To withstand the test of time it is essential that our copyright law not make any reference to specific technologies (mp3, DRM, Internet). Instead, refer to concepts such as technical protection measures, consider content creators (not musicians, artists, photographers, etc) and content consumers; and actions such as creating derivative works or remixes and sharing of content for specific purposes. Also, it should clearly separate commercial and non-commercial uses of content because the purpose of those uses are significantly different.

I would like Canadians to consider that in 10 years, 3D printing technology should be widely available. When it is will be dealing with issues of pirated designs and the rights of consumers to significantly customise hardware which they have purchased by modifying designs to suit their purpose. I know we're only beginning to see the concept of customised software, but it is more prevalent than most people realise.
While jailbreaking the iPhone is probably the most well known, you should know that many off-the-shelf mp3 players are capable of running an open source operating system that allows the device owner to significantly augment the capabilities of their device, and customise its behaviour accordingly (www.rockbox.org). It has allowed people to customise their device to support 30 languages and even a spoken interface for the visually challenged or hands-free operation.

Copyright law should ensure that the owner of a device has the right to use, reuse and remix their devices. If Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak could not customise hardware which they owned, there never would have been an Apple computer.

It should also ensure that consumers have the right to reverse-engineer or modify their devices for interoperability, so that they may use their devices for novel and ingenious purposes because it is in the spirit of creation and innovation for individuals to imagine new uses for their devices and modify them to achieve that purpose.

I know I went into innovation and creativity, but these questions are very interdependent.

DRM used to lock purchased media/content should illegal. Aside from confusing restrictions to users, usage of these draconian systems have violated personal property and computer security (sony root kit)

Additionally as these technologies are abandoned, (yahoo music, msn music), we run the risk of losing access to that music. I can still play a record… I might not be able to always play a DRM'd song.

Are the responses in this forum really going to be considered?

How are the information and recommendations given here being saved and prepared?

How will our comments be presented when the time comes for officials to make decisions and create law?

What balance of requests from individual canadians versus industry and big players will there be in decision making?

In order for the laws to withstand the test of time you need to come up with laws that are less restrictive to the end-users (unlike Bill C-61). Make the bill friendly to people who will be editing and remixing new content for the web. People are also converting formats of their content to work with different devices and some of that content is going to be DRM'd. I think commercial use is the only place copyright belongs. Copyright laws for individuals either don't work (Internet file-sharing) or they restrict users choice (not be able to convert things that have DRM).

Despite the speed at which technology has changed, I don't see any real reason copyright needs to dramatically change. The principles of copyright should always have been the same, ever since copyright was created.

There are three principles I see for copyright, "personal use", "publication and distribution", and "fair dealling". If we define these in technologically agnostic terms, we won't need to worry about updating the copyright law the next time something new comes out.

For "personal use", anything I do for myself, such as ripping a song from a CD so I can play it on my iPod, or transcribing an entire poem from a book so I can carry the words around with me, should be allowed. To misquote a former prime minister "the government has no place in the bedrooms and pockets of the nation". What I do in the privacy of my own home with materials I have purchased is my business and no one elses.

For "publication and distribution", anything that will place an unauthorized copy of the work as a whole or a substantial part in to the posession of another person, should not be allowed. This means I wouldn't be allowed to rip that new DVD so my friend could have a copy. While a lot of people do this, it's clearly unacceptable.

But fair dealing is a different and difficult matter. It has always been a grey zone and probably should remain this way. I recognize that law makers don't like grey areas (but if you've ever painted a modern cityscape with lots of concrete, you'll see there are lots of grey areas).

Artists and innovators derive inspiration from other artists and innovators. In many ways, all art and all innovation is derivative. It has a starting point from which it is derived. One creates something, and that inspires the next one to take the idea, transform it in some manner, and make something new from it. This is how a great deal of art and innovation is created. To reduce fair dealing would be to limit creativity and innovation. This is something we must allow to happen.

Schools, especially colleges and universities, are places where a large number of individuals will be inspired by the works of past creators in order to make something new. It is importnat that fair dealing be expanded to cover this properly. Of course, not every student will end up being an artist or an innovator but I think we should encourage them in this direction instead of discouraging them through prohibative laws.

But what degree of compensation should a copyright holder have? If I, the creator of something, decide to publish it in a public location, such as the internet, then through fair dealing, others should be allowed to create derivative works of it. But to copy it lock, stock, and barrel, without permission, is not fair dealing, it's plagerism. By publishing the original in a public place, should I be compensated against the plagerism to the same degree as if I had published the same work through a private sales channel (e.g. book, CD, DVD, etc.)? Also, if my work was published in a public place without my permission, should I not be compensated more by the courts than if my work was published without my permission through a prive sales channel?

Notice I said "public location, such as the internet". The internet may be new technology, but conceptually, it need not be new at all. This is what I mean by a technologically agnostic view.

Where copyright law has gotten complicated is in that we made it to allow acts which were technically, against the principles of copyright. Audio tapes allowed people to make copies of their vinyl records so that could listen to them in the car stereo and in their walkmans, both valid personal use items. It was when we started charging more for audio tapes because we recognized that people were making copies for their friends and families that we started down a slippery slope. In effect, we said it was allright to copy/publish and distribute to certain others. New technologies have only dragged us further down this slope. In order to save copyright for the future, we may need to go back to the first principles and start over.

A copyright regime that "withstands the test of time" must not follow the approach used in C-61, where broad prohibitions were accompanied by an extremely narrow list of exceptions. Doing so effectively would require legislators to imagine every possible scenario where it would be desirable to deem non-infringement.

What good is a law that protects the rights of citizens on steam locomotives, once people travel by car, bus, or airplane?

Balance is needed. Copyright law should be based on a fair evaluation of competing interests. That evaluation should be based on independent research, and not on the verifiably distorted numbers and messages put forward by industry and other interested parties, such as the RIAA and lobbyists.

The less restrictive the legislation to consumers, the longer it will 'withstand the test of time'. Only if legislation does not sufficiently allow for legal uses of copyrighted content, even through means which might be technically illegal, will a problem arise. An example of this might be the need to break a 'digital lock' (should that become illegal) to play a legally acquired retail DVD on a computer running linux. Consumers must be able to access their content however and whenever they wish in order for a digital economy to thrive. We can not give foreign corporations the power to dictate to Canadians how to access content. Only a protectionist agenda will have to be constantly adjusted and re-adjusted over the years to 'keep up with technology'. An approach which holds the sharing of culture and information above all else can last forever. The storage space of hard drives, the bandwidth of internet connections, the speed of computers are all irrelevant in this regard.

First, copyright law based on Canadian values would be non protectionist and would strike a balance between the creators' rights to make a living off their work and the general public's rights to use and enjoy that work.

Second, copyright law should meet today's practices and business needs before worrying about tomorrow's potential. The law should be nimble and easily updatable by the Canadian groundswell, kinda like being in a perpetual beta state.

My $0.02

On a more comical note, Copyright Law should be "simple" enough so that our prime minister can understand them.

Here's an example where Obama could have breached DRM laws when giving an iPod as a gift to the Queen of England.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/first-sale-president-obama-and-queen-england

And here's another with Obama being foiled by region lock when giving 25 dvd to Gordon Brown.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/5011941/Gordon-Brown-is-frustrated-by-Psycho-in-No-10.html

You know there is a problem when the president of the country and all his advisors couldn't figure those out. How can you expect the regular citizens out there to do any better!

Copyright has expanded throughout the world to become something far larger than was reasonably intended. The expansion appears to be radiating from the US, where, each time Disney's creations approach the end of their copyright lifetime, the period of coverage is extended by another quarter-century. This expansion problem has now extended, via American music and film producers' associations to Canada.

The purpose of copyright is to encourage innovation by providing a period of exclusivity to a work's creator in much the same way that patents do for physical products, but the constant lengthening of the covered period serves chiefly to prevent any expansion upon existing works during the lifespan of the creator and any of his/her offspring.

I submit that a copyright system to match the patent regime of 17 years would be quite sufficient to encourage innovation and permit payment for the creator's effort. This would allow for a more reasonable time of entry into public domain than currently exists and would harmonize the administration of physical and artistic innovation protection.

Laws should not be written to 'stand the test of time'. The reasons for laws change over time and it's almost impossible to predict what new technology might come into existence.

It's far more useful to determine the underlying principles of a law or legal framework and regularly revisit laws to ensure they support those principles.

In the case of copyrights, the original principle was to encourage the creation of new works by providing a means for creators to use their creations as a monopoly to generate revenue for a limited time. The reason for limited time and control was expressly to counterbalance the monopoly aspect: you couldn't rest on your laurels.

Our current laws already tread heavily on these principles. We don't really need to go even farther from this ideal.

While this web site could use some sprucing up, I commend the government for moving further into the digital age with a more interactive web presence for the consulation. Hopefully it's just the start of more things like this to come.

Sharing files will persist indefinitely. While sharing can be unfair to artists, charging for a product with infinite supply is unfair to consumers. The situation is a lose-lose one.

At the moment artists are entitled to money for each copy of their song. But the copying cannot be controlled. Therefore the law enabling their entitlement is useless. At the same time customers can not do what they deserve with their product.

Because no copyright law can stop file sharing, attempting to stop it is futile. Copyright should protect tangible threats. Such as imitation, public use without permission (excluding education), etc.

Instead, let the consumer win. Let them share files. Unreasonable CD prices will fall. Culture will spread. I promote compensation threw tariffs. And let the percentage demand dictate the artists share of compensation.

Files -cannot- be controlled. Copyrights should not try. Or we'll be back here again. Time will show the inevitability of file sharing.

They are fine the way they are. This question is slanted to imply that a change is needed in the first place when it is not.

When we think of what is going to happen in 10, 20 or 30 years, you only have to look at what has already happened in the past 10, 20 or 30 years.

Over time, advancements in technology makes things easier. However, the laws that have been in place for years are sufficient to deal with the same issues.

People have been able to make copies of Music when the cassette tape was created… of Video when the VCR was created… of pictures when the photocopier was created… All 3 technologies were created 30 years ago!

1) Instead of making a mixed tape for a friend, it is now in the form of MP3's that were emailed.

2) Instead of recording a song on the radio with a cassette tape, I can download it from the Internet

3) Instead of recording a a missed TV show with a VCR to watch later, I use my DVR or download it from the Internet.

Technology in the past 30 years has not allowed us to do anything "New" but just do it better and quicker. It is only now that companies want to remove the free use rights we have enjoyed for 30 years by making stricter copyright laws.

Most Canadians take for granted those examples above, and I hope we all will fight to keep our rights.

Je vous répète la même chose; faire valoir nos droits d'auteur au sujet des publications dans le Web

Transmission of digital copyrighted media is the main need to update our copyright laws. Artists, creators and owners of copyrighted material need to be reimbursed for the use and acquisition of it. However, the users and appreciators of this material have found that the most affordable and convenient way to acquire the material is often through the illegal downloading of it through the internet.

The convenience and ease of acquiring material like this should not be hindered. In fact it should be further streamlined to increase the efficency of acquiring the digital data.

I believe that to do this, and still have copyright owners reimbursed will require internet service providers to provide subscriptions to media downloading with tiers of service. These subscription fees would then be managed by an organization that would divide them out to registered copyright owners and download sites in need of a commission based on download usage recorded by the registered internet sites.

This system would reduce the possibility of lawsuits by copyright owners, increase competition to provide the media and ensure that users have ease of access to the data.

In regards to updating our copyright legislation, what is needed is not stricter copyright guidelines, as they have already been proven ineffective.

Canadians do not want DRM, or the act of backing up their CDs criminalized, we want better access to our culture, and material that should rightly belong in the public domain.

I ask you this, when current copyright legislation is at "life of the author plus 70 years", who does this benefit, certainly not the author, for money doesn't matter 70 years after one has passed on.

No, it benefits only the media corporations, what gives anybody a right to say that they own a part of our heritage, a part of our culture, even a year after the author, for whom copyright legislation was created to protect, has died?

You, employees of the Government of Canada, are civil servants, you are elected to help serve us, the citizens as best you can.

"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind."
Sir Francis Bacon

Times are changing, the industry needs to adapt to suit such changes, not cling to ways that were obsolete a hundred years ago.

--
Jake Daynes
Marketing and Media
Proud Member of the Pirate Party of Canada

I agree with many of the statements below on digital protection measures.

It is clear that any legislation that is going to "stand the test of time" will need to limit the time for copyright and allow for these protection measures to be bypassed for legitimate fair uses.

The Canadian Federation of Students has a statement that includes a position on Digital Rights Management that I strongly agree with. It states that:

The danger of over-broad anti-circumvention legislation (such as the DMCA in the US) is that, while it may have some minor effect on commercial piracy, it can also prevent otherwise lawful activity such as fair dealing, accessing works in the public domain, archival preservation, time and format shifting, device interoperability and library lending. We should reject DMCA style amendments.

Any effort to address the issue of circumvention/anti-circumvention must not limit the ability of users to by-pass measures that undermine personal privacy or statutory rights of access.

In particular, the Copyright Act must not prohibit devices capable of circumventing the protection measures, as such devices are often used for purposes that do not infringe copyright.

Any legislation that "stands the test of time" must reject the notion that I am leasing the work until the copyright holder changes their format. We must own the work for personal use and be allowed to duplicate and change formats for new devices and backup purposes without fear of breaking laws.

The preamble illustrates how quickly technology changes. To have laws protecting DRM and "digital locks" ignores this reality. One need not make up far fetched stories about consumers purchasing incomparable locks from the same provider! Case in point is Microsoft's "Plays for sure" technology which applies to music files (amongst other media).

One might assume that the Microsoft Zune would play the "Plays for Sure" music by Microsoft, but it does not. Microsoft's Zune works only with its own content service called Zune Marketplace. Such corporate doublespeak and trickery could result in consumers being confused about what to buy, then legally unable to listen to the music they purchased on the devices they own.

Any law that stands the test of time must ensure we have the right to "crack" such locks for personal use so that content we purchased need not be subject to planned obsolescence. To enshrine the lockmaker's rights above personal use makes a mockery of copyright.

We need to ensure the principles of copyright are applied to new technologies, not merely addressing at ease of copying, it's ability to ease broad distribution, but also the unreliability and rapid obsolescence of the individual technologies.

In particular, granting legal protection to particular protection schemes can leave customers without the books they bought when the author of the technology goes out of business, suffers from a technical problem or simply decides to breach the sales agreement.

The latter appears to have just happened in the United States: copies of "1984" and "Animal Farm" purchased for a hand-held book reader were removed from their readers by the bookseller.

That they deleted these particular titles was more than a little ironic.

Let's look at 1998. In 1998, the US passed the DMCA and the Copyright Extension Act at the behest of large media corporations. The results since then have been the outlawing technical speech on certain topics, restricting fair use, putting Dmitry Sklyarov in prison, and shaking down families for tens of thousands of dollars.

All because media companies didn't want to adapt to new technology or invest in new business models. Meanwhile private citizens rode the wave of innovation and we have witnessed the rise of the independent recording artist empowered by the global reach of the internet and social networking sites. Independent films and television are now finding audiences on YouTube, Miro, and Hulu. Even some large companies have been smart enough to abandon the monopoly-on-information business model and moved to subscription or ad-based models.

Even the music corporations have started to see the bright opportunities of the market - Amazon and iTunes now offer the DRM-free music downloads customers have been asking for.

Any legislation that "stands the test of time" must reject the notion that what I do with the media I purchased for personal use can be regulated. Thus, the law will reflect the reality and everyone's moral instinct. The forces of the market will ensure creators get compensated.

The most important aspect to consider when looking at copyright and "the test of time" is whether we will still be able to use and access our 'media' in 10 years if we let copyright holders lock-down our legally purchased media with "DRM" or digital rights management tools and locks.

If I buy some media today, with a DRM lock on it, that requires the company to provide an online server that "authenticates" my rights to utilize this media, and that company goes out of business (which seems to be very likely looking at the trends of today), then how do I legally access my media?

Allowing companies and copyright holders to "trump" any other rights (as laid out in Bill C-61), would prevent citizens and consumers from ever accessing their media if a company puts a Digital Lock on their materials and then does not survive.

There must be legal avenues available to consumers to bypass DRM locks in 10 years if companies and rights holders no longer exist.

What happens when I need to shift my media to a new format (for when the new DVD's come out?) Or what happens if my new car has a new competing format for playing music, how can I transfer my legally paid for music to this new format?

DRM is a short-sighted and un-balanced way to deal with copyright. It is extremly unfair, undemocratic, and undermines the "rights" granted consumers through these copyright laws.