Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Changes which give the copyright holder a short and limited time to profit from their works so that ideas can move more quickly into the public domain. Or perhaps an interim term wherein a work is not in a no-holds public domain, but rests for a period of time in a not-for-profit public domain. Copyright law based more upon the Creative Commons licenses would better foster innovation and creativity.
arts [2009-09-04 22:03] Comment ID: 2221 Reply to: 2047
I've said elsewhere, and I'll say here -- we do NOT need to reduce or remove copyright terms for copyright protected works to foster new creativity. Fair dealing provides me with everything I need to build upon the works of past works still protected by copyright. All that's required is that I do the work to understand the rules, and insist on my rights as a new creator.
Litigation chill is a real concern, so I would support reasonable limits on copyright litigation -- but changes to the resent law are completely unnecessary to answer your concerns.
tamarack [2009-09-05 13:19] Comment ID: 2242 Reply to: 2221
arts -- I disagree. copyright law, and the types of changes that were proposed in C-61 is exceedingly complex for the average person (ie: non-corporate or non-professional) to comply with. When we talk about "fostering creativity" we are not just talking about entrepreneurship; this is why a wide berth has traditionally been given to interpreting what comprises "research" and "personal study". The changes that lobbying business interests would like to see focus only on their accumulation of wealth and the consumption by others (the non-copyright holders) of their "product". Since I work with children and adults in a non-corporate and non-academic setting, what I see is an enormous stifling of our, society's, creativity -- and this stifling comes from walking on the cautious side of copyright law. Most adults are not copyright lawyers, and most children and teens are not capable of comprehending complex legislation of any sort. What does this mean practically? It means business limiting individuals' (citizens', etc) access to works of art and creativity in ways that will stifle possible creative works. If I can't have access to the body of art that my culture is creating, without a pay-per-view digitally-managed copyright-legislated understanding of things... well, I am probably just going to walk away from it. This creates a schism, this does not foster innovation and creativity.