The USTR Special 301 report was released a few days ago and Canada was a month 11 countries placed on a priority watchlist. Unfortunately for the copyright industry, the placement of Canada on that list last year was mainly what discredited the Special 301 report. So how can anyone really treat this seriously?

When it comes to the copyright debate in Canada, it seemed to go something like this. Many Canadians from different sides get together, discuss the issues at hand, come to a consensus, then copyright lobbyists conduct secret meetings with politicians to overrule everyone elses opinions to satisfy a few foreign companies. This was true with the Liberal governments Bill C-60, the Conservatives Bill C-61 and, so far, it seems to ring true with ACTA and CETA. Whenever the entertainment industry goes on public record, they tend to be dismissive of any dissenting opinion and practically say that they are always right and leave it at that no matter how debunked the argument is. Some of that might be changing now.

A Rocky Past

When it comes to the copyright industry convincing Canadian citizens that cracking down on alleged file-sharers was the way of the future, the industry simply saw its PR diminish from failure to disastrous to fatally catastrophic.

Michael Geist started a copyright pledge where a minister wouldn’t take lobbying money by the big foreign entertainment lobby as it might constitute a conflict of interest. This pledge was asked back when the Liberal party was seeking re-election. Sam Bulte, the minister of Canadian heritage seeking re-election shot back when asked to take the pledge by calling consumer rights supporters “pro-user zealots” and defending her record by taking big donations from Hollywood and tabling Bill C-60. That remark sparked outrage and turned potential voters into sworn enemies – many argue its that comment that sealed her fate for losing her bid for re-election. It wasn’t good news for copyright lobbyists who were hoping to win over support for their cause.

CRIA, meanwhile, were heavily lobbying candidates through secret meetings, something that didn’t please Canadians. This was problematic since the major Canadian labels left CRIA. Ever since the Canadian labels left CRIA, CRIA was then known as an entity that was hardly even Canadian at all. It seems that the Canadian cultural scene rejected CRIAs stance on copyright and went on their own ways, leaving CRIA to simply be representing the big four foreign record labels. It was a PR disaster for the entity that was one of the most vocal entities of tightening copyright laws which would crack down on alleged file-sharers – and in turn, crack down on innovation in the process.

On a campaign of change, the Conservative party won the following election. Many had hoped that the Conservative party would actually listen to voters and not sell Canadians out like the Liberal party had. The copyright profile was passed around from Minister Bev Oda to Maxime Bernier and then to Jim Prentice. On word that he was planning on selling out Canadians to foreign interests, protesters swarmed him and demanded answers. Prentice simply brushed off criticism saying that critics hadn’t read the bill that wasn’t even tabled. Turns out, the protesters were not only right, but more correct then they had ever imagined after Prentice tabled Bill C-61 that not only sold Canadians out, but it sold Canadians out more than the Liberal bill. The outrage intensified and the only ones that were happy were entities like CRIA and the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association (CMPDA) – little doubt who unfairly won the debate.

Graham Henderson and CRIA were always combative rather than convincing. They took flawed studies as fact and let fact gatherers like Pollara and the Conference Board of Canada take the heat for being either impartial or outright plagiarizing inaccurate information. It may have been apparent to some by then that anyone CRIA touches, their credibility takes huge blows – be it Pollara, the Conservative Party of Canada or the Liberal Party, the effect is always the same. Perhaps the only thing CRIA did correctly was distribute the PR radiation evenly over several entities.

Of course, lets not forget the infamous stacking of the deck in a town hall meeting during the copyright consultation [authors note: for those who are unaware, the video of the meeting has been fixed and is fully functional at this point.]

Then, in an unexpected and seemingly more fatal PR blow more recently, CRIA was hit with a $6 Billion lawsuit over bootlegging artists works without proper payment. It became apparent that whatever PR CRIA had left had all but vanished. It seems that the biggest enemy to Graham Henderson’s campaign were his own people working the chequebooks much more than any criticism launched by sceptics of his message.

A New Front

The major foreign entities have had a major problem in recent months – who could even remotely take the stage to even pressure anyone into believing copyright restriction was the answer for copyright reform? Graham Henderson is now out of the question given CRIAs reputation lay in shambles after the most recent self inflicted hit. The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association is barely known and have admitted in the past that they merely represent foreign movie companies. Finding the one of only a small handful of artists that share the viewpoint is not going to work since for every one artist the copyright lobby can find to carry the message, hundreds of artists would disagree.

Now, it seems a lobbyist, Barry Sookman, is gradually filling in the roll of spokesperson for the small minority who want tighter copyright control. He hasn’t exactly been user friendly given the allegations of censorship among other things, but one should at least acknowledge a few things no other poster child of rich companies trying to put the squeeze on consumer rights has done. He did start a blog and has the audacity to respond to some of the criticisms being made against the copyright lobby. It’s an extremely brave thing to do in an environment where 90% of everyone in the debate would rather egg you for having such an opinion.

Sookman actually responds to criticism whereas before, the policy was to bat of criticism like an annoying mosquito which does represent a shift in attitude toward even debating copyright in the first place.

The War of Words

Unfortunately for Sookman, pretty much everything is working against him. Being a registered lobbyist for CRIA does not help things from the beginning. Having rumours about censoring debate on his blog isn’t winning him friends. Then there’s the toughest part of all about a lack of credible Canadian allies left in the debate who are of the opinion that copyright laws should be further restricted.

Sookman’s blog so far can be summed up in this observation – “It’s one thing to have a blog and enter a debate, but it’s quite another to be considered acceptable” and the most recent fiasco shows it.

It all started with a posting on Michael Geists site where he noted the European Union ratifying WIPO. Dr. Ficsor of WIPO posted a guest post in Sookmans blog attacking Geist saying that anyone who is sceptical about implementing WIPO are little more than “free-access” “revolutionaries” and likens them to those who follow the style of “hatred-driven style of Maoist Guards” at the end of a long and drawn out post.

Unsurprisingly, Geist wasn’t exactly impressed with the name calling and said that “no amount of name calling or bullying will alter the fact that Canada can be compliant with the WIPO Internet treaties without implementing the version of the treaty that Ficsor wanted but failed to get.”

Barry Sookman in the mean time went in to overdrive saying that opponents to ACTA were led by Michael Geist and that they were leading a fear mongering propaganda campaign – as if irony couldn’t be any thicker. As an author who posted about the ACTA leaks at roughly the same time Geist’s post went up, I can safely say that I read through the documents myself and drew my own conclusions. If Sookman thinks that anyone who criticizes ACTA are just blindly and mindlessly following what Michael Geist is saying, he has another thing coming. Trust me when I say I’m quite independent minded.

Then in response to Michael Geist about Ficsor, Sookman wrote a piece in his blog entitled, “Dr. Ficsor is right; Prof. Geist is wrong about the WIPO Internet Treaties” which may as well have read, “I’m right, you’re wrong, so nya!”

In all honesty, it’s sometimes shocking that people with such large resumes would be so childish. It’s one thing to criticize established experts on a subject, but it’s quite another to use personal insults to try and prove a point. In some respects, it’s understandable given that having experience outside of closed door meetings might be scarce when in a locked door meeting with executives who just agree with you day in and day out. It’s not every day that a copyright lobbyist registers a blog and actually responds to the criticism – at least in Canada. It’s different talking to a bunch of executive friends and talking to a population as diverse as the internet. Critics of tightening copyright laws have a lot of online experience – experience that is unlikely to be possessed by very many copyright lobbyists.

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.

The Ottawa Sun is reporting that a record store owner felt that he had to plead guilty for copyright infringement after possessing just under 300 unauthorized CDs. It was a case lead by the RCMP with non other than CRIA acting as an expert witness in the case.

While the case has more to do with laws surrounding the importing of CDs, the interesting part was found in the following:

Nolan will receive a conditional discharge if he makes a $1,000 charitable donation within three months.

Lawyer Mark Lazarovitz said it was outrageous that his client is being prosecuted when CRIA members, including such names as Sony, EMI and Universal, are the target of a class action lawsuit worth up to $6 billion for allegedly infringing artists’ copyright.

“Yet my client is before the court,” Lazarovitz said.

Nolan said the 100 CDs represent a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of recordings in his collection and that the discs at issue are mostly imports.

This may be the first known case where CRIA being sued for billions for commercial distribution of pirated material has had a very visible effect on any anti-piracy operations CRIA is involved in. It’s not hard to imagine that this would be the last either. How can CRIA have the power to convict anyone for copyright infringement when they themselves have allegedly headed off the biggest commercial piracy operation in Canadian history?

It would appear that it’s extremely easy to make any piracy operation seem like a hollow victory for the major record labels thanks to this lawsuit against CRIA. It makes anti-piracy operations seem more like pirates busting pirates more than anything else and seriously puts into question to whom the law serves. Legitimate and otherwise morally acceptable anti-piracy cases for many – namely busting commercial bootleggers – has been put into serious moral jeopardy for many. It doesn’t really matter whether or not they are completely separate cases at this point.

In the case in question here, some of the imported CDs didn’t contain UPC bar codes. While BoingBoing had their own choice words for the case, one commenter suggested that not every independently produced CD has a UPC bar code to begin with.

“I worked at several independent record stores that brought in foreign copies of records on American labels that were unavailable in the states all the time. Back then,” scifijazznik commented, “there were entire artists’ catalogs the majors in the states didn’t seem to think there was a market for: Bootsy Collins, Julie London, Graham Central Station, tons of classic Blue Note records, etc., that were available out of Japan or Germany. If they were available in the states, both we and our customers would gladly pay less for them. But they were not and we had a loyal following of collectors more than willing to pay for $30 for Japanese imports of CDs that should have been available at reissue prices.”

The commenter added, “There was mention of “live CDs” and some “without bar codes.” Bootlegs are one thing. There are laws against that and the owner’s use of the word “pirated” is likely chosen carefully to address that. But I run an independent label and on our last CD, the manufacturer forgot to print the bar code on the cover. Some perfectly legit labels don’t use bar codes at all, though I imagine that’s not as common as it used to be.”

It’s interesting that there is word that not every single CD in existent that is legitimately sold has a bar code as mentioned in the original story. Whether or not the owner of the recently busted store is being totally honest is another story since there isn’t much evidence being offered publicly at this time through the Sun. What is clear is that the moral standing of the major record labels has fallen off a cliff in the publics eyes and CRIA in the defence of a $6 Billion lawsuit will prove to be a point that keeps biting them in the end whether or not the anti-piracy operation they partake in is clear cut.

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.

For our regular viewers, the headline may give you a sense of de-ja-vu. Well, it’s more than just a weird feeling because, yes, last year, Sony BMG was sued for software piracy and had a property raided by French police. At the time, many people suggested that the raid in France was karma related given that even earlier, there was the Sony Rootkit fiasco where music CDs were released by Sony that destabilized people’s computers.

If it was bad karma, apparently, the company is still in the bad books. According to a report on Daily Tech, Sony BMG had a property raided by Mexican police over an unauthorized CD release.

The story goes that a pop artist by the name of Alejandro Fernández’s had a seven album contract with Sony. The artist had recorded other songs that never made it onto those seven albums. The contract he signed ended in 2008 and the artist got a new contract with Universal. Apparently, Sony found those songs and created an eighth album. Unsurprisingly, Universal was not too happy. Sony defended the creation of the album, saying that the discs were, like, “totally authorized”. They also said that Mexican courts would confirm their rights over the music.

“What Sony did that was wrong and illegal was to assume that they could take those tracks that weren’t part of the previous albums and release them as an eighth album as if it were new material over which they had rights,” says Jose Luis Caballero, Fernández’s attorney in Mexico. “And it’s perfectly clear that the company’s contract is limited to seven albums.”

A Slashdot commenter commented on how one could look at the case and follow the precedent set in the US for music piracy. The user calculated that the damages could be $1,151,460,000 if using the Tenenbaum precedent or $4,094,080,000 using the Thomas precedent.

It’s interesting that both the cases were brought up – particularly when Sony BMG is behind the Tenenbaum lawsuit. Either way, this seems to be the second time Sony shows a hypocritical side to their business when it comes to piracy.

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.

The news comes from the Toronto Star where 5 people are being charged for violations of Canada’s copyright act. This is the same copyright act that seems to have been a magnet for scorn from the copyright industry because of, among other things, lack of copyright enforcement even though enforcement is clearly demonstrated here.

All this was happening during a time when the IFPI insisted that in order for free trade talks with Europe to begin, Canada needed to reform their copyright laws. Not only was this happening, but also just days earlier was Canada put on a Special 301 report priority watch list to join the ranks of countries like China which are known to have bootleg vendors everywhere. The move to put Canada on the priority watch list is already seen as a move that could ultimately backfire.

This more recent development could easily put another nail in the coffin on the claims that Canada has extremely bad copyright laws that need “updating” as the copyright industry sees fit.

[Hat tip Michael Geist]

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.

The posting on Wired says the following:

during a 20-minute speech in which he took no questions — added that the “the continuing worldwide escalation of counterfeiting and piracy poses a threat to both our economy and public safety.” He said the “mission of the Department of Justice is clear: whether it’s a complex international narcotics ring, a corrupt public official abusing his office, or some scam-artist selling counterfeit software, our job is to enforce the law and bring to justice those who perpetrate these crimes.”

The Department of Justice, the attorney general said, has deployed as many as 230 federal prosecutors around the country as part of its Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property, or CHIP, network. The DOJ has steadily increased the number of IP prosecutions, filing 217 last year, a 33 percent jump in two years, he said.

“We’re devoting more resources and more personnel to IP crime, and we’re sending the important message that we take these crimes seriously, and we will punish the actions of counterfeiters and pirates whenever we can,” he said.

We here at ZeroPaid do understand that terrorism presents a very real and prominent threat to civilized nations around the world. Obviously, any help to prevent the spread of terrorism would be greatly appreciated by the attorney general – particularly when it comes to the theft of intellectual property. This is why we have compiled a short list of well-known pirates – about 3 organizations worth – to help restore general public safety.

1. Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting And Piracy (BASCAP) – It may seem strange that an anti-piracy outfit would be the first place to look, but often, the best place to look is the last place one would think to look. Last year, Gieschen Consultancy thought their intellectual property was safe with the organization. Unfortunately, they thought wrong when the organization was busted for pirating the software in order to conduct anti-piracy operations. Clearly shocked at the revelation, the software company took matters into their own hands and detailed the revelation in a press release (no longer available) that they had to take action to protect their Intellectual Property accordingly. Said Gieschen, “it is both surprising and extraordinary that an organization dedicated to protecting intellectual property would take this action.”

2. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) – While filming a documentary about this well known organization in 2006, Kirby Dick submitted his film, “This Film is Not Yet Rated” to be rated. While it was being rated, it turns out that the organization made illegal copies of the film while defending that the film would be locked up safe in a vault. It’s likely the reason why there was an additional section to the movie was added to highlight the dangers of things like file-sharing lawsuits. In another report:

“The MPAA defines piracy as ‘any single unauthorized duplication of a copyrighted work’,” he chuckles, “so by their own definition they pirated my film.”

3. Sony BMG – In a timely occurrence two days ago, Sony BMG, as reported here on ZeroPaid, was sued for software piracy, not to mention having some of their assets seized. PointDev was behind the raid, already finding the pirated software on four of their servers.

“I think piracy is linked to the policy of a company. If the employee has the necessary funding to buy the software they need, it will. If this is not the case, he will find alternative ways, as the work must be done in one way or another.” said the CEO of PointDev.

Does piracy = terrorism? That may be a question for the attorney general to answer. Obviously, he seems interested in correlating piracy to a threat to public safety. Many have had their financial well-being compromised by RIAA member Sony BMG as well as the anti-piracy actions of the MPAA. Obviously, large sums of money and terrorism could prove to be a dangerous threat. There is large sums of money flowing through these companies/organizations. Of course, it’s important to leave much of this important thinking and planning to the experts of these cases. In the mean time, these actions of piracy do appear to come to light on a seemingly yearly basis at the very least – a potentially disturbing trend indeed.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Mukasy_Piracy_Fosters_Terrorism_ZeroPaid_Offers_Pirate_List’;

Apparently people on Ebay have been selling CDs filled with bootleg embroidery patterns, much to the chagrin of the ESPC. Yet, rather than go after the people selling them they’ve decided it’s easier to go after the little old lady who’s buying them.

Using records obtained from both eBay or eBay resellers, the ESPC has gone through the lists and fired off letters to all the “dangerous” Grandmas out there using pirated embroidery designs for their own “selfish” interests.

The letter states:

(This) is a legal notice – and “not an advertisement, solicitation, or a scam” as one might assume — from the Embroidery Software Protection Coalition (ESPC). The ESPC, after an investigation including records recently obtained from eBay or eBay resellers, has determined that the recipient has “purchased and utilized counterfeit and pirated embroidery designs online … and that these pirated copies of embroidery designs are in your possession, all in violation of the Federal Copyright Act.”

…under federal law, civil damages “may be $30,000.00 per design, not per CD. Additionally, the Court has discretion to increase the amount of statutory damages to $150,000.00 for each Copyright violated if the infringement was willful.” After a few more threats, the ESPC allows that the organization is willing to resolve the matter if the recipient will agree to send the ESPC the pirated designs, promise not to buy illegal copies of embroidery designs in the future, and “pay a nominal monetary sum to the ESPC for your past wrongful conduct.”

How are many of these ladies supposed to come up with the $30,000 minimum for each design? Will they go after granny’s monthly Social Security checks?

One apparent senior-citizen evildoer comments:

“Apparently the ESPC is suing the person I bought them from on eBay. I don’t know if she’s guilty of copyright infringement or not, but how can they say I purchased illegal designs if they haven’t even proven the person I bought them from did something wrong? Who makes the ESPC the judge and jury? And the seller’s name is the only trademark or registration that appears on the design screens I see, so how could I be expected to know if they are pirated?”

“The ESPC says they are just following what the music industry has been doing to those who download copyrighted music,” says the buyer of the bird designs. “But I wasn’t sharing or distributing these designs to others. I simply paid for a CD on eBay – nothing popped up and said ‘hey, you’re making an illegal purchase.’ I still don’t know if it was. If a store sells what appears to be brandname purses that are actually knockoffs, would it be OK to go after the unknowing buyers and demand a $300.00 payment from them?”

I guess the whole common sense thing of going after he would sell the bootlegs rather than he who buys them is an afterthought in the minds of the brainiacs over there at the ESPC. Grandmothers put up less of a fight I’m sure, plus I reckon the whole fixed income thing makes it much easier for the lawyers and cuts down on costs.

Also, what’s interesting to note is that the lady’s correct, I thought copyright infringement had to do with distribution not actual possession. Isn’t that why file-shares get charged? The availability of distribution?

“I’m 64 years old, retired due to loss of my job of 25 years after the company downsized, and am now collecting Social Security,” the soon to be granny felon writes. “If you can do anything to help the plight of the aging grannies like me caught up in this mess, we would appreciate it. If not I guess I will give up embroidering completely and bake cookies. Although I suppose there might be a cookie mafia out there somewhere too.”

What I’d like to know too is why eBay is so easily serving up the elderly to the ESPC. Guess they like those who can’t put up much of a fight as well.

Digg It!!