Canada Needs To Outlaw Breaking Digital Locks Or Popcorn Vendors Will Starve
from the and-other-tales-of-bizarre-logic dept
You may recall a few years back the ridiculous claim (never retracted) from NBC Universal's General Counsel Rick Cotton that if the unauthorized sharing of movies wasn't stopped, it might mean tragedy for the American corn farmer:"In the absence of movie piracy, video retailers would sell and rent more titles. Movie theatres would sell more tickets and popcorn. Corn growers would earn greater profits and buy more farm equipment."Of course, this ignored some rather basic facts. First, corn remains a hugely successful crop for giant agribusiness, who are quite fat and happy thanks to massive government subsidies. Second, despite the rise in movie file sharing over the years, attendance at theaters continues to rise -- suggesting no decline in popcorn sales at theaters. Finally, even if people are file sharing at home, why wouldn't they eat popcorn while they watch those movies at home? Cotton never explains what it is about a downloaded film that makes it less likely to induce popcorn eating than a rented film. In fact, it seems that the corn business is pretty much immune to whatever is happening online.
However, it looks like the whole "corn-file sharing" mythical connection has made its way north in amusing and unhinged ways. Michael Geist points us to an editorial by musician Loreena McKennitt in support of the Canadian copyright reform bill, C-32, where she claims that it's necessary to help the poor popcorn vendors at concerts.
What does that have to do with the copyright bill? That's not at all clear. There's nothing in the copyright bill that will create more concerts that lead to more work for popcorn vendors (and, um, I've been to plenty of concerts -- and really don't recall "popcorn vendors" being at concerts). The link isn't just tenuous here, it's non-existent. McKennitt claims that the music tours are struggling these days, but that has nothing to do with copyright. Even if it's true that touring, as a whole, is struggling (and that's not what the evidence really shows), stricter copyright laws don't have any impact whatsoever. So why is she even bringing it up? She appears to be trying to get sympathy for something totally unconnected to the issue at hand.
In the opinion piece she also attacks "so-called users' rights," which shows you what she thinks of her fans. Geist responds adequately to that part of her opinion piece, which shows a stunning disregard for her own fans and the basic purpose of copyright law.
From there, McKennitt concludes:
Better protection of our intellectual property rights will help to change this. We can once again have a thriving creative environment where artists are paid and the communities where they live and work reap the rewards.Huh? She never actually explains how better protection of intellectual property rights gets more people to pay or helps anyone. Hell, if we're using McKennitt logic, what about the poor popcorn vendor who no longer can go to concerts because he now spends the money he would have used for concerts on CDs, since he can no longer download for free? Of course, as McKennitt knows (she runs her own record label), the money from music sales mostly goes to the labels, not the artists. So, in that scenario, the artist is making a lot less. Of course, there are lots of other factors, but remember, we're using McKennitt logic. In that world, it seems empirically proven that passing such a law that magically makes popcorn vendors buy CDs actually harms musicians. Uh oh...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, copyright, economics, loreena mckennitt, popcorn
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't help that some can't seem to think their way out of a wet paper bag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Basically, being an artist doesn't make you any more knowledgeable about copyright than any other people. However, because they are involved party, some how they think they understand more than everyone else and has a greater say in the matter.
Using a really bad analogy, just because you are a blueberry farmer doesn't mean you know more about commercial law than anyone else, or about the trucking network, or managing supermarkets, or economics. It just means you are good at farming blueberries. In order to know more about other stuff, you actually have to learn and study and research. Just reading some propaganda supplied from The Blueberry Council doesn't make you an "expert".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm reminded of a quote by Al Gore:
It’s hard to make someone believe something when their paycheque depends on them not believing it.
For these people, it's not a matter of accepting the reality that technology erodes markets, it's not about common sense or the infinite supply of digital goods.
They only care about protecting their own livelihood and their own personal interests; yet they are too short sighted or lazy to realize that they are heading down a dead-end street.
Rather than head back, hit reset and start again from zero, they are trying to extend that dead-end road just long enough for them to retire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its actually alot more complex than that. You have different groups heading down different paths RIAA, CRIA, etc have multiple levels. Administration, the types that bill hourly, etc. Most of the big Record Labels have three or four levels of management, legal teams, and the artists. Then throw in all the collection agencies.
With all the players pulling for their own interests. You have this huge dynamic system that is being pulled in many different directions. But the system continues to average out to the safest and worst possible path. The one of self protection, not change or evolution.
Lemmings come to mind ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.......................
It didnt work in the US what makes them think its going to work in Canada? Even as part of a larger "legal whole" to discourage people from copying movies and music. Threats, making examples, and jail time havent discouraged people in the past, what makes CRIA think Canada will be any different.
Also the girl is living in some sort of deluded state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: .......................
It has already been shown that it doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: .......................
Also, blank CDs were the devil in disguise where Canadians now pay a tax (whoops, levy!) that goes straight to starving Canadian musicians because you can copy CDs. This all before file sharing and bittorrent!
Thing here is that McKennitt and her ilk consider themselves entitled to protection and subsidy by the populace in general and the goverment is obliging them while obliging the **AAs and the ACTA crowd.
So you see the problem, as it is in the US and elsewhere is that some artists feel entitled and not that they might actually have to work for something.
She's just as deluded about that as she is about everything else unfortunately some people and newspapers take her seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My local venue charges 32.50 for a spot on the lawn for some shows, no chair provided. In addition, there is a 6.00 parking fee PER ticket, plus a convenience fee of 9.50 per ticket.
They very nearly add 50% to the cost of tickets!
Then on the 10.00 lawn seat days, they add about 150% of the cost with their fees.
That's why no one is going to concerts.
Well, that and the crappy music a lot of so called artists are putting out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
popcorn levy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor popcorn vendors???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Popcorn as scare good research
From the popcorn board:
http://www.popcorn.org/AboutUs/PopcornPoppinMonth/PopcornandtheMovies/tabid/120/Default.as px
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self Evident
Mike, come on. It's self evident. The downloaders all eat Doritos Extreme Nacho Cheese *obligatory air guitar* and Mountain Dew Code Red!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot, kettle, black.
This whole piece stinks of the hand of a parasite scumba....errr....industry attorney. This was written FOR her and she gave the rubber stamp. I'd bet a weeks salary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irrelevant
Her industry is suffering because it has failed (consistently) to adapt to every emergent consumer technology since the 1960s, not because of the advent of this new technology.
She wants us to feel sorry that she has to go tour because she will miss her kids? This is a sincere argument? Then get a desk job -- music is clearly not for you, Loreena. Lady Gaga doesn't seem to have a problem with people sharing her music.
I may complain when I have to go on endless business trips, but I sure do realize how important they can be to my future income and success of my business.
Loreena McKennitt's real problem is not that people are stealing her music and thus not buying her music -- it's that there are not enough people in the world that are interested in her music at all to support her in that profession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irrelevant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No concerts for you
I'll find somebody else to subsidize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Geist is most disappointing of all. His academic accomplishments notwithstanding, the mocking tone of his criticism of an individual's personal opinion lends credence to those who view academics as persons perched upon a pedestal from which they offer divine revelations to those unfortunate enough to not own a pedestal.
We are a nation of laws, and these laws include copyright and others relating to intangibles...like it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even so, and irony aside, Mr. Geist does come across as a "know it all" taking a cheap shot at the individual.
Whether you agree or disagree with her opinion, it is useful to bear in mind that it is her's personally, and she does not claim it to be anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How so? By accurately pointing out why and where she is wrong?
Furthermore, to your point of "we are a nation of laws," that is absolutely true. So why are you complaining about Geist's attempt to make sure those laws do, in fact, lead to the results promised?
I find it incredibly odd how various IP lawyers get so upset about Michael Geist pointing out -- accurately -- when copyright laws don't do what those very same lawyers promised they would do. It's really quite telling about their true motives, which have nothing to do with promoting progress or furthering culture and learning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know if odd is the right word. Sadly, I kind of expect it from quite a few of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Subsequently I happened to note a shift in some of your articles that "progress" and "learning" were now being viewed in a manner consistent with my original comment. Why? Because it seemed that one or more of the "with it" academics repeatedly cited here had made this very point.
As hard as it may be for you to accept, there are numerous persons within the legal profession who are students of history as it serves to place the law in context. Merely by way of just two examples, the original copyright law contained provisions having nothing to do with damages sufferred by one whose work was determined to have been infringed. This is important as we move forward on issues such as statutory damages and the reasons underlying same. Yet another pertains to the vocal rejection by so many that "sweat of the brow" has never been a consideration under copyright law. Of course, this declarative statement is to some degree contradicted by the Copyright Act of 1790 in its pronouncement of the various classes of works as to which copyright law applied. Again, this informs me that the issue associated with "sweat of the brow" is not as simplistic as some would have you believe.
The point to be made that "IP" lawyers are not necessarily mindless, self-interested promoters of "IP". I will admit that some certainly seem to fit this perception, but I also submit that within legal circles a vibrant discussion of opposing views takes place regularly, and to ignore this is to ignore the reality of what it is that lawyers actually do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ha! In other words, "I have no actual response, because there is none, so I'll just complain about the *way* in which you discuss the subject."
Seriously. There was a point when you used to contribute points of law and other things of value to this discussion. What happened?
Mr. Geist is most disappointing of all. His academic accomplishments notwithstanding, the mocking tone of his criticism of an individual's personal opinion lends credence to those who view academics as persons perched upon a pedestal from which they offer divine revelations to those unfortunate enough to not own a pedestal.
Geist's accurate portrayal of the situation is hardly "mocking."
We are a nation of laws, and these laws include copyright and others relating to intangibles...like it or not.
Ah, yes, the standard reply of someone with no argument at all. "The laws are the laws so shut up if you don't like it." Very convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is not that I do not have a contrary argument, but merely responding to the realization that it is fruitless to present it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is me asking what actual point you have. Maybe if you brought up something actually interesting and can't be immediately debunked, we won't reply with "robotic" posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My primary object of criticism, however, was Mr. Geist. He is a professional and in my view should hold himself to such a standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Victim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ 17.07 POPCORN is going to die
17.07 for a bag a popcorn and a watered down crap pop....
SCREW IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@20
waves at prince
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loreena
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you may not like their "poor corn farmer" argument (and by the way, canadians grow corn that isnt in your us based crop subsidy program). you may think it is on the level of "think of the children", but in the end, there are ripples and it goes through the entire economy, like it or not.
less staff at the theater, less concession products sold, so less ordered, which in turn lowers the business at the various junk food companies, who lower their staff, and so on. remarkable that you dont see that things are in fact somewhat connected at each step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People STILL go to theaters, myself included, even though theater quality vs. price steadily decreases every year.
Cool story: I went to the movies this last weekend, matinee price was $7.25/per ticket. I consider this to be high even though I know ticket prices in other parts of the country are much higher. A large soda was $5.50, medium popcorn was $6.50 (almost as much as the ticket itself!) And even though I consider all three of those price points to be way overpriced, my wife and I STILL went. Even though we hate people talking in the theater and playing with their cell phones, we STILL went.
Frankly, I think all theater-goers have something wrong with them, there is basically NO advantage to going to theaters anymore. Or maybe it's true what they say, that experiencing something with other people can increase the overall experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In a humorous vein, money does vanish from the economy. Yesterday I had a dollar. Last night the feds printed a bunch of bills. This morning I had only 90 cents. Looks to me like a dime up and left my wallet sometime while I was sleeping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Will it actually have that effect? Debatable. Is that the goal of the entertainment industry in pushing for such laws? That seems obvious. They're certainly not doing it to benefit artists or society.
In a humorous vein, money does vanish from the economy. Yesterday I had a dollar. Last night the feds printed a bunch of bills. This morning I had only 90 cents. Looks to me like a dime up and left my wallet sometime while I was sleeping.
Fun huh? Of course if you owe money on anything it's not all bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]