SpiralTruth

A week ago, I found myself writing a snarky email to Gillian Shaw about her article on the Conference Board of Canada’s “research findings” on the strength of Canadian copyright. I’m a huge fan of BoingBoing and Michael Geist, and I had been following their reporting on this quite closely. I’m going to put up the content of that email not because I’m especially proud of it (I consider it, more or less, to be giving in to a very seductive form of righteousness that myself and my fellow lefties like to indulge from time to time), but to show how much of “a believer” I was and am in a less-is-more approach to copyright reform. And I’m doing that to give you an idea of how much I did not want to get into the conversation I got into today regarding the latest allegations against the Conference Board of Canada, post fuck up. (And to be clear, they did fuck up. I just think we’re jumping the gun a bit as to how much they fucked up). On with the email, then…

Dear Gillian,

I stopped reading papers after I started realizing that most of the stories were simply PR releases by various companies and organizations looking to sway public opinion. Case in point, your article on the Conference Board of Canada report. All I get from this article are a bunch of vague talking points from Gilles Rhéaume, who doesn’t even bother to make much of an argument one way or the other. I suppose he thinks the “evidence” speaks for itself. “It’s hard to say,” he says… “difficult to assess”… and… wait a minute! Isn’t this a guy who’s entire reason for being is to report on this stuff? The article doesn’t go into nearly enough detail to inform those who haven’t been following recent issues flaring up around the Internet and copyright law (Bill C-61, various attempts at the “3 strikes, you’re out” rule overseas, etc.)… and for those who have been following, Gilles comes off as a complete hack. So who exactly are the target audience for this piece?

Here are some links you might want to look into. In fact, they’re the only reason I stumbled upon your article.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4000/125/

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/25/canadian-think-tax-s.html

They’re obviously biased, but they represent a side of this story that you didn’t even touch upon. The post boomer audience that your paper might have does notice omissions like these, and we choose to get our news in other formats because of them.

Why did I bother to write? I’m an artist *and* a huge fan of the arts. As anyone who’s ever had to struggle it out or who’s shown up to a few indie events knows, an artist or idea’s greatest threat is obscurity, not piracy. The argument that your article is highlighting is that of a dying business model, not of real artists and innovators, most of whom are busy finding ways to thrive under emerging business models. Some of us happen to think that the fact that it’s just so damn easy to copy and trade stuff these days is actually as good for the people coming up with the ideas as it is for those using them. But better to listen to Mr. Rhéaume because he’s been studying all of this so diligently!

- David Scott

Gillian responded, ignoring my obvious baiting, pointing me to one of her blog posts the next day, and basically being pretty cool about it all. I do maintain that it’s sad that the pro-industry side went into the Vancouver Sun while the other side was relegated to Gillian’s blog, but yep, I can be a prick from time to time. You can’t really get noticed these days without taking a side, though, can you? Starting a few good fights, after all, can cultivate a pretty sweet following. Imagine my surprise to find myself a week later trying to hold Dr. Geist to the same standards I held Ms. Shaw to. (Though you’ll notice I was much more forgiving of him due to my preference for his side and his usually bang on reporting. I mean the guy was instrumental in turning Bill C-61 into a disaster for Slick Steve Harper and company. That’s pretty cool in my books).

Here’s my portion of the conversation at www.michaelgeist.ca:

Before we all declare victory over the forces of evil and pass this link around to our friends in order to illustrate that our government is not only ridiculous but also corrupt, do we have a way to confirm that the Curtis Cook who posted that comment is who he says he is? There are a lot of inventive people out there on the Internet.

The only reply to this was from a user going by AB:

…
CBoC should end up on some government “black” list where they’re can no longer produce reports for the government or receive any funding from it.

@David
Curtis’ statements just add to list of previous evidence that CBoC is ridiculous and corrupt. I’ve reached that conclusion before seeing his comments.

And my response to that:

@AB Hey man, you’re preaching to the choir. There’s no question in my mind that Stephen Harper would sell out his people in a heartbeat to U.S. entertainment industry lobbyists. And given the balance of power and influence between a huge industry and ordinary citizens, any “impartial” organization claiming that more draconian copyright laws would be good should be viewed with much suspicion. However, one of the central issues to this whole story has been the intellectual laziness and obvious partisanship of the CBoC. Should we not hold ourselves to the same standards we hold them to? I’m not concerned so much with Dr. Geist. The world moves at a pretty fast pace these days, and it’s increasingly easy to jump the gun and report on an exciting development before everything has been completely checked out. After all, if this is true, then the CBoC plunges into a disastrous and deserved scandal and all the “three strikes and you’re out” evangelists are set back at least a few more years. And Dr. Geist may very well have contacted Curtis Cook and confirmed his post. I hope to see something like that in the near future. What worries me is that so few seem to be asking for that confirmation before reporting on this story. Do those of us who want a less heavy handed approach to copyright, like the people we oppose, not need any evidence to back up our claims? I haven’t found a single reference out there to this story that doesn’t reference the comment on Dr. Geist’s blog and this blog post as its sole source, but that doesn’t seem to be making anyone less eager to spread it. That’s kind of scary. Not needing evidence leads us towards fundamentalism, and we know better than to want a world like that.

What do you think? Does fact really matter this much these days? Am I pursuing a quixotic ideal? Am I missing something in this article that answers my questions? And has anyone come up with anything to corroborate the claims? I hope they do. It would be nice to shove it in the face of the “three strikes you’re out” folks. But I’d rather just have the truth, no matter what it is.