Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text

Blog Archive

PrevPrevMay 2012NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031

Copyright Holders Receive 'Not One Cent' In 11 Years

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Friday January 06, 2012
The Bahamas Tribune reports that the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, established 11 years ago, has never paid anything to copyright holders.
Comments (8)add comment

Bob said:

...
Why did you omit the explanation, which is that this is because of a regulatory failure? The implication is that the collecting agency is at fault, which is not the case
January 06, 2012

Degen said:

...
Standard operating procedure. Why provide actual context when misdirection and innuendo are so much more effective? Where statistical cherry-picking isn't enough, we get fake math (1300% increase!).

This is the state of scholarship in Canada right now? What an international embarrassment.

January 06, 2012

Joe said:

@Degen
Funny you should call someone out for misdirection with such a childish ad hominem attack.
January 06, 2012

Darryl said:

...
I do believe the the 1300% figure is accurate and relates Degen's use of hyperbole in his arguments.
January 06, 2012

Ki said:

@Bob
Because ultimately that's not overly important. For whatever reason, it failed. If you want to know more, you can read more, that's the point of the hyperlink. And ultimately, this is not a blog post but a "Hey, you should read this!". But hey, let's be like Degan and pretend it's a vast conspiracy.
January 06, 2012

end user said:

...
>Degen said:
...
Standard operating procedure.

Ahh Degan's standard operating procedure is to come out of the wood work and shoot first into the crowd then hide.
January 07, 2012

Anon-K said:

@Darryl
The 1300% figure is accurate, within what it is intended to represent. From Degen's past postings, and my own view on it, is that the 1300% figure is often placed out of context here, or given in a misleading manner.

The 1300% represents the increase on a PORTION of the copying levy as proposed by the collective. What is normally failed to be mentioned here is that this represents a smallish component of the overall per-student levy, and in fact the proposal also called to drop certain portions of the levy.

Subsequent posting by Dr Geist showed the overall expected impact to be not 1300% but ~450%. To put it into simple terms, if the levy was $10 per student (the actual number escapes me right now), to claim a 1300% increase would take it to either $130 or $140 (depending on if it represents the increase or the new fee). However the experience with the university cited meant that the fee went from $10 to $45.40.

So, while 1300% is technically correct, within the context given it misleads the reader.
January 10, 2012

Darryl said:

...
Thanks Anon-K. Your right, and your post will help give background for anyone else reading this blog entry. However, my explanation was funnier while being no less accurate.

:)
January 10, 2012

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: