Copyright Holders Receive ‘Not One Cent’ In 11 Years
8 Comments
Recent Posts
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots 
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests 
Make It Make Sense: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Plan 
Why Social Media and AI Chatbot Bans for Kids Are Bad Policy: Making the Case at the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Tech Committee
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
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.
@Degen
Funny you should call someone out for misdirection with such a childish ad hominem attack.
I do believe the the 1300% figure is accurate and relates Degen’s use of hyperbole in his arguments.
@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.
>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.
@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.
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.
🙂