It was the second of only two town hall meetings, but it appeared that a vast majority of those in the audience were there to shut out non-copyright industry opinions. Some reports are suggesting that the government may have played a role in rigging the whole meeting, but more moderate reports suggest that the industry merely stacked the deck in their favour.
For those outside of Canada, the thought that a consultation could be rigged by the copyright industry may not be a surprise. For those in Canada, the thought that one group can stack the deck in a town hall meeting so as to shut out any dissenting voices is alarming and disgusting. It has caused many to denounce the town hall meeting a “sham”.
Michael Geist pointed to a video saying that readers could see for themselves, but when we accessed the video, the over 200MB file only showed a still picture that said that the webcast would begin shortly with the seeking disabled. The WMV file was played both in Windows Media Player and VLC to no avail. Judging by the comments of the posting, the video was, at one point, playable, but mysteriously, that is no longer the case from our end.
What has sparked accusations that the government was involved in stacking the deck was an e-mail that was passed out to attendees which was confirmed by several people. It contained the following:
4. In addition to those who registered for the Town Hall through the website, we have invited some individuals and organizations who specialize in copyright issues or can speak on behalf of a large number of Canadians for whom copyright is a significant issue. So that everyone can benefit from a breadth of perspectives, we will also be calling on some of them — again, selected by lottery — to present their points of view.
Other comments suggested that there were three rows that were filled by people involved with Warner – a foreign corporate entity that has been calling for stricter copyright laws.
“It was ironic in hindsight to have heard the moderator tell participants before the actual webcast that they should consider passing on their opportunity to speak (if their number was drawn) if the point they were going to make was already made by another person,” Darryl Moore, a prominent commentator on copyright issues in Canada said, “so as to give other perspectives an opportunity as well. The advice was obviously ignored, as the message coming from the well stacked floor was very much the same through the night.”
It’s one thing to have a number of people arguing for tougher copyright laws, it’s quite another go put forth such an effort to ultimately shut out any voices that disagree with a certain viewpoint. This was evidently the case here. The effort, at least in the public eye, further undermines the legitimacy of the arguments for tougher copyright laws simply because of the effort to remove any other voice from the floor.
As Michael Geist points out, the night had no reflection to what was being said online since a vast majority of the submissions, which are from all walks of life, have been arguing for a loosening on copyright laws – the most prominent way is to broaden fair dealing.
One thing is for sure, the credibility of what went on in that particular town hall meeting has become one of the most questionable events throughout the consultation. For some, it comes as no surprise that the most questionable events also happens to be the event that was most pro-copyright maximalist as well.
Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.
Related Posts
- American Music Group Finds Fair Canadian Copyright ‘Disgusting’
- NDP Makes No Apology for Copyright Stance
- Canadian Copyright Consultation Launches
- Calgarian Digital Rights Activists Organize to Make Copyright Election Issue
- Canadian Copyright Consultation Submissions Keep Rolling In
Loading ...
No one should be surprised by this, outside interests pushing around the Canadian government and attempting to force policy, this is nothing new. Has been happening for quite some time, and in the event that this was stacked by the government holding the “town hall meeting” makes no difference to me, I lost faith in our government a long time ago.
Video seems to be working here. about a minute of blank space before start.
Thanks, I replayed the video and let it sit for a few minutes. After a while, it worked. I presumed that since the time stamp was on 0:00 the whole time, it meant it wasn’t playing. That’s some messed up encoding if I ever saw it. :\
There are plenty of places where anti-copyright and anti-author forces can shout and enforce their opinions until they are blue in the face and they only hear things that parrot their own POV (I’m not implying this is one of them).
A very vocal minority can give the impression that their opinion is widespread, even when it isn’t, as we’ve seen the US town hall meetings on health care. But just like the ‘copyfighters’, the anti-health care zealots are in fact a very small slice of the population.
Just as we’ve found out in the health care controversy, there doesn’t have to be some conspiracy, just the fact that moderate and rational heads often prevail over the ideologically blinded.
“There are plenty of places where anti-copyright and anti-author forces can …”
Dog, since when was anybody who has been anti-Copyright also “anti-author”?
“… shout and enforce their opinions until they are blue in the face …”
Except none of the people you are referring to has actually -enforced- these opinions.
Your statement exactly applies to the pro-Copyright side: they “shout” their opinions that are based on only combinations of speculations, interests, and moral values, and then manipulate the laws in order to “enforce” these opinions, possibly becoming “blue in the face” while doing so.
“… and they only hear things that parrot their own POV (I’m not implying this is one of them).”
You are using an ad hominem, which applies to people in the pro-Copyright side, against people in the anti-Copyright side. That’s quite idiotic of you, malgre.
“A very vocal minority can give the impression that their opinion is widespread, even when it isn’t, …”
A very vocal minority can also shut out opposing voices.
“… as we’ve seen the US town hall meetings on health care.”
Whether that’s true or not does not matter, as it is irrelevant nonetheless.
“But just like the ‘copyfighters’, the anti-health care zealots are in fact a very small slice of the population.”
Are you claiming that there are very few people in the anti-Copyright side? Now that’s a silly attempt at an ad hominem.
“Just as we’ve found out in the health care controversy, there doesn’t have to be some conspiracy, just the fact that moderate and rational heads often prevail over the ideologically blinded.”
So are you suggesting that the anti-Copyright side is wrong, because you claim that the people in that side are “blind” with respect to political orientation?
That is indeed what you are implying, since it is obviously certain that you wouldn’t call the anti-Copyright side “moderate and rational” while calling the pro-Copyright side “ideologically blinded”.
Maybe if you provided actual substance in arguments and stopped claiming thin air to be opinion, then perhaps your babbling would start to actually mean something.
Out of the one or two consultations that want stricter copyright laws, I doubt you’ll find any that belong to concerned citizens.
“Just as we’ve found out in the health care controversy, there doesn’t have to be some conspiracy, just the fact that moderate and rational heads often prevail over the ideologically blinded.”
So you’re calling the pro-copyright side “moderate and rational” for shutting out the group of people who were trying to hand out flyers?
Perhaps “rational” can be applied to them (I mean, they have good deflection strategies, after all), but “moderate”? Come on.
So what if militant file sharers were the majority (which they aren’t)? People who make things are in the minority. Just because a majority claims some right to other people’s work doesn’t make it happen. One of the only reasons to have a government is to protect minorities from the actions of the mob.
I doubt those kids would have been thrown out if they were just handing out fliers. They were shouting in people’s faces, being overly aggressive, trying to force their opinion down people’s throats. Just like the ‘majority’ nutjobs at the health care rallies in the states.
“So what if militant file sharers were the majority (which they aren’t)?”
Again, this is a silly attempt at an ad hominem, and you have just confirmed it by writing “what if”, indicating that you are not certain.
“People who make things are in the minority.”
Who make what are in the minority?
“Just because a majority claims some right to other people’s work doesn’t make it happen.”
You just stated that they aren’t the majority. Besides, can you even elaborate on how anyone “claims some right to other people’s work”?
“One of the only reasons to have a government is to protect minorities from the actions of the mob.
This is at least the second time you have used this statement, but you haven’t elaborated on how this is of any relevance here.
“I doubt those kids would have been thrown out if they were just handing out fliers.”
They were threatened with arrest, so your opinionated statement means nothing.
“They were shouting in people’s faces, being overly aggressive, trying to force their opinion down people’s throats.”
You could say that about any group that disagrees with you, so unless you can prove it to be true, your statement is speculation, not fact.
Besides, your statement can be said on those in the pro-Copyright side.
“Just like the ‘majority’ nutjobs at the health care rallies in the states.”
Are you so afraid of exposing your foolishness that you won’t specify who these “nutjobs” are?
Try to be more relevant than writing two opinions regarding one question in Mr. Briggs’s comment, but still not answering it; or at least crop the drivel.
“They were shouting in people’s faces, being overly aggressive, trying to force their opinion down people’s throats.”
Were they? As far as I know, they were just handing out fliers. They weren’t blocking anybody’s entry, and they were just peacefully, nonviolently standing there, handing out flyers and not insisting that anybody take them.
So please, give us some video footage or something of even one moment when they were blocking somebody’s entry because they wouldn’t give the flyers out, and don’t expect the burden of proof to land on our side.
All right then, nobody knows except the people who were there, so you’re just making the assumption of some kind of conspiracy. Maybe the person in charge was kind of schoolmarmy and the people had tatoos or weird hair or something. Who knows? But to extrapolate some kind of government scheme to deprive you of your ‘right’ to free mp3’s is most likely paranoid.
“All right then, nobody knows except the people who were there, so you’re just making the assumption of some kind of conspiracy.”
Are you assuming Mr. Briggs is assuming a conspiracy, because you assume only a small group of people knows the details of the event? Oh please….
Repeating what Mr. Briggs wrote: don’t expect the burden of proof to land on our side.
“Maybe the person in charge was kind of schoolmarmy and the people had tatoos or weird hair or something. Who knows?”
It was a public meeting, malgre. Just because you are ignorant does not mean other people are.
“But to extrapolate some kind of government scheme …”
Do you even know what extrapolate means?
“… to deprive you of your ‘right’ to free mp3’s is most likely paranoid.”
Apparently you don’t understand what fair Copyright means.
I bet USA is involved and those freemasons only destroying everything.