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.
It is important that any changes copyright legislation encourage and support creation of new electronic devices that are capable of playing the copyrighted items. The legislation needs to prevent copyright holders from dictating or controlling what devices the material can be played on.
Some companies are putting DRM restrictions on media and then only allowing players to be developed by themselves and there allies. This makes it very difficult to develop media playing devices. If I buy a song from the iTunes store Apple shouldn't be able to tell me that I can only play that song on apple hardware. The copyright (or competition act?) should be amended to specifically excluded this possibility. So anyone who wants to build/market a itunes player is allowed to do so without having to negotiate a deal with the content providers (ie apple)
Furthermore any digital material that receives copyright protection in Canada should (at least in theory) allow for it to be played on opensource devices.
meikipp [2009-07-25 14:58] Comment ID: 886 Reply to: 876
Agreed. The copyright act should explicitly allow reverse engineering for interoperability in order to foster competition… either that or it should explicitly state that using copyright to create vendor lock-in is illegal.
DRM controls computer programs on ANY hardware, incl. vehicles. Independent mechanics would face software locks, making www.righttorepair.ca useless.
Reduce the length of the copyright term and eliminate crown copyright.
Ensure that fair dealing always overrides DRM (digital locks) and that the tools required to unlock digital media and digital devices are always legal when used for legal, non-infringing purposes such as to enforce fair dealing rights or to format and time shift for accessibility.
Un point que nous entendons souvent est que le Canada doit se conformer aux traités signés avec l'Organisation mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle.
Il est tout à fait possible de se conformer à ces traités sans avoir à transférer une grande partie des pouvoirs aux créateurs, aux distributeurs et au producteurs de contenu au détriment des consommateurs de contenu. Les États-Unis et leur DMCA est un exemple où les consommateurs ont beaucoup perdus.
En implémentant des mesures qui ne sont pas néfastes pour les consommateurs de biens protégés par les droits d'auteur et qui sont conforment aux différents traités que le gouvernement à ratifiés, le Canada demeurera concurrentiel et continuera d'être un berceau pour l'investissement.
nebulo [2009-08-17 00:44] Comment ID: 1707 Reply to: 844
Pour faire Simple. Quelqu'un qui n'achète pas sa musique en la téléchargeant illégalement n'a aucun droit.
Shorter copyright terms would foster competition because content producers would have to work more often to maintain their copyright empires. It would foster investment because more material would be produced. We'd get more variety of creative content, since more out-of-copyright material could be used in new and creative ways.
To foster creativity, the government should stay out of copyright enforcement as much as possible. Otherwise, they become stooges for industry, propping up business models that the free market rejects, instead of being the representatives of the public that they are supposed to be.
Freedom to share and create and freedom from fear of prosecution will create the maximum environment for creativity to thrive. It is creative capacity that attracts talent and produces culture and will put Canada in the forefront of creative enterprise.
pbaracos [2009-08-12 15:37] Comment ID: 1564 Reply to: 731
Much shorter copyright terms would be much better, and an Intellectual Property Tax of, say, 12% on gross sales of copyrighted material could be used to pay for government enforcement. Failure to pay a minimum property tax should cause the material to pass to the public domain.
Sadly, in your opening statement, you've already disclosed who you are here to support. You ask how we can strengthen industry (competition, investment, and high-paying jobs), but what about "What can we do keep Canadians free to enjoy our art and culture?"
The arts have been unnecessarily commercialized. If someone can find a way to make money off it by selling a product that people want to buy, great - but it should end there. The government should not be using tax-dollars to help industry extract money from the population (especially not one as profitable as the entertainment industry).
Even if we are crazy enough to believe the idea that industry will suffer without government intervention, artists will create art whether there is an industry there to make money off it or not. Arguably, the quality of art would likely improve.
So what can government do to keep Canadians free to enjoy our art and culture? The answer is PERSONAL USE. Any copying / viewing / listening for personal use needs to be legal.
ReGenesis [2009-07-23 23:37] Comment ID: 726 Reply to: 608
I completely agree. Copyright law, for the most part, is an issue of industry vs. citizens.
If citizens are not looking to make money off of the industry's products (that is why they are copyrighted to begin with) then it should be allowed under Personal, Fair use.