Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy

This finding isn’t surprising to me, but is news to the music goons who argue for repressive copyright legislation like our American neighbours are afflicted with.

[Industry Canada] find[s] no direct evidence to suggest that the net effect of P2P file-sharing on CD purchasing is either positive or negative for Canada as a whole.
[...]
However, our analysis of the Canadian P2P file-sharing subpopulation suggests that there is a strong positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file-sharing increases CD purchasing.

So, Minister Prentice, just how tough are you going to crack down on P2P downloaders in your copyright bill this month? Are you anti-business?

CBC Search Engine has been giving excellent coverage of this new attempt from the Conservatives (and the CRIA lobbyists they listen to) to charge a levy on iPods, and get you (and/or your children) downloaders sued for thousands of dollars. {Note the Liberal’s Minister partly responsible for the Copyright Act was also in the pocket of the CRIA, as was past minister Bev Oda. I don’t know what Jim Prentice is thinking of the CRIA lobby group, that is tied to the RIAA in the States.

Prentice is, “A lawyer by profession, Mr. Prentice has specialized in property rights, focusing on relocations, environmental protection suits and restricted development areas.” Might I presume to think that he’ll assume information property protection is identical to physical property protection?}

Geist provides an excellent summary of events to date:

CBC’s Search Engine, a weekly radio program on Internet issues, has become must-listen radio on the unfolding Canadian copyright law reform initiative. Today’s program (MP3 version) featured an interview with George Barker, the Australian economist who criticized the Industry Canada P2P study, that focused on Barker’s views and his links to the CRIA. CRIA’s Graham Henderson refused to appear on the program. The program has now requested an interview with Industry Minister Jim Prentice to discuss the forthcoming copyright bill and asked listeners to post their own questions. In a matter of hours, the site already contains more than 50 questions.

BoingBoing has more.

==

Speaking of copyright, and “information property”, the big-label music industry has another organization trying to usurp its position as the most backward thinking corporate stink-tank on earth. I’ve asked the VANOC what their media guidelines for linking are, since bloggers could, in theory, adhere to that [possibly] more flexible set of publication rules.

The 2010 Winter Games could not be held without the tremendous support of VANOC’s sponsors and government partners. Some of Canada’s most well-known and respected businesses have made the significant financial investment required to become official sponsors of the 2010 Winter Games. VANOC’s government partners have also made significant financial commitments to support the infrastructure required for the 2010 Winter Games. In recognition of their support, VANOC’s sponsors and government partners have the exclusive rights to use the Olympic Brand and to associate with the Olympic Movement in Canada.

Doesn’t it seem like a bit of a conflict of interest for the government to be setting the guidelines for copyright protection of an event like the Olympics, and then profiting from that protection? Wouldn’t it be great if other companies had exclusive rights to a technology or word, and convinced the government to make money from those exclusive rights, so they also get the legal protection to keep profit entirely for their own company? I thought the Beijing Olympics were going to be a hotbed of government propaganda and inside deals, but it seems Canada gets to participate just 2 years later.

–

Amusing Olympic mascots.