Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Conference Board Admits Plagiarism, Pulls Copyright Report

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the look-forward-eagerly-to-future-reports dept.

The Internet 60

An anonymous reader writes "The Conference Board of Canada has withdrawn all three reports on intellectual property after allegations this week by Michael Geist of plagiarism. The organization now admits that its report on copyright was plagiarized from US copyright lobby groups."

cancel ×

60 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hyperbole time (1)

tsstahl (812393) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126801)

I guess they will pull it just long enough for a period of rewording and concept massaging.

LMAO (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126835)

First post--

And pure irony on the part of the article!

Re:LMAO (4, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126977)

And pure irony on the part of the article!

I, for one, will mention this incident whenever the topic moves to copyright infringement. They lost the moral high ground too, now.

Re:LMAO (3, Interesting)

Faylone (880739) | more than 5 years ago | (#28129101)

It's not the first time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Copyright [wikipedia.org]

Re:LMAO (4, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28129247)

It's not the first time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Copyright [wikipedia.org]

I love the double standard: when we do it, we're filthy thieving pirates, if they do it, it's "just an oversight".

Re:LMAO (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135659)

Lost the moral high ground? Since when did we assume that the lobbyists intentions were anything other than purely and exclusively financial? There's no question of morality in this, the only person who gives a shit about a piece of "intellectual property" is the author himself. The others, publishers, producers, labels etc. are only using "moral" or "ethics" or "fairness" in a strictly rhetorical sense for one simple reason -- M - O - N - E - Y.

Re:LMAO (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135689)

You are trolling. The opposite of "honest" is not "for-profit". It's "dishonest".

Internal Review FTW!!! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126853)

Had these reports been subject to "Internal Review", they never would have been released. What they really meant to say was: "We look like money grabbing hypocritical lobby group puppets and need to do some damage control before our reputation is permanently scarred." Yeah... thats what they *really* meant to say. I work at a company where all externally released documents are subject to internal review. That means that before the document can be released, at least 2 other people are required to review the document and sign off on it before it is released. The author and reviewers names are on the cover, and their signatures are captured and stored in a tracking system to show that they approved the documents. *Thats* an internal review process. To say that the Conf. Board of Canada did an internal review? Thats utterly laughable.

Good work Mr. Geist for spotting this and stepping on it very early.

Re:Internal Review FTW!!! (1)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28133681)

Yeah, my question is why they don't have the smarts to do what every college student has been doing for years. Translate what you want to copy into another language in Babblefish, translate it back into English, correct the grammar and use the time you would of taken on writing that paper smoking more pot.

Re:Internal Review FTW!!! (1)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 5 years ago | (#28139333)

Good luck with that.

Original English Text:
The Stranger (1942), by Albert Camus, is one of the most famous French novels of the twentieth century and is among the most notable literary expositions of the absurdity of human existence in an indifferent universe. Philosophically, it is an existential novel, despite Camus not considering himself an existentialist.

Translated to French:
L'étranger (1942), par Albert Camus, est l'un des romans franÃais les plus célÃbres du 20Ãme siÃcle et est parmi les expositions littéraires les plus notables de l'absurdité de l'existence humaine dans un univers indifférent. Philosophiquement, c'est un roman existentiel, en dépit de Camus ne se considérant pas un existentialiste.

Translated back to English:
The foreigner (1942), by Albert Camus, is one of the French novels most famous of the 20th century and is among the literary exposures most notable of the nonsense of the human existence in an indifferent universe. Philosophically, it is an existential novel, in spite the Pug one not being considered existentialist.

Translated to German:
Der AuslÃnder (1942), durch Albert Camus, ist einer der franzÃsischen Romane, die vom 20. Jahrhundert am berühmtesten sind und gehÃrt zu den literarischen Berührungen, die vom Unsinn des menschlichen Bestehens in einem gleichgültigen Universum am bemerkenswertesten sind. Philosophisch ist es ein Existenzroman, in der Bosheit der Pug einer, der nicht als Existenzialisten gilt.

Translated back to English:
The foreigner (1942), by Albert Camus, is one the French novels, of 20. Most famous are belonged to century and to the literary contacts, which are most remarkable from the nonsense of the human existence in an indifferent universe. It is philosophical an existence novel, in which malice of the Pug of one, which not when Existenzialisten is valid.

Translated to Italian:
Lo straniero (1942), da Albert Camus, à uno i romanzi francesi, di 20. Il pià famoso sono appartenuti al secolo ed ai contatti letterari, che sono i pià notevoli dall'assurdità dell'esistenza umana in un universo indifferente. à filosofico un romanzo di esistenza, in cui malizia del Pug di uno, che non quando Existenzialisten à valido.

Translated back to English:
Alien (1942), from Albert Camus, is French novels, of 20. Most famous they are belonged to the century and the literary contacts, that they are most remarkable from the absurdity of the human existence in an indifferent universe. An existence novel is philosophical, in which malizia of the Pug of one, than not when Existenzialisten is valid.

Translated to Portuguese:
Estrangeiro (1942), de Albert Camus, é novelas francesas, de 20. O mais famoso são pertencidos ao século e os contatos literÃrios, de que são os mais notÃveis da absurdidade da existÃncia humana em um universo indiferente. Uma novela da existÃncia é filosÃfica, em que malizia do Pug de um, do que não quando Existenzialisten é vÃlido.

Translated back to English:
Foreigner (1942), of Albert Camus, is French novels, of 20. Most famous they are belonged to the literary century and contacts, of that they are most remarkable of the absurdidade of the human existence in an indifferent universe. A novel of the existence is philosophical, where malizia of the Pug of one, of what not when Existenzialisten is valid.

Translated to Spanish:
Foreigner (1942), de Albert Camus, es novelas francesas, de 20. El mÃs famoso se pertenecen al siglo literario y los contactos, de eso son las mÃs notables del absurdidade de la existencia humana en un universo indiferente. Està filosÃfica una novela de la existencia, donde malizia del barro amasado de uno, de lo que no cuando Existenzialisten es vÃlido.

Translated back to English:
Foreigner (1942), of Albert Camus, is French novels, of 20. Most famous the literary century and the contacts are independent to, of that are most remarkable of absurdidade of the human existence in an indifferent universe. A novel of the existence is philosophical, where malizia of the kneaded mud of one, than not when Existenzialisten is valid.

Lost in Translation [tashian.com]

Re:Internal Review FTW!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28142083)

There are older ones you can download that do a much poorer/better job as well as using multiple translating programs. We only figured this out when a student started handing in work that seemed eerily prescient of courses he would not take until graduate school and during the plagiarism hearing he showed us how he did it.

Re:Internal Review FTW!!! (1)

wastedlife (1319259) | more than 5 years ago | (#28169887)

Sorry, I wasn't dismissing the idea, it was more of a joke showing the wonders of Altavista Babelfish, that cannot even reverse its own translations properly. Anyway, it does seem to me that using these tools would create nearly as much, if not more, work than just paraphrasing the paper yourself.

Irony thy name is The Conference Board of Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28126899)

People who are meeting up to discuss piracy and theft are in fact stealing themselves.

Highly amusing.

Canada has a blacklist? (3, Informative)

Piata (927858) | more than 5 years ago | (#28126935)

First I've heard of it. I've never had troubles accessing any site ever. This article seems a little bias when you consider how much more liberal Canadian laws are in the use of our internet and information technology in general. (i.e. we don't have a DMCA)

Re:Canada has a blacklist? (4, Informative)

nattt (568106) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127055)

But Canada does not have fair use, but instead fair dealing which is a lot less liberal than the USA's fair use.

Re:Canada has a blacklist? (5, Interesting)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28128031)

Yeah, but due to the law of unintended consequences, Canada has incredibly liberal copyright laws thanks to earlier lobbying efforts by the music and movie industries.

Re:Canada has a blacklist? (1)

nattt (568106) | more than 5 years ago | (#28145717)

Due to the record companies getting a levy on blank CDs, we have audio private copying, which indeed through the "law of unintended consequences" allows Canadians to make private copies of music, but that is a right that has been paid for.

Re:Canada has a blacklist? (2, Informative)

gordguide (307383) | more than 5 years ago | (#28132761)

" ... This article seems a little bias when you consider how much more liberal Canadian laws are ... i.e. we don't have a DMCA. ..."

Canada has both more and less restrictive copyright law than the US does; that it is "liberal" is simply spin by the usual suspects, which would come as no surprise to anyone following the modern copyright debate.

Regarding the DMCA, although it's somewhat strange to say "we don't have a [law enacted by a foreign government]" since sovereign nations always pass their own laws, virtually no two laws are identical between two nations (even basics like murder and theft legislation differs enough between any two given countries to be included there) and the US certainly never looks at Canadian legislation when crafting their own, I will accept your statement as if it were normal to have identical legislation, or for one country to copy another's laws verbatim.

The Copyright Act (Canada) makes it legal to create a backup of any software that you are otherwise legally entitled to own/use (or however you want to put it). That provision cannot be negated by a EULA, because illegal clauses in EULA cannot be enforced (in any nation), but does not affect the EULA otherwise, because any illegal clause does not invalidate any other otherwise legal provisions.

The DMCA (USA) would make certain backups illegal under all circumstances (although it would not affect every possible backup scenario).

The Copyright Act (Canada) makes it legal to create a personal copy of music from any source. Only the person who makes the copy can listen to it; it's illegal to lend it, sell it, play it in public or for an audience, or to make a copy for another person. The person who hopes to enjoy this exemption must make the copy himself, operate the equipment, software, etc personally. Artists are directly compensated by quarterly cash payments collected from sales of blank media and paid out based on radio airplay data.

Fair Use provisions (USA) allow you to make copies of music you otherwise have the right to play/use/etc. provided doing so would not violate the DMCA. Artists are not compensated for Fair Use copies. Other copies are prohibited.

The Copyright Act (Canada) makes the recording of any video content whatsoever illegal under all circumstances. Use of VCRs, DVRs to "time shift" TV shows, for example, is completely illegal in Canada, as is the copying of movies, TV shows, etc, regardless of whether you otherwise have the right to view such movies (ie own the DVD), etc.

Fair Use provisions (USA) for video content are similar to making music copies in the USA; allows for time shifting of TV shows, copying of movies that are not subject to the DMCA (video tapes), etc.

Canada (and virtually every nation on Earth) allow for "Fair Dealing" (which is not to be confused with "Fair Use", which exists only in the USA) which allows use of copyright material for bona fide news, research, citations, reviews, quotations, etc provided such use is brief, appropriate to the subject under examination, and does not constitute a significant portion of the work.

Quoting the entire article of a news story in a blog or forum, for example, would be illegal in Canada since it encompasses a significant portion of the work, and thus no Fair Dealing exemption could apply.

So, two examples where Canada is less restrictive (audio copying; software backups) and another where they are more restrictive (video copying) than US law.

Should the Private Copying provisions of the Copyright Act (Canada) be repealed, Canada would be more restrictive since there is no Fair Use exemption; all audio copying except for bona fide academic, etc use would be illegal, even if you owned the CD the copy was made from.

In other words, they are "different" and you can't take one provision out of context of the whole body of law in either country, or any country for that matter.

Conferance..? What's that? (2, Funny)

Captain Centropyge (1245886) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127051)

What's a "conferance" board? Spell-check, anyone..?

Re:Conferance..? What's that? (0, Offtopic)

Captain Centropyge (1245886) | more than 5 years ago | (#28128819)

Oh, sure... mod me a troll after they fix the spelling mistake in the title. *sigh*

What this doesn't say... (3, Informative)

revjtanton (1179893) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127111)

Is that the Canadian's downloaded the plagiarized reports via BitTorrent.

Tsk Tsk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127125)

This is honestly pathetic and i hope these asshats get more then a slap on the wrist for pulling U.S. propaganda into canada!

Do as I say..... (1, Insightful)

MacColossus (932054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127213)

Not as I do! ;-)

I've decided to post the entire report here. (1)

neo (4625) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127243)

Oh wait. I can't because of copyright. Man, this made so much more sense when there were printing presses.

not much to say (4, Funny)

hurfy (735314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127249)

I, for one, am speechless....maybe they should have been too.....

Re:not much to say (1)

whitefang1121 (1432411) | more than 5 years ago | (#28130417)

maybe they should have got the cocks out of their mouths!

I just feel sorry (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127275)

for the poor chickens that had to work overtime to lay all those eggs!

Too... much... irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127315)

And... too... obvious...!

Must... control... myself... ;-)

Seriously??? (4, Insightful)

TbB_thund3rp33l (1054546) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127385)

Seriously Conference Board of Canada, seriously? Did they think that people wouldn't check up on this??

Re:Seriously??? (2, Insightful)

joelmax (1445613) | more than 5 years ago | (#28128283)

They probably spent all the money on booze, pot, and hookers, didn't do the work, then, the night before, realized they needed to come up with something fast, and fired up BT :P

Personally, I think the Board should be taken to court over this, they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and while I don't agree with the copyright laws necessarily, I think that if they are there, they should be followed, especially by the people who support it. If the people who are supposed to be the supporters of it are going against what they say, how can anyone take them seriously (Well, not like we would anyways, but you know..)?

Yawn (0, Redundant)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127419)

We're all supposed to laugh at the "irony" of this because we all hate intellectual property and copyright, remember? Even though the GPL depends on it...

Re:Yawn (2, Insightful)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127603)

The GPL uses copyright only insofar as it subverts the copyright system against itself.

Re:Yawn (2, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28131849)

Not true at all. The GPL depends on copyright law to put severe restrictions on what you can do with GPL'd code. That is very different than what the situation would be if there was no copyright, i.e. "subverting" the copyright system.

Your description might be applicable to licenses like the BSD license, if you squint hard, and almost but not quite, the LGPL, but definitely not the GPL.

Re:Yawn (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#28132231)

But the BSD has no effect whatsoever on the copyright system, since all that's really required from someone who reuses code from a BSD project is a copy of the copyright notice inside the new source code. Meanwhile, reusing code from a GPL project means that you cannot publish your new program under traditional copyright protection.

I'm not saying the GPL is better -- after all, I published FlacSquisher [sourceforge.net] under the Apache license. If copyright somehow ceased to exist, the GPL wouldn't exist either, but only because proprietary code wouldn't have any copyright protections to prevent it from being released into the public domain.

Re:Yawn (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28132771)

Note that proprietary code almost NEVER relies on copyright. It simply isn't released. If copyright didn't exist, there would be little to no effect on commercial code at all.

The GPL attacks proprietary i.e. closed source software, i.e. trade secrets, using copyright. It has little to no effect on copyright itself, and certainly doesn't subvert it.

You just don't get it do you? (2, Insightful)

Romancer (19668) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127745)

There's a difference between hating what some people do with a concept and the actual concept itself.

The one on copyright and intellectual property is as divided a perspective as abortion.
At issue is the different groups interpretation of what they should be allowed to do with a commodity.
One sells it and thinks that they should be allowed to control how their product is used once sold.
The other thinks that it has purchased a product and since they now own it, they should be able to do anything with it that they want.

The first group puts in place digital rights management controls to stop the "illegal" copying of their product.
The second group gets mad since they aren't able to use the product as they want now and think it's ok to break the "protection" in order to get at the goods they paid for.

This leads to an easy market for file sharing to flourish. The first group having left a gaping hole in the market for high quality digital downloads at low prices from the savings on physical packaging, shipping, and floorspace in stores. Only now with itunes and the other online outlets catching up to the ease and variety of the online file sharing services, they missed the boat on delivering to the masses what they wanted and could have given but didn't.

So when an organization comes along promoting the ideas that people should respect the copyright and intellectual property of others and then finds themselves on the wrong end of that spectrum. Yes, we get to laugh at them. Just as we should laugh at the file sharing people they claim that they are not taking something that doesn't belong to them unless they have purchased the song legitimately. Fair is fair.

Re:Yawn (1)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28127763)

Even though the GPL depends on it...

And you really probably thought you got a gotcha! moment with this but you clearly don't understand that if the day comes where copyright no longer exists there would be no need for the GPL and as such it wouldn't matter that the GPL depends on copyright or not.

Re:Yawn (2, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#28128507)

Oh, but there's a flip side to not having copyright: Nothing stops anyone from taking what you've done, obfuscating it, encrypting it, tying it to a platform, and releasing it as if it were their own.

Oh, and they'll throw chairs at you if you try pointing out that they're doing it.

Re:Yawn (2, Informative)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28128685)

Oh, but there's a flip side to not having copyright: Nothing stops anyone from taking what you've done, obfuscating it, encrypting it,

One can already do that with GPL code now and make it hard for anyone to spot.

tying it to a platform,

What does copyright have to do with whether something is cross-platform or not?

and releasing it as if it were their own.

A number of people have done that anyway regardless of the existence of copyright or not. I expect many of them probably haven't and won't be noticed for doing so.

Re:Yawn (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#28144607)

tying it to a platform,

What does copyright have to do with whether something is cross-platform or not?

My entire post was pointing at a specific company's [microsoft.com] tactics.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28129463)

Wouldn't people be more likely to use the less stupid version? What's the incentive for creating something like that if there's no copyright law to legitimize it?

I guess the person gets gets credit for creating software that wasn't their creation, which seems like it would qualify as fraud even with no copyright laws, but credit doesn't pay the bills.

Is this bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127633)

Sounds like en excuse to shuffle their feet even longer on the issue. Really I could care less. Whoops just did.

As shameful as this is, it's good news.

Too bad they weren't the PirateBay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127651)

... if they were the pirate bay, they could call plagarism "sharing".

Re:Too bad they weren't the PirateBay (5, Informative)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28128269)

Well, no, they couldn't. Plagiarism is taking someone else's original work, either in whole or in part, and purporting that it is your own original work. A small example of this is using an attributed quote in a paper and not identifying it as a quote.

A large example is copying your entire paper from someone else, putting your name on it, and submitting it as yours.

Note that plagiarism with permission is still plagiarism. If your friend gives you his term paper from last year and you turn it in as yours, that's still plagiarism. If you do it without permission, it may also be a copyright violation.

This proves it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28127933)

Canada even pirates their own research! They must be stopped.

Crime and Punishment (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28128025)

Ok... the title above is obviously lifted, but it comes very handy and no longer under copyright protection, hopefully.

Let's see then the story here:

1) US copyright groups want to send people to jail in the US and around the world for downloading music, etc. for their own listening, viewing, etc. pleasure.

2) Conference Board of Canada was downloading documents from US copyright lobby groups, lifted them partially into a paid, for profit report to support the Canadian government to formulate laws, reflecting the interests of US copyright lobby groups.

3) How about feeding the US lobby groups recommended medicine to Conference Board of Canada as a test? Suing the hell out of the Conference Board of Canada? Demanding jail term for the head of the organization?

4) How about commissioning a report, on how US copyright lobby groups are influencing or directly rig the legislation process in other countries?

Conference Boards of Canada? (1)

Briareos (21163) | more than 5 years ago | (#28128063)

Admitting plagiarism?

Wasn't it exactly them who said that music had the right to children?

np: Autechre - Teartear (Amber)

Prestige (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28128425)

Previous story/ies decorated the Conference Board of Canada with "prestigious". In which circle does the prestige hold sway?

Letter to Conference Board of Canada (5, Insightful)

TropicalCoder (898500) | more than 5 years ago | (#28128427)

Under their retraction [conferenceboard.ca] they provide a contact link. I clicked on that link and gave them my thoughts as pasted below, and the acknowledgement promises a response. Will get back to you on upon their reply.

Dear Sir/Madam,

After almost selling out Canada to the USA via your plagiarized reports on intellectual property, I would strongly suggest that you contract Prof. Michael Geist or at least work closely with him in the next effort. Michael is well know, extremely knowledgeable on the subject, and trusted by a large number of Canadians. Only in this way will you regain the prestige you once had.

Sincerely,

...

Re:Letter to Conference Board of Canada (1)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 5 years ago | (#28129967)

That's an excellent letter to them.

I'm going send the same one word-for-word, I think it'll help get the point across!

Re:Letter to Conference Board of Canada (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 5 years ago | (#28131315)

Might want to proofread it first...
(hint: it's missing an 'N' somewhere) /grammar nazi

Re:Letter to Conference Board of Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28133459)

Might want to proofread it first...
(hint: it's missing an 'n' somewhere) /grammar nazi

There, I fixed that for you. /grammar nazi :)

RE: The Conference Board of Canada (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 5 years ago | (#28129033)

Dear Hulk,

            SMASH!

                      Regards,
                                  DarthVain

The Conference Board of Canada is a lobby group. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28131115)

This really shouldn't be much of a surprise. Check out the people involved in their conference on Intellectual Property they are having tomorrow in Toronto.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/conf/09-0120/brochure.aspx [conferenceboard.ca]

The president of the CRIA is the chair of the conference for crying out loud.

Where's the dismissal? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28132007)

The Conference Board of Canada is really just a private company that claims to be independent and not to represent industry interests (it says so right on their about us page). If they really mean that then they must also know that in academia plagiarism is a crime, and the punishment is dismissal and black listing. I look forward to hearing that the senior people responsible for this report have been fired.

Re:Where's the dismissal? (1)

TropicalCoder (898500) | more than 5 years ago | (#28132883)

This is really bad. In tomorrows conference [conferenceboard.ca] to be presented by the Conference Board of Canada, we see who two of their sponsors are:

"The Conference Board of Canada would like to acknowledge the contribution of the following individuals and organizations in the development of this conference:"

Graham Henderson
President
Canadian Recording
Industry Association

Wendy Noss
Executive Director
Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association

Tomorrows conference is all about Intellectual Property Rights. They state: "Effective IPR protection is essential to capitalize on innovation and encourage R&D investment. Canada needs world-class intellectual property policy and practices to compete globally. Policymakers and business leaders need to recognize IPR's crucial role in enabling businesses to capitalize on development investments and successfully commercialize their innovations."

The whole thing is obviously a massive lobbying effort on behalf of their sponsors (clients?). The Conference Board of Canada are clearly advocates of IP, and therefore have a strong conflict of interest when it comes to doing any "independent" research on this topic. In no way, shape. or form can they possibly be independend.

Re:Where's the dismissal? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28132981)

I love the spin. From their "About Us" page:

(2) Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests.

(3) Funded exclusively through the fees we charge for services to the private and public sectors.

(7) Independent from, but affiliated with, The Conference Board, Inc. of New York, which serves nearly 2,000 companies in 60 nations and has offices in Brussels and Hong Kong.

Grover says, which of these three does not belong? (hint: it's the first one)

Now that's irony (1)

TaeKwonDood (1171129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28132195)

They hate plagiarizers. But they are plagiarizers. And they hate irony!

Is it really plagiarism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28133997)

...if the author's of the original text have the same end-goal and don't care who copies their writing?

I'd be willing to bet that the author's of the U.S. report were secretly thrilled that the Canadian report used the same arguments in their recommendations to make the Canadian copyright laws tougher. Why would the American copyright lobby care what text the Canadians used so long as their ultimate goal of "harmonized" copyright laws are achieved?

OK, people should care, I know. Especially the Canadians whose rights were going to be affected by whe recommendations of these so-called "experts". Experts who were so lazy that they couldn't even try to paraphrase the American copyright cabal's talking points instead of copying them verbatim (or nearly so). (I mean, geez, folks. You just look like puppets. Have you no dignity? )

Creative Commons (1)

Bob Loblaw (545027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28139607)

The ironic thing about this is if they had used some sort of copyleft license on the original lobbying material, this kind of sharing wouldn't have been an issue :]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>