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.
Any anti-circumvention legislation destroys innovation. It makes illegal many possible innovative products and services that haven't even been imagined yet.
arts [2009-09-04 22:31] Comment ID: 2224 Reply to: 1687
I think you'll find the logic behind anti-circumvention is not to restrict innovation, but to put reasonable limits on illegal sharing. If the keys and lock-picks were not being widely shared so that the work could be more easily consumed without payment, there'd be little protest against reasonable innovative use of them.
Ford and GM have been taking each others cars apart for as long as they've existed. The difference is, they actually innovated, instead of copying, and they didn't throw the keys around in an attempt to destroy each others businesses. It's a fine line, but it is generally respected, and where it's not, there is litigation.
So, the illegal sharers created this anti-circumvention problem. I think you need to be asking them, and not copyright legislation, to fix it.
Don't hide behind the innovation argument to excuse illegal file sharing. That does no-one any good in the long run --- creators or consumers.
arts [2009-09-04 22:42] Comment ID: 2225 Reply to: 2224
Oh, and Ford and GM generally bought each others cars in order to take them apart. They didn't "share" them.
jrm [2009-09-04 23:50] Comment ID: 2228 Reply to: 2224
It doesn't matter that the digital locks are easily broken (as is now the case for DVDs). It is very possible to find a Linux distribution that can play your DVDs. However for an American company to produce such a Linux distribution is problematic because of the American DMCA which has anti-circumvention provisions. This doesn't matter to copyright infringers. The locks are broken and they easily infringe. It DOES matter to legitimate companies who are trying to innovate as they must follow the law.
Please read this link for more information on this topic: http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/
Part of the motivation behind the digital locks is "to put reasonable limits on illegal sharing" but there is more than that. Another motivation is for media companies to control companies related to the use of digital media. This includes consumer electronics manufacturers, software companies, broadcasters, service providers and more. In the future we can expect the number of diverse areas where digital media is involved to grow. It is in these areas that anti-circumvention legislation would stifle innovation.
Hotshotharry [2009-09-10 15:16] Comment ID: 2397 Reply to: 1687
If I buy a copy for my use that means I can do with it whatever I please except to redistribute it ! The term licensing is just to hold us hostage ! Fight it !
Copyright, at this moment, is an institution entirely within the hands of corporate entities and needs to be reformed to bring rights back into the hands of creators. To this end, the time period for copyright expiration needs to be lowered, fair use of copywritten materials should be far less restricted and corporate entities should not be allowed to copyright materials.
arts [2009-09-04 22:50] Comment ID: 2226 Reply to: 1650
Do we hate copyright, or corporations? I think you might want to figure that out first.
Many corporations also abuse other reasonable laws, such as environmental protections. Does that mean we should weaken environmental protections?
Fair "dealing" (as it is known in Canada) is actually a veritable cornucopia of user permissions. All that's required to take advantage of them is to learn them, respect them, and insist upon them.
I am not a corporation; just a humble creator, and I have in my hands many a valuable copyright. Valuable to me, because I created the works they protect.
Let's make sure we're not mixing the apples with the screwdrivers. I hear you on corporate restrictions, but when you talk copyright it sounds like the usual "stuff for free" echo chamber.
Dans le monde numérique, nous sommes tous créateurs. Avec près des trois quarts de la population ayant accès soit à Internet à la maison, soit à un téléphone portable, soit aux deux, et sans compter les autres équipements électroniques personnels disponibles à la maison ou dans les écoles et les universités, les outils nécessaires pour prendre des photos, des vidéos, capter la voix, les transformer puis les diffuser via Internet sont presque omniprésents. Le Canada a besoin d'une Loi sur le droit d'auteur qui soit simple, flexible et équitable pour assurer que nous la comprenons tous.
Le droit d'auteur cesse d'exister 50 ans après la mort du créateur, ou 75 ans après la publication d'une oeuvre si une corporation possède l'oeuvre. Ensuite l'oeuvre entre dans le domaine public où tous peuvent l'utiliser librement. Il est évident qu'une prolongation de la durée du droit d'auteur va nuire aux créateurs actuels, tout en causant des maux aux consommateurs et institutions chargées de notre patrimoine collectif, sans produire des bénéfices tangibles sauf pour quelques larges corporations. Le gouvernement du Canada ne doit pas écouter le chant des sirènes que représente une extension du terme du droit.