Je suis compositeur pour la télé et le cinéma et je dois vous dire que quand on essaie (je dis bien essaie!) de vendre une trame sonore et bien c'est presque peine perdue…Une semaine après la sortie d'une trame sonore (chansons)d'un film que j'ai produite,on pouvait la télécharger gratuitement sur internet…Les gens ne comprennent pas que s'ils n'achètent pas de musique et bien on aura plus assez d'argent pour leur en produire d'autre…Si personne n'achète dans une boutique,elle fermera…J'ai remarqué une grosse baisse de la qualité des productions d'albums. Les budjets sont d'à peine 15 000$ pour un album complet…Ça c'est environs 2,50$ de l'heure pour le réalisateur/arrangeur…Parce que oui,il faut savoir tout faire aujourd'hui…

Two of the main things about this discussion that worry me are:

Copyright law is the citizens way of giving an artist an incentive to create something. This is an exchange. You pay me by giving me a temporary monopoly to encourage me to create a work, and I agree that eventually the work will be free to everyone. This means that if a law lengthens the term of copyright retroactively (like most of the US laws did) then you are forced to pay me more and I am allowed to give you less. This is unacceptable -- retroactive changes in copyright are like renegotiating the contract after the work is done.

The rules allowing DRM, and preventing circumventing it are fundamentally flawed. Copyright sets certain restrictions, and allows exceptions to those rules. If a DRM system does not allow the public their rights (such as making copies for personal study), then the publisher is attempting to use technological means to take a control that they do not legally have. Currently the bill makes it illegal to circumvent DRM, even if the DRM exceeds the publishers rights. (It is no longer Digital Rights Management, but just Digital Restrictions Management.) At a minimum the bill must be fixed to make it legal to circumvent over zealous DRM. Ideally the bill would be changed to make it illegal to produce any form of DRM that prevents legal copying. (I would go so far as to argue that unless the work can be copied according to fair-use, then it is not considered to be published and none of the copyright protections apply.)

I am a freelance writer who sees a number of problems in the current copyright environment, much of it stemming from poorly conducted studies of who copies what. I'd like to see rigorous, independent scientifically sound studies performed to really sort out who is copying what, and which copying is done by people who are truly 'lost customers'. There also needs to be a more accurate system for the actual collection and distribution of moneys developed. With the current systems, I suspect there is far too much money being collected in some areas, not enough in others, and a general mal-distribution of multi-millions of dollars.

I have several areas of concern:

1. Over-zealous collectives that have no scientifically proven method for fair or accurate distribution of millions of dollars. A single collective collects money through licences and other fees to the tune of millions of dollars each year. While a small portion of that money is indeed accurately distributed to creators as a form of royalty, most money is not so well targeted. In one collective, millions of dollars are divvied up between anyone who decides to join the collective - even if members haven't had anything published in decades. There is something wrong with a system that collects money, and gives, frequently, to the wrong people. I fear both print and music collectives have similar methodologies - with collected money rarely getting to the correct creators.

2. Levies on recording equipment - even when not used for music. I am a journalist who relies on using recording material to record interviews and lectures for use in my reportage activities. Over the years, many of my dollars have been sent to the music industry and divvied up among artists I don't listen to - simply because when I purchased recorders, tapes, writable CDs and the like I've had to pay hidden levies. I don't record music - only material I need to do my job. There is something wrong with a system that assumes everyone is recording and archiving music. Many of these recordable media are being for recording and archiving of non music material (such as storing family photos, work-related PowerPoint presentations, work-related databases, home movies, etc.). I doubt a true, impartial scientific study has been undertaken to truly quantify what is being recorded and archived.

At the very least, people like me should be able to claim back money spent on music industry levies! Is it possible to set up a system so people like me can claim this money back? Better yet, get rid of these levies -- they don't make much sense.

3. Access to information. Fair dealing/fair use is an important concept in an educated and democratic society. One needs to be able to have access to information for educational use, for background for work-related projects, personal growth, for researching material for product development, and more. An important part of fair dealing is being able to make a single copy of an item (a book chapter, a magazine article, etc.) for personal use. Imagine the 12-year old child working on a history project not being able to make copies of chapters so he can take them home, highlight with markers the relevant passages, and finish his/her assignment. Someone who makes copies for personal use was never in the market to purchase the complete works. That 12-year old child (as with most of us) will throw out or delete the copied material once the project is finished.

Any royalties/levees attached to making those single copies for personal use are misguided - they increase the cost of getting information making it less accessible to people in general. If people are less able to pay for material, then in the long-run you have a less educated society. Rules that allow for certain percentages of books, etc. to be copied for personal use are reasonable. But be wary of collectives that want to add fees to anything and everything that is copied. The spirit of copyright protection is to prevent the exploitation of creators - not to restrict access to information or stop people from learning.

4. Library licenses. Has a proper, independent scientific study been done to see just how much copying done in libraries is for anything more than personal use? From my own observations of watching and chatting with people at library photocopy machines, pretty well everyone was copying material for personal use - studies, personal growth, etc. They weren't making copies for profit. But, this needs proper study. If the vast majority of copying in libraries is done for personal use, then why do libraries pay copy licence fees? Where do those fees go? Where are the data? (Also, libraries already pay additional fees for their books, related to copyright.)

5. Corporate copying licences. I used to work at Roger's media, and like many corporations I believe the company has to pay a copying licensing fee to a collective. Nobody that I'm aware of ever came into the building to study just what was being copied (did they? Is that study recorded somewhere?). Never, in the years I worked for the company, did I see anyone copy anything that was for anything more than personal use - not for exploitive purposes. Has anyone studied, independently and scientifically, what is being copied inside of various companies and whether it really warrants the companies having to pay for copy licences? (And please, don't confuse my using your material as background information for a project I'm working on with copying your material and selling it for profit)

6. Internet usage levies. The Internet is a unique beast in that it is like a vast library available from homes, schools, libraries and cafes. Anyone who puts up a website or creates a blog is aware that the content becomes a part of this vast, international library. If people do not want certain material available to all, there are very simple technologies that allow for things such as password protected areas. There should not be hidden levies or fees collected by collectives to divvy up between their members. Instead, have people who don't want their material public put it behind passwords. Besides, the Internet is international - what if all the sites I use are foreign? Why should I pay levies for Canadian sites I don't use? As a website owner who would be allowed to benefit from a collective, why should I be sent distribution fees for visits that were made to other people's sites?

7. Penalties for schools. Having schools pay additional levies for Internet usage is collecting money for material that is largely for personal use (which, by definition, is free). (If the concern is about file-sharing or music stealing - schools can easily block those sites). At even $4 or $5 per child, the amounts asked from schools is daunting. Remember, many can't even afford enough textbooks for their students. This money would better be used for actual educational material.

8. Music in dental offices. Background music in dental office, garages, shopping malls, and even many types of restaurants is just that - background. The primary activity of going to the dentist or other such places is not to listen to the music. Royalties should be paid if the primary activity of a place is to listen to the music - say retro night at the dance club - not for getting your teeth drilled or your car fixed. (It's things like this that sometimes makes me think it's a 'money grab' - and to fix it there should be a cap on how much a song is actually allowed to earn before profits above and beyond go into an artist development fund).

9. International marketplace for movies. Many of us travel, or order things from overseas - such as documentaries or television shows from the UK's BBC. But when the BBC show arrives here in Canada, your Canadian DVD player can't play it because of copyright protection. I was allowed to buy it, let me play it. Likewise, when my friends in Australia and the UK order a show from the CBC, they can't play it there - so why buy Canadian? It's time to catch up with the changing marketplace and consumer demands. By not keeping-up ends up encouraging people to download shows, etc.

10. Too many collectives. Need I say more? And, to whom are they accountable? Who monitors them, and is it done effectively? Who should really make up a collective?
-30-

On ne sait pas de quoi l'avenir sera fait. C'est pourquoi il est important de mettre en place une loi sur le droit d'auteur qui soit technologiquement neutre, qui assurera aux ayants droit des revenus quelle que soit la plateforme d'accès utilisée par le consommateur.

Je vie de ce métier et je vois dans les dernières années des baisse de ventes d'album de plusieurs milliers de dollars. Si les gens croient que la musique est gratuite et que celle-ci leur appartient, il est temps de mettre en vigueur des lois sévères contre ce piratage. L'industrie en souffre et l'avenir s'annonce mal pour les créateurs et créatrices d'arts. Il est écrit au début de chaque film et vidéo que la loi est très sévère pour ceux qui tenteraient de copier sans permissions le contenu de ces arts, j'aimerais savoir comment souvent cette loi à été mise en évidence et d'avoir accès à la liste des gens qui ont été accusés et trouver coupable du crime mentionné. Je ne crois pas que cette liste existe. Oû est l'organisme en place pour bien surveiller les infractions? Il est temps que le gouvernement se responsabilise et s'engage à la protection du droit d'auteur. Personne ne travaille pour rien et c'est dans l'attitude et dans le respect de nos politiciens que les changements peuvent prendre place.

I am a student, still unable to vote, yet with sufficient time to do extensive research on topics, and I'd like to present my views. I hope you will consider them calmly, without freaking out.
I don't think we need copyright. I've seen a massive number of things flourish without it. I run GNU/Linux. It has an estimated value of billions, but is completely free. I've read several free (like speech) textbooks which have put me beyond my peers. I listen to most of my music on jamendo, where music is not copyrighted. I get my knowledge often from wikipedia - and admit it, you do too. Wikipedia is without copyright. In short, as they say, 'sharing is caring', and I believe the most humane and natural thing a human can do.
When the Americans (US) considered whether or not their country should have copyright, there was no digital infrastructure, and the barrier for entry to all arts was much higher. Now, as anyone can do it only with a computer (Even at a Library!) I think there is so much content and enough producers we need no longer such a massive incentive. Instead of copyright adding value, I believe it is taking it away.
But I recognize there's never been a large modern society without IP, so I think it would mess things up even more than the recession has. So I don't want Canada to just give up all copyright. No, I recommend a single-digit copyright duration - preferably 7 years, both for luck and because it is half the original duration of copyright in the USA. I've yet to meet an artist who has made significant money from a work that old anyway - it is always with recent works that they get their money from. I know this will mess things up royally with the WTO, but I also believe developing countries like China & India would take this as a great time to loosen their copyright as well. And then we could have more trade with them, and less with the USA, seeing how badly that turned out.
Now, if things go well in the future we could look further into loosening copyright further, should it have gone well.
It's just an embarrassing fact the current state of copyright. I mean, DRM? If I gave you a book and told you you had to come see me and prove you still had the book every time you wanted to read it, you'd send me to jail. Only a fraction so small of works generate revenue in the last decade of their copyright that only the insane wouldn't round it to 0%. I mean, that's how copyright hurts us all - and it hurts us bad. If I ever wanted to remix a song without paying a massive fee, I had better outlive the artist by a half-century.
So, there we go. That's how existing laws should be modernized. I've spend the time to research this. I know authors (Like my sister) and am a musician. If we don't modernize copyright now, I believe we'll lose a considerable part of our past culture, as no one will be allowed to archive it without paying. The dangers are great - and now is the time to take action!
end cliche
Thanks for taking the time to consider my humble opinion.
PS:If any party adopts this policy, I bet they'll be elected :)

En tant que consommatrice de biens culturels et historiques, je demande une modification à la loi canadienne sur le droit d'auteur, afin d'y inclure le droit d'accès aux documents d'archives, sans égard à la technologie utilisée, ce qui permettrait aux services d'archives de rendre leurs fonds et collections accessibles au public grâce aux technologies numériques, incluant l'Internet.

Les archivistes protègent, préservent et rendent accessible le patrimoine documentaire du Canada et de ses citoyens à l'intention des générations actuelles et futures.

Traditionnellement, les chercheurs devaient se rendre sur place, dans les centres d'archives, pour consulter les documents. Dans un environnement numérique, les archives peuvent maintenant se rendre aux chercheurs; ceux-ci n'ont plus l'obligation de se déplacer.

Je suis convaincue que tout le monde a intérêt à ce que les documents d'archives ne dorment pas sur les tablettes parce que le public n'a aucun moyen de savoir qu'ils sont disponibles ou aucun moyen de se rendre dans un centre d'archives pour les consulter sur place.

Le gouvernement doit s'engager fermement concernant les millions de documents qui racontent l'histoire de notre pays et de ses citoyens, et qui restent cachés dans les centres d'archives parce qu'ils ne peuvent être reproduits ou diffusés à des fins de recherche sur les sites Web archivistiques en raison de restrictions liées au droit d'auteur.

Pour moi, les droits d'auteur sont principalement des droits de distribution. Je n'ai pas le droit de faire 50 copies et de les vendre ou distribuer gratuitement à mes voisins parce que je n'en suis pas l'auteur. Mais j'ai le droit de faire 50 copies, de les enterrer dans mon jardin ou de les enfermer dans mon coffret à la banque puisqu'il n'y a pas distribution.

Je suis en informatique. Je télécharge des megs et des gigs à chaque mois de logiciels libres, de mise à jour de code source et je regarde des cours magistraux régulièrement pour me tenir à jour dans mon domaine. A cause du coût et du temps perdu en chargement, ces données me sont précieuses et nécessitent une copie de sécurité. Je dois donc payer sans raison des redevances.

Malgré tout, je tolère cette pénalité. Je comprends que certains vont donner un DC contenant des oeuvres protégées et qu'il est plus simple de gérer les droits d'auteur de cette manière. Mais jamais au grand jamais quelqu'un donnerait un iPod ou autre disque inamovible.

Et c'est pour cette raison que je considère ridicule l'imposition d'une redevance à ces appareils. Et que je considère criminellement irresponsable d'imposer plusieurs centaines de dollars de redevance à un iPod de 80 gigs, comme la SCPCP a proposé il y a quelques années.

P.S.
S'il m'était possible de nommer à chaque année les ayants droit pour mes redevances (avec factures à l'appui), je serais pleinement satisfait de pouvoir faire ce don à mes artistes préférés. Mais je n'aime pas voir mon argent disparaître dans les méandres d'une industrie qui ne fait rien pour moi.

Depuis quelques années, les moyens, d'acheter, distribuer et partager la musique ont évolué. Les lois, elles, sont restées sensiblement les mêmes.

Pour le bien de la culture (et de la vie humaine donc), les lois devraient être actualisées. Je pense notamment que les lois devraient inclure des mesures de rétribution pour les créateurs d'oeuvres distribuées sur le net. Par exemple, offrir des royautés au compositeur de musique de jeux (programmé en) Flash distribués exclusivement sur le net.

Aussi, les créateurs de musique sous toutes ses formes (Mp3, Flac, etc.) et sur tous ses supports (lecteur Mp3, tél. cellulaire, film, film en "streaming", etc.) devraient être rémunéré pour leur travail. C'est une évidence. Faisons l'exercice de l'analogie; transposons notre situation du côté de l'essence. Si du jour au lendemain les citoyens volaient le carburant, les producteurs de pétrole et le gouvernement perdraient de gros montant d'argent. S'en plaindraient-ils? Créeraient-ils des lois pour se protéger? Poser la question…

Dans un autre ordre d'idée, il semble évident que les fournisseurs d'accès internet (FAI) se "graissent les pattes" sur le dos des artistes. Les FAI offrent des quantités limitées de téléchargements (10 go) pour un montant astronomique (60.95$). Ici, il y a au moins deux problèmes. Tout d'abord, curieusement, ces FAI ne sont pas propriétaires de contenu qu'ils "permettent" à leurs utilisateurs de télécharger. Ensuite, à ma connaissance, ils ne remettent aucun argent aux ayant-droits. En somme, ces FAI se font beaucoup d'argent à contrôler la circulation du traffic sur la vague d'un contenu qui ne leur appartient pas. Tout ça me semble inadmissible et pour les créateurs de contenu et pour les consommateurs.

As a lifelong collector of music - on LP and CD - as well as a music retailer and a performing musician, I've had a chance to witness the way the industry works and frankly, I don't think it's worth saving.

Folks like CRIA are representing an industry that, for most of the last century, has run on theft, bribes, price-fixing and crying wolf at every attempt to curtail their criminal business practices.

Even while the record companies were gorging themselves at the teat of overpriced CD reissues (and remasters, and vinyl-replica-sleeves, and anniversary versions) of the same music they'd already stolen from the artists, they'd sown the seeds of their own destruction by embracing the new digital format known as CDs.

The fact is that the playing field has now levelled. Traditional radio, or even video TV stations no longer hold absolute marketing sway over what the public listens to. Digitization means that anyone with a computer and a microphone is a recording artist and has control over how they choose to sell or share the content they create. The indentured servitude model of the record companies is no longer relevant for many artists, and the fact that it is difficult, as it has always been, to make a living as a musician has not staunched the flow of music into the marketplace on iota - in fact the opposite is true - there is more product to choose from than ever before, as well as the opportunity for consumers to cast their vote in the marketplace by paying for - or not - content that they value - or not.

Like it or not, the internet is the cyberspace equivalent of the wild west - there are few enforceable laws - and we are entering a new era where rules cannot be written because there is no consensus on the value of digital content and how it should be delivered. As one of the dinosaurs who think CDs suck (an anachronistic standard developed in the era of Commdore 64s) and MP3s are a joke, I welcome the development of a digital standard that is worth paying for - like perhaps DVD audio (why is EMI remastering The Beatles for CD now, when the CD era is clearly ending?).

So - the industry screams for handouts like the blank CD levy - but have failed to deliver quality of content and format to consumers who quite rightfully have rebelled - and I say this with all the ironic glee of someone whose business has suffered as a result but as a consumer of music first am sick of being ripped off.

I don't have a tidy solution to this, but I urge the deep-thinkers who are contemplating legislation in this area NOT TO GIVE THE RECORD COMPANIES ANYTHING THEY ASK FOR. They deserve the fate they have sown for themselves long ago.

I am a writer. I have to persuade publishers that they can pay me, pay reproduce costs, sell my writing, and make a profit doing it. All of us in the business of writing, drawing, painting, creating software, recording music and so on follow much the same path. And yes, it's a business. Our product is intellectual property in the same way that the XYZ Car Company's product is a tangible product.

Nobody would argue that an XYZ car that rolls off the assembly line should be free to boost from the plant and "share" with others. That's theft and everybody knows it. If you bought that car, you could share it with your friends by lending it to them or giving it away. It would not be sharing if you started your own plant, made copies of the car, and sold them or even handed them out for free. That would infringe XYZ's rights. And everybody knows that too.

I cannot fathom why this is such hard concept to grasp: Just because it's easier to steal from the creator of intellectual property than from the XYZ Car Company, it doesn't change the fact that it's theft.

And no matter what form a product takes, it is not "sharing" to copy something and give it to another. Sharing by definition requires division and apportionment. I haven't shared anything if in the end I still have it whole all for myself. You can't pat yourself on the back for being a sharer if the act cost you nothing.

Il est clair que les métiers d'auteur et de compositeur de chanson ou de musique instrumentale sont considérablement dévalués du fait d'une rémunération inéquitable pour les créateurs. Une infime poignée ont et auront la capacité de vivre de leur art et d'avoir une qualité de vie normale et appréciable (un à cinq pourcent?).

Les autres (95%?) sont-ils censés créer des chansons mémorables et inoubliables, investir dans les arrangements et dans leur enregistrement, et distribuer gratuitement les chansons, et avec le sourire à part ça?! Ça n'est pas réaliste de demander ça aux créateurs de chansons, et je trouve ça profondément inéquitable, voire anti-démocratique. La qualité générale de la culture musicale et chansonnière ne peut qu'en souffrir. Pour certains consommateurs qui ne voient pas plus loin que leur fond de poche, il semble que la gratuité aille de soi sur Internet. C'est un peu le principe d'aller chez Wal-Mart; on fait des économies, mais elles se font sur le dos de qui en réalité? Comment assurer un "développement (culturel) durable" et de qualité dans de telles conditions?

Le support, peu importe qu'il soit désuet (cassette), actuel (Ipod, mp3) ou futuriste (une éventuelle puce quelconque greffée à la peau?), doit pouvoir assurer une rémunération acceptable au premier "fournisseur" de contenu, c'est-à -dire le créateur dudit contenu. Si le fournisseur de l'accès (FAI) peut en tirer de juteux profits, il doit alors devenir partie de la solution et retourner la part qui revient aux créateurs indépendants.

S'il n'y a pas de relève indépendante des conglomérats qui puisse fleurir à l'ombre de ceux-ci, je crains une profonde aseptisation culturelle d'ici une génération. Qui veut encore (et voudra) embrasser le métier de parolier librement dans ces conditions? Poser la question, c'est y répondre.

Bien d'accord avec la proposition ci-dessous de Jean-Robert Bisaillon.

Je m'inscris pour l'élaboration d'une Licence numérique : Afin d'assurer une compensation pour leur travail, aux créateurs d'oeuvres intellectuelles numérisées et échangées gratuitement; Afin d'arrimer la législation canadienne aux traités de l'OMPI en matière de Mesures techniques de protection et de Mise à disposition; Afin de reconstruire une économie de l'enregistrement sonore canadien,
Je propose les réformes suivantes :
La loi sur le droit d'auteur canadienne instaure une Licence numérique pour mise à disposition non-commerciale - à inclure aux contrats d'accès aux réseaux et à l'achat de forfaits ou de médiums de stockage informatiques.
Les consommateurs qui souhaitent s'exclure de la mesure peuvent le faire en exerçant un droit de retrait volontaire au moment de signer tel contrat et garantissant qu'il ne font pas usage de leur réseau pour accéder à des oeuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur.
Le tarif déterminé par la Commission du droit d'auteur est assumé par le fournisseur d'accès et le consommateur - cette responsabilité conjointe est régie par le CRTC.
La portion du consommateur fluctue et est déterminée par une mesure de son utilisation de bande passante.
Le tarif doit être abordable.
La perception et la répartition des montants générés par la Licence numérique sont assumées par un collectif regroupant l'ensemble des associations d'ayants droit.
Les ayants droit qui souhaitent s'exclure de la mesure peuvent le faire en exerçant un droit de retrait volontaire au moment d'adhérer à leur association.
La répartition n'est pas basée sur la mesure d'une autre activité économique du secteur telles les ventes physiques ou les passages radios - il faut créer une mesure spécifique pour cette activité par une observation des flux et l'utilisation d'une technologie de marquage.
Le fait de légaliser et de baliser la pratique de la mise à disposition non-commerciale marginalisera le nombre d'usagers prêts à entraver les mesures de marquage et d'observation des flux.
La mise à disposition commerciale demeure sujette à des licences générales spécifiques et l'entrave aux mesures de marquage devient illégale.
Finalement, je donne mon appui à la PROPOSITION DES AUTEURS ET INTERPRàˆTES D'ENREGISTREMENTS SONORES CANADIENS POUR UN MODàˆLE DE MONÉTISATION DES PARTAGES DE FICHIERS MUSICAUX NUMÉRIQUES de la Songwriters Association of Canada
http://www.songwriters.ca/studio/proposalfrench.php
Merci de votre attention. Jean-Robert Bisaillon http://www.youyou.ca

Copyright realy only protects those who can Afford an Expencive Lawyer which for the ost part big Media companies or Huge artists. the chance of small artists or composers benifiting from your laws and r revenue sharing from blank media is less than the costs you impose on us to create our work with our blank media

Les fournisseurs d'accès Internet (FAI),qui sont maintenant les diffuseurs font d'immenses profits en offrant toute une gamme de services dont la possibilité de télécharger des musiques, des films, etc. Ils font partie de la solution devant être apportée aux pertes de revenus découlant des actes de téléchargement illégaux. Ils doivent être mis à contribution tant financièrement que par une implication directe dans la lutte à mener contre ces pratiques illégales.
Il est faux de dire que la musique est gratuite sur Internet : les consommateurs se l'approprient en payant leur facture d'Internet et pas un sou ne revient à ceux qui créent cette musique.
Martin M Tétreault

En tant que créatrice et qu'éditrice musicale en devenir, il me semble primordial que le gouvernement canadien mette à jour la loi sur le droit d'auteur de façon à ce qu'elle tienne compte de la numérisation des contenus musicaux et des nouveaux modes de consommation de la musique qu'elle entraîne.

Avec la numérisation, les fondements mêmes du droit d'auteur sont ébranlés. Internet véhicule une culture de la gratuité qui, couplée à la facilité sans précédent de se procurer, d'échanger et de reproduire des fichiers musicaux de façon quasi-instantanée, font perdre aux yeux des consommateurs la valeur associée aux actes que sont la diffusion et la reproduction de la musique. C'est pourtant de cette valeur que sont tirés les revenus des ayants droits des oeuvres musicales.

Dans les paramètres actuels de la loi, il est impossible de tirer les revenus de droits d'auteur liés à certaines exploitations des oeuvres musicales, dont la copie pour usage privé que font les consommateurs des oeuvres musicales et des enregistrements sonores sur leurs enregistreurs audionumériques (lecteurs MP3).

Il faut donc une réforme de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur qui arrive à faire valoir fidèlement les droits des auteurs en fonction de tous les changements qui ont eu lieu dans les dernières années et qui soit conçue avec suffisamment d'ouverture pour prévoir les changements à venir. Comme le mentionne Éric Lemieux dans un commentaire ci-dessous, une loi "technologiquement neutre" qui assurera aux ayants droits une rémunération pour l'exploitation de leurs oeuvres, peu importe la forme ou le mode de cette exploitation.

'Twitter Wit', published by Harper Collins, (All Rights Reserved) has been 'edited' by Nick Douglas, with foreword by Biz Stone, Co-Founder of Twitter, retails for $16.99. (Cdn)

Puts a whole new 'spin' on 'monetizing' content users words on the web.
ie. now it's apparently 'legal' to appropriate OTHERS words FOR PROFIT.

Some may argue that 'contributors' to 'Twitter Wit' contributed 'freely' just 'for the fun of it'. Or, gee, maybe they contributed to assuage their egos … or did it to 'gain' publicity … with the very long-shot they'd get a few 'followers' or even longer shot that they might someday somewhere somehow actually get PAID for their pirouett-ical 'witticisms' … or not.

Could be they are just twitterers who don't - or can't - make a living by writing, but find the very IDEA twitillating that their one liner got PUBLISHED, cuz then they are now, you know, like, FINALLY PUBLISHED in a real live BOOK.

DREAM ON suckers.

The ONLY ones who'll 'benefit' from this are the three mentioned: - the 'publisher' , Harper Collins, 'writer' Nick Douglas, (this is his first 'compendium of others tweets' aka 'book' btw), and 'techie' Biz Stone who UNDERSTANDS that 'profile' IS business. This is the first 'BOOK' to come out with 'Twitter' content and thus now EXTENDS Twitter's REACH into that tired & old but still surprisingly CRAVED ENCLAVE of the 'print industry' …

See link to 'browse inside' book & view COPYRIGHT page.

http://browseinside.harpercollins.ca/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061897276

(Note there is now no 'olbigatory' third party CHARITY mentioned, nothing is 'FREE' here … meaning, all three principals of this title GET that MONEY is MONEY. That's WHY 'All Rights are Reserved'. THEY own the 'Copyright', not those thousands of hapless 'wannabe' contributors who regularly sent in their 'wittery'.)

One sighs for the suckers.

Laws that ensure copyright is properly protected are necessary, with an eye to the fact that this can or is someone's livelihood and so fair and just compensation is needed. This protection of copyright in all areas is important not just for artists and businesses, for in many ways it benefits all Canadians and the Canadian economy as it enhances our identity or view of ourselves collectively. Saying this, we currently see the sale of materials subsidized by Canadians being sold off with seemingly little benefit to us other than as some footnote saying where it was first created. This discussion requires a larger frame and needs to be explored in light of the individual or group needs and within the context of what is ultimately good for our society. We all benefit from each others contributions regardless of the field, but we too are supported in many ways by our society that allows us the health, time, energy and opportunity to create and think freely or not if we choose.

Because of the greed factor some argue that rights for copyright should cease after the death of the creator. If this creation, intellectual property… is the gift that is passed on down to one's progeny as their inheritance, is it any less their right than the cottage, stock portfolios, trust funds, mementos or other items that are bequeathed to them. Many Canadians who create do so because they love what they do and receive little recognition or renumeration for their efforts within the course of their lives. Denying these rights perpetuates this and allows others to benefit more greatly than those to whom there is a deep connection.

Just copyright says we value the contribution made by these people.

It tells us that to work hard and sacrifice one's time energy and resources to create what we imagine, perceive, hear or believe is worth at least this protection.

It doesn't always ensure big pay cheques for most creators live in obscurity.

It does provide the opportunity for proper compensation when the public begins to recognize the efforts of the individual or group and the body of work that they have contributed to the fabric of Canada and the world.

It does not permit the exploitation of this work so that others benefit before the one(s) who toiled to create it whether living or deceased.

obviously creators are dependent on their intellectual property rights to make a living. so as a creator copyright laws directly affects me.

it feels a bit strange that so many people want to discuss my rights away. if creators like myself don't receive fair compensation for their work, it will be only a matter of time until high quality work will have disappeared. not that fair compensation guarantees high quality work, but no or too low compensation guarantees low quality work.

fair compensation is a matter of course for just about every other profession, but for creators it seems to be debatable. why? if you want to buy groceries, you must pay for them. if you want a new car, you have to pay for it. if you want to buy a cd player, you have to pay for it. if you want to listen to music, you must also pay for it. simple.

fair copyright laws that ensure creators receive fair compensation are indispensible for canadian content creators and their fellow creators all over the world.

I agree that copyright should cease after the original creator's death, I don't agree with the whole financial gain (and quite massive after death, work more valuable) that happens today, it's just a big scheme to get rich people richer while the consumer keeps paying for it.
I also think that copyright should stay with the entity that produced the work originally and not be sold to a third party. Use agreements should be in place for anybody that wants to use the work on any basis (commercial or not).