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.
As a "content provider" for articles and books, I feel that my efforts should be rewarded whenever they are used. My fees for articles are built into the cost of magazines and payment for books I write comes from sales of those books and public lending rights. Without such reward, I would not generate the "content" unless I made the personal decision so to do. Once published, whether or not a fee has been paid, my writing remains mine "” except when I deliberately transfer those rights such as "work for hire" and in which case, my fee arrangement changes.
It is crucial that copyright protection for my writing remains in place so that I may continue to benefit from my labours.
email@example.com [2009-08-05 05:44] Comment ID: 1314 Reply to: 1309
Should the government fine writers who plagiarize US pundits?
Under CIPO you already have protection with the (c). However, the government must consider if the paid fees and legal costs will increase macroeconomic growth. This has already proven ludicrously ineffective in the US.
Like all shifts in business - one must evolve. The new printing press is the web, and amazon/itunes/netflix are the stores.
Allow us to tinker with our products... Imagine if our cars could be locked down the way DRM locks down songs/books. You couldn't change your oil/tires/stereo in your home garage and we'd all be suject to the whims of the "authorized repairman" where monopoly would drive up the price, reduce competition and reduce the quality of service.
Without the ability to tinker, we would not be able to learn and develop mechanical/artistic skill that could be nurtured and blossom into tomorrow's innovators that create the next generation of cars / tires / air filters / batteries / stereos, etc...
We need to have the right to break a digital lock for personal use, so that if my car does have a "proprietary DRM bolt" on the tires, I can "hack it" so I can change my own tires".
If my winshield wiper has a "DRM lock" to prevent me from changing it I should have the right to break the lock and change the wiper without requiring Ford's permission.
I'm not suggesting I should be allowed to copy the schematic and make my own identical car and sell it as my own, but for personal use we as a society need to protect fair use so that future generations can tinker and innovate!
Shadowmis [2009-08-28 15:02] Comment ID: 2095 Reply to: 1305
I agree with you. The scary part is, you do not even have to presupose a furture "proprietary DRM bolt." Vehicals have many computer programs in them /right now/.
If GM or other generic car company used DRM, then you could only go to certian mechanics driving up the price, reducing competition and reducing the quality of service as you so aptly described.
Hotshotharry [2009-09-10 15:28] Comment ID: 2399 Reply to: 1305
Could not agree more ! "drm" holds use hostage ! What company was selling drm music not long ago and had to close up shop leaving everyone who had legally purchased the music now screwed !
Most definitions of "innovation" involve building upon prior elements of culture, technology and society - to that extent, innovation and copyright are often at odds.
New copyright restrictions do little to "encourage innovation" in IP creators - instead proposed rules seem to be aimed at increasing the long-term exploitability of IP with usually very little additional benefit to the original creator. New Copyright legislation should focus on the creators and consumers, and not the media conglomerates looking to "monetize" the access to culture and public knowledge.
Some areas need improvement, in particular protection against counterfeiting and other for-profit infringements, but attacks of large media groups against individual consumers and creators should not be the guiding principle of copyright reform.
FairUseInCanada [2009-08-10 22:49] Comment ID: 1495 Reply to: 1302
Extremely well said and I was about to write exactly the same. Let me just add that entrepreneurship, which is a key stone to our modern economy and creation of capital, depends on access to cultural and public knowledge. With draconian and backwards rules on IP, any budding entrepreneurs are facing great obstacles in most fields, especially the ones that depend on creation of new technology. If we want to promote innovation and creativity, we cannot allow overreaching copyright rules to exist.