largest unions in Canada. Most of our 340,000 members work to deliver public services of every kind to the citizens of their home provinces. We also have a large and growing number of members who work for private businesses.
There are many messages in the expression, that like a painting or fine sculpture, you have to look closely, think and pause, and then change your viewing angle, to get all the nuances to appreciate all the subtle artistic messages.
It is the "composed artwork" there in full context of its authorship and source, has caused me to think, reflect, think again, and then well rest, in contemplation.
That is one reason why I cruise the Eon' path.
Excerpt:
“A freesoul is “A freesoul believes “A freesoul feels self control “A freesoul likes the way music pushes the connections of his mind along
The thought provocation this time has caused a mindfulness of the fundamental artist's job to bridge the observed with the "felt" - the sensory 'field' disruptions' of the mind - to communicate a message back into the physical realm, for other people to get a values based message.
The carriers of the artists' message, visual or aural, have varied through anthropological studies, apparently dependent on the relative physical possession of art, the tools and the resources to create and sustain the art. In an age of scarcity, the art of war was a concomitant tool necessary that some cultures neglected as they evolved to a peaceful state, past scarcity warfare. In an age of relative scarcity, failing to prepare for the unknowable, lamentably, leave us now with examples of cultures that could not see 'over the hill', to leave us only the artefacts of their to reflect on their civilizations' accomplishments.
"Art" "e" "fact", is an apt term for art reflecting the facts of lost civilizations
They felt a battle, with warnings to "everybody hold on tight" alerting the "Noh term (Northern?) armed force network" (the "field" of western and eastern thought?) in a message "that this is no freedom," (supression?) to the 'fight' conclusive to a message of freedom, that everybody's message, "wants to be free" - "anyway to be free."
John Lennon stated the artist's role from his perspective on the last day of his life:
My role in society, or any artist or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel . Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of all of us.1
The reflection of art and the artistic message is now in 2008, in the protective hands of the people.
Is the right to express oneself still really alive and well?
This "Digital Age" is potentially a far freer world, out of the control of authority, but for censorship or outright denial of freedom of expression, association, press (as in a person's press right) and to fundamental freedoms in Canada.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.
Our freedoms in Canada don't go out one way to work: they require a lot of respect of the other person or people's same rights, for all to be "free."
Is the Copyright Act still constitutional NOW?
But in wise trades to our fundamental freedoms, I think it be extremely critical now that we do not interfere with other people's messages ("we all are artists") that I can't think it better expressed by a youthful Joni Mitchell, who at a live concert poignantly defends her turn, on her stage, that she was given, to an intruder and to the audience, to quote, "have some respect":
Reference: http://www.youtube.com/v/bIZOtykZ0fA
In the same vein, it does not mean that artist's will not get paid in this "Digital" World 2.0. The link referral is tracked and the share of eyeballs generated should reward the owners of that work. Its popularity is directly commensurate with the reward there. If the cash is not passed on fairly, the work will disappear (in a way this post is an experiment testing this over time).
It may mean that the role of professional publishers in their role as distributors, and their use of copyright law otherwise intended to establish free markets in authored works in the analogue age, has to be examined very critically in light of our digital realm as it exists now.
If they invested badly, why should we care?
The peoples' Charter rights, universal in application over the laws of Canada, have to be considered now, in the face of the chasm of relevance between the author and the publisher in the Digital Age.
From the authors' ("artists") point of view, do they need a "digital" distributor now? Some do not. They may need a manufacturer for physical expressions of their works. They may need for example traditional methods that people want to use still, paper being a fine medium for some expressions still, in the hi-tech, hi-touch world. At retail, is a visual expression enough that you cannot touch? No.
But that said it was never intended that the notion of monopoly grants within a free market, was to grant any other monopoly rights to collude against free markets and fundamental innovations such as the digital publications of works now possible but yet under attack.
Today, schemes that may corrupt the "invisible" hands of free people, should be open to full reexamination (see this post on that re-examination).
The people's expression rights, press rights, to distribute themselves, "passing on", should also generate a feed of cash back to the copyright holders, and to the artists, in every case. The technology is there, in affiliate programs, advertising related schemes, "VIP" distribution of limited items, and on and on and on.
Were the WIPO internet treaties under consideration by Canada now, about the empowerment of individuals in the digital age, there would be support, not questioning and not resistance.
The real question is: do we need all of the analogue publishers rights anymore in the digital realm and their explicit protections in our copyright law, to fulfill the objects of our copyright laws?
If they will conflict with or impair the Charter rights of Canadians, or of fundamental citizen rights elsewhere, is that grant of copy protection really thought through, as it appears now in evidence to chill innovation and individual freedoms beyond the "respect" of others on the Internet, injuring competitive solutions at the most ultimate level, in the hands of the individual.
Distribution Monopolies: Time to bust the Trusts Again?
The obvious question: should those expressions by the "people's press" capitalize on the "artists" work, as in effect by helping make known an author's works, what traditional publishers did? And should they also be so rewarded in parallel, in conflict with the "professional publishers" rights.
In other words, would authors now want to own and control their own publications, and not leave their work in the hands of the publisher, the present analogue system? Say let them advance the publishers interests into the digital realm while at the same time have them put forth an argument precluding compensation of the author, on technicalities, such as the Writers Guild of America had to get through a costly strike to them? Are publishers volunteering anything here elsewhere? I think the adage is "Publish and Perish" to convey the limited marketing power in analogue realms, that authors have to give up everything, including the foreseable digital distribution profit open to the publisher.
The Artists Can Do It Themselves
In fact, the interesting idea today is why cannot the author's and estates of deceased authors buy back their catalogue of largely locked up and unpromoted works from their publishers and set it free to be used and compensated directly by use, bailing out these desperate (or despicable?) publishers who appear to restrain the innovation process not in their perceived favour, by sitting down, building fences and walls, instead of competing with the "bad" copies?
Is a competition based model rather than a monopoly model now most relevent for everyone everywhere? I believe the answer for the maximum respect of everyone's freedom, is resounding yes.
Will the motion picture film producers see the interest in same, as the distributor/studio optimally exploits their works, by sometimes not marketing it, restraining sale, limiting distribution for buzz or threats to lawful governments, or for purposes of limited editions?
Where is the "Imagineer" Today?
We need someone in the U.S. in the former "bastion of freedom," the country most pressing a monopoly based model to the rest of the world, to rise. A digital age Walt Disney, with the free spirit to kick start a revolution in the film industry. Walt was someone to behold, ahead of his time, who saw the future and built it. Were his spirit alive today, it would jump at the Internet, and not seek its control. He would have had a "Film Presentland" with the full imagineering whipped with zealous force into his employees to get it done, and get it done right, for the kids everywhere.
Would a digital Disney do a "Film Presentland" make money hand over fist too, as well as show the kids what the imagination can do and free people accomplish?
Instead, this world needs posts like these to remind there is a choice that we could take in the face of what I see as lost moguls and lost executives seeking to make their legal departments a profit centre.
There is a "collective" opportunity here in the "people's press" that needs little administration or lobbying, but respect for individual freedom, innovation and entrepreneurship, that indeed should be considered first in the opportunity set we have before us.
We can all be free and we all can be creators. For an Eon ...
This is not against film studios who are authors.
This is not against musicians who make music.
This is not against authors and their editors.
This is not against the rights of any authors.
It is against people harming innovation.
It is about copyright gone wrong.
It is all about your freedom.
And your respect,
To live,
Free,
As
One.
1. Interview by KFRC RKO Radio by Dave Sholin, December 8, 1980, on the last day of his life, in "Imagine John Lennon", forward by Yoko Ono, preface by David Wolper, written and edited by Andrew Salter and Sam Egan, Macmillan Publishing Company, (c) 1988, Published by Penguin Studio 1998, p. 242.
Blogger Ronald Roybal is a Native American flutist and guitarist living in Santa Fe, NM. He has a blog where he being "a pro-musician balancing creativity with the independent music business" jots down his thoughts.
"I have this vision in my head that my songs are like spirit horses from the spirit world. They are living beings looking to make their way into the natural world to fulfill their purpose. Their purpose is to bring sustenance, joy and hope to human beings. They seek song carriers who are worthy of riding them. When they find a human who is worthy, they let the song carrier bring them into the natural world where they then offer themselves to human beings. After being ridden, the songs go back to the spirit world where they tell other songs about the song carrier. If the song has been treated well by the song carrier, that song will encourage other songs to trust the carrier. In time, many songs seek out the carrier because it is through this person that these songs can fulfill their purpose."
The metaphorical treatment can also be a fit summary to many creative works in our own cultures, and perhaps cultures everywhere, deep in recognizing that "good" "song carriers" are rewarded to continue to receive the "songs."
The implication of the "song carrier" view is that cultures that respect "good" "song carriers" are also rewarded to continue to receive the "songs."
In transferring this "invisble hand" of creation, this is something to think about as we in Canada have to come to grips with the battles to come over how we respect the "song carriers" - the artists - in our midst, and their expressions in all forms, that we have the luxury to physically own and have presence in our "wealth."
The respect we show the "good" artists, comes back to us
Something to think about as many ideas are present in Canadian cyberspace about respecting artists, are getting mixed in with respect for say publishers, the associations of publishers acting in consort, the "collectives" where the artists and publishers get together, and the coalitions for this that or the other cause.
Separately and distinctly we may have to reconsider the validity of this entire structure "coolly" as the Digital Age is dawning and old business models are clinging to life perhaps undeserved in this age where new opportunities present themselves to the artists themselves.
But no where should it be confused the artist, the "song carrier" is due anything less that unwavering reverence and respect, particular to the "good" ones. If the native American message is right, our respect for them, comes back to us, in better "songs" - all artistic forms.
At the same token, we must be on guard for where the "artist" is put out front speaking for other "artists"as fronts for other agenda's such as the non-adapting. I hope without confidence that this will be done fairly to the "coolness" we will need to work this all through, in the long term best interest particularly of Canada, but elsewhere too.
In this line of thinking, the Smithean "invisible hand" is suggested in metaphor by Ronald Roybal, for those who think in those classical economic models, as I do as I am sure economists everywhere can relate who study "free market" economics. The result of such analysis shows that art creation has been anything but respected in a creative process and likely of no lingering relevance amidst a "corporate" aggregation particularly in oligopoly -competition amongst the few- answerable but to investment market criterion, in a mistaken notion of aggregating "content as king" and marketing it with out respect (celebrity, looks, association with company, ...). The destruction of many labels in the music business with a reduction in output and diversity at each merger and acquisition, has almost destroyed the "good" "song carriers" amidst the "chosen" "song carriers" by the concentrated industry.
Thankfully, the apt delays of a restrictive, rules laden, code driven, Canadian Copyright law that could shackle artists otherwise, that was proferred to serve us well in the Digital Age by our own legal talent in 1995, has continued. Our law has not let us down to date, though some may claim otherwise, in pressing for reform absent in my opinion the apparent wisdom to the "invisible hand" present in artistic markets and the necessary conditions for it to function well.
A post by Professor Michael Geist last week, CMEC on Fair Dealing, has to be one of the best "summative" statements I have seen to date, that fits well into what I have as a general thesis of what is wrong the process of copyright reform done with special interests coming forth the way they do.
This EFF pioneer award winner made "mincemeat" of the argument CMEC put forward, putting it into the greater context.
The isolated picking at pieces of the Copyright Act this episode does represent, on educational rights in this case, is but another example of other interests that have come forward over time, some successfully, as the question put to the legislator is always "what we want for our group" is x, y, and z.
But who is looking out for the "whole alphabet soup" or the public interest?
It won't be these groups.
Professor Ariel Katz who teaches "Competition Law and Intellectual Property" at the University of Toronto Law School, in this light, has openly blogged about some of his new work underway that shows promise along the route of answering serious questions, that other work has raised recently. The Friedland Report on Access Copyright's distribution policy was one (here at the Northworthy blog extensively).
Professor Katz's wishes to examine the "macro" economic and legal implications that the outcomes of the current Copyright Act present to Canadians, as it impacts citizens, in hidden indirect payments.
In my boil down, are these indirect payments within a labyrinth unaccessible to the general public, comparable to taxation without valid representation, as ultimately citizens pay these royalties?
In some sense this seems to be an attack on the Copyright Board of Canada in representing citizen interests, but if you read carefully their mandate, it has no such citizen interest:
The Board is an economic regulatory body empowered to establish, either mandatorily or at the request of an interested party, the royalties to be paid for the use of copyrighted works, when the administration of such copyright is entrusted to a collective-administration society. The Board also has the right to supervise agreements between users and licensing bodies and issues licences when the copyright owner cannot be located.
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/aboutus/mandate-e.html
So we have a process where a third party seller of a service to the public competes with the rights holders organization, to settle what they should pay (and markup) and the collective receive. Fine.
Where is the public interest in the mandate above?
Its not there.
Professor Katz's intends to consider in context of copyright collectives, this thesis:
1) whether this proliferation of collective administration indicates an unnoticed but radical and systemic shift in the traditional role of copyright as a tool of innovation and cultural policy;
2) whether the increased number and types of copyrights administered collectively reflects a growing number of market failures (real or perceived); whether it signals that systematically the model of private property rights in creative works fails to achieve its goals.
With a pardon by the professor, as he re-conceives collective administration as a taxation system in an academic exercise, he poses a series of questions, I parsed from his blog as follows:
Should collectives be regarded as private organizations accountable only to their members, or
should they be understood in essence as organizations performing a very public function: the collection of levies and the distribution of subsidies.
In such case, who are they accountable to?
To whom should they be accountable?
And how, precisely, should they be?
Does the public have a stake in determining who the tax is levied on and how the proceeds are distributed?
Should authors retain the full scope of rights currently available under copyright law?
What is the meaning of infringement under such a system?
Should authors whose works have been used more frequently be paid a larger share of the collected fees because “their” works in which they have property rights have been used, or
should these fees be rather used to subsidize more creative or more diverse endeavours that may have great cultural value, albeit smaller commercial prospects?
Who should make these kinds of decisions?
If the moneys collectives collect are conceived as taxes and their distribution as subsidies, is the process of determining those in an adversarial manner before a tribunal such as the Copyright Board optimal?
how to prevent the system from becoming a rent-seeking orgy?
Prof. Katz has done three prior papers recently on collectives, "The Potential Demise of Another Natural Monopoly: Rethinking the Collective Administration of Performing Rights" 1(3) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 541 (2005); "The Potential Demise of another Natural Monopoly: New Technologies and the Administration of Performing Rights" 2(2) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 245 (2006); and "Monopoly and Competition in the Collective Administration of Public Performance Rights" 2 Haifa Law Review 551 (2006) (in Hebrew).
I note it would be much more interesting , if he were using a modern "wiki", public or private, to obtain what he has asked for here:
My view however, that this academic exercise, should be a public exercise right now, before something that might be a farce takes place with the current copyright reform bill under executive government development privately.
That may be the conclusion too of Industry Minister Jim Prentice who is not without his own insight as a lawyer, the private lobbying he has been privy to, or the very vocal demand for fairness on Canadian copyright law by the public on the entire matter (40,000 + members of the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group).
The above link highlights the story of a sordid little experiment that shows how easy it is to give up information these days, for fun in casual spirited ways, that might not have a happy ending.
For Firefox users ... if you slow to read this feature introduction, you will have a real cool extension to use. We have been using this for years but never new about the mouse features. DOH!!!
John Degen, is a Canadian authorwith a blog. He is an active blogger, posting many thoughtful pieces, that I try to read when I can (he is on the links I post here at Northworthy).
One aspect of active blogs is the proximate additions to the blog by others, in comments or in links to the blog. John in his comments shows a willingness to discuss his blogs but those I admit to seeing occasionally, but don't often "hear."
Why do I "hear" what he first writes?
He writes with craft, using imagery, to create a story to his points.
To me, if some of these blog posts were looked at "competitively" as they do score points, I can only relate this to one sport, baseball, the sport where the game itself is subtle.
John has hit 3 home runs in the past 2 weeks with me, in the greater "Copyfight" wars, a battle ground I partake in on the fringes but with the respect for the author as a sacrosanct raison d'être to the copyright legislation in the first instance.1
On a director's / Author's / Producer's right to be in control "right to the nipple" in free Kate's nudity.
And this one, is out of the park and still sailing: on how an author should legally and morally respect a prior author's work, in context of private and public use on "Intellectual Property Lines," in following on.
This is timeless, great musically (to me) and visually; very appropriate to our times [note Google's YouTube has a publishing deal].
1. Publisher's had bought authors' work but other publisher's were making copies of that owned work, the competition destroying any publishers bid to make a return on their investment: the solution was to protect the purchased work from the author, to enable authorship and a viable publishing industry for the benefits of all, civilizing a moral code previously existing only amongst authors.
I have to take a pause, for great wisdom and exposure of thought: Robert Mundell is an amazing Canadian "product" that has gone to great things on the world stage.
I was exposed to him in University and followed him along as his views won out. He is a shadow character, a thinker with few peers.
This speech was to the Beijing Nobel Laureates Forum, Great Hall of the People, Beijing, China, on September 05 2006. He was named permanent adviser to the Beijing Nobel Laureates Forum, in tribute to his position with the leadership of the People's Republic of China. His thoughts are like a teaspoon of sugar to the mind, in context of a fierce debate I endured last night vs. a committed, gloating "Gold" bug.
Without understanding views of people like Mundell, fear is what you can feel as disturbing gyrations in the marketplace occur. The guessing without thought leadership and a basis of knowledge can induce more fear as inexplicable happenings occur.
Take a calming, teaspoon of sugar here: a free download of some rather profound reflection, as the world appears to some as on the brink into a jingoistic, xenophobic set of laager states. It won't happen in my opinion but the Gold bugs of the world seem to think its Plan A. I think its Plan 0 for them. We are smarter I hope than they think we are.
There is a great "taking credit" speech here delivered on receiving an honorary degree from the third oldest university in the world, that explains the influence of this remarkable man you may never have heard of but oddly, who ever hears him, listens very carefully for the influence he has had to date. This other speech should not be missed in my opinion. His taken credit is well due him as is his Nobel prize.
UPDATE:
Not to steal into the wisdom of this post, addressing this fine "Economists' Economist", this linkis for those who doubt the powers of the knowledge class. While people can criticize what the Fed does and wise, it is not short of tools. This one the Fed employed is creative but oddly was something I foretold in my debate with a Gold bug on Friday night as an option to what Buffet declined to do. I also suggested strongly for him to search for "Robert Mundell" but also "Walter B. Wriston" to get out of the "conspiracy theory" side of the world, to fix his awareness issue fundamentally. He does not appear likely to get out though until I gather the next Slap to come.
I have read much on the issue of "broken" news, where there is a colourization of the real news noticed with the "witness" function diminished. In the U.S. context, this is taken as a threat to the workings of their democracy. They see it and talk about it.
I tend to buy in to this as it affects Canada. I view as a consequence my sources of information much more critically yet I know I am only partially immune to a cumulative effect or in some cases an annoyance factor, that seems to get to me when I see the truth stretched as I perceive it. In other cases, very good solid journalism is present, rightfully provocative, and well that is why it is tuned in, hence the "mainstream" of the MSM.
I also confess here some "closet" journalism at Northworthy. Many of my blog postings are original and attributed "publicly" to digital media sources. It is a Digital Age thing where bloggers can get to the story the MSM cannot for whatever reason. My "publisher" is myself and this is not done for advertising or personal notoriety. It is done however perhaps in a perceived civic duty, in a very noisy World 2.0 way: there are many people blogging in this fashion, exercising a perceived civic duty that is newly available to the "Democratic" mind (others have called the "hive" and more).
Did I mention "civic" duty? This is not for the people who stick their head in the sand, or suffer emotional discordance from the use of fear as the weapon of choice in the contemporaneous polity.
This civic duty is the concept where if you live in a democracy, while you have rights within the state to your freedoms, as we Canadians do expressly since 1982, you also have a parallel obligation back to that democracy, to keep it functioning well by participation.
I see this as well enabled in the Digital Age as people want to know what their representatives are doing and they want their input known.
More broadly, "we the people" want a mutual recognition that there is this messy business of democracy when making decisions "executive" in nature on our behalf. Democracy 2.0 is going on now, and it puts the reminder out there squarely, that the government and those entrusted electively with it supervision, exists to serve the people, and not vice versa.
Today it is apparent that a Canadian Senator or MP can get 200 or 2,000 emails or be aware that 25,000 Canadians or more have formed up in 5 or 10 days (here, here), on an issue that matters to them. This should get the message across versus the one from this or that association, or this or that person that may have incited this reaction. Their elective trust can become rapidly ephemeral with their integrity implicitly threatened if they ignore the totality of the messages.
The MSM itself too has to consider the rights it has been granted (considerable under copyright law as well) have concomitant civic obligations with them, that if neglected, in the Democracy 2.0 world, may with great rapidity swiftly injure any publisher's interests, possibly with no second chance.
The "press" as a "witness" for us to news worthy events we ought to know about, has a fine line between the "text" - the content - and the owner of the news channel, the Publisher, who is in turn dependent on "sponsors." This line will be more readily discernible in a Web 2.0 world, and unless it is cross-subsidized by "interests" and disclosed as by or for special interests, or in a different competitive setting where there is public sponsorship, the line must be vigorously self-enforced.
And that itself raises a last issue, that if the words used with respect to Bill C-10 are similarly applied to the continued sponsorship of the CBC, such that "public policy" concerns become the "right" subject to continued funding, the CBC itself in Canada, becomes a next in line victim to what our film and television production industry faces right now.
If the production of news becomes perceived by the viewer as mimicry from well funded sources, political or corporate, it then becomes a more obvious battle over who has access to create such news. This in turn raises questions to whether a plutocracy should be substituted for our democracy, knowingly by the people, or insidiously, in known observations.
But that choice is known to be not unacceptable to free people. It won't sell soap. It won't be bought. It cannot enter the present public appetite, where the state can ask our kin to defend it for democracy, where we can freely volunteer to do the same, and sadly many of "us" have already fallen for democracy.
The eventual solution we see occurring is in the slower steps now started, to restore the MSM balance, so that citizen journalists can work in a better partnership with the MSM to generate the positive debates to get the issues settled right for everyone's benefit, beyond executive fiat. The awareness of the MSM 'bias' and the sharp rise in the Web 2.0 universe, and channel diversity should bring about a healing of the "broken" news. The blog universe has quietly with usually high latency, slowness, has fed back into MSM reportage and into the political arena. Soon that latency, will reduce, and the healthy symbiotic relationships should be quite interesting to see fully develop.
Until then, if one uses a lens to viewing a "story telling" rather than a "witnessing" while one may be annoyed that such a lens has to be used, in some sense, any "chains" you feel or threats to freedoms, are thrown off. The truth here, indeed, sets you free.
The very MSM ratings that advertisers depend on for their valued function in our economy will get the message across squarely. The lack of comments and implied relevance for the MSM will be their own "canary in a coal mine" as it would be for any politician, and it will be their choice, to take the message appropriately, or to disappear.
The use of the "XXX" connection in the news release of the CRIA March 6, 2008 (no longer publicly available from the CRIA or the News wire service), is very similar to the public course of debate on Bill C-10: mixing the known ineligible with the desired ineligible to spread misinformation: linking a "bad" with another "bad."
If this sounds familiar to claims that the "pirate" organizations are fronts for terrorist ops and money laundering, I ask a simple question: what about the old fashioned desire of making a quick buck, getting away with it, and retire fast, to some presentable digs with a 'legit" look?
This is thematic to capitalist "success" literature, excepting its ordinarily using a legit product and paying the taxes, and staying somewhat respectable.
This makes me wonder if say Vivid Entertainment of the US should have a future "news release" if its property was involved while also having a similar legitimate right with the same access the CRIA member companies have to our "RCMP Federal Enforcement Section." I wonder if the "Canadian Family Action Coalition" would object to this "counterfeiting" and breach of copyright law?
That "Adult" industry appears however smarter than the recording industry: they make lots of new product, deliver it as customers want it, and diminish the value in "classic" content by improving production quality. Sure they could stall their pipeline, divert resources, whine for government support, and try to get more from the past, but they know their market. Maybe the recording industry should examine what the "bad" "XXX" industry does to stay in business in the Digital Age. Adult 2.0 seems to be #1 or #2 on the Internet.
For the people who think this industry does not know what it is doing, read their "press release" on the subject of kids and the Internet.
(Ed. Note: once one makes the leap to the Digital Age, you have to use new models of almost everything, hence the 2.0 I use more often).
The incident I blogged about here has provoked this "editorial."
I have screen shots of all the links I browsed and pointed to, excepting the video, and will consider digging harder at this news. I for example went to see the archive versions of the taken down site in question that only partially tell its story.
In Alexa, its shows some of the complaints and angsts against the company, but it also shows the network of the organization. Many other sites are still active.
On one hand, Audiomaxxx.com does appear to be a pirate source of physical copies, not for "trying" but for buying in substitution for the owner's product - a big no, no. On the other hand, it appears to link into a rather complex network of ethnocentric and youth dance parties across Canada, that were also likely used to sell many DJ CD remixes in person, and possibly the alleged bootleg CD's as well.
The remixes themselves may not all be illegal under Canadian law. It is leap of faith to call all of the product "illegal" as certain licensing issues present themselves in the case of DJ's and the content they use and create themselves.
The mail order connection and all of this is future work, and there is much more to come on this from the obvious thorough investigation by the CRIA and the support they have with the Federal Government and the RCMP (the CRIA in its news release seemed to have a rather interesting relationship with Federal prosecutors).
This is but the tip of a very large iceberg from my cursory view. If I was a paid-for-journalist, I would have a field day here. Much more news should come from this. We will have to watch with appropriate anticipation.
"RCMP Raid Shuts Down Massive Alleged Music Counterfeiting Operation in Winnipeg, Following Investigation by Canadian Recording Industry Association"
"Following a year-long investigation by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), the RCMP has shut down Audiomaxxx.com Ltd., a major alleged music counterfeiting operation in Winnipeg, and filed criminal charges against four individuals."
The MSM story was picked up here, here, here, but not here (yet) on the RCMP News Releases.
Canadian Press:
"A 31-year-old man from Winnipeg was arrested Wednesday after the Audiomaxxx.com raid. The man's name was not released by police because he has not been formally charged."
TORONTO, March 7 /CNW/ - In the CRIA media release of March 6, it was erroneously reported that RCMP had filed criminal charges against four people in connection with the RCMP investigation into Audiomaxxx.com Ltd. CRIA has received information that no one has been charged with an offence in respect of this matter.
(more with named party in apology)
Ok ... I am slow. Leaf fan.
The Canadian Press writes a story that people were arrested but not charged. The CRIA issues a glowing press release of the arrest naming names. Then the CRIA issues a correction that says there were no charges hence no arrests? But still has or had the Press Release that looks like "News Article" published on its own website here (at this moment) naming names.
Who is the "press" here?
There is no retraction yet in the media ... and likely we will see some more broken news ... This is awkward. Very.
UPDATE 1: 1:29 am
Following up to find what Media outlets pick this up story up the Mounties have not released a word yet on the "story" from their website still (1.29 am EST 7.3.2008)
The Mounties do have a clear message in their FAQ:
6. I have a friend who downloads music from the internet. Is he breaking the law? Downloading music for personal use is currently not a criminal offence in Canada. However, this legislation is constantly being challenged and it would be wise to check often to ensure that the laws concerning this practice have not changed.
Is it a crime to threaten people of a crime though?
In the morning of March 5, 2008, the Winnipeg RCMP Federal Enforcement Section executed a search warrant at the business premise of Audiomaxxx.com on Pembina Highway, in Winnipeg.
RCMP Federal Enforcement Section through the Canadian Recording Industry Association received dozens of complaints concerning this local internet business suspected, over the past three years, of operating a sophisticated commercial operation in the manufacturing and distribution of pirated compact discs, DVDs and most recently digital downloads throughout North and Central America, Europe and the Caribbean.
Audiomaxxx.com was suspected of shipping tens of thousands of pirated CDs every month and pirating the work of legitimate artists, music labels, and music associations from around the world for its own financial gain.
The search warrant was executed under the Copyright Act at the business premise where investigators found an elaborate illegal operation. Investigators found and seized three computers and various related computer equipment, five burning towers with a total capacity of copying 11,500 discs a day (if operating 12 hr. a day), two Print Factory to label the discs, postage equipment and envelopes, video surveillance equipment and lastly approximately 100,000 printed and labeled CDs and DVDs were seized with as many or more blanks.
Four individuals were arrested in connection with this investigation. One 31 year-old male from Winnipeg has been released on conditions to appear before Federal Court on May 26, 2008 in Winnipeg. He will be facing numerous charges under the Copyright Act under sections 42(1) (a), (b) and (c). The other three individuals also from Winnipeg were released pending further investigation.
The public is reminded that the manufacturing for sale, distribution and rental or publicly exhibit compact discs, DVDs and digital downloads is illegal under the Copyright Act. Individuals convicted of such activities can face fines up to 1 million dollars or imprisonment to a term up to 5 years.
Contact: Sgt. Line Karpish D Division RCMP / Media Liaison (204)983-8497
In a strange coincidence, the site posting the "press release" of the D Divsion, www.mysteinbach.ca, has that rare connection to the www.familyaction.org site, in sharing the same outfit for some of their services on the internet, a US firm, Internetnamesforbusiness.com, served via US IP addresses. www.familyaction.org? The Canadian Family Action Coalition. Is that familiar? Oh yes, Bill C-10 and evangelical, non-registered lobbyist (I just checked) Charles McVety ...
UPDATE 4: 4:26 am I am strongly considering canceling my Globe and Mail Subscription: Page A-11, in print reads like its written from the CRIA press release without any independent research. I guess the correction in the next days paper will use the correction from the corrected CRIA press release.
UPDATE 5: The first CRIA "News Release" published March 6th, 2008 is no longer available from the CRIA's website. The current correction they publish does not point to the prior publication because I think they are afraid of the private person they named suing them: if the police won't name him, this has caused a challenge to the CRIA having named him. This is bizarre as Michael Geist picked up on in his blog.
UPDATE 6: 8/3/2008 8:11 pm
The Globe and Mail has published an online correction to its print story, at some time today. I won't cancel them out but I will tell their publisher what I think. He responds to crap like this.
They post at the moment:
CORRECTION
Four people arrested March 5 by Winnipeg RCMP in connection with an alleged piracy scheme involving DVDs, compact discs and digital downloads have been released without charge. The RCMP says one of the four, freed on an undertaking to reappear May 26, may face "numerous charges" under the Copyright Act for offences that carry a penalty of up to $1-million in fines and five years imprisonment, while the other three remain under investigation. Incorrect information appeared in a story yesterday.
UPDATE 7: 9/3/2008 12:23 am
Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day releases press release 7/3/2008 at 20:16 ET, to offer his congratulations to the police officers on "arrests and seizures" like this.
He also links "piracy" with "organized crime."
Minister Day Comments on the Largest Ever Seizure of Alleged Counterfeit CDs and DVDs in Canada
Read it if you care. Will it get pulled and be corrected? Interesting and interesting'r.
Sidenote:
The use of "Alleged" in the title of the Minister's press release, presents a hint here to the difficulty faced with a seizure of this size, with likely significant amounts of goods seized that were likely too circumstantial before analysis to lay the charges to come, if they do. The documentary requirements here I imagine are significant ($$$,$$$), throwing the wrench in the planned public relations campaign. There are likely the DJ Mixes involved too which are going to be a huge PITA, both for the analysts, alleged property owners, and the lawyers involved (read this very interesting post by Jason K on the DJ /club mixes in general). Add in the Adult industry porn, and the classification of it, by owner, and its pedigree, without the aid of a "CRIA" like organization (maybe) to help, and well you have some delay in the news here to the charges, if any result.
My sense of this is that we are not dealing with "replica's" hence the charges not being laid. What the police were told and what they found are possibly a rather serious issue at the moment. I have to look for the news story to find out ...
UPDATE 8:
The CBC has some interesting video with only 3 or 4 inaccuracies in it. I love the way the host puts a certain visual opprobrium into it. From the scene, that CTV did not get access to (or try?), the CBC video feed shows none of the named artists in the audio commentary, that come from the CRIA press release, so far ... one more video to watch ...
The retracted press release BTW is hosted now by a proxy domain service that put it up at www.audiomaxxx.net with no traceable elements. Unless the CRIA the owner of the original content, puts up a fuss, with the proxy registrar, that is where it will be forever.
This one is the best account of it right from the RCMP themselves in a TV interview with some of the video feed of the "international" CBC version at Update 8. The host is referring to a list that only includes the CRIA news release artists. No video evidence of any of those artists named. The "hard core pornography" the CRIA had mentioned, is not mentioned in this interview.
Video
David Gray interviews RCMP Sgt. Line Karpish (Runs: 5:11)
There is a very interesting comment here on what is a missing element to this whole sorry tale:
Its from here: http://www.dancehall.mobi/2008/03/07/audiomaxxx-shut-down/
"This is NOT a good thing for reggae as a whole. Yes he was selling material and not paying anyone…but he was organised and up to date and was beginning to stock a great collection of classics… for a NEW artist AUDIOMAXXX was agreat tool to get known wihtout spending too much money or time… anyone who is REJOICING over this, doesn’t know how the crooked reggae industry operates… too many unorganised and half assed labels have been the main reason why reggae is not the biggest ting in the world…artists like BUSY SIGNAL have benfited from Audiomaxxx…"
The Globe and Mail may regret the publication of its initially published story. It issued appropriately a correction to its print record. It still does not "correct" its searchable online version. In fact, the uncorrected version of the story comes prior to the corrected version of the story when searching on "CRIA."
This two version record I am personally very disappointed to learn about, as this creates a difficulty for future scholarship, as to which version is the "record." At this time arguably "two editions" exist, that would require the appropriate annotations, to get the "A+" that frankly professors and students may not even notice. Perhaps they will have this awareness after this "case study."
In the largest raid of its kind ever seen in Canada, the RCMP has shut down an alleged music-counterfeiting operation based in Winnipeg, seized tens of thousands of pirated CDs and DVDs and laid multiple fraud charges under the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act.
Update 12: 11.03.2008
The news out there is still mainly broken.
The story had been picked up by One876Entertainment.com (check out the comments first one is 06 Mar 2008 03:11 pm) which according to their "press" date is 06 Mar 2008 and they were able to refer to both the original CRIA news release and the second CRIA correction release. Funny how they could that, eh? On 06/03/2008, the 07/03/2008 second release was available, late at night. I picked it off early too. They got the story right with magic? ("need some drillin ...")
I looked finally at the Google cached version of the www.audiomaxxx.com site. I looked at the archived versions before which is slightly different: i.e. what they were doing in 2005 and 2006 over at Archive.org. The people who were claimed to be infringed in the original news release, its kind of dare out there to dig those isolated cases out as they do not seem to fit the business niche (Shania Twain, Lionel Richie, Jay-Z, Mary J. Blige and Nelly Furtado). The biggest group of people needing justice here is at the friends of the Boycott AudioMaxxx My Space page. They can celebrate maybe the actions here of our Mounties. That is not really my real story line here: its the broken media that gets to me the most. The lack of skepticism. The lack of digging. The cheapness of it all.
For those friends of the Boycott Audiomaxxx MySpace page who might end up here, I wish you the best, and hope you peace and justice in this matter. We will be watching the story in Canada as it develops further. I dig the fundamental rhythm beat making me move to your music whenever I hear it and hope we Canadians have done something here good for you. For more information on what we in Canada do and where you can complain or possibly follow up, see the RCMP's Reporting Intellectual Property Crime webpage.
UPDATE 13: 11/03/2008 11:37 PM
Toronto's Eye Weekly picks up the story of the broken news and gets an interview with Sgt. Karpish.
Today on the Scroll: Canada’s beleaguered music biz lobby boasted of a bust last Thursday… so why did they issue a retraction the day after?
BY Marc Weisblott March 11, 2008 15:03
[catching up ...]
No retraction required, says Sgt. Line Karpish, the RCMP media liaison. “CRIA posted their media release before mine.” Was she happy about it? “What do you think? We are the ones conducting the investigation here. We are the ones who execute the search warrant, we have the evidence, and we do the arrests.
“In fairness to them, they were excited to tell the artist community that the RCMP got results on their behalf. It’s not my place to comment on their motives, though. We have a lot to sift through, and the other three may or may not be charged.”
Its still odd that on March 6th if one were paying attention to the timeline, (maybe real early morning March 7th?), another countries affected media got the story right, late at night, by probably starting the writing real late that night (maybe) then changed it as more news came in, keeping the original date? - the first comment is at 06 Mar 2008 03:11 pm (and there are lots of comments). They worked the story. See Update 12 above: One876Entertainment.com
On with Mark's story, I check the link to the RCMP press release and its not to the mysteinbach but rather the Manitoba branch of the RCMP where they host their press releases to see I gather the real deal.
"The RCMP Press Release" that the Eye Weekly links to, does not have the "same title" as the one posted on the mysteinbbach.ca.
Not a big difference but a difference:
"PROJECT DVD" Winnipeg, Manitoba March 6, 2008
RCMP Release March 6, 2008 http://www.mts.net/~dcaskey/press.html that is a site hooked right into the RCMP Manitoba site, as revealable by Netcraft toolbar.
The mysteinbach RCMP press release:
4 Arrested in "Project DVD" Winnipeg, Manitoba March 6, 2008
Sgt. Karpish said there was no need for a change to their press release in the Eye Weekly story quote above: the one on mysteinbach.ca has now added information supplemental information now (see below), and has a slightly different title that the release the RCMP posts itself. Overall to them, this might not be a big deal offset by the service to the community the posting site does, perhaps for a commercial purpose and therefore with the permission of the RCMP.
I note the RCMP does have a TOS that *I* had to consider, to post above, the mysteinbach digital version when I did: it looked like a RCMP publication because if you read the RCMP terms of use, well you would think that if you don't alter the message, it would be ok assuming no commercial purpose. The Government of Canada also has a TOS with respect to its Word Mark, that one would assume the RCMP would have the right to use.
I am however offended by this new "phishy" addition to the "RCMP Press Release."
Why "phishy"? 1) the CRIA original press release is no longer available online it refers to, 2) the addendum like nature seems to refer to the RCMP release above it as part of a news story itself, and 3) by doing this, it destroys the authentic look they originally had created on their site, for such materials, now and in the future. These are the same tells of a "phishing" attempt.
UPDATE 14: 15/03/2008
P2P Net a Canadian outlet for news, is continuing their coverage and found someone had hijacked the www.audiomaxxx.com website so the people typing in the "audiomaxxx.com" URL, are going instead to the story posted there. The people impacted and their views as a result of this are adding some very interesting comments.
Meanwhile, the server at audiomaxxx.com is no longer taking too long to respond.
For the moment, http://audiomaxxx.com/ takes you straight to the p2pnet story on the debacle.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
No sightings yet of any "Shania Twain, Lionel Richie, Jay-Z, Mary J. Blige and Nelly Furtado" recordings bootlegged or their fan's grief.
These are the artists given in the original CRIA release, you can see here. And elsewhere.
And since now the spiders are almost finished crawling, this storypops up on the Winnipeg CTV news site with a very good comment (1) so far:
And the Internet demographics of the site at least in the United States?
See: http://www.quantcast.com/audiomaxxx.com
Features current and archived dancehall/reggae music in RealAudio format. Updated often with new audio clips, pictures, and links. [Description from dmoz]
This site reaches approximately 6,435 U.S. monthly uniques. The site is popular among a younger, African American audience.The typical visitor frequents hi5.com and visits Black People Meet.
In fact, I expect much more from him, not just in his preferred field of copyright but to the roots of what is copyright law, in its framing a competitive marketplace for intellectual goods and services, that serves best the public interest. That may in a US context, require examination of the Sherman Act and how the Copyright Act must fit with that Act and answer also to the public interest in that particular law, its twin evolution and history, against industry trusts and harmful monopoly power. Copyright is after all a grant of monopoly by the people to the creator and the holders of those copyrights, which may not be the creative, fuzzy and warm artists often projected as the author, but rather people who are instead servants subject to the power of the creator and copyright holder, like the members of the Writers Guild of America and most members of ACTRA here at home.
This is not to tarnish him or his views in any way, but it is a wake call to all consumers really, that I read in the undertones, of what is at the root of the problem: the corruption he exposes of process, word and deeds (our government appeared ready to walk into a "trap," that Industry Minister Prentice has fended off to date, possibly to his credit, a story in the making perhaps?).
Another such wake up call is Professor Lawrence Lessig's new calling "Corruption". No more copyright issues, he has moved on, perhaps identifying his best use of his considerable human capital as well as his followers perhaps in the realization that the copyright law he loves, is but a tool of anti-competitive manipulation in context of industrial property and competition laws.
There is no other person like Lessig, in energizing an issue and in being in fearless pursuit of the truth, the true scholar's passion and obsession. Smell and all, at the end of 10 years of study, just as the Creative Commons is very well known, so may be the awareness of corruption both on those who participate in it and those who watch it occur, in complicity.
This blogger will say a small prayer tonight, optimistic that the truth will win out. That once corruption is brought to fuller American awareness, that America will properly deal with it.
We in Canada, whom William Patry assists greatly, in filling in much of our "broken news" in his post, owe Mr Patry a greater debt of gratitude, not for this exposure of the process we may have succumbed to and its evils, but for what he exposed for his own countrymen to fit into their reality and figure out for themselves, where his country has gone wrong.
Certainly, there will be battles, where spin and FUD get plied, where "success should not be penalized", etc, etc, etc. Its old news and old angles to come. Screaming billionaires making monopoly profits are just somehow not that sincere in protestations, where the games played evolved into rules beyond any recognizable public interest. The unscientific v. the scientific. The media "mashing of the issue" v. the truth that the MSM is an issue itself, if it cannot get the answers for, and by the people the MSM claims to serve.
We hope the people win this one. The cold Hell otherwise is also a fitting and deserving end, if they lose. I certainly do not want to reside there.
UPDATE: Ariel Katz, a very thought provoking law professor at the UofT who teaches competition law and intellectual property, and who is the Innovation Chair in Electronic Commerce, has just released an interesting paper that needs a full examination. Its available here, entitled "Making Sense of Nonsense: Intellectual Property, Anti-trust, and Market Power." The policy twins in industrial property, competition and intellectual property (patent, trademark, copyright, design, trade secret law), clash.
The legal people may have their debate: what about the "people" and their representatives?
This is the type of provocation that might tip to a larger debate. This professor has worked the issue hard as to whether copyright collectives should exist anymore for example. Always an interesting challenging point of view. This one must have some wet spots but harder spots too, with great learning potential. It may address what challenges William Patry in this blog post must surely have to address by day, particularly as a monopolist in one market is about to move to compete directly with his own firm. Does Professor Katz deal with the Sherman Act / Clayton Act with this situation or it is a non-obvious extension to a future article as a monopolist may again embrace and extend its market? Stay tuned after this law and economics article gets its due digest.
The blog postings here are public remarks made by a private citizen of Canada. They are "Canadian" in nature.
My remarks are tempered by obligations to past and present employers, and private contractors, and a respect to professional level ethics in dealing with any information and its source. I consider myself an "original" thinker, and the remarks here are intended to be my thoughts and not the thoughts of anyone else, except where attributions are cited. Any similarities to other people's thoughts that I share or can express otherwise are a fact of life. Welcome to the Digital Age!
