: The Economist, DVD Jon On Apple's DRM Stand


martman
Feb 9th, 2007, 12:42 AM
The Economist, DVD Jon On Apple's DRM Stand
Posted by kdawson on Thursday February 08, @08:35AM
from the yea-and-nay dept.
Music Encryption Media (Apple) Apple
We have two followups this morning to Tuesday's story on Steve Jobs's call to do away with DRM for music. The first is an editorial in The Economist sent in by reader redelm, who notes that as "arguably the world's leading business newspaper/magazine" that publication is in a position to influence legal and political decision-makers who may never have heard of DRM. The Economist says: "Mr Jobs's argument, in short, is transparently self-serving. It also happens to be right." Next, Whiney Mac Fanboy sends pointers to two blog entries by "DVD Jon" Johansen. In the first Johansen questions Jobs's misuse of statistics in attempting to prove that consumers aren't tied to iPods through ITMS: "Many iPod owners have never bought anything from the iTunes Store. Some have bought hundreds of songs. Some have bought thousands. At the 2004 Macworld Expo, Steve revealed that one customer had bought $29,500 worth of music." Johansen's second post questions Jobs's "DRM-free in a heartbeat" claim: "There are... many Indie artists who would love to sell DRM-free music on iTunes, but Apple will not allow them... It should not take Apple's iTunes team more than 2-3 days to implement a solution for not wrapping content with FairPlay when the content owner does not mandate DRM. This could be done in a completely transparent way and would not be confusing to the users."
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/07/02/08/1324229.shtml

This last argument is a very good one. Shame on Apple for this hypocrisy. It is about time Apple makes DRM free music available on iTunes instead of making up BS excuses.

jdurston
Feb 9th, 2007, 09:51 AM
good point, put some action behind those words. It would definitely put pressure on the bigger labels to have DRM free music co-exist with fairplay.

jhollington
Feb 9th, 2007, 09:59 AM
Firstly, we don't know that Apple isn't planning on doing this. However, at the same time the development effort required to accomplish this may not be a priority for Apple to accommodate just a few little independent artists.

The more cynical among us have been suggesting for years that Apple wants DRM on their content. While I can certainly see few disadvantages to Apple in doing this, the fact is that it's still ultimately the recording industry that has demanded this.

It may also be worth considering the fact that Apple might have a contractual obligation to the RIAA to maintain DRM on all content. While such a contract could probably be challenged, this would be something else that would not be worth Apple's effort to do.

Generally, whenever there's a new technology that has to do with media content, you can pretty much bank on the fact that somebody in the RIAA, MPAA or a related organization is going to do everything they can to shut it down rather than embracing it and revising their own business models to fit.

In fact, the only reason the RIAA ever bought into the iTunes Store concept in the first place is that the early versions were Mac only. This is one area in which the smaller Mac user base actually helped the cause, since Apple was able to basically suggest that problems with such an experiment would be unlikely to create a large impact on the recording industry.

Since then, of course, the iTunes Store has been one big balance of point and counterpoint, and Apple has been pretty much forced to play ball or risk losing their primary sources of content. For those who would say that Apple sells enough music to have leverage over the RIAA, one has to consider that the RIAA is still very skeptical of the electronic distribution model, and would probably have no issues with seeing the whole thing shut down (after all, the sales from iTunes are a drop in the pond compared to total CD sales, and in the end the RIAA doesn't care how they get your money, as long as they get it -- this is why refusing to buy from iTunes yet buying CDs instead has no impact as a form of protest against DRM).

At the end of the day, we're really just fortunate that effective methods of copy protection didn't exist in the mid-80s when the CD was released, otherwise even ripping your own CDs would not be an option.

MannyP Design
Feb 9th, 2007, 10:02 AM
Shame on Apple? Boo hoo. There are plenty of alternatives to iTunes--it's not the be all-end all. eMusic, for instance, sells DRM-free music.

jhollington
Feb 9th, 2007, 10:09 AM
Sure, if you're content to go with mostly non-mainstream artists.

I've discovered some great music on eMusic, but for mainstream stuff there are really no viable DRM-free legal alternatives other than buying CDs.

martman
Feb 9th, 2007, 10:15 AM
Shame on Apple? Boo hoo. There are plenty of alternatives to iTunes--it's not the be all-end all. eMusic, for instance, sells DRM-free music.
You are missing the point which is it is completely hypocritical on Job's part to say he would embrace DRM free music distribution when he does nothing but provide lip service.

martman
Feb 9th, 2007, 10:17 AM
It may also be worth considering the fact that Apple might have a contractual obligation to the RIAA to maintain DRM on all content. While such a contract could probably be challenged, this would be something else that would not be worth Apple's effort to do.

If this is so then why didn't he point this out in his essay.
When it comes to Apple, fan boys will justify anything.

jhollington
Feb 9th, 2007, 10:29 AM
I'm speculating here, not trying to justify anything that Apple may or may not be doing.

Frankly, I agree that they should make an effort to provide some DRM-free music on iTunes, and I fully agree with your comments about the hypocrisy of it (assuming that they're not actually working on it - although I'm not holding my breath).

However, they're also a business (with all of the non-consumer-friendly-things that implies), which means that despite what DVD Jon et al have to say, they would have to allocate financial resources to do this, and this is the part that may not be justifiable to their bottom line. It may only take DVD Jon two or three days to do this, but Apple is a large monolithic company that would have to create a whole project around this, including updates to the way that the iTunes back-end database works and probably a new version of iTunes to go with it (in essence, it would be a $700 hammer, since that's the way that any large organization works when it comes to development life-cycles and project management).

Again, I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't do this, but at the same time I believe in the principle that one should never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity (or corporate bureaucracy). I don't think Apple needs DRM on their music to maintain a stranglehold on iPod users, and I think anybody who thinks that they are doing this is being overly cynical.

For that matter, the AAC format itself is probably enough to make the average iPod user unlikely to switch away, since it's about as difficult to convert your AAC files as it is to strip the DRM off anyway if you know what you're doing.

Besides, ultimately his essay didn't say anything about small independent artists at all - it was a call for the big labels to drop DRM. The observation (or speculation) that there are already a "large number" of small independent artists came from elsewhere, and I'd personally suspect there are very few out there who have had the opportunity to list on the iTunes Store and not done so just because of the DRM. Further, even some of the more popular artists who oppose DRM are still stuck with it by their labels.

ehMax
Feb 9th, 2007, 10:37 AM
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/07/02/08/1324229.shtml

This last argument is a very good one. Shame on Apple for this hypocrisy. It is about time Apple makes DRM free music available on iTunes instead of making up BS excuses.

Apple's iTunes Store is about having a consistent user experience, and is one reason why it is a huge success. ALL tracks are 99. All tracks are the same format. If Apple were to start having some music DRM'd, and others not DRM'd, this just create unnecessary confusion for the customer. And contrary to what a lot of people think, most customers to the iTunes store are not people who hang out in discussion boards and read all the tech news site and even give a crap about DRM.

If Apple is going to not have DRM on their music, they would do it across the board on all tracks. They are not going to have some music in some format and other songs in a different format.

I'm also pretty sure that Apple has the most accurate data on their iPod / iTunes sales stats.

MannyP Design
Feb 9th, 2007, 10:42 AM
You are missing the point which is it is completely hypocritical on Job's part to say he would embrace DRM free music distribution when he does nothing but provide lip service.

How is it hypocritical? Jobs didn't have to say anything at all. There was no catalyst to trigger his letter so there is no reason for him to say anything. Why would the company with the highest market-share care if the music is DRM'd or not?

Do you know what agreements Apple has made with record companies?

Please... stop calling anyone with an opposing opinion a fanboy. It makes you look stupid. :rolleyes:

martman
Feb 9th, 2007, 10:48 AM
Apple's iTunes Store is about having a consistent user experience, and is one reason why it is a huge success. ALL tracks are 99. All tracks are the same format. If Apple were to start having some music DRM'd, and others not DRM'd, this just create unnecessary confusion for the customer. And contrary to what a lot of people think, most customers to the iTunes store are not people who hang out in discussion boards and read all the tech news site and even give a crap about DRM.

If Apple is going to not have DRM on their music, they would do it across the board on all tracks. They are not going to have some music in some format and other songs in a different format.

I'm also pretty sure that Apple has the most accurate data on their iPod / iTunes sales stats.
This is simply not true Sarmite Bulte's defeat to Peggy Nash in Parkdale High Park during the last federal election CLEARLY shows that DRM and copyright issues are very important to Canadians.

http://www.straightgoods.ca/Election2006/ViewNews.cfm?Ref=76
After eight years, the voters of Parkdale-High Park turfed her out, looking instead to New Democrat Peggy Nash to represent them in Ottawa. And while it was a hard night for Liberals everywhere, Bulte's riding saw the biggest vote swing in Toronto 5722 votes, according to law professor (and blogger) Michael Geist.

Prof. Geist was watching the riding closely. As one of Canada's leading voices for limiting the reach of copyright restrictions (that is, allowing you to do more with everything from music CDs to movies), he blew the whistle on Bulte's cozy relationship with the media industry.

In May 2004, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Heritage chaired by Bulte released a report that represented a massive rights giveaway to giant media. Prof. Geist wrote a column at the time questioning Bulte's acceptance of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from organizations representing copyright holders. He suggested MPs should avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Furthermore: There is absolutely no reason that DRM free tracks have to look any different from DRM offerings on iTunes. The user experiance would be totally transparent. AAC is capable of not carrying DRM.

martman
Feb 9th, 2007, 10:52 AM
How is it hypocritical?

Do you know what agreements Apple has made with record companies?

Please... stop calling anyone with an opposing opinion a fanboy. It makes you look stupid. :rolleyes:
If you can't see it you are willfully blind. Everyone else who commented so far can see the hypocrisy even if you won't.

As far as I know you are the first person I've accused of being a fan boy but if you aren't the first it has been a long time so accusing me of calling anyone with an opposing viewpoint a fan boy is simply unfair even if you think it makes me look stupid.:rolleyes:

Pelao
Feb 9th, 2007, 11:08 AM
How is it hypocritical? Jobs didn't have to say anything at all. There was no catalyst to trigger his letter so there is no reason for him to say anything. Why would the company with the highest market-share care if the music is DRM'd or not?

Do you know what agreements Apple has made with record companies?

Please... stop calling anyone with an opposing opinion a fanboy. It makes you look stupid.
:clap:

Hey jhollington: a couple of good posts which saved me a lot of typing and expressed some key points way better than I would manage.

jhollington
Feb 9th, 2007, 11:09 AM
This is simply not true Sarmite Bulte's defeat to Peggy Nash in Parkdale High Park during the last federal election CLEARLY shows that DRM and copyright issues are very important to Canadians.
Actually, there are a couple of reasons that this is an unfair statement, the most obvious being the oversimplification of the election issues at hand. Even the entertainment issues at hand here had very little to do with DRM per se, and frankly had more to do with Bulte's relationshihp with the media industry and the fear or backroom deals and inappropriate politics. This was especially true in light of all of the leadership scandals that had occurred.

Even assuming there were no other issues (which there always are), to suggest that Bulte was not re-elected solely based on her support for DRM is preposterous.

In fact, beyond the Sony Rootkit debacle, little is mentioned about the issue of copyright restrictions even in the article you linked to, and the average person understood the Sony Rootkit issue to be a virus that Sony was distributing on their CDs, and had only the vaguest idea that it had anything to do with copy protection.

I'd be very interested in hearing if the majority of voters in Bulte's riding even know what DRM is. I'm pretty confident as to what the answer to that question would be. :)

(this doesn't mean that people shouldn't be more aware of these issues, but I think it's a safe bet to suggest that the majority aren't).

The truth is that Apple's implementation of DRM is done in such a way as to be largely unnoticeable to the average consumer - at least until they want to switch to a different device than an iPod. However, very few average consumers are actually doing this, because they are not technical folks who are impressed by spec sheets, and they have bought an iPod because it was cool and it did what they wanted it to do (the number of people still carrying around iPod minis is evidence of this).

If Apple wanted to leverage the DRM, there are many things they could have done to make the experience much more restrictive (a la most WMA-based music stores, in fact). The RIAA certainly wouldn't have opposed things like tighter CD burning restrictions and fewer authorized computers and devices.

Furthermore: There is absolutely no reason that DRM free tracks have to look any different from DRM offerings on iTunes. The user experiance would be totally transparent.AAC is capable of not carrying DRM.
Agreed up to a point, but consider the question of restrictions and how that affects the user experience in the long run. The tracks may not look different, but they'll act differently for those who want to exceed the restrictions. The result will be increased consumer confusion.

Consider that early in the iTunes Store's life, there were discussions on what the restrictions should be, and the fact is that not all of the labels agreed with the same numbers. However, Apple certainly didn't want to get into the position of saying that content from one label would be restricted to 5 computers, while content from another would be restricted to 3. Not only would that make Apple's life more difficult, but would create chaos for the end users, many of whom still don't understand what the restrictions are.

Many of the early WMA-based music stores made this mistake, and it was a royal pain because you often didn't know what you were getting when you downloaded a track, and in going through your music library you were constantly asking yourself the question as to whether a given track could be burned to CD once or three times, or whether a particular track could be transferred to only one player or more than one. Each track had it's own licensing profile, and it was nighmarish to figure out what you could do with them.

Now, I realize that DRM vs non-DRM is going to be less confusing than that, but it will still create confusion in the experience for the average end-user.

The fact is that Apple has never targeted the iPod or iTunes Store for technologically savvy consumers, but rather at the mass market of the average person who wants to buy a DAP and play a few tunes on it (you know, that person sitting next to you who paid $400 for an 80GB iPod so they could load two albums on it :) ). Their entire philosophy is based on this model of simplicity and things just working, and it's true that they are inclined to avoid any sweeping changes that complicates this model.

MannyP Design
Feb 9th, 2007, 11:11 AM
If you can't see it you are willfully blind. Everyone else who commented so far can see the hypocrisy even if you won't.

As far as I know you are the first person I've accused of being a fan boy but if you aren't the first it has been a long time so accusing me of calling anyone with an opposing viewpoint a fan boy is simply unfair even if you think it makes me look stupid.:rolleyes:

:yikes:

Seriously, whatever medication you're on, please stop. You've exceeded the recommended daily dosage.

martman
Feb 9th, 2007, 11:30 AM
Even assuming there were no other issues (which there always are), to suggest that Bulte was not re-elected solely based on her support for DRM is preposterous.


TO suggest I said DRM was the only issue is not correct. Obviously there were many issues but Bulte's stance on copyright was indeed very prominent in all candidates meetings marking an awakening of this issue in the public's mind.Yes the issue was mainly copyright reform but the connection between DRM and tightening copyright law should be obvious. However I just picked a quick article here is more on this:
http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/01/12/controversy-over-bulte-comments-at-all-candidates-debate/print/

I could post links about this all day from Eye, Now, ten billion different blogs, CBC, National post etc.

martman
Feb 9th, 2007, 11:31 AM
Seriously, whatever medication you're on, please stop. You've exceeded the recommended daily dosage.
That's nice, Fan Boy.:ptptptptp

MannyP Design
Feb 9th, 2007, 11:57 AM
That's nice, Fan Boy.:ptptptptp

Don't hurt yourself.

martman
Feb 9th, 2007, 12:04 PM
Don't worry, like you I wear a football helmet to protect myself.

Tiranis
Feb 9th, 2007, 01:09 PM
To all the nay-sayers, enjoy this: http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/08/559438-lies-drmed-lies-and-steve-jobs-interview-with-nettwerk-music-group

I'll make it short: the guy who wrote it actually did some investigating, he actually talked to one of the minor labels that sell their music un-DRMed on eMusic. Basically Apple has given everyone the same deal! This particular label signed it and never approached Apple about the fact they want their music to be without DRM... which means that Apple has never given them a firm NO on this matter.

I would recommend reading it though, because there's a lot more info there...

TrevX
Feb 9th, 2007, 01:44 PM
To all the nay-sayers, enjoy this: http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/08/559438-lies-drmed-lies-and-steve-jobs-interview-with-nettwerk-music-group

I'll make it short: the guy who wrote it actually did some investigating, he actually talked to one of the minor labels that sell their music un-DRMed on eMusic. Basically Apple has given everyone the same deal! This particular label signed it and never approached Apple about the fact they want their music to be without DRM... which means that Apple has never given them a firm NO on this matter.

I would recommend reading it though, because there's a lot more info there...
Very interesting read. Thanks for posting that. It kind of reaffirms what many (not all) have been saying...nobody knows anything except Apple and the big 4. We can speculate all we want about why Apple doesn't offer DRM-free music, but it will remain just that - speculation. Perhaps they are contractually not ALLOWED to offer DRM-free music on iTunes. Who knows? If the details of Apple's dealings with the "Big 4" are ever revealed then perhaps we will be in a better position to call Apple out on its (alleged) hypocrisy.

Trev

dona83
Feb 9th, 2007, 02:10 PM
What's all the hype with eMusic? Audio Lunchbox (www.audiolunchbox.com) is much better, all the music at eMusic but you can pick them a al carte unlike eMusic's subscription only format.

TheBat
Feb 9th, 2007, 03:14 PM
Yet another take (http://www.avrev.com/news/0207/08.appledrm.shtml)

martman
Feb 9th, 2007, 03:44 PM
To all the nay-sayers, enjoy this: http://brianford.newsvine.com/_news/2007/02/08/559438-lies-drmed-lies-and-steve-jobs-interview-with-nettwerk-music-group

I'll make it short: the guy who wrote it actually did some investigating, he actually talked to one of the minor labels that sell their music un-DRMed on eMusic. Basically Apple has given everyone the same deal! This particular label signed it and never approached Apple about the fact they want their music to be without DRM... which means that Apple has never given them a firm NO on this matter.

I would recommend reading it though, because there's a lot more info there...
Thanks for the link. It is interesting reading. Unfortunately there is so much speculation in this article and it only relates to one company that all that is really added is more speculation. If Job's contract with big 4 restricts Apple from offering DRM-free music he should have said so rather than ignoring this very important fact in the argument. Otherwise he still comes off as a hypocrite.

GratuitousApplesauce
Feb 9th, 2007, 05:47 PM
I like the take in the Economist article - that while Jobs motivations are probably self-serving, he is also right.

I noticed today that EMI has come out saying they are open to DRM-free music. Also interesting is that EMI is the distributor for Apple Corps (I think?). I'm speculating that Jobs sudden initiative may have something to do with the likely upcoming release of Beatles music on iTMS. Some are saying that even Bill Gates has hinted that DRM isn't working and speculating that Jobs is just heading to be out in front of where things are likely to go anyway. That's usually where Jobs likes to be.

Other than the coup of having the Beatles on iTMS and available on a special edition iPod, at the same time announcing they will be leaving DRM behind certainly wouldn't hurt Apple's public relations and image.

I personally haven't dealt with DRM'ed music except once where I was trying to help someone copy their iTunes music to another account on a second computer and it was a bit of a pain. Myself, I've only ever bought one song from iTMS Canada, which I inadvertently deleted anyway. D'oh! I've now ripped almost all of my own CD's into iTunes and I don't own an iPod.

GratuitousApplesauce
Feb 10th, 2007, 03:09 PM
[update Feb 10th] It seems like there are some pretty strong rumours (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/02/10/emi_in_talks_to_sell_unprotected_mp3s.html) out there, that EMI is going to to drop DRM.

Pelao
Feb 10th, 2007, 03:29 PM
[update Feb 10th] It seems like there are some pretty strong rumours out there, that EMI is going to to drop DRM.

https://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=49537 :D

GratuitousApplesauce
Feb 10th, 2007, 07:19 PM
Yeah, I didn't look at the other threads in the forum.

It seems that it almost a certainty then that Jobs was aware of this initiative by EMI before he put out his manifesto. I think DRM will eventually get dropped, at least the way it's done now, because there will now be a bigger push for interoperability. People want it, as Jobs says and many others too, it doesn't work, so it will probably go.

kps
Feb 10th, 2007, 09:15 PM
This is simply not true Sarmite Bulte's defeat to Peggy Nash in Parkdale High Park during the last federal election CLEARLY shows that DRM and copyright issues are very important to Canadians.


LOL! That is the funniest thing I've ever read. I live in the riding and most of my neighbours couldn't give a rat's a$$ about DRM, copyright, etc. as an issue in an election.

I voted for Nash because I wanted the Libs out...and so did most of my neighbours.

In this riding Cons stand no chance of winning.

martman
Feb 11th, 2007, 02:15 AM
LOL! That is the funniest thing I've ever read. I live in the riding and most of my neighbours couldn't give a rat's a$$ about DRM, copyright, etc. as an issue in an election.

I voted for Nash because I wanted the Libs out...and so did most of my neighbours.

In this riding Cons stand no chance of winning.
Funny I live here too and it was all the talk. I'm not sure what planet you were on but here:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_bulte_fundraiser_060105/20060105/?hub=SpecialEvent7&subhub=PrintStory
from Macleans:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cAgenb1wMHcJ:www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp%3Fcontent%3D20060123_120006_120006+bul te+all+candidates+meetings&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060119.wfunds0119/BNPrint/specialDecision2006/
http://www.copyrightwatch.ca/?feed=rss2&p=23
http://www.straightgoods.ca/Election2006/ViewNews.cfm?Ref=76
http://www.byte.org/blog/_archives/2006/1/14/1675563.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1084&Itemid=89&nsub=
http://www3.sympatico.ca/spiderlilly/parkdaleforum/feature.html
http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/149779.php
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/12/hollywoods_mp_denoun.html
http://www.falsepositives.com/index.php/2006/01/17/election-night-in-canada-celebrating-copyright-bulte/
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:uIf7pl6xCKsJ:evans.blogware.com/bulte.doc+bulte+all+candidates+meetings&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
http://www.onlinerights.ca/learn/copyright/money_in_politics_conflicts_fo/
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1072
http://p2pnet.net/story/7598?PHPSESSID=01b0243d6bf46ccbc18385115a4876ac
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003251.html
http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/01/12/controversy-over-bulte-comments-at-all-candidates-debate/
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004319.php
http://democraticspace.com/blog/predictions/ontario/parkdale-high-park/
http://www.shakethepillars.com/?m=200602
http://northworthy.blogspot.com/2006/01/blogs-dont-get-credit-they-deserve.html
http://www.tabaret.uottawa.ca/article_e_299.html
http://evans.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/23/1719872.html
http://parkdaleforum.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_parkdaleforum_archive.html
http://www.kinnon.tv/2006/01/sam_bulte_liber.html
http://www.netribution.co.uk/2/content/view/39/182/
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/ridingtalk/2005/11/175.html
http://journalism.wordpress.com/ <--- second story
http://rae.tnir.org/archives/category/politics/


Anyone else want to tell me that this was not an issue? that no one noticed? that Canadians don't care about copyright issues?

This is getting old. It was and still is an issue.


Please don't make me pull out more links because I could do this all night there is pages and pages of this stuff.

Pelao
Feb 11th, 2007, 10:39 AM
Anyone else want to tell me that this was not an issue? that no one noticed? that Canadians don't care about copyright issues?

This is getting old. It was and still is an issue.


Please don't make me pull out more links because I could do this all night there is pages and pages of this stuff.

What you have been able to do is illustrate lots of press.

What kps pointed out was that many do not feel DRM etc was an issue in the election. Press does not always (in fact rarely ?) reflects public concern, but more often seeks to drive it. All sides of the DRM debate seeded lots of releases to the press to make their points. The recording companies are big advertisers and promoters so their releases will get published. At the same time, they are juicy targets for editorial writers and pundits. It all feeds merrily on itself.

A fair amount of public interest sure, but an election issue....hmmm. It would take more than press releases and coverage to prove something was an election issue for the majority of voters. It would take some polling evidence and other facors to prove that an issue was significant or major.

Many other things were covered in the press at the same time, but that does not mean they were election issues. It does not mean they were not either, and many thousands of individual voters spread across Canada may have held these issues as being important in their decision making - but that does not prove that these issues were significant in the final results.

Personally I think Copyright and patent laws are overdue a long hard look, and failing to do so will have some economic impact. But I suspect neither have been or will be election issues.

kps
Feb 11th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Funny I live here too and it was all the talk. I'm not sure what planet you were on but here:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_bulte_fundraiser_060105/20060105/?hub=SpecialEvent7&subhub=PrintStory
from Macleans:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cAgenb1wMHcJ:www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp%3Fcontent%3D20060123_120006_120006+bul te+all+candidates+meetings&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060119.wfunds0119/BNPrint/specialDecision2006/
http://www.copyrightwatch.ca/?feed=rss2&p=23
http://www.straightgoods.ca/Election2006/ViewNews.cfm?Ref=76
http://www.byte.org/blog/_archives/2006/1/14/1675563.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1084&Itemid=89&nsub=
http://www3.sympatico.ca/spiderlilly/parkdaleforum/feature.html
http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/149779.php
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/12/hollywoods_mp_denoun.html
http://www.falsepositives.com/index.php/2006/01/17/election-night-in-canada-celebrating-copyright-bulte/
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:uIf7pl6xCKsJ:evans.blogware.com/bulte.doc+bulte+all+candidates+meetings&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
http://www.onlinerights.ca/learn/copyright/money_in_politics_conflicts_fo/
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1072
http://p2pnet.net/story/7598?PHPSESSID=01b0243d6bf46ccbc18385115a4876ac
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003251.html
http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/01/12/controversy-over-bulte-comments-at-all-candidates-debate/
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004319.php
http://democraticspace.com/blog/predictions/ontario/parkdale-high-park/
http://www.shakethepillars.com/?m=200602
http://northworthy.blogspot.com/2006/01/blogs-dont-get-credit-they-deserve.html
http://www.tabaret.uottawa.ca/article_e_299.html
http://evans.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/23/1719872.html
http://parkdaleforum.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_parkdaleforum_archive.html
http://www.kinnon.tv/2006/01/sam_bulte_liber.html
http://www.netribution.co.uk/2/content/view/39/182/
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/ridingtalk/2005/11/175.html
http://journalism.wordpress.com/ <--- second story
http://rae.tnir.org/archives/category/politics/


Anyone else want to tell me that this was not an issue? that no one noticed? that Canadians don't care about copyright issues?

This is getting old. It was and still is an issue.


Please don't make me pull out more links because I could do this all night there is pages and pages of this stuff.

I think it's you who needs to re-evaluate your galactic location...

All your links point to one source...Michael Geist.

Case closed!

kps
Feb 11th, 2007, 02:12 PM
What you have been able to do is illustrate lots of press.

What kps pointed out was that many do not feel DRM etc was an issue in the election. Press does not always (in fact rarely ?) reflects public concern, but more often seeks to drive it. All sides of the DRM debate seeded lots of releases to the press to make their points. The recording companies are big advertisers and promoters so their releases will get published. At the same time, they are juicy targets for editorial writers and pundits. It all feeds merrily on itself.

[snip].

Precisely! Well put.

martman
Feb 11th, 2007, 02:46 PM
This is my last post on this. Many of these bloggers were from this riding. I worked in the election I spoke to many people about this (brought up by them). It was an issue it was noticed. The press was writing about the all candidates meetings. After the election much press coverage about Bulte's loss covered this issue too. To say "it wasn't an issue because me and some of my neighbors didn't think it was an issue", is like saying "Harper can't win an election because Canadians don't like him. How do I know? No one I know likes him."
I've actually seen this argument. I'll add that you do not get this much blog buzz on a non issue.

Of course issues brought up at all Candidates meetings are clear indicators of a local citizens' NON concern.

I personally phoned hundreds of people in Parkdale-High Park during that election and this issue was frequently brought up by those I spoke to. I think my experiance as a phone canvaser is more relevant than yours talking to a couple of neighbours.

As an aside this is a complete mischaracterization :
"All your links point to one source...Michael Geist."
They may all mention him but that doesn't mean anything. He was the person who first publicized this. Being a respected academic in intellectual property law made him a poster boy. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just means they guy was incredibly articulate.

If you still think I'm full of it there will never be any convincing you.
I've admitted being mistaken in these forums before. This will not be one of those times. I suspect you are just one of those people who will never admit they are wrong. So be it.

PS I look forward to having you hang up on me during the next election in Parkdale - High Park. ;)

Tiranis
Feb 11th, 2007, 03:18 PM
I suspect you are just one of those people who will never admit they are wrong. So be it.

It's kind of ironic that this was said by someone who couldn't admit he was wrong on the previous page. Pffft... :lmao:

martman
Feb 11th, 2007, 03:38 PM
It's kind of ironic that this was said by someone who couldn't admit he was wrong on the previous page. Pffft... :lmao:
Which post are you refering to the first or the second?
If you mean the second I won't answer to your comment as I promised not to say more on the Bulte subj. after my last post.

kps
Feb 11th, 2007, 03:57 PM
I personally phoned hundreds of people in Parkdale-High Park during that election and this issue was frequently brought up by those I spoke to. I think my experiance as a phone canvaser is more relevant than yours talking to a couple of neighbours.

Oh I'm sure it is, Mr. phone canvaser, sir.


If you still think I'm full of it there will never be any convincing you.
I've admitted being mistaken in these forums before. This will not be one of those times. I suspect you are just one of those people who will never admit they are wrong. So be it.

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong...when there is a wrong to admit to. I lived here all my life, so I think I have a good pulse on the area even though there were many changes over the years.

The one thing you'll never convince me of, is that Bulte's loss is due to resident's concerned over copyright legislation. Sure, it may have been an issue to the likes of you (and three others), but Bulte lost for many other reasons.

PS I look forward to having you hang up on me during the next election in Parkdale - High Park. ;)

So am I....;)

martman
Feb 11th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Oh I'm sure it is, Mr. phone canvaser, sir.



I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong...when there is a wrong to admit to. I lived here all my life, so I think I have a good pulse on the area even though there were many changes over the years.

The one thing you'll never convince me of, is that Bulte's loss is due to resident's concerned over copyright legislation. Sure, it may have been an issue to the likes of you (and three others), but Bulte lost for many other reasons.



So am I....;)
I sorry I have to break my promise but your response was so lame.
I never said Bulte lost because of this issue I said it was an issue that contributed. This continual mischaracterization by you and others who have responded to this thread is dishonest and nothing more.


TO suggest I said DRM was the only issue is not correct. Obviously there were many issues but Bulte's stance on copyright was indeed very prominent in all candidates meetings marking an awakening of this issue in the public's mind.

Also me and thee others wrote all those blogs and all the comments to the articles in them. Not! I don't mind criticisms but you are being completely dishonest. Why don't you try reading some of the links? Oh right you don't want to learn the truth and are only intersted in putting words in my mouth.

kps
Feb 11th, 2007, 07:43 PM
This is simply not true Sarmite Bulte's defeat to Peggy Nash in Parkdale High Park during the last federal election CLEARLY shows that DRM and copyright issues are very important to Canadians.


Perhaps I've taken an issue with your own "lame" way you presented your original argument?

Clearly... my a$$, Mr. expert phone canvaser.

martman
Feb 11th, 2007, 07:50 PM
Perhaps I've taken an issue with your own "lame" way you presented your original argument?

Clearly... my a$$, Mr. expert phone canvaser.
Please show me where in that quote I say that this issue is what defeated Bulte Mr. pulse of the riding.:ptptptptp
It is nice to see you are incapable of reading post #16 on page 2. Nowhere do I say this issue defeated Bulte. You are being dishonest and continuing to put words in my mouth. Stop it.

kps
Feb 11th, 2007, 09:45 PM
You CLEARLY implied it, Mr. phone canvaser.

Get this...Bulte lost because she was a corrupt liberal, not because of where the corruption took place, you dig? It could have been mining interests, forestry interests, whatever interests.

Okay, I'll stop now.:baby:

martman
Feb 11th, 2007, 09:56 PM
I clearly did not. You clearly insist on putting words in my mouth. You make me sick. Just because you are too ignorant to read is no reason to keep hounding me. WTF is your problem?
I again point you to post #16. Your assumption is just that and considering post #16 it is a **** poor one. You insistence on telling me what I mean is obnoxious. Your refusal to take what I posted in post #16 at face value ignorant.