Information identifiée comme étant archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’a pas été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis la date de son archivage. Les pages Web qui sont archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes applicables au Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez la demander sous d’autres formes. Ses coordonnées figurent à la page « Contactez-nous »
I am glad that Access Copyright does disburse some funds to reward us for when our creativity has been copied. With the coming of e-books and in general the ability of digital copies to be as perfect as the originals, copyright may become very hard to enforce. New models will come about, and they will diminish the importance of big names both artists and distributors. Consumers will begin to get what they want instead of what the big names want them to have.
I'm not sure how the laws should be changed but I would just like to share a few points with you all:
Growing up I worked hard mowing lawns, shovelling snow, and all sorts of other odd jobs. Why? So I could have a bit of cash so I could buy the latest album I had to have. Gobs of money later, the internet comes along and I find that I can't listen to my music in the modern formats. I have been forced to steal music that I already own.
Separate from the above… I have a couple general suggestions: Should record execs be able to keep milking Elvis records long after his death? I don't see why they are entitled and as a consumer I refuse to pay. Should those same execs have a means to recoup the marketing and production costs of a new artist? Sure, I can see the value in that service they perform.
Both sections illustrate ways the system is broken and while I don't know what the solution is, I am hopeful that by sharing my experience and point of view a fair solution can be found.
Roy Strachan [2009-08-13 02:38] Nº du commentaire : 1592 Reply to: 1558
I agree that it is ridiculous to have to buy a second copy of a piece of music *for your own use* just because the format of the recording has changed. This may need to be limited to copies you make yourself from your original purchased recording. You are buying the privilege of listening to the music, not the privilege of supporting hardware manufacturers and record companies because they have made it difficult or impossible to listen to music you have legally purchased.
As far as the copyright is concerned, it should have a reasonable but limited life span. The life span of the performer and/or author should obviously not be of consideration. As an *example* the copyright could expire 20 years after original publication/recording, at which time that song or recording of the song would become public property.
Digital Rights Management (DRM) should be outlawed in any case since it interferes with the legal use of purchased property, besides which it doesn't even slow down those who criminally copy and sell recordings. Perhaps the penalties for those criminal activities could be increased to the point where potential profit is not worth the risk. Go after the crooks, not legitimate users.
Yes, the existing laws need to be modernized in order to protect the intellectual property of the content producers, primarily the authors of the content and then those enterprises that prepare and disseminate content on behalf of its authors.
As a writer, I am fed up with people copying my material rather than purchasing my material. I respect everyone's intellectual property and, in return, expect everyone to respect my intellectual property rights.
There should be no free lunch when it comes to intellectual property. The state's role is to ensure that there is fair and reasonable compensation to all content producers as well as to the industries that distribute this content.
sjbrown [2009-08-12 13:48] Nº du commentaire : 1559 Reply to: 1557
Michael, if the proposed "modernization" of laws took away your (and everyone's) right to tinker with their own property, would you support that?
Michael Behiels [2009-08-12 16:28] Nº du commentaire : 1569 Reply to: 1559
See above post.
meikipp [2009-08-12 14:57] Nº du commentaire : 1562 Reply to: 1557
No one here is objecting to your being paid for your work. In fact many of the posters here are creators (authors, artists, programmers, etc) who want to be paid for their work. What we don't want is to have our rights to tinker with our electronic devices taken away, or our fair dealing rights removed by DRM (digital locks).
Michael Behiels [2009-08-12 16:27] Nº du commentaire : 1568 Reply to: 1562
Yes, a fine and difficult balance has to be established. This task is up to all the stakeholders in this complicated world of creativity to hammer out the necessary legal structure, one that will serve all the stakeholders' interests.
The digital world is revolutionizing global communications and the dissemination of information as well as the ability of many people to steal and/or alter information and content of all kinds that does not belong to them. Solutions will not be easy to come by. But, this should not stop our legislators from trying to put into place solutions, ones that I am sure will not be perfect and will need constant amendments to keep up with the rapid changes taking place.
sjbrown [2009-08-12 18:52] Nº du commentaire : 1583 Reply to: 1568
I am of the opinion that our legislators should never sign away a negative right for the sake of a positive right.
Reasonable modification of copyright law is fine, but the moment they outlaw my access to my private property or my ability to speak about / publish the results of my investigation into my private property, they have gone too far. I can't just forgive them because "they tried hard".
meikipp [2009-08-13 12:41] Nº du commentaire : 1610 Reply to: 1568
I'm extremely wary of the notion that the government should do something, anything, in order to stop file sharing, especially when current studies show that the harm the content industries claim is being done is hugely exaggerated. Stopping commercial piracy is a good idea, but the law already criminalises this so no further laws are really necessary.
The ability to make use of copyrighted material without the permission of the creator is essential to scholarship, education and any number of other venues. The key here is that you can't distribute the entire work or publish a derivative work for profit without permission. You can, however, critique, review, cite, and copy portions for your own private use without permission.
MatthewSherrard [2009-08-15 13:43] Nº du commentaire : 1671 Reply to: 1568
As the entire idea of what constitutes a consumer's rights is at stake here, everyone in the country is a stakeholder. Language like that seems to be intended to exclude those who do not own, or receive license to distribute, intellectual property. I am only incidentally an originator of IP, but as a consumer (and frequently a paying one) and I completely refuse to be excluded from this discussion.
The reality of the situation is that a door has been opened and will *never* be shut again. Any suggestion that the ability to copy digital media without limitation will somehow "die off" is laughably unrealistic. All any government can do is haemorrhage money into the legal system to try to reduce the ease and volume (and not by very much), and hope to recoup those costs by bankrupting those they catch.
If your works are anything like those of the majority of the copied music, a sizeable proportion would never have paid for it in the first place, had it not been available for free. That is the current reality. People have thousands of works available to them where their parents had dozens.
Isn't it far more sensible to work on methods of remunerating authors and artists? Wouldn't this money be better placed in Heritage Minutes, mandatory school ethics courses, PSAs and other culture- and mind-engaging ways of enforcing the idea that creators of things we value must be rewarded and fostered?
What about a government funded site which allows "donations" to authors and artists from those who have (in any capacity) benefited from their work?
If this is all about saying "Well if you won't pay, you can't have it at all!", in the face of the reality that THAT scenario has been dead for years, you look like a red faced child stomping your feet. What about those with insufficient income? Must they save up, scrimp or scrounge?
In this world of plentiful ideas, it is the internet and the advance of technology itself that is devaluing your ideas and creations, not the way people are using them. Instantaneous, dirt cheap access to millions and millions of works dilutes their value just like any glut in a market. If creators continue to artificially overvalue their work, out of pride or selfishness, they will be ripped off by an increasingly unsympathetic planet.
cndcitizen [2009-08-18 12:33] Nº du commentaire : 1737 Reply to: 1671
Never seen someone lay the whole copyright issue to the bare bones like this…well said.
MatthewS - "In this world of plentiful ideas, it is the internet and the advance of technology itself that is devaluing your ideas and creations, not the way people are using them. Instantaneous, dirt cheap access to millions and millions of works dilutes their value just like any glut in a market. If creators continue to artificially overvalue their work, out of pride or selfishness, they will be ripped off by an increasingly unsympathetic planet."
Alan Martin [2009-08-28 15:53] Nº du commentaire : 2096 Reply to: 1568
There is no balance to be had in DRM / digital locks. By their nature, they only work as closed systems, closing off huge areas of innovation and turning competitive markets into monopolies.
But is the status quo really so bad? Shutting down large-scale infringers seems to work for the music industry as a way to limit the damage, and educate the public about the rights of creators at the same time.
It's not perfect, so we should consider new solutions - but we should also recognize that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
wturner [2009-08-21 20:23] Nº du commentaire : 1984 Reply to: 1557
As a writer, I support this comment. If someone produces a product (book, song, woodcarving, pizza, blueprint etc.) should they not be paid for it? A successful writer's product takes effort, time, research, and talent, all of which have value.
From the recording/entertainment/ gaming industry's perspective, copyright law is an economic question and very much interwoven with their business models.
From the artist/writer/scientist's point of view, it is a question of creativity and innovation.
In the past, industry was able to largely monopolize distribution, and the artist/writer/scientist was very dependent on industry to increase remuneration by enabling a larger distribution.
Digital content and the internet are allowing the artist/writer/scientist to distribute their works more easily and more widely without industry. It also allowing the end-users of those works to participate more directly in getting and using those works (including sharing them).
Revising copyright law is an economic and very political undertaking. The economic playing field has changed considerably, and new laws need to be enacted.
I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH FairUseInCanada -- SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO YOUR MP, PRIME MINISTER, AND THE OFFICIAL SUBMISSION SITE -- http://copyright.econsultation.ca/topics-sujets/show-montrer/18.
This site is probably here to allow us to burn off steam so we don't actually get too concerned about the outcome of the process.
To ALL Writers of English-as-a-First-Language:
My first language is English, but it seems, as a budding internet 'content provider', I must now, out of necessity, learn a SECOND language if I am to 'participate' - and hopefully 'profit' - off the glories of the 'digital economy'. To do so, I, like everyone else, must have some form of 'basic computer literacy'.
So, I wondered, does someone 'own' HTML? Is that software 'language' 'patented' or 'copyrighted' somwhere? I 'googled' it. (It took me two seconds to find out…o' the marvel of it all …) I think it relevant to share that Wikipedia information here.
In 1994, Sir Timothy Berners-Lee, physicist, founded the WORLD WIDE CONSORTIUM at MIT. It comprised various companies that were willing to create INTEGRATED standards, and recommendations to improve the quality of the Web, primarily using HTML, a software he developed to communicate with his colleagues. Berners-Lee made his idea available freely, with no patent and no royalties due.
As of August 2009 The W3 Consortium has 365 members with offices in sixteen regions around the world. Members include ONLY businesses, nonprofit organizations, universities, and governmental entities. There is NO provision for individual membership.
The COST of membership is given on a sliding scale, depending on the character of the organization applying and the country in which it is located. Countries are categorized by the World Bank's most recent grouping by GNI ("Gross National Income") per capita. For example, the fee charged to for-profit COMPANIES with annual gross revenues exceeding $51 million was $65,000, regardless of location. In Lower Income Countries (LIC) such as Pakistan and Kenya, nonprofit organizations and for-profit companies with AGR under $7.65 million pay $975.
In 2004, individuals from Apple, the Mozilla Foundation & Opera Software founded the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG). They are interested in evolving HTML and RELATED TECHNOLOGIES. Since then, the editor of the WHATWG specifications, Ian Hickson, has moved to Google. (!) Chris Wilson of Microsoft was invited but did not join, citing the LACK OF PATENT POLICY to ensure all specifications can be implemented on a royalty-free basis. (- !)
Both groups are now working together to continue to maximize the use of HTML 'language' on the net.
… hmmmm, how does my small membership as an English speaking book published author with Access Copyright figure in this big scheme of things? How does the Government of Canada? What is the POINT of Copyright Law for Authors if any content ON-LINE, morphed thru the language of HTML, is instantly accessible&available for download-?
Looks to me like I gotta get me some HTML 'language skills' FAST cuz it truly seems like 'traditional authors' must either 'SUBMIT or Die!' here.
--- You might want to also consider Jeff Davies' timely & thought provoking tome, 'WWGD? What would Google Do?'
And yes, google it.
- Blasted thing.
(…and yes, that's just an example of 'stunted pidgeon speak' to a fluent converser of HTML in the webby universe, aka 'the digital economy' … )
sjbrown [2009-08-11 01:07] Nº du commentaire : 1500 Reply to: 1479
"What is the POINT of Copyright Law for Authors if any content ON-LINE, morphed thru the language of HTML, is instantly accessible&available for download-?"
I'm not sure what you're asking. If you make available your written works on the web, yes, people can download them. You have the choice to not post your work. If you find your work posted online by someone else without your permission, you can use *current* copyright law to force work to be taken down.
You can also choose to put your work online but only downloadable if paid for.
It really has barely anything to do with HTML or the W3C. The W3C is in no way a "gatekeeper" or "in charge" of the web.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be trying to paint a picture of a "Technical" group opposing an "Authour" group. A picture in which the Technical group is somehow wronging the Authors. I don't see it that way. I think that's analogous to saying that in book publishing there are a class of "Bookbinders" who hold the keys to the secrets of book manufacture.
If you don't know how to bind a book, you don't just bemoan the oppression by the Bookbinding class. You go out and find someone who does bookbinding and make a deal.
rinzertanz [2009-08-11 08:05] Nº du commentaire : 1507 Reply to: 1500
I will try to paint this picture again.
The ONLY way you are able to read this message of mine at this moment is thru the internet. The 'hidden' language that allows/permits this communication is HTML.
I have, as you say, the choice not to post my work or words. True, yet, it is clear that the general thrust of education & commerce, heavily influenced by the 'digital economy', is to eliminate that choice. Soon, very soon, it will become mandatory, if not essential, to 'post'.
As an example, libraries, the largest repositories of book published works, are aggressively 'digitizing' their inventory for the web. They were doing this long BEFORE publishers, let alone authors, the actual creators of these works, 'gave their permission'.
The Google Book Settlement was a 'back-handed' gesture to appease the indignant over this obvious trespass. Google in conjunction with many prominent libraries were LONG UNDERWAY with digital conversion by the time publishers & authors CAUGHT UP …
Thus, to 'publish' with 'traditional' book-binding publishers will become increasingly anachronistic, and a bit of a mugs game, because, ONCE the words are 'digitized' (with software), and then 'synchronized' with HTML (software), distribution & dissemination (thru Google et al) is a synch. The web awaits.
So, yes, my written words, are increasingly beholden to the technological gatekeepers of the web.
How to make any money out of it is the question. Cuz, for sure, Copyright 'Protection' seems kind of quaint on the web.
Traditional publishers, let alone the entire print industry, are trying to figure this one out, as are 'traditional' authors.
It appears that the REAL 'money makers', the one's who will SURVIVE this 'transition', are NOT the 'content providers' (formerly known as authors) but rather those who do 'control' the flow - the software/app developers. They are the 'new' middlemen, the 'new' publishers of the digital age …
sjbrown [2009-08-11 15:10] Nº du commentaire : 1516 Reply to: 1507
Ok, technical errors aside, I agree with your main point,
"my written words, are increasingly beholden to the technological gatekeepers of the web."
But you as an authour are in basically the same position as 20 years ago when your written words were beholden to the technological gatekeepers of bookbinding.
I don't think copyright protection is now moot. It holds the same force when you're talking about internet distribution. Digitizing and distribution via the internet changes only one important thing: copying and sharing copies is easier. So let's examine that.
1. If your work is copied and distributed commercially, it will be very easy to go after the distributors for infringement. Sic a lawyer on them.
2. If your work is copied and shared in a casual, personal network, some of those people will pay you for it. Some of those people who enjoy your work will *not* pay for it, the Jerks and Cheapskates. I don't think your target market is Jerks and Cheapskates anyway. So I don't think you will have lost any money.
Secondly, as for your assertion that the real money makers will be software / application developers, well I guess it depends what you mean. Most software that underlies internet servers is Free / Open Source. If you mean software developers such as Google, MS and Amazon, I think you're right. But they don't make money by being part of the W3C. They make money by building big networks.
rinzertanz [2009-08-11 16:13] Nº du commentaire : 1518 Reply to: 1516
Re: your points.
1. Have YOU ever personally TRIED to 'police' those who copy & sell your work illegally via the internet? I have. It's a chumps game. If the 'theft' occured outside of your national jurisdiction, which is very easy to do, you're pretty well out of luck. I've been 'chasing' one illegal vendor based out of Germany for over 20 years. Whenever I THINK I've succeeded in 'blocking' their illegal distribution, they just 'pop up' somewhere else thru some other UNINFORMED 'third party' distributor. They CONTINUE to 'license' MY work - without notice or compensation to me.
So, unless you are a BIG WIG corporation, like Apple or Google, an individual 'author/artist' aka 'content provider' has very little 'clout'. And that, especially NOW, has got to change.
2. I warrant there will always be 'jerks' and 'cheapskates'. It's a fact of life. The PROBLEM with the net is the illusion that 'ALL is FREE.' The mantra to 'just google it' - is now the NORM. The former moral imperative to 'do the right thing' and just NOT COPY the work of someone else for FREE is diminishing daily, cuz, again, the net gives the 'illusion' that EVERYTHING available on it - IS free. Ergo, WHY NOT just take what you want? everyone else does …
In actual FACT though, NOTHING is 'free'. These new 'distributors', ie. Google & other search engines, are making money. Make no mistake. 'Jerks' & 'cheapskates' can download all they want and Google won't do anything about it. Why? Cuz their MANDATE is to ENCOURAGE all 'users' to USE their 'service'.
By so doing, they get more eyeballs for their advertising 'partners', and/or themselves.
'Content providers', as such, are just gullible hacks that unknowingly UNDERWRITE the MAIN BUSINESS of the 'digital economy', the software designers and application developers. These dudes ALSO get 'start up' & 'continued' financing thru the markets. Collectively,they are all looking for the next 'Google' motherlode.
It is kinda naive for 'content providers' to think otherwise. THEY think that somehow they too can get on the 'gravy train'. That's wishful thinking at best. Why? Cuz the whole thing is designed to FACILATE & GRATIFY the 'searchers' - not the 'creators'.
3. Totally disagree. Re-read my first post. The main reason the consortium formed was to create an INTEGRATED 'industry standard'. They NEEDED a cross-board 'language' to 'harness' the real (& potential ) 'traffic' of the web. Collusion creates conformity. Free/Open Source etc is FINE as long as it doesn't DISRUPT the FUNDAMENTAL 'channel' of distribution, HTML, the cornerstone of the W3 Consortium …
sjbrown [2009-08-11 17:55] Nº du commentaire : 1527 Reply to: 1518
1. Yes, fonts are going to be harder to police than textually-identifiable works such as prose and songs. While the internet makes infringement easier, it may also make it easier to find international infringers.
Indeed, German copyright law sounds like it has problems.
How specifically do you want Canadian copyright law to change to give you more "clout"?
2. I don't witness growth of an attitude of "[why not] just take what you want? everyone else does". I have instead seen sharing inspire an attitude of "how can I buy more / participate / contribute". This probably speaks more of our own social environment and biases than it is a useful fact for the purpose of debating copyright.
3. I appreciate your cursory research into the history of HTML. You should do more research, I think you will find that it is a very benign technology with the sole purpose of enabling computers to send information to each other in a standard and error-free way.
I think you would be better able to support your points if you kept aim at the players in the market who truly oppose creators. Those being distributors such as Google, MS, Apple, Amazon, etc. These US corporations own the important distribution networks. They are the ones who creators are going to have to negotiate with in order to have their works visible to the consumer market. If gatekeepers emerge, they'll be among these giants.
rinzertanz [2009-08-11 21:20] Nº du commentaire : 1536 Reply to: 1527
"Aim at the players in the market who truly oppose creators. Those being distributors such as Google, MS, Apple, Amazon, etc. These US corporations own the important distribution networks. They are the ones who creators are going to have to negotiate with in order to have their works visible to the consumer market. If gatekeepers emerge, they'll be among these giants."
… My point exactly - with no 'ifs'.
rinzertanz [2009-08-12 07:54] Nº du commentaire : 1547 Reply to: 1536
p.s. Alexa's stats on the 10 top sites in the world as of August 12th, 2009 …
No.5. Windows Live
No.5. Microsoft Network
No.9 Baidu (China's search engine)
No.10 yahoo - (China 2nd search engine)
Food for thought.
quadibloc [2009-08-18 08:21] Nº du commentaire : 1733 Reply to: 1536
We already have gatekeepers who profit greatly while creators gain very little from their works. Those gatekeepers aren't Apple's iTunes store, or Google, or Amazon. They're book publishers and record companies.
Just as most of the money from televised hockey, football, or baseball games goes to team owners and the league, not the players, record companies make much more money from the latest hit song than the performer and composer. This isn't even as unfair as it seems, because there are lots of people who can sing as well, but don't have a recording contract… just as there are lots of people who can play baseball just about as well, but play in an AA or AAA team instead of the major leagues.
The public listens to the major singing stars who got airplay and publicity, the one's they've heard about, the ones who are famous. Access to the public and visibility make the difference.
Protecting the monetary value of copyrighted content more fiercely helps enrich the gatekeepers of access, the record companies and publishers, far more than it does the artists and creators. But that's not necessarily an argument against copyright.
We don't really want an alternative arrangement, where, for example, radio stations are only permitted to play 10% of their music from artists who live out of town - never mind Canadian Content. Maybe it's better to protect copyright fiercely so that the crumbs from the table to the artists become bigger, than to adopt socialism for the music industry. But that's how far the debate would have to reach to address the real issues.
rinzertanz [2009-08-18 10:37] Nº du commentaire : 1736 Reply to: 1733
Please note: Copyright resides with the 'creator of the work'. Licenses to DISTRIBUTE that copyright are what the 'middlemen' use, regardless of the 'product' they manufacture, ie. CD, DVD, t-shirt or book.
With the net supplanting much of the former traditional distribution vehicles, you're right that the former 'middlemen' are scrambling as they try to protect their LICENSES.
crade [2009-08-11 16:39] Nº du commentaire : 1521 Reply to: 1479
Not that this is at all related to copyright law, but HTML is hardly a giant conspiracy. They just made HTML standard so that the various web browsers would all work properly. Before this web pages would be broken in one browser and look ok in another.
If it makes you feel better, since microsoft refuses to follow the standard, pages often still look broken in one browser and ok in another :)
rinzertanz [2009-08-11 22:49] Nº du commentaire : 1539 Reply to: 1521
Ah, 'the standard'. You mean the gatekeepers who are now DETERMINING the EVOLUTION of the net.
Have you ever tried to use Google's Picasa Photo software with a Microsoft operating system? They ABSOLUTELY do not 'speak' to each other. Every 'function' done with Picasa is not 'recognized' by Microsoft. It's a 'closed system'. Why? Cuz it's two 'proprietory' BUSINESSES butting heads. They are BOTH trying to 'corner the market' to ESTABLISH the 'technological operating standard'. And that is very much a 'copyright issue', ie. IP & patents.
The 'winner' will be the one we monkey 'content providers' grab most often … Will it be 'this' software or 'that' one … Who will 'fail' and who will 'flourish'? Who will LEAD and thus, SET the STANDARD?
rinzertanz [2009-08-12 10:56] Nº du commentaire : 1552 Reply to: 1479
… gee … here's $omething that might help …
… gosh, it ONLY co$ts a few hundred buck$ …
… and JUST THINK of all those 'click$' …
… FINALLY, a way for independent 'content providers' to get RICH!!!
And yes, I jest.
… humor helps
How do Canada's copyright laws affect me? I'm currently a law abiding citizen and I still believe in the law and I would be upset if you ruin either of those things for me and for everyone else I know who hasn't already given up on copyright law.
There has been a lot of talk lately about 3 strikes laws to deal with p2p file sharing. These laws are often referred to as graduated response, to make them sound reasonable. But they are not reasonable. The idea is that after 3 unsubstantiated allegations of copyright infringement, you lose your Internet connection. No court of law, no requirements of proof… which is completely unconstitutional. Canada should resist pressure to implement any 3 strikes or graduated response clauses which would remove the rights of Canadians to due process.
ConcernedCitizen [2009-08-12 08:08] Nº du commentaire : 1548 Reply to: 1472
I agree… The only ones who should get the right to cut your connection off are the courts or the Internet Service Provider and that latter should ONLY be able to do it in the event of non-payment.
The Internet has gone from a luxury to a necessity in the course of my lifetime. It's required to find a job, talk to family and friends, sometimes even reading the news and the government is making more and more services only available through the internet. Removing someone's internet access is quite similar to throwing them into jail. Such freedom restricting methods should only be available to the courts and not in the hands of private businesses with an allegiance only to their shareholders profits.
pbaracos [2009-08-12 15:58] Nº du commentaire : 1567 Reply to: 1472
In a county like Canada, that grants free access to media of communication on page one of it's Charter of Rights, not even a court of law should be able to revoke a fundamental right.
As the co-author of two business books and a DVD video, I depend on copyright law to help ensure a fair return on investment for the time, effort and expertise that goes into the creation of these works. Piracy seriously impacts the incentive for creators to take the time to painstakingly create works that educate, entertain and inform. Laws should be reformed to increase penalties for piracy and also allow for the collection of royalties for use of copyrighted work.
meikipp [2009-08-10 12:47] Nº du commentaire : 1471 Reply to: 1469
Access copyright collects royalties already for use of copyrighted works. If you're not registered with them, you should be. None of the provisions suggested in the failed Bill C-61 would have done anything for you that is not already covered by current copyright law. Penalties for commerical copyright infringement already exist and are enforced.
meikipp [2009-08-10 13:02] Nº du commentaire : 1473 Reply to: 1469
Piracy is already prosecuted under the law. Anyone caught selling copies of your books and DVDs without permission will face charges for copyright infringement, among other things. It sounds to me like the current copyright act is operating just fine.
Plenty of uses of copyrighted works, including some copying, are legal under the law. For other uses there's Access Copyright.
MatthewSherrard [2009-08-15 13:55] Nº du commentaire : 1672 Reply to: 1469
I find it highly unlikely that your books or DVD are being copied in any sort of volume. Perhaps it's safe to say this particular issue won't much impact you.
Were a business to copy your work without receiving permission, they would be opening themselves to a lawsuit, would they not? In order for piracy to have any impact, your target audience (businesses and business people) engaging in significant copying of your works. For most of these cases, by the time you actually figure out what happened, you already have remedies.
In any case, digital copying is here to stay. The most you can do is try to maximise the potential.