p2pnet news view | P2P | Politics:- “Turn knowledge into action with our research!” – trumpets the Conference Board Canada, headed up by Anne Golden (right).;

It goes on »»»

We produce a continuing flow of timely and practical research publications on topics such as corporate innovation performance and R&D policy. Many of our reports and periodicals are only distributed to corporate libraries and eligible individuals of our member organizations.

But how much of their material is reliable? Or even accurate? How much of it is even theirs?

And how long will it be before it’s forced to disband because of public outrage?

Now a new scandal is erupting, centering on a writer  listed as one of the people who contributed to a report it was forced to pull.

File-swapping capital of the world

Ottawa law professor and Net activist Michael Geist caught the board red-handed, pushing a document which claimed Canada is Pirate Heaven.

However, the paper was built around material lifted wholesale from dubious data compiled principally by the major Hollywood studios and Big 4 record labels.

“Canada’s failure to strengthen intellectual property rights (IPR) in the face of digital technology has given it an unwelcome reputation as the file-swapping capital of the world,” said Intellectual Property Rights: Innovation and Commercialization in Turbulent Times, going on:

“Stronger intellectual property rights and enforcement are needed to protect new knowledge and shore up Canada’s poor innovation record, according to a series of Conference Board reports — released in advance of its May 29 conference Intellectual Property Rights: Innovation and Commercialization in Turbulent Times.”

Today, when you go to the site on which the report appeared, you see, “This resource is temporarily unavailable as it is undergoing routine maintenance.”

In truth, there’s nothing temporary about it. The page is down permanently, and not because of  ‘routine maintenance’.

After hotly denying Geist’s allegations, Golden shamefacedly pulled Intellectual Property Rights: Innovation and Commercialization in Turbulent Times, together with two other ’studies, in what Ottawa copyright lawyer Howard Knopf  described as a, “stunning and positive development“.

Shedding new light

Now, “The following was posted late yesterday by Curtis Cook, one of the listed authors on the plagiarized Conference Board of Canada reports,”  blogs Michael Geist, stating:

“Cook’s experience sheds new light on the Conference Board plagiarism story, including interference from copyright lobby funders, the exclusion of deBeer’s research from the report, and the decision to lay blame on Cook, who had left the organization almost a full year before publication of the reports.”

He goes on to quote Cook’s post in full, to wit »»»

I have waited a week for the Conference Board to remove my name from its controversial intellectual property publications. On May 27 I wrote to Anne Golden to:

1. Remove my name as an author from the publications (since I have not worked for the Conference Board for almost a year); and
   
2. Publicly acknowledge that I was not responsible for the plagiarized content.

On June 1, I finally received a call from Anne Golden who did not address any of my concerns and abruptly ended the call by disconnecting. Here is what I know:

I was a full-time employee with the Conference Board between September 2007 and July 2008. I resigned almost a year ago to take a fulfilling job with a non-profit in British Columbia.

I submitted draft research to my former supervisor for the IP reports in mid-August 2008. I finished the research after I moved even though I was neither on salary nor on contract with the Board.

The research I submitted did NOT include the controversial passages or plagiarized content.

I worked with three contract researchers on this project between April 2008 and June 2008, including Jeremy deBeer, whose work I integrated into the draft. These researchers did not submit research that included the controversial/plagiarized content.

I had no involvement in any content changes and did not see these papers after I submitted them in August.

My new work was interrupted in mid-September by my former supervisor at the Conference Board to tell me there had been “push back” from one of the funding clients about the research and inclusion of Mr. deBeer’s contribution. I had quit almost two months earlier so this was of no concern to me.

Around the same time, my new work was also interrupted by a call from one of the funding clients who expressed similar concerns. Again, I informed him that I no longer had anything to do with these reports.

I received news of its publication on May 26, 2009, ten months after my resignation. I downloaded and read the research after I was informed of the controversy and was alarmed to see the direction it had taken.

I sent my letter to Anne Golden the following day.

The VP of Public Policy e-mailed me on May 29th to ask for my assistance in finding both researchers who could “fix” the reports, as well as external reviewers who would be impartial in reviewing the new work. His message stated that “I trust your judgment, experience and knowledge and would value your help.”

The Conference Board wants my help to fix reports that were published 10 months after my departure. It wants me to help fix publications that were re-written (and plagiarized) months after my departure and after they discarded the research I compiled and submitted. The Conference Board asks for my help but won’t acknowledge that it was wrong to put my name on reports that bear little resemblance to the original research I submitted, were substantially reworked, and were published ten months after I resigned. After Anne Golden laid blame on contract researchers and supervisors late last week, I noticed two of the authors who still were listed on the organization’s web site were no longer on the staff list.

I am not prepared to wait for Anne Golden to conduct the review she promises because I have a pretty good sense of what happened, even though my involvement with the Conference Board and these reports ended with the submission of credible research 10 months ago. I am curious to see if my account results in some form of backlash, if the Conference Board is prepared to dig a deeper hole for itself or if more fiction will surface.

Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

Pirate Heaven – Canada as world ‘file-swapping capital’, May 25, 2009
hotly denying – Conference Board denies Geist allegations, May 26, 2009
stunning and positive development – Conference Board yanks ‘piracy’ reports, May 28, 2009
blogs Michael Geist – Ex-Conference Board Author Speaks Out; Confirms “Push Back” From Copyright Lobby Funders, June 3, 2009

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!

Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 at 10:06 am and is filed under P2P, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

HOME

Viewed 1328 times

« previous Political Facebook spam

Setback for Tenenbaum in RIAA case next »