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.
Filed Under: acta, canada, counterfeit
Comments on “Canadian Delusions: ACTA Supporters Pretend It's Just About Counterfeit Goods”
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.
Re: Re:
Exactly, well said sir!
Looks like counterfeiting isn’t the only thing deceiving Canadians.
It's an attempt at a Jedi Mind Trick
“This isn’t the bill you’re looking for…”
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?
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.
If it is not counterfeit I don’t want it. Remember, first the worst.
Just lie and repeat
> When asked about ACTA just lie and repeat . . .
Isn’t lying and repeating that lie what copyright maximalists do best?
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.
Re: Sorta like you keep conflating "links to infringing content"
You are wrong 100% of the time.
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.
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
Re: Re: Sorta like you keep conflating "links to infringing content"
I had more but, that dang cat…..
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.
Re: 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.
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!!
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?