this is a blog entry by matthew good. stop reading now if you dont like him.
source
Over the last few weeks I’ve received numerous emails about a post made on New Years Day over at
BoingBoing about Ontario MP Sam Bulte, her relationship with the Canadian entertainment industry, and her proposed Canadian copyright legislation. Just so that everyone’s up to speed, here’s what BoingBoing’s
Cory Doctorow had to say…
Quote:
“Sam Bulte, the Canadian Liberal Party MP for Parkdale/High Park is having her election campaign bankrolled by the Canadian entertainment cartel. Bulte previously authored a one-sided report proposing crazy, US-style copyright laws for Canada, and now her pals from the Canadian Recording Industry Association are throwing her a $250/plate fundraiser — just the kind of high-ticket event that the poor artists Bulte claims to represent can’t afford to attend. Instead, expect this dinner to be stacked with industry fat-cats.
Bulte fired off an angry letter to the Toronto Star in 2004 when columnist Michael Geist outed her for leading the effort to rewrite Canadian copyright laws after collecting big donations from the entertainment industry. Here she is again, though: hoovering up giant corporate bucks while campaigning to deliver just the kind of copyright laws that will make crooks out of ordinary Canadians and line the pockets of massive, US-owned entertainment companies.
Probably the best source for information about this is Ottawa University law professor
Michael Geist, who has been following this and butting heads with Bulte. Geist points out that…
Quote:
“In May 2004, the Canadian Heritage Standing Committee released what is now widely described as the “Bulte Report”, a remarkably one-sided report on the future of Canadian copyright. The report addressed WIPO, ISP, and education issues, siding in every instance with the views of rights holders such as the Canadian Recording Industry Association. Soon after I wrote a column about the report, arguing that there was an unfortunate perception of bias given the fact that Ms. Bulte had accepted campaign contributions from various rights holder organizations. I recommended that “parliamentarians involved in the copyright reform process should refuse all such contributions to ensure that the perception of absolute impartiality is preserved.” Ms. Bulte was unhappy with the article, complaining about “allegations that my work in Parliament has in any way been influenced by donations that I have received.”
Fast forward to the current election campaign and it is clear that Ms. Bulte remains closely aligned with those same rights holder organizations. Her website lists a number of campaign events, the most interesting of which is a $250.00 per person fundraiser on January 19th featuring Cowboy Junkies singer (and CRIA President Graham Henderson partner) Margo Timmins.
The sponsors of this event, to be held four days before the election?
-Doug Frith (President of Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association)
-Graham Henderson (CRIA President)
-Jackie Hushion (Executive Director of the Canadian Publishers Council)
-Danielle LaBoisserre (Executive Director of the Entertainment Software Alliance)
-Stephen Stohn (DeGrassi producer).
Within the boundaries of the Election Act, MPs are of course free to fundraise any way they like and individual Canadians are free to contribute to those same MPs. However, with the public’s cynicism about elected officials at an all-time high and Canadians increasingly frustrated by a copyright policy process that is seemingly solely about satisfying rights holder demands, is it possible to send a worse signal about the impartiality of the copyright reform process? At $250.00 a person, I have my doubts that many of the artists that Ms. Bulte claims to represent will be present. Instead, it will lobbyists and lobby groups, eagerly handing over their money with the expectation that the real value of the evening will come long after Margo Timmins has finished her set.
Now, I’m not going to turn this into a partisan issue. Nor do I really favour arguing the technicalities of copyright legislation. If you’re looking for insight I would suggest investigating
Michael Geist’s blog further. What I would like to do is address this issue from the standpoint of a Canadian musician with regards to someone like Sam Bulte claiming to represent our interests rather than those of the corporate executive.
The most important realization that any Canadian can make about this country’s music industry is that it is almost entirely beholden to foreign parent companies. Now, many of you might be labouring under the false assumption that the primary concern of Canada’s foremost corporate music giants is the promotion and support of domestic artists, but nothing could be further from the truth. Canadian companies exhaust the majority of their energies promoting large international acts, basically acting as little more than regional sales offices. Below those concerns is found whatever investment remains in Canadian music, an investment that over the last decade has rapidly declined. That’s not to say that all interest is gone, or that there aren’t a few good people left out there with their heads screwed on straight, just that their options are limited by those above them.
Take a look at those Canadian acts that are currently producing most of this country’s most creative and innovative music; they’re predominantly all on independent labels. And what of new Canadian artists on major record labels? Most of them are like I am now – boring and predictable. They will unwittingly entering into situations in which their desire to grow and experiment will be crushed not by drugs or alcohol, but by the business affairs department. A sad reality given the supposed spirit of this thing we like to call Rock & Roll.
I’ve been saying this for years – this country needs to worry about developing Canadian talent and should not have to check with New York or Los Angeles to okay cheques over 5,000 dollars. The demise of Canadian music rests in its loss of identity and the willingness of the Canadian music industry and the Canadian people to allow it to be silently assimilated once and for all into the corporate American musical landscape.
People have, for quite a few years now, asked me why I refuse to attend the Junos. The answer is rather simple. Because they’re not really about supporting or celebrating Canadian artists, they’re about supporting and celebrating an industry that doesn’t really have Canadian artistic interests at heart. They’re actually about celebrating an industry that has foreign shareholders interests at heart. I have yet to figure out what that has to do with supporting and helping develop Canadian talent, let alone why it warrants a television broadcast. But it most certainly speaks to our character – that we can’t find it within ourselves to fight for something uniquely ours, but rather are content to settle for a second rate version of someone else’s bad idea.
The next time you walk past a live music venue, scoff at the bill, and think that nothing good ever comes out of your town, you do your best to remember that that attitude is precisely what ensures that nothing ever does. So you might as well go in and see what’s happening. At this point, what do you really have to lose?
At the end of their day, the entertainment industry is in the business of making money, not particularly ensuring that Canadian artists are championed. It would be nice if they stopped abusing that particular platform. As for Bulte, I suggest she consider whose interests she’s actually representing.
