Canadian Delusions: ACTA Supporters Pretend It's Just About Counterfeit Goods

from the if-only dept

One of the nastier tricks of copyright maximalists has been to lump together "counterfeiting" with "copyright infringement" in an effort to conveniently jump back and forth when making silly arguments. Basically, they can argue that copyright infringement is a huge issue, because of the massive amount of unauthorized sharing that happens online. But they have a lot of trouble showing real harm. On the other side, counterfeiting really isn't that big of a problem when you look closely at the details, but there are a few, extremely limited cases (faulty counterfeit airplane parts, some fake drugs) where there could be real harm. So if you lump them all together you can claim "massive problems" with "real harm." But that doesn't work if you look at them individually.

We recently wrote about some Canadian politicians introducing a bill to get Canada in compliance with ACTA, despite the fact that ACTA has been totally discredited around the globe. Some political opponents are now pushing back on that, calling the bill in question an attempt to get ACTA in "through the backdoor." However, in response Canadian Industry Minister, Christian Paradis, just keeps repeating the "counterfeiting" mantra and ignoring the entire ACTA elephant in the room. Amusingly, Paradis seems unable to even admit that there are concerns here:
During Question Period on Monday, Borg asked Industry Minister Christian Paradis directly if the bill paves the way for ratification of the discredited treaty:
Mr. Speaker, last July the European Parliament rejected the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement over serious concerns about the regressive changes it would impose on intellectual property in the digital age. Yet on Friday, the Conservatives introduced a bill in the House that would pave the way for the ACTA without question. Canadians have concerns about goods being seized or destroyed without any oversight by the courts. Will the minister now be clear with Canadians? Are the Conservatives planning to ratify ACTA, yes or no?
Paradis refused to respond to the ACTA ratification question:
Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to have introduced an anti-counterfeiting bill in the House. Counterfeiting is a growing problem in Canada. Counterfeiting deceives Canadians and is linked to security-related issues. So it was our duty to modernize the legislation to ensure that we can end counterfeiting, so that Canadians are not deceived, and to provide better security.
Borg tried again with a direct link between Bill C-56 and ACTA:
Mr. Speaker, a number of countries have rejected this unacceptable agreement. The anti-counterfeiting trade agreement - ACTA - was drafted behind closed doors and would incriminate the daily users of cultural content. This agreement will turn our border officers into instant copyright experts, without the adequate legal support. Canada must seriously study the problem of counterfeiting. However, the failure of Bill C-30 means that Canadians do not have faith in this Conservative government. Is Bill C-56 not simply a way to support ACTA through the back door?
Paradis ducks the question once again:
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Bill C-56 is a way to support and protect Canadian families.

Counterfeiting is a growing problem that must be stopped. Counterfeiting deceives Canadians and poses risks to the safety of Canadians. We must ensure that the legislation is updated and appropriate in order to equip the authorities with effective tools to fight counterfeiting, which is exactly what was introduced on Friday. If the NDP is responsible, I hope they will support us.
See the talking point? When asked about ACTA just lie and repeat "counterfeiting is a serious problem" over and over and over again, despite little proof to actually support that. And, when really challenged, pull out the "it's for the children" card by saying that it's needed to protect families. Yes, the families of the US-based executives of the legacy entertainment industry.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2013 @ 2:16pm

    Politics is the art of rationalising decisions already made, along with turning every question away with an answer that supports the pre-determined position. This particularly applies to question sessions, which are used to either lay out the parties position, or to attack the opposition. Such sessions are theatre, and not real political debate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rapnel (profile), Mar 12th, 2013 @ 2:25pm

    Looks like counterfeiting isn't the only thing deceiving Canadians.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Anonymous Monkey (profile), Mar 12th, 2013 @ 2:27pm

    It's an attempt at a Jedi Mind Trick

    "This isn't the bill you're looking for..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2013 @ 2:32pm

    Its their Chewbacca defense. They realize their law is so bad that they feel the need to try to mislead and confuse people with red herrings to minimize resistance. Nothing new. I just worry that their efforts will outlast public outrage.

    I wonder, at what point is the public going to band together to get their rights back? They keep introducing bad legislation, so how do we get good legislation through? How do we get fair copyright law and take back our right to public domain? They have the lawyers, so why don't we?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Mar 12th, 2013 @ 2:36pm

    The people here aren't delusional. We know the govt just gives us token excuses to pretend we actually have the ability to make our own decisions and we aren't completely slaves to the US's whims. The gov knows, the people know, the U.S. knows. It's more of a charade than a delusion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2013 @ 2:37pm

    If it is not counterfeit I don't want it. Remember, first the worst.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Mar 12th, 2013 @ 2:54pm

    Just lie and repeat

    > When asked about ACTA just lie and repeat . . .

    Isn't lying and repeating that lie what copyright maximalists do best?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Mar 12th, 2013 @ 3:12pm

    Sorta like you keep conflating "links to infringing content"

    with "free speech".

    Okay, so your position here is yet again variation on "no evidence of real harm". -- That's simply dishonest as you're conflating physical goods with intellectual properties. The loss in the latter is QUITE difficult to measure, won't have anything so dramatic as flaming wreckage.

    Nonetheless, even if invisible, it's certain that the losses are more than theoretical: because of rampant piracy many small projects can't reach the critical level of recovering "sunk (or fixed) costs", and so fail, or don't even start. -- You keep focusing on BIG MEDIA which is already MUCH TOO successful, while entirely ignoring the start-up to medium arena, another example of your focus only on the elite. Make your focus FAIRNESS, Mike. Start advocating that mega-corporations be reduced to create more competition, yes, even your precious Google.

    From especially this: "despite little proof to actually support that", I assume that you're PRO-counterfeiting, but you don't actually say.

    "Techdirt" has narrowed down to some railing without even clear positions. You're definitely not winning in practice or in theory. Sheerly to hold interest, I'd think you'd become MORE explicit, not less. -- It's a rare case of me being wrong.



    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    Where when Mike runs out of whiney complaint and mild pejoratives he still has his "new business model" mantra. But if you want actual plans, try elsewhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2013 @ 3:37pm

      Re: Sorta like you keep conflating "links to infringing content"

      You are wrong 100% of the time.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 12th, 2013 @ 4:05pm

      Re: Sorta like you keep conflating "links to infringing content"

      And yet another "Think of the little guy," argument. There are tons of risk factors in setting up a startup and zero guarantee of success. People like you just blow one of the risk factors out of proportion to justify content monopolies that have little or no positive impact on society. Sorry, but just because a startup fails to produce a product that meets or produces a profitable demand does not mean we need to criminalize the humane act that is sharing data with others.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Digitari, Mar 12th, 2013 @ 4:41pm

      Re: Sorta like you keep conflating "links to infringing content"

      "Okay, so your position here is yet again variation on "no evidence of real harm". -- That's simply dishonest as you're conflating physical goods with intellectual properties. The loss in the latter is QUITE difficult to measure,(ie Neglible) won't have anything so dramatic as flaming wreckage.

      Nonetheless, even if invisible, it's certain that the losses are more than theoretical:(Citation please) because of rampant piracy many small projects can't reach the critical level of recovering "sunk (or fixed) costs", and so fail, or don't even start. -- You keep focusing on BIG MEDIA which is already MUCH TOO successful,(Due to HOLLYWOOD accounting) while entirely ignoring the start-up to medium arena, another example of your focus only on the elite. Make your focus FAIRNESS,(slanted MY way) Mike. Start advocating that mega-corporations be reduced to create more competition, yes, even your precious Google.

      From especially this: "despite little proof to actually support that", I assume that you're PRO-counterfeiting,(citation please) but you don't actually say.

      "Techdirt" has narrowed down to some railing without even clear positions. You're definitely not winning in practice or in theory. Sheerly to hold interest, I'd think you'd become MORE explicit, not less. -- It's a rare case of me being wrong.(correct in ANY way)


      OOTB is a fucking freetard and ADMITS it

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mattshow (profile), Mar 12th, 2013 @ 3:20pm

    A friend of mine with a degree in political science loves question period. He watches it all the time on CPAC (Canadian equivalent of CSPAN). Once, after a few months of hearing him talk about it, I said down to watch it with him. When it was all over, we had this exchange:

    Me: Soo.... does anyone ever actually ANSWER a question during question period?
    Him: Oh, fuck no.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Mar 13th, 2013 @ 3:38am

      Re:

      That. The replies usually involve some of the following:

      - if you are not with us then you are for [insert one: pedophilia, human trafficking, counterfeiting, terrorism etc]
      - it's for the children
      - because.. PIRACY!
      - because cyber[insert whatever]
      - because ... TERRORISTS!

      There are small variations but any reply from any politician that supports those clearly bad bills (and is probably in the pockets of the MAFIAA) can be summarized in these points.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2013 @ 5:30am

    this 'it's only over such and such' is the same bull shit put out by de gucht when it was being pushed through in the EU. they responded to the protests of the public over what it would really do. i sure hope that Canadians do the same. what is more frustrating than anything else is that, yet again, this and other similar bills are always proposed by the USA, for the USA and never to be of benefit to any other nation. why can no other government see that and respond accordingly? i know 'encouragements' are thrown around, as well as threats of sanctions and the God forbid 'inclusion on the dreaded 301 list' but Jeez! have some balls and stand up for your own people!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2013 @ 7:04am

    ACTA was not rejected by any state

    The States of the European Union all signed and accepted ACTA. The rejection of ACTA was by the Parliament and was based on politics between the Commission and the Parliament not, "over serious concerns about the regressive changes it would impose on intellectual property in the digital age." If Borg can't even get the facts he bases his questions on right, why bother answering them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This