Slashdot Log In
Canada's Conference Board Found Plagiarizing Copyright Report
Posted by
timothy
on Tue May 26, 2009 10:06 AM
from the no-no-we-got-it-from-the-internet dept.
from the no-no-we-got-it-from-the-internet dept.
An anonymous reader writes "There is a storm
brewing in Canada as the prestigious Conference Board of Canada has
been caught
plagiarizing US copyright lobby group documents in a report on copyright
reform. The report was funded by the Canadian copyright lobby as
well as by the Ontario government. The Conference Board has acknowledged
some errors, but stands by the report, while the Ontario government admits
spending thousands of dollars and it now wants some answers."
Related Stories
Submission: Canada Conf Bd Found Plagiarizing Copyright Report by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Conference Board Admits Plagiarism, Pulls Copyright Report 60 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The Conference Board of Canada has withdrawn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."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Copyright Protection Business Model Expands, Plagiarizes Others 50 comments
Techdirt has an amusing story about the expanding adoption of the RIAA-style business model of collecting settlement money from threats of litigation based on copyright infringement claims. This story comes with an amusing twist with the two cited companies, Davenport Lyons and ACS, being clearly related and ACS publishing an article with clearly plagiarized selections. Anything to make a buck I guess. "TorrentFreak noticed that an article apparently published by ACS Law was actually plagiarized from a variety of different sources, basically cut and pasted together with no credit or citations given at all. Remarkably, in some cases, articles with the exact opposite view of ACS Law were copied with paragraphs that just had an added sentence to the end which completely contradicted what the original article said."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Turn it in! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Funny (Score:4, Informative)
That's redundant. Canadian's ARE American's. They just aren't US American's
Parent
Re:Funny (Score:5, Funny)
It's usually at this point that I like to remind Americans that Canada is the only country to succesfully attack the White House, and there are still scorch marks on the walls of that hallowed building to commemorate it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington [wikipedia.org]
So keep it up skippy. We're a feisty lot. Don't fall for that "Canada is a peace loving country" crap either. Hockey is our national sport.
Parent
Re:Funny (Score:5, Informative)
Hockey is our national sport.
Actually, it's Lacrosse.
Parent
Re:Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Hockey is our national sport.
Actually, it's Lacrosse.
Frankly, the point still stands. Perhaps even better.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Lets not forget the Blue Dot.... Apparently if Americans take an interest in a sport they must change the rules and add blue dots in order for it to be accepted.
American: "Man this is much easier to watch with a blue dot on the puck"
Canadian: "WTF is this FU@king blue dot, is this a joke. Saddle up the moose we are paying FOX a visit."
Re:Funny (Score:5, Funny)
True, but they felt so bad about it afterwords that they apologized a lot and finally burned down their own Parliament buildings [about.com] about a hundred years later.
That's one of your national sports [pch.gc.ca], and only for the past fifteen years. Before 1994 Canada's only national sport was Lacrosse, a game loosely based on an old First Nations game in which hundreds of participants would run around a field beating each other with long sticks while ignoring a small ball. Modern Ice Hockey is just a pale, polite shadow of Lacrosse.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Funny (Score:5, Informative)
Contrary to popular Canadian belief....no Canadians were ever involved in the attack on Washington. The members of that attack were all from the British Isles. Stop believing this crap, and we'll stop saying you eat whale blubber and live in igloos all year round.
Semantics. Obviously since Canada didn't exist as an independent country until 1867 and the White House burned in 1814, Canada as it is now could not have been involved.
However, if you think there were no people involved that were born on what is now Canadian soil, then you are mistaken. Yes, it was British soldiers simply because Upper and Lower Canada were British colonies, and not all were sent from Britain itself.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing strange about it. You can have my country as a "territory" when you pry it from my cold dead hands, because I will always be a Canadian.
I find it strange that any citizen with a choice chooses to live in a country that has a death penalty, a history of drafts in offensive war time, and a gun lobby that's so powerful it scares politicians.
If it were me, I'd have gotten the hell out as soon as Reagan was elected. (If Harper ever gets a majority up here I may well try to flee as well...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> 1. No, you can't deduct the mortgage interest
> on your home.
That wouldn't have anything to do with the massive housing crisis would it? Perhaps people overextending themselves on mortgages, drunk on cheap credit and tax deductible interest.
No...no...I suppose it wouldn't.
> No, you don't have the right to free speech
This is patently untrue. It's explicitly enshrined in the charter of rights and freedoms. Section 2b.
> bare arms
You have the right to bare arms, it's just not recommended in Decembe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Socialist pablum?" Dude, put the Fox News down before you hurt yourself.
Also, "bare arms" = short sleeves. I am exercising my right to bare arms at this very moment. You probably meant "bear arms", aka "carry arms". While it's not in the Canadian constitution, there are plenty of guns in Canada and you know it.
While we're at it, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms most certainly includes freedom of speech and religion. And I personally criticize the shit out of my municipal, provincial and federal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You sir, are a gigantic flaming asshole. We've lost over 100 soldiers in Afghanistan fighting a war that you started and left for us to clean up. So go fuck yourself sideways with a rake.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It does have - indirect - nutritional benefits. (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose as compared to glucose results in lower circulating insulin (pancreatic beta cell insulin release is controlled only by blood glucose levels) and leptin levels, and attenuation in the suppression of ghrelin postprandially.[53] These hormones are implicated in the control of appetite and satiety, and it is suspected that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[54] Excessive fructose consumption is also believed to contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.[55]
Also, consider this Newscientist article [newscientist.com], this one [newscientist.com], and if you want more, have a look at an article published in "The Journal of Clinical Investigation" about a link between HFCS and Diabetes in April.
Cory and Trevor (Score:5, Funny)
The Americans are going to sue (Score:4, Insightful)
Those quotes were stolen from our hardworking corporate lobbyists without acquiring the relevant content licenses and now it's time to exact a settlement from the Canadians.
Irony is alive and well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Irony is alive and well (Score:5, Insightful)
Lobbying used to be called bribery. It's time the people took control back of their own countries.
Time for world-wide civil disobedience.
Parent
What is the Conference Board of Canada? (Score:5, Informative)
As a Canadian, my first reaction to reading this story on /. was "what is the prestigious Conference Board of Canada?" I mean, I know what the "Ontario government" is and the "US copyright lobby" and "Canadian copyright lobby" are self-explanatory terms, but I'm not familiar with the Conference Board of Canada. When I read it here, I thought maybe it was an agency of the federal government.
Anyway, I little digging turns up that the Conference Board of Canada is basically a non-profit think-tank, that is funded on a per-service basis. So private groups and governments will pay it to research a topic and publish a paper on it. It also holds conferences and does research reports on its own. According to their official website, their areas of expertise are "running conferences", "conducting, publishing, and disseminating research", "economic trends", and "public policy issues". It is affiliated, but legally separate from, the U.S./international "The Conference Board, Inc. of New York".
They state: "Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently their expertise doesn't extend to properly citing their sources while conducting their "research".
Re:What is the Conference Board of Canada? (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Canadian, my first reaction to reading this story on /. was "what is the prestigious Conference Board of Canada?" I mean, I know what the "Ontario government" is and the "US copyright lobby" and "Canadian copyright lobby" are self-explanatory terms, but I'm not familiar with the Conference Board of Canada. When I read it here, I thought maybe it was an agency of the federal government.
Anyway, I little digging turns up that the Conference Board of Canada is basically a non-profit think-tank, that is funded on a per-service basis. So private groups and governments will pay it to research a topic and publish a paper on it. It also holds conferences and does research reports on its own. According to their official website, their areas of expertise are "running conferences", "conducting, publishing, and disseminating research", "economic trends", and "public policy issues". It is affiliated, but legally separate from, the U.S./international "The Conference Board, Inc. of New York".
They state: "Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests."
A "think tank" is just a group of non-experts who organize expert-produced information despite their lack of qualifications and understanding of the topics they discuss. They can dig up sources satisfactorily, but they get into serious trouble when they try to draw conclusions. Friends don't let friends believe a word written in a think tank.
Parent
Dear Mrs Morissette (Score:5, Funny)
Please pay attention. This is ironic.
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like a free ride, when you've already paid.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
She was going to be, but it rained on her wedding day.
Now that's what I call... (Score:3, Insightful)
... the definition of irony :)
Their response is just as bad and very revealing (Score:5, Insightful)
"...some of the cited paragraphs closely approximate the wording of a source document."
Closely approximate???!! Hell, they're word-for-word copies right down to the bullet points. They are not in quotations so they aren't really citations.
This really makes me sad because it shows an external corporate influence in Canada's affairs that would have Americans screaming if the reverse was true.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans would scram if there was Canadian influence in the affairs of external corporations?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read it again.
Americans would scream (yes, the 'e' is there) if Canadian corporate interests interfered with US internal matters.
The reality, of course, is that they do as does corporations from all over the world. Suitable screaming thus ensues but nothing is really done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"...some of the binary files on my hard drive closely approximate the sound of a copyrighted song."
Hey, after all, MP3 is lossy ...
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't expect them to actually work for their money, did you? Here's the way these things work: the government pays a lot of money to an organization for policy "consulting", so they can have a report which recommends doing what the lobbyists wanted them to do in the first place.
The report is a foregone conclusion. The $15,000 is spent to passing the blame, not on any actual work, and for a politician, it's money well spent. You can't really blame the conference board for plagiarizing their report, usually nobody bothers reading those things anyway.
It's great work if you can get it. You get to sit around, getting paid to accept blame for public policy. Except since you're just a private individual, there's no actual responsibility or consequences involved. Meanwhile, the politicians can point at you, defusing any potential scandal by claiming they're just doing as was recommended by the "experts" and if they made a mistake, well it was well intentioned and they did their best.
$15,000 to photo copy? Sounds good to me! (Score:2)
Crisis? What crisis? And they're hiring too!
Soo canada is awesome?! (Score:2, Funny)
Props Canada, you show those stupid american companies what being a pirate is all about!!
Sad but True (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Correct Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
makes me wonder (Score:3, Funny)
You reap what you sow (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the kind of crap that results from a casual disregard for plagiarism in schools. It's awful here in the states, and I imagine just as bad in Canada. Copying that freshman assignment leads to copying conference reports later on in life. Any form of plagiarism is corrosive to real progress.
Re:You reap what you sow (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, copying that freshman assignment _really_ pisses off the poor schmuck who has to grade it. Not only have you just insulted his (or her) intelligence by turning in something that was obviously cribbed from Wikipedia, but also instead of just spending a few minutes reading your paper, scribbling down a grade and then moving on to the next one he has to look up the original source that you copied from, have a chat with the professor in charge of the class, take time out of his day to have a meeting with you and explain exactly how dumb you just were, and then after wasting all that time dealing with your mess, decide whether or not to inform your department head and have you expelled for it.
By that time the only two things keeping you in school at all are the fact that there's an awful lot of paperwork involved in having you expelled, and that your professor may still feel sorry for you. Your best bet is to admit everything, tell a mildly sad story about how you were running out of time and panicked, and then never do it again.
Saying "No, you're wrong, I just forgot one citation but everything else is fine [conferenceboard.ca]" is not it.
Parent
Re:You reap what you sow (Score:4, Interesting)
"By that time the only two things keeping you in school at all are the fact that there's an awful lot of paperwork involved in having you expelled, and that your professor may still feel sorry for you. Your best bet is to admit everything, tell a mildly sad story about how you were running out of time and panicked, and then never do it again. "
Right on, Brother!
I used to grade homework assignments for an Intro to Practical Logic course, and about 1-2x/semester I'd find 2 assignments that were obviously the product of "collaboration" - and no, it was not encouraged. Typically, I'd be grading a stack and would come on a paper that was not only badly wrong, but idiosyncratically wrong - trains of logic that would take contorted paths to prove "A=-A". I'd grade it, pull the next one, and lo and behold there's the exact same train of convoluted logic. I'd grade that and then paperclip them together and give them to the professor with a note to the effect that I believe the students were cheating. And the consequences to the students were...nothing.
Not a thing. Wasn't even mentioned to them. The professor basically didn't want to be bothered. Keep in mind that I only passed through the most flagrant examples - there were plenty I suspected (correct answers but word-for-word identical) but didn't pass through. I mean, Lord knows I wasn't a saint, but at least TRY to cover your tracks, please. Think of the graders!
Parent
Re:You reap what you sow (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Perfectly good explanation for this (Score:4, Funny)
"We just realized we could produce more content by borrowing from and building on the work of others. Ow! C'mon, guys!"
Additional Information (Score:4, Informative)
Additional information has come to light since the original posting. Some interesting blog posts from:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The police won't file charge an assault easily. One of my friends went into diabetic shock, and crashed his car with his daughter in it. One of the locals thought he was drunk and punched him in the nose, and did quite a bit of damage. The local wanted to send a message about drunk driving with kids. The police wouldn't charge him for assault, because "one hit" could be self-defence.
Also, if no witnesses are present, it can be really tough to prosecute an assault case.
Lesson: if you want to cops to c
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm talking in general. I'm talking about huge fights breaking out in the street while the police watch and do nothing. I'm talking a massive crime wave going on over the last week, with a massive number of assaults occurring and nothing being done about it. I'm talking about shootings on an almost daily basis in an area that doesn't usually see a lot
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This has been true, to varying degrees, for a long time. In general it is very hard to get Canadian police to pursue a common assault case unless if there is overwhelming evidence that the assault happened and was unprovoked, or the victim suffered a life-threatening injury. The problem is that most assault accusations come down to one person's word against another's. It is very easy to claim self-defence if you do attack someone, and the legal system is based on a presumption of innocence until proven g
Re: (Score:2)
Laws against common assault are no longer being enforced by the police in my Canadian city. If you can't afford to pay the courts to charge them out of your own pocket, nothing will happen to your assailant. So, basically, the police are there to enforce your economic slavery. They are not there to protect you. Incidentally, they just hired 50 more of them here.
What are you talking about "pay the courts to charge them out of your own pocket"? A person can't fund a criminal prosecution. Or do you mean that someone with enough money could afford to sue someone for assault in civil court?
Re:Canadian Law (Score:4, Interesting)
The requirements to bring charges in Canadian courts do not only rest with the Police and the crown. There is a process by which you can file charges and have them assessed and, potentially prosecuted without police involvement.
This isn't the normal process, and it is heavily discouraged but an incident a few years ago where an individual who was being prosecuted hard a charge of treason brought forward against a judge confirms it. The charge was not pursued as another judge overseas the process and it was without cause; but the point is that police do not have to be involved.
Parent
Re:And the problem is?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a problem when a government pays for a report from an uninterested third party, and gets a quickie rewrite of a pressure-group's screed. And a dishonest one at that.
--dave
Parent