Recording Industry Lobbyists Says Politicians Worried About User Rights Are 'Disgusting'?

from the that-doesn't-seem-right... dept

Well, well. Last week there was a "town hall" meeting in Toronto about new copyright laws in Canada, and we'll have a more detailed post on that later. But there is one story that popped up from all of this that deserved a separate discussion. Apparently two Parliament Members, Olivia Chow and Charlie Angus, who have been big supporters of consumers' rights on copyright issues, have been called out by music industry lobbyists for distributing a 'disgusting' flyer. Why? Because that flyer contained an interview with Angus (a former musician in a popular punk band), where he talks about the importance of consumer rights and not following through with a DMCA-style law in Canada. It's hard to read anything in that interview that is "disgusting" -- unless you don't believe consumers have any rights. But that apparently was the position taken by Alan Willaert, the Canadian representative of the American Federation of Musicians, who not only called it disgusting, but also demanded a retraction and an apology.

It doesn't sound like he's going to get it. Charlie Angus is defending himself ably:
I was elected to participate in discussions about public policy. I have never heard of a lobbyist group demand an apology for speaking out about a totally botched piece of legislation like Bill C-61. If they spent less time running e-mail attacks and more time speaking with the various players they might realize that the NDP position has been balanced and consistent from the beginning.

As for a public recanting to satisfy the C-61 lobby ? Sorry, ain't happening.

Filed Under: alan willaert, canada, charlie angus, consumer rights, copyright, olivia chow, politicians
Companies: american federation of musicians

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    dorp, 1 Sep 2009 @ 8:22am

    Re: Re: Re: fred flailing and failing

    When something is shared amongst everyone in the collective, it's socialism, or at an extreme, communism.

    Sharing in itself is neither. It can be part of any economic system. Or are you going to call all the people that donate to charities filthy communists now? You are twisting hard and you are getting it wrong. In Socialism, the means of production and distribution are centrally controlled. Feel free to show where production is centrally controlled.

    Capitalism is that the files / music / movie whatever is put on the market at a price. If you want it, you pay for it. If you can't afford it, you don't pay it.

    You are making shit up again. Price is something you can ask for, but it does not mean you will get paid. Capitalism does not have any restriction on how much something should cost (if at all) beyond the basic economics of supply and demand. Supply in this case is limited by marginal cost, which in digital goods case is approaching zero. Restricting supply is in essence an anti-capitalistic idea, yet here you are, advocating it, like you are some sort of socialist bent on market control.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.