I find this opinion piece by pop-legal writer, Michael Geist in today's Toronto Star a bit disturbing. It advocates the reduction of concern for counterfeit goods in Canada. I think this, however, is the stat within the article that I am most surprised to read:
Closer scrutiny of the Pollara study also provides reason to doubt there is "cause for alarm," as the company says in its media release. While 28 per cent of Canadians acknowledged that they had knowingly purchased counterfeit goods (an additional 12 per cent learned of counterfeit purchases after the fact), the survey also found that the most commonly purchased counterfeit products were clothing, watches, sunglasses and handbags.Forty percent of Canadians are buying counterfeit goods? Don't you find that shockingly high given I thought 73% of Canadians only shop at Loblaws and Canadian Tire? Would any other 40% presence of illegality in a population's other activities be proper cause for a declaration such as in the opinion piece's headline "Piracy in Canada Noise Getting Tiresome"? Of course, we have to remember the agenda underlying this is that intellectual property rights in software and other digital assets are supposed to now be bad because they...protect the people...who create the intellectual property so advocating for the reduction of concern creates a general air of triviality. So we get the branding law as tiresome.
Which of your property or other legal right protections would you like to have labeled as tiresome?
Comments
WCG - March 8, 2007 12:11 PM
I object to the lengths that companies feel they are entitled to go to to stop piracy, including the invasion of the privacy of people who legitimately bought the product just in case they might be pir8tes, the DRM that makes legitimate owners unable to use their copies except under extremely certain circumstances. When, if I buy a couch and decide that after a few years I want a new couch and that I want to put my old couch in my cottage, and when as soon as my couch leaves my front door the couch-monitoring chip in the couch kicks in and decides I'm putting the couch to non-licensed uses and forces steel grates to come down over all the doors and windows in my house so that I can't get back in... that's going to far.
Alan - March 8, 2007 12:13 PM
When you buy a couch can you make another replica of it? Can you do that when the purchase terms of the couch say you can't?
Gordo - March 8, 2007 2:21 PM
Fairly specious argument, Alan. WCG want's to transfer the license of the couch, not make another one.
Alan - March 8, 2007 2:28 PM
Rather allegedly specious than wrong. The problem with the boo-hoo-ery is that it fails to take into account that you have not bought the digital product that you wish you could any more than you bought the copyright to the design of the sofa when you bought one instance of the sofa.
Gordo - March 8, 2007 3:06 PM
Not wrong, but also irrelevant. Until the content publishers (I draw a distinction between publishers and creators) stop treating their paying customers as defacto pirates the prophesy will continue to self-fulfil. You should see Geist's point today about treaty obligations. Tell me which one is more important.
Alan - March 8, 2007 3:34 PM
Seeing as there is no dent in the economy created by people protecting their interests, don't expect to see any slowing down of people protecting their interests. Where is the other article? What treaty? Who? When? Where?
Gordo - March 8, 2007 4:06 PM
Signing vs. Ratifying or Why super powers that live in glass houses should stop throwing stones.
Alan - March 8, 2007 4:19 PM
I think that is just silly and indicative of him moving into unfamiliar waters. Either stand by your decision or not but don't claim that we held crossed fingers behind our backs. It also does not make reference to international common law where if enough countries show sufficient levels of support then it become an international norm. That becomes expressed in Canada, for example, through the passing of laws in areas like of copyright that take on as much of the international norm as is locally palatable. An interesting parallel would be with how our Federal privacy law PIPEDA took on what was possible in international norms (sorta forced on the world by the EU) and rejected other aspects of it.<p>Right now the only partner he seems to have in the cause is the likes of China...except if it were, of course, Chinese interests being stolen.