Copyright Consultations
copyrightconsultation.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
First
Previous
Archived - Innovation and Creativity - Discussion
Comments for July 22, 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
Let's look at first principles here. A copyright is a government granted monopoly to the use of an expression of an idea.
The grant of a monopoly can be useful to encourage the producer/purveyor of something. It is however, dangerous and its use must be limited with a constant eye to the public good.
Another thing to note is that, for the most part, the commercial life of copyrighted material is far shorter than the protection.
For example, consider songs, science textbooks or photographs produced in the 1960's by someone who dies this decade. The vast majority them have no commercial value these days. They are valueless, but will be unavailable for public use, modification and enhancement for another forty or fifty years. The technical means for preserving them for the future exists, but they will be lost because they receive monopolistic protection.
Isaac Newton said "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." These days, powerful interest groups have long since Teflon(TM) coated the shoulders and backs of giants and are trying to put on slippery kneepads and grease the tops of their shoes.
Copyrights should be of relatively short duration. If they are renewable, it should not be automatic.
Comment
"Nearly any creative work can be shown to be built upon the works of those who came before.
"?People still want to create the way they always have, but the industry of the last century, that has relied on copyright law to make its product seem different and 'original' freaks out about this ongoing content creation
"… people recognize that all works are created based on the works of others, and it's inherently silly to try"
Taken from "The Myth Of Original Creators," http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090629/0230145396.shtml
Response(s)
cagolatru [2009-07-22 21:49] Comment ID: 561 Reply to: 560
"…and it's inherently silly to try to charge everyone to pay back each and every one of their influences in creating a new work."
rinzertanz [2009-07-25 08:12] Comment ID: 872 Reply to: 561
…. Influencing is ONE thing, COPYING is another …
Otherwise I agree.
There is no question that Delacroix influenced Hockney … ;)
gredo [2009-07-27 23:12] Comment ID: 1023 Reply to: 872
I agree, but have things really changed or are the lawyers just outspending their just reward.
I find it offensive that great musicians who's roots including many hours of learning and performing others music on their way to grandeur now expect money from fledgling bands trying to scrape out their way. This topic has many sides and seems to end with more losers than winners if any changes are made.
Comment
Copyright laws that make it illegal -- or even difficult -- to format-shift, or to break DRM will result in customer lock-in to one company's data formats or playback devices. This is a detriment to a free, competitive market. To allow competition to thrive, customers need to be able to switch from one provider of goods or services to another without fear of criminal or civil prosecution. If users are afraid they will be unable to format-shift their content in the future, they will be less likely to buy content now.
Comment
something that should be looked at is copyright that extends past someones death. these 50 -100 year + copyrights that happen in places are crazy
it should be like 10 years max
i mean how many people work and then get paid for the same work for 10 years thats not right.
so a much shorter cap should be in place on copyrighted work
also assuming that people can be fine for non commercial use of copyrighted works then there needs to be some fairuse type clause
and companys that say something isnt fair use and want it taken down should be HEAVYLY FINED if the demand something taken down that is fair use
if fairuse can be rendered invalid by companies casting a wide net then there is a problem
however i feel that violation of copyright shouldnt be possible in a non commercial use.
Response(s)
Rob Patterson [2009-08-30 16:11] Comment ID: 2132 Reply to: 440
A ten year limit on a copyright is rediculous. How many songs have written that made no money at all when recorded by the original author only to go platinum ten, twenty, or even thirty years later. So the original writer should get nothing because he is not a good singer or didn't have a good manager. Along comes Aerosmith, re-records the song and has a hit and gets it all. Have you ever heard the phrase "It takes about ten years to become an overnight sensation".
Comment
Get rid of copyrights on personal and educational use and allow people to modify content that's protected by DRM.
Response(s)
ningeo [2009-07-22 14:57] Comment ID: 442 Reply to: 398
I agree with what you're getting at, however I'd like to expand on this a little:
"Get rid of copyrights (…)" Actually, copyrights can be used to ensure the open availability of material to the public. Look up Creative Commons licensing, its an ingenious way to ensure that your content is available.
"(…) educational use (…)" This is truly a flaw of our current legislation. I cannot count the number of times during my post secondary education (Engineering degree) that my professors were unable to give effective lessons because of restrictions placed upon them, for what common sense would tell you is a fair use of the copyrighted material.
"(…) modify content that's protected by DRM." DRM is an insidious beast. Most of it is completely ineffective, and that which is effective will likely be compromised at some point. However, it is possible that content purchased today may some day be rendered completely useless by DRM, this represents a significant risk to the consumer, Canadian culture and the economy as a whole. DRM also commonly flies in the face of things that we have come to accept as a right. For instance, lending copyright works to friends, selling old books, cd's, etc.
msmart [2009-07-22 17:54] Comment ID: 503 Reply to: 442
I mostly agree with both of you. The Creative Commons is good, but I think that we must be careful of developing into a society where we must depend on licensing methods that are optional for the creator, as opposed to the default laws.
For example, it should be ensured that students are not required to destroy their notes at the end of a course, as is desired by some parties in other parts of the world. How can innovation or creativity flourish when scientists and engineers aren't allowed to keep copies of their lecture materials?
DRM IS a beast. What if my computer fails and my content is lost? Should I have to pay again to get second copies of my content for a new machine?
DarkDigitalDream [2009-07-23 09:03] Comment ID: 629 Reply to: 398
I couldn't agree more whole-heartedly. In fact, I'd go a step further and say DRM is excessively restrictive to begin with. Enough people have boycotted DRM'ed media that even the RIAA has publicly stated it is dead.
