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.
Copyright should be modernized, but not to the effect in which copyright protection agencies should be able to control and censor the Internet.
The kind of change I would like to see is legalization in file sharing for personal uses. Surveys and studies show that P2P has helped sales and fosters creativity.
The idea for a 3 strikes type of disconnection plan is pathetic. With basic computer knowledge a child can easily crack someone else's WEP code and use their Internet illegally. A three strikes law would be worthless. Draconian laws are not our future.
Remember the more you limit P2P, the stronger it gets. Do a study on the history of file sharing and you will find that every time copyright organizations have tried to censor the content they failed.
Also please don't confuse filesharer's for pirates. Pirates are the people out on street corners making a profit from selling bad quality bootlegs. Filesharers are the people who use a file sharing protocol like bittorrent too exchange their files freely and most of the time legally.
An anti-circumvention law should not criminalize unlocking cellphones. Otherwise, it will further deteriorate competitiveness in the Canadian wireless market by creating an additional barrier to switch providers.
Wireless providers already make their customers sign long-term contracts. Why do they need to lock the phones as well?
It is hard to know where to post this under the 5 different subject areas that Nik chose. I have published a draft of my submission to the 2009 copyright consultation.
Many of the proposals will seem familiar to anyone who has read my previous submissions or my BLOG on digital-copyright.ca . Feedback welcome, and you may also use any of these ideas in your own submissions.
New ideas might be:
* How I see the extremes in this debate being between the suggestion that any unauthorized usage (commercial or otherwise) of a copyrighted work is analogous to "theft" vs. the suggestion copyright holders shouldn't need permission or payment (non-commercial or otherwise).
* That some of the cause of infringement will be how the general public is interpreting some of the views of some of the "infringement is theft" extremism.
* That copyright infringement may in some cases economically harm competitors more than the copyright holder.
DenisT [2009-09-13 20:05] Comment ID: 2514 Reply to: 1523
I read your submission.. Excellent. Although I wouldn't (couldn't) have used your words, I 100% agree with your observations and conclusions.