Copyright Consultations
copyrightconsultation.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
First
Previous
Archived - Innovation and Creativity - Discussion
Comments for period July 23 - 25, 2009
Archived Content
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.
Comment
Educational exemptions for students and teachers should be strengthened and should continue past the end of a course. Both groups should be able to keep a copy of the materials they used in the course for future reference and to spark future innovation and creativity. The fact that the material may be digital should not affect this at all.
Response(s)
Alexandre Enkerli [2009-07-28 13:52] Comment ID: 1059 Reply to: 885
Fully agreed. Canada's educational system would be strengthened by an enlightened approach to fair dealings, especially in the digital domain. In fact, a broad acception of the very concept of education, allowing for learning outside of formal institutions, would help Canadian society as a whole. To a lifelong learner, anything can be educational material. Broad exemptions for educational use of copyrighted material would foster innovation while preserving financial interests of true stakeholders.
Comment
The term "computer program" should always replace "technological measure", "digital technology" and "technology, device or component" cryptic wording.
Comment
Devices and software for overriding digital locks should never be illegal, only using these tools for commercial piracy should be illegal.
Response(s)
gnattress [2009-07-27 15:34] Comment ID: 971 Reply to: 851
If commercial piracy, as you put it, is illegal, why is there need to criminalize the removal of digital locks for that purpose? The true crime here is already criminal, and hence needs no extra crime attached to it. For what it's worth, commercial pirates often copy DVDs DRM and all - they just mass duplicate, and don't even bother to crack the DRM!
meikipp [2009-07-27 15:54] Comment ID: 977 Reply to: 971
You won't get an argument from me! Too many people seem to think we need new laws when the existing ones already work… and you're right pirates don't break DRM… but legitimate customers may have to when trying to enable their fair dealing rights.
Comment
Pour permettre l'innovation et la créativité, il faut absolument interdire toute forme de verrou numérique et de gestion agressive des droits numériques (DRM).
Il y a tellement d'exemples qui prouvent que ces technologies ne sont pas efficaces et qu'elles restreignent de manière importante l'utilisation d'un bien qu'on a légitimement acheter. Par exemple, certains CD achetés ne pourront pas être transférés sur un lecteur de musique portatif à cause d'un verrou numérique.
On ne peut pas imaginer toutes les possibilités actuelles et futures que l'on pourra faire avec les documents numériques. La prolifération de ces verrous ne fera que réduire les possibilités de transformation et les possibilités de produits et de bien innovateurs.
Comment
The simplest form of copyright is not have it at all. We should learn to share and contribute to society as whole. Why keep the information for yourself? For profit and self ego?
Most of copyright issue has to do with who own what and who gets the money. If all else failed, the legal system has to sort out the mess. Not only it takes everyone's time and resource to argue and counter argue, our society is not progressing as we should. We should eliminate copyright. It holds no purpose except for people who wants to make profit.
Heck if you look at all the open source project out there, there are people who are willing to share their knowledge with others. This is what we should be moving forward as a society. Stop with the old non-sense who owns what and how much profit to be made. These are capitalist dream and it doesn't work for everyone.
Only 3% of the world are own by rich which hold 99% of the copyright content. What happen to the rest of the middle and poor? We got nothing except continuing to pay for the rich. If you ask me, why should I continue paying for something which I don't own.
Response(s)
Robin [2009-07-30 09:55] Comment ID: 1145 Reply to: 826
Excuse me. I guess you don't understand that the only way a writer gets paid for the time and effort they've taken to research, write, edit and promote the book, article, poem, etc. is through being the owner of the copyright. They are not paid an hourly wage for the time it took them to write. And in the case of books, fiction or non-fiction, this can take many years.
Rather authors of books (I use this because being a novelist myself, it is the one I'm most familiar with) are paid a royalty, which is a percentage, usually from 5-10% of the cover price for every book sold. In Canada, where the average no. of books sold per title is probably little more than 1000, it doesn't amount to much. Do the math. Most of us need other sources of income to survive. As I recall, the average annual income for a writer in Canada is between $10,000 and $15,000.
One could hardly say that writers are profiting from owning the copyright of their creative works. If the copyright for these creative works is removed, regardless of medium, electronic or otherwise, an author will essentially be writing for free.
I'm sorry, but we all need money to live on. Yes, writing offers great personal satisfaction, but we can't live on good feelings alone. The money a writer is paid for owning the copyright of the creative work is absolutely essential. And the protection of that copyright should pertain to all forms of publication, including electronic.
scourdx [2009-07-30 22:04] Comment ID: 1170 Reply to: 1145
In my opinion you live in bubble world where money matters. Money is only create to enslave us. It makes us greedy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
Comment
Take, for example, Hulu. The profit made on advertising from this site goes to the copyright holders. Before YouTube, however, such a project would never have been conceived. Youtube would never have become the powerhouse that it has - and made streaming video commonplace - if it weren't for illegal copies of music videos, movies, trailers, music remixes, video remixes, fanvideos, videos of some guy playing his guitar, on and on. In short, businesses wouldn't be making money off Hulu if it weren't for copyright infringement. This just signals to me that a new system of copyright needs to be developed where the onus for receiving compensation is on the copyright holders. Nobody who wants to post a video of their baby with Lady GaGa in the background is going to take the time to call up Universal Music for permission and then pay upwards of a few thousand dollars, and they shouldn't be expected to.
When a professional filmmaker made a beautiful animated musical called Sita Sings the Blues using recordings of Annette Hanshaw she wasn't able to get distribution for the film because the copyright holders refused to let her use the music, which is crucial to the film. This is a fabulous case study of where copyright has gone wrong. The story she was telling from the Ramayana was a part of her cultural heritage and entirely in the public domain. The music was equally a part of her cultural heritage, but was not available to be used. Hanshaw was popular in the 1920s for heaven's sake, that almost 90 YEARS later her estate holders can still refuse to give access to her work is ridiculous.
The point of copyright, the reason why not everything goes immediately into the public domain, is that people who create need to be protected. Yet how many dollars of copyright infringement settlements go the artists who were infringed upon? And are not the people who remix creators as well? After all, when you write a poem all you're doing is remixing words that someone else has already created and used. Internet-savvy artists know how to market their products to make a profit even knowing that copying is going on. In fact, many have said that free copies of their work floating around have increased sales. So it isn't a matter of the internet being inherantly bad for, say, books, but rather how corporations utilize the medium.
Thus, if it were legal for any book owner to scan a copy of a book they paid for and share it with their friends, someone will invent a way to share books more easily, then people would want to be able to turn scanned files into real text, and so on and so on. Innovation doesn't happen unless there's freedom to try new things and build on old ideas.
Comment
I think one idea is to allow the *original* creator of the work to hold onto the rights for their entire lives (i.e. until death). However, if it is ever sold or transferred (i.e. to their kids or record label) then it should become public after only 5 or 10 years. Just an idea.
Response(s)
CRP_4321 [2009-08-13 07:58] Comment ID: 1595 Reply to: 789
So if I cure cancer and sell it for $100,000 per bottle, are you willing to wait until I die and then 10 years after that until it can be made for $100/bottle?
What if your family needed it?
Copyright/patents need to be as short as possible.
peterbradley [2009-08-13 10:18] Comment ID: 1601 Reply to: 1595
>> Copyright/patents need to be as short as possible.
With respect, I think you're being an ideologue here. And your example was for patents - which are a completely different animal and have nothing to do with copyright.
If I were an author of a book (which I'm not), I think I would be very upset if I lost the right to *my* work within my lifetime. My point was that if you decide to transfer your work to another person (including your kids or a corporation), then the clock should start ticking immediately "“ the actual length before the work goes into the public domain is up for debate. I, like you, think it should be very short (i.e. 5 years).
For example, if I write a song and 1 year later sell the rights to a record label, the time before the song goes into the public domain would be 6 years. If I don't sell it, it's mine until death.
>> What if your family needed it?
I'm a big believer in meritocracy; I would tax all inheritance (with perhaps a small exemption) at 100% - read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. This country does not need an aristocracy.
rinzertanz [2009-08-13 11:12] Comment ID: 1603 Reply to: 1601
A 'meritocracy' is all find and dandy if EVERYONE started on a level playing field with the same opportunities. They don't.
Over 5/6ths of the world population do not even 'own' computers, let alone cellphones, ipods, and other techno-gadgets that 'link' them to the net and the so-called 'digital economy' …
peterbradley [2009-08-13 12:02] Comment ID: 1606 Reply to: 1603
>> A 'meritocracy' is all find and…
This is getting off topic. I think my original point still stands.
rinzertanz [2009-08-13 13:33] Comment ID: 1612 Reply to: 1606
And your original point WAS that Authors own the copyright to their work, in exactly the same way a Musician owns the copyright to their work. Correct?
If you were, hypotheticaly, an 'author' you would want your work to last your lifetime, BUT, according to you, if you were a musician you'd be willing to 'give up' the Right to your work after 5 years JUST BECAUSE you've 'licensed' it to a 'distributor', ie. a record label, and/or a publisher.
Well, GOOD LUCK with that. You're never going to make a living with those 'terms'.
As a CONSUMER of digital stuff, (not a creator), OF COURSE, you want the 'licensing period' to EXPIRE. It gives you unfettered access to USE that material any old 'commercial' or 'private way' way you want.
Well, phooey to that. NO.
Try to see it from the perspective of those who MAKE THEIR LIVING from what they CREATE of their OWN.
Your not INTERESTED in a 'meritocracy', you just want stuff FOR FREE.
peterbradley [2009-08-13 14:28] Comment ID: 1616 Reply to: 1612
I still don't think you understand…
"Licensing your work" and "selling the rights to your work" are two *totally* different things.
If a creator owns the rights to their work, then they can license it for money for their *entire* life.
If the owner of the original work gives up their rights, then the buyer of the rights can license it for only 5 years. If you give up the rights to your work you *cannot* collect royalties - only the owner of the work can collect royalties (of course, you can always sell it for a lump sum).
BTW, you seem to changing your position half way through this discussion - I thought you said that the shorter the copyrights the better!
And where did I say I wanted free stuff "“ you're losing credibility…
rinzertanz [2009-08-13 16:30] Comment ID: 1625 Reply to: 1616
Nice try.
Any 'copyright owner' who 'GIVES UP' and/or 'SELLS their Rights', in whole or part, has been baboozled, imho.
peterbradley [2009-08-13 14:39] Comment ID: 1618 Reply to: 1612
rinzertanz, I just realized that I'm not talking to the same person that originally replied. Sorry.
However, my points are still valid. I think original creators should keep the rights to their work until death. If they want to sell the rights, fine, but the works become public domain after 5 years. Quit simple - it's the creators choice - it's a fair balance. No rights to original work should survive the creator's death.
rinzertanz [2009-08-13 16:22] Comment ID: 1624 Reply to: 1618
Well, as a creator, I just totally disagree. It's not a 'choice' for ME when YOU are advocating a 'term of five years after 'licensing' a work.
I've written 5 books, written & produced documentary film, painted over 400 works of art, shot over 800 pinhole images, designed 3 typefaces and designed/produced over 350 pieces of Canadian Fine Furnture plus alot of OTHER stuff over 35 years … past, present &, health willing, future …
Just because I've 'licensed' 20 of those 'things' does not mean that I am not entitled to earn a (meagre) living from them 5 years after I've entered into a contractual agreement with a 'distributor'. 5 years is NOWHERE near enough time to maximize auxillary rights, if they exist, let alone "profit".That very limited 'term' would allow SOMEONE else to MAKE MONEY off my creation. And that, friend, while I live & breathe, ain't gonna happen!
Also, I am very aware that much of what I do, and have 'failed' to successfully market in MY LIFETIME, is an inheritance for my children and/or those I 'leave' 'MY' ASSETS to. I'm VERY BUSY making 'stuff'. The time, effort, attention I have to SPEND to SELL does not ALWAYS guarantee a 'return'. It is more important, at this stage in my overall career as 'an artist' that I PRODUCE. OTHERS can figure out the value and the benefit of my ENTIRE effort after I'm done.
Geesh. This isn't a game. This isn't something I am doing solely for your 'casual' consumption. This is MY LIFE. And you have NO RIGHT to tell me how to live it.
peterbradley [2009-08-13 16:38] Comment ID: 1627 Reply to: 1624
Again, we're getting off topic. However, I'm not, nor is anybody else, taking any rights away from you. You are *granted* rights by the government - they are *not* inherent. This is especially true with copyright law (other forms of rights "“ it could be argued "“ are self evident).
PS - I don't believe your creative claims - any real creator simple would not have your simple position. It's too short sighted. And you're right - it's not a game. Goodbye.
rinzertanz [2009-08-13 16:49] Comment ID: 1629 Reply to: 1627
Again, nice try.
I may be a 'creative simple' with a 'simple position', but, hear me on this, I KNOW that what I do is MY work, not yours OR the 'governments'.
I have no idea what you're implying by 'my creative claims'. I've done & am doing the work.
'Nuff said.
Comment
Some comments have brought up good points around legal tactics from large corporations. As it is much easier to "give in" then fight the corporations when there is a disagreement.
When the average person does not have the time or money to fight, there needs to be Government oversight to prevent large companies from taking advantage of individuals.
We have all heard the nightmares in the US, where people are effectively extorted into paying $3000 or face pressing charges and he risk of fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus legal fees - We need to prevent this practice from starting in Canada.
A simple thought would be, unless there is intent to make money off of copyright violations, all claims of infringement need to be made at Small Claims court to give individuals a fair chance to defend themselves.
Response(s)
Alexandre Enkerli [2009-07-28 14:03] Comment ID: 1060 Reply to: 727
Interesting approach, as it may prevent the so-called "chilling effect" from stifling creativity and innovation while giving copyright holders (whether or not they're the original creators) the opportunity to take legal action against infringers. In the case of individual citizens who appear to infringe on copyright, this might make a lot of sense.
At the same time, it might be useful to adopt stronger measures against commercial institutions which are infringing on creators' copyright. In a sense, the broader question is: who is the legal system trying to protect?
canadada [2009-08-10 01:59] Comment ID: 1462 Reply to: 1060
Here's an interesting problem.
Customer uses Company 'A' to do a '16mm film transfer to DVD' of a private family home movie circa 1930's. Company 'A' sub-contracts to Company 'B' to perform this job because they don't have the proper equipment. Company 'B' DELIBERATELY adds music to the silent footage and CREATES the DVD. They encode the disk with proprietory 'software', affix a copright logo and state, 'ALL RIGHTS RESERVED'. and return the DVD 'product' to Company A, who gives it to the customer.
The customer did not get what they paid for or wanted. And, insult to injury, not only is the ORIGINAL material not correctly tranferred to disk as requested, but the 'DATA' has now been 'copyright claimed' by Company 'B' thru the added audio 'feature'. (They now have the 'original' 'locked' data of sound/image in their proprietory 'copying' software system…)
Who is the legal system going to protect?
The owner of the 16 mm stock?
Company 'A'?
or Company 'B'?
Alexandre Enkerli [2009-08-10 02:11] Comment ID: 1463 Reply to: 1462
The law is supposed to protect everyone involved (assuming they're all operating under Canadian laws) and it's always hard to figure out what the best way to deal with competing interests.
What may be hardest, here, is to design a law which preemptively solves such cases, instead of having a flexible solution to deal with individual cases.
Seems like the current law does protect everyone but gives Company 'B' an edge. A flexible law would give Company 'A' and the owner of the footage to some recourse.
cndcitizen [2009-08-11 03:31] Comment ID: 1505 Reply to: 1463
I think this is more about breach of contract not about copyright law…if you contract someone to do something for you and they frig up and do something with your material, they can not copyright that since it contains your material…just tell them that they have to remove all original material you gave them and you won't sue them.
I believe this would all still be covered under existing laws around simple contracts. i.e. you can't resell something I send you to have tranfered…pretty simple.
canadada [2009-08-11 12:35] Comment ID: 1511 Reply to: 1505
Sounds 'simple', but in fact, it's complex.
Cuz NOW the tangible 'disk' and the replicating 'data' EXIST.
As of last posting, Company 'B' has told Company 'A' they will write a letter 'relinquishing all Rights' to the supplied visual material, ie. 'the film footage', after they consult with their lawyer…(O' the irony! They will 'relinquish all Rights-?? They STOLE the visual material in the first place to make the combined film/audio recording!!) The owner of the film is waiting to see how this letter READS before they take their next step …
rinzertanz [2009-08-14 10:58] Comment ID: 1654 Reply to: 1511
Update:
Company 'B' presented Company 'A' with an 'Agreement' for the client to sign.They did not admit any 'wrong doing'. Rather, they wanted client to 'acknowlege' their propreitary software' as EQUAL to their 'acknowledgment' of the copyright on the film held by the client.
Client did not sign.
Instead, client (advised by their lawyer) wrote a letter to Company 'A'. clearly stating they did not grant permission - or even know - that Company 'B', (under Company 'A' contract), was going to make 'unauthorized derivatives'. Any use of same would result in legal action.
Company 'A' said they would fax letter to Company 'B'. …
Overall, it's a dog's breakfast. Why? Cuz Company 'B' is still basically 'at large' to do what they want with the material. The probability that they'll use the 'unauthorized derivatives' for their own promo/marketing purposes is very high. Yet, the RESPONSIBLITY to 'monitor' potential 'infringement' now rests with the weary client.
Well, that sure is unfair. Because, ultimately, this flagrant misuse of the client's private property has BETTER protection under current 'corporate/copyright/patent' law.
And that ain't right. Is it?
crade [2009-08-14 12:16] Comment ID: 1656 Reply to: 1654
"And that ain't right. Is it?"
Do you mean not right according to generally accepted morals or established law? They are currently two different things when it comes to copyright law.
rinzertanz [2009-08-14 13:22] Comment ID: 1657 Reply to: 1656
The corporation produced multiple 'unauthorized derivatives' by adding & editing the original film to sound, thereby 'locking in' the film footage to their 'protected' software…
That's dodgy & unethical.
They basically stole the footage, 'mashed it' with sound to 'create' something 'new' and then had the 'gall' to claim the 'mash up' was theirs.
It's theirs alright, (terribly quality, poorly cut & ghastly musical choices), but that doesn't diminish THE FACT that they've 'created' this muck by using someone else's material - without the owner's knowledge or consent …
canadada [2009-08-11 12:38] Comment ID: 1512 Reply to: 1463
huh?
Company 'B' basically STOLE the original visual material to make a combined audio/visual DVD that they now CLAIM thru proprietory software… The law SHOULD NOT be giving them 'an edge' AT ALL.
Comment
Digital locks can prevent researchers from exercising their fair dealing rights. Any new legislation should not make it a penalty for researchers who break locks in order to exercise their fair dealing righs. For example, for the past three years, faculty at our university, with the aid of federal funding, have been investigating the use of mobile devices for learning. In order to do so, they have had to unlock mobile phones to test them in multiple environments and use them with different telephone companies and with assorted applications.
The iPhone was not available in Canada for 18 months after it was made available in the United States. We were able to circumvent this under present legislation. Even now, legitimate Canadian iPhone owners cannot download many applications that are reserved for Americans, without circumventing technological measures.. For example, the Voice over IP application for Internet telephony SKYPE is not being made available in Canada. We are able to circumvent this using our fair dealing for research rights..With Bill C-61's anti-circumvention clause, researchers would not have been able to legally conduct these investigations in the future. They will be at a disadvantage in keeping up with research using new technologies. The Americans can guarantee their researchers a permanent lead in selected technological developments, simply by applying digital locks.
Comment
Culture is not only something we have, but it is something we create, share, and celebrate every single day. It is the cumulative collection of what we as a society are.
Copyright law as it stands only serves to stifle innovation by locking our own culture behind a large pay booth. I propose that copying media for non-commercial use be a completely legitimate move. Just think of the limitations people run into every day:
An aspiring digital artist wants to tinker with some new techniques, but cannot dish out $700 bucks for the latest edition of Photoshop or 3D Studio Max.
A high school student learning to program becomes frustrated after trying to find a usable replacement for the overly-expensive Microsoft Visual Studio.
These are all non-commercial uses, and even more stunningly for the purpose of education. If either of these people want to become professionals in their fields, they have to be well-versed with these programs before they get there to have a competitive edge. Should we really tell them they can't practice with this software in their own home?
I am a musician. I play music because I love to play music, not because I want to make a buck. I think any artist with any love for their art feels the same way. If that artist is truly great, they will make their living with tours and merchandise, just as they always have before. If they can't manage to do this, maybe they should do what I do: make music for the love of it as a personal hobby and don't quit your day job.
I'm sick of seeing multi-million dollar "˜musicians' strum a few chords into a recorder and whine because the next million came slower than the last. I'm also sick of hearing about the record labels rip off the artists and sue the people in one big temper-tantrum because their business model is dead. Yes, I said it. Dead.
Response(s)
KickingRaven [2009-07-23 11:15] Comment ID: 640 Reply to: 628
DarkDigitalDream, sorry to stray off-topic but there are free versions of Microsoft Visual Studio available, they are called "Express" versions.
DarkDigitalDream [2009-07-23 11:20] Comment ID: 643 Reply to: 640
Thank you for the insight. I guess MSVS is a bad example, but it can be replaced with countless good examples.
phillipsjk [2009-07-24 01:01] Comment ID: 732 Reply to: 628
Even the commercial software is available as trial-ware from time-to time. For example, you have about a week until the free download of the Windows 7 Release Candidate ends July 31. You can't exactly rely on it to do work, but you can learn how the software works.
Myself, I don't like EULAs, so use Free and Open Source Software when I can. Sometimes it can be a work in progress, but you will never have the rug pulled out from under you.
The "in" software changes over the years. The general techniques are more important than specific file formats.
Alexandre Enkerli [2009-07-28 14:17] Comment ID: 1061 Reply to: 628
DarkDigitalD:
"Culture is not only something we have, but it is something we create, share, and celebrate every single day. It is the cumulative collection of what we as a society are."
and
"I am a musician. I play music because I love to play music, not because I want to make a buck."
This perspective on culture seems to be missing from many discussions about copyright, yet a lot of people share it.
I'm also a musician and an ethnomusicologist. Thanks in large part to the development of what legislators call "intellectual property," music has somehow ceased to be an art form to become a mere product of consumption. We might call this the "commodification" of music, the transformation of music into a commodity. Jacques Attali's book "Noise: The Political Economy of Music" documents this transformation. In some social contexts, people ceased to be musical, relying on others to engage in musical activities for them. Is music a spectator sport?
What's interesting is that there is a fair amount of discussion about the "quality" of amateur music, yet the criteria used for assessing this quality seem to be commercial instead of artistic. Is Avril Lavigne's work inherently better than the music played by Jazz musicians during a jam session or the free concert by students in chamber music?
Isn't music meant to be "free as in speech?"
As for use of unlicensed software for educational purposes, it might be a different matter altogether. But it's an intriguing parallel.
