It looks like not only an external PR war has erupted with the IP, but also an internal war as well. With the CEO trying to put out some of the fires started by the now recalled reports, it seems new fires have started up from one of the more unexpected sources – one of the original authors of the reports. The comments that person made definitely confirmed one thing – that at least one author definitely left for reasons not related to the reports.

The report comes from Michael Geist’s blog where Curtis Cook, a listed author of the original report, apparently had a fair amount to say about the IP report fiasco. On May 27, a day before the IP reports were recalled, he said he requested for the removal of his name from the IP reports and that the Board publicly acknowledge that he was not responsible for the plagiarized report.

He commented that his work at the Board ended on July of 2008. He submitted his final draft research in the middle of August, 2008. He denied that the draft research did not include any of the plagiarized content and that work by three contract researchers including Jeremy DeBeer was originally included. After August, he had no involvement of the papers afterwards, and thus, was not responsible for any content changes made thereafter. In September, while he was working at his new job, he received a call from his former supervisor that there had been a “push back” from one of the funding clients because of the inclusion of Jeremy DeBeers work. Around the similar time, one of the funding clients contacted him, expressing concerns about the inclusion of Jeremy DeBeers work as well. After the publication of the final reports, Cook was alarmed by the direction the reports had taken – while the controversy erupted, he was contacted by the Vice President of public policy, requesting his assistance to “fix” the reports.

“The Conference Board wants my help to fix reports that were published 10 months after my departure. It wants me to help fix publications that were re-written (and plagiarized) months after my departure and after they discarded the research I compiled and submitted. The Conference Board asks for my help but won’t acknowledge that it was wrong to put my name on reports that bear little resemblance to the original research I submitted,” Cook explained, “were substantially reworked, and were published ten months after I resigned. After Anne Golden laid blame on contract researchers and supervisors late last week, I noticed two of the authors who still were listed on the organization’s web site were no longer on the staff list.”

“I am not prepared to wait for Anne Golden to conduct the review she promises because I have a pretty good sense of what happened,” he added, “even though my involvement with the Conference Board and these reports ended with the submission of credible research 10 months ago. I am curious to see if my account results in some form of backlash, if the Conference Board is prepared to dig a deeper hole for itself or if more fiction will surface.”

Ouch. It didn’t seem likely that a former employee would be hitting the PR ball back into the Board’s court – especially a particularly pointed response. What is clear here is that Cook doesn’t want any chance of being made a scape-goat out of all of this.

At this point, it seems pretty clear that, judging by Cooks account, the Board merely bent to pressure from representatives from the US copyright industry. It’s probable that they threatened to pull their funding if the report didn’t bend to their will since money tends to be a big motivating factor for these kinds of reports.

Of course, this also highlights an even larger story of how a foreign copyright industry is trying to pressure Canada in to copyright reform and how far they are willing to go to try and force Canada into a kind of copyright reform that merely goes along with one alienated, though wealthy voice. There’s already been a number of cases where politicians have been heavily lobbied (i.e. through “celebrations” or fund raisers) to get copyright reform through parliament that bends to the will of the foreign copyright industry. Since there’s little to no evidence to suggest that Canada has a need to bend to the copyright industry’s demands, the only avenue at this point is to line politicians pockets with money as there’s no research or legal reason to start suing Canadians en-mass and introducing a regime that blocks innovation at the mere presence of a Technical Protection Measure (TPM) among other things.

How this latest blow on the Conference Board of Canada affects the larger picture is unclear, but there’s a number of indications that point to this being part of a growing list of evidence that Canada should be cautious about reforming copyright laws that bend to the copyright industry’s interests.

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.

There’s definitely heavy involvement from the United States in the case against The Pirate Bay, but could such a thing be more common if a new piece of legislation in the United States becomes law? Who knows? What we do know is this, IP Watch is reporting on H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 2010-2011 – mainly the section on enforcing intellectual property.

The legislation states that “The Secretary of State shall ensure that the protection in foreign countries of the intellectual property rights of United States persons in other countries is a significant component of United States foreign policy in general and in relations with individual countries.”

It further states, “The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service, shall appoint 10 intellectual property attaches to serve in United States embassies or other diplomatic missions. The 10 appointments shall be in addition to personnel serving, on the date of the enactment of this Act, in the capacity of intellectual property attaches from any department or agency of the United States at United States embassies or other diplomatic missions.”

That’s right, “Subject to paragraph (2), in designating the embassies or other missions to which attaches are assigned under subsection (b), the Secretary of State shall give priority to those countries where the activities of an attache may be carried out with the greatest potential benefit to reducing counterfeit and pirated products in the United States market, to protecting the intellectual property rights of United States persons and their licensees, and to protecting the interests of United States persons otherwise harmed by violations of intellectual property rights in those countries.”

No really, this is what you think it is, “The activities of intellectual property attaches under this section shall be carried out in coordination with the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator appointed under section 301 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 8111).”

As IP Watch says, the “bill [was] introduced into the US House of Representatives by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (Democrat, California) that would “enhance State Department resources and training for intellectual property enforcement efforts in countries not meeting their international obligations,” the Chamber said.”

Surely some people in other countries would object to the very idea that another country can dictate what the countries laws should be and how those laws should be enforced. We know there are plenty in Sweden that dislike the United States involvement in the daily affairs of Sweden. In Canada, Michael Geist noted that the language of the bill suggests that “Canada would be a likely target.”

So in the end, if (very likely) the legislation is passed, the next time United States representatives come in to your country and start pressuring lawmakers to pass seemingly draconian copyright laws, you can thank the law of the land in the United States for that.

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’;

Pandora, a website known for taking popular music and finding similar lesser-known artists with a similar style for internet users, was dealt with another blow recently. Its services helped millions of users find their own musical taste with artists they may have not otherwise found out about. It was barely a full year ago when people discovered it and considered it a major innovation in online music.

Its customers in the UK were informed that due to copyright issues and a lack of a legal framework, their services might begin blocking people within the UK. A similar move was made last year when Pandora announced it would block Canadian IP addresses. Not surprisingly, the move sparked controversy, causing many to point to how organizations like the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) refuses to invest or even support in new initiatives and innovations by others online.

Pandora also faces similar pressure in their own country – the United States. Many point out that royalty hikes would effectively kill off internet radio. An innitiative was started to fight such moves called Save Internet radio.

“It continues to astound me and the rest of the team here that the industry is not working more constructively to support the growth of services that introduce listeners to new music and that are totally supportive of paying fair royalties to the creators of music.” Tim Westergren commented back in July, “I don’t often say such things, but the course being charted by the labels and publishers and their representative organizations is nothing short of disastrous for artists whom they purport to represent – and by that I mean both well known and indie artists.”

While there is no word yet if the web service has blocked British users yet, history has shown that it may be a likely outcome eventually.