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 »
Q-Compte tenu des valeurs et des intérêts du Canada, comment devrait-on modifier le droit d'auteur de manière que les changements résistent à l'épreuve du temps?
R- C'est simple créer un commité gouvernemental qui répertorie tous les sites de donwload illégal présent et à venir, y compris peer-2-peer et torrent, et imposer à tout les fournisseur Internet canadien de bloquer ces sites à la source pour ainsi atténuer voir anéantir le piratage. ce serait déjà un bon début.
To build culture we need culture to build from.
Otherwise we would still be in a cave.
The biggest change and the easiest one to make is to rename the act to "Public Domain and Copyright Act", so that it constantly reminds those reforming it in the future about its intended purpose. There should also be a preamble talking about the intent of the Act. Society benefits from works available in the public domain; therefore, encouraging creativity so that more quality works are in the public domain should be the primary intent of the Act.
But one should realize that works in the public domain do not fall from the sky. They are created by people like us. Some of them create for the sake of creating, others chosen a creative profession and earn their living from their creations. Even the volunteers may need funding for their work. And one of the ways to get creators compensated for their work is for the society to grant them certain monopoly privileges (e.g. commercial exploitation of original and closely derived works) for a limited period of time.
To make it short, there is a contract between society and creators, where creators are granted by the society a certain privilege on their work for a limited period of time, and their work gets to the public domain at the end of that term. Copyright is a privilege, not a right, and is granted through the contract between society and creators.
To encourage creative and transformative re-use (parody, remix), as well as transparency (research, news reporting and the like), fair dealing is also needed. Fair dealing is vital for new creators, whose work will likely appear on some aggregator system like a search engine or recommendation site.
And we heard a lot these days that the Act must be balanced. So, the balance here is to find the right copyright term and get the privileges and fair dealing right so that it is the optimal solution for society and creators, in line with the intent of the Act.
Public domain is a measure of intellectual wealth of our society as a whole. Government must commit not to harm the public domain in the process of copyright reform.
ebrown-john [2009-09-08 13:11] Nº du commentaire : 2327 Répondre à : 2195
I agree wholeheartedly!
A robust public domain is essential for society to grow and innovate.
I think we should compensate artists by granting them a copyright term in which to use their works for financial gain, but at the end of that term these things should be public domain.
I see no benefit in locking these works down perpetually, especially when the artist in question is deceased and has no descendants or beneficiaries who will benefit from that work.
All culture builds on the past and we need to ensure that ours continues to do so.
Russell McOrmond [2009-09-13 13:25] Nº du commentaire : 2506 Répondre à : 2195
I would like to endorse this comment, and to also add my own article focused on the public domain.
Creators protecting our public domain
Food for thought.
Only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women ... how come?
DenisT [2009-09-13 21:23] Nº du commentaire : 2518 Répondre à : 2185
And what percentage of the Canadian Parliament are women? Why?
Although this might be an interesting topic of discussion, I don't think it belongs in the copyright consultation process, unless you can show some relevance that I currently don't..
rinzertanz [2009-09-13 21:55] Nº du commentaire : 2525 Répondre à : 2518
Software manufacturers and developers are disproportionately male. In like turn, the dominant 'content' of the web, at present is predominately being generated by men, ie. porn & gaming. That this copyright discussion is primarily focusing on the 'rights and entitlements' of works in the digital arena, it IS relevant to INCLUDE the rest of humanity, those who will be affected by these 'rights & entitlements', and that includes women.
And yes, it is equally as problemmatic that women are not proportionately represented within our Canadian Parliament ....
DenisT [2009-09-13 22:25] Nº du commentaire : 2531 Répondre à : 2525
While I don't disagree with you, I still don't see the relevance.
Exactly what are you proposing or would like to see added/changed to Canadian copyright law to change this situation?
rinzertanz [2009-09-13 23:15] Nº du commentaire : 2534 Répondre à : 2531
My point, if you'd been following the general tone of the debate at the point in time, was to 'counter-balance' what seem to be an increasingly strident position taken by 'content users' opposing 'content providers', especially as it related to 'music'. It just suddenly struck me that this DEBATE is far too important to be 'decided' by a very small minority of young men squabbling over 'territory'. So, even though the 'thought' was not specifically copyright related, it was meant to highlight the actual parameters and inequalites of the current 'digital environment'.
There seems to be much 'board confusion' in differentiating between what Copyright actually is - to what distribution 'licenses' - aka legally binding contracts - are.
DenisT [2009-09-13 23:33] Nº du commentaire : 2535 Répondre à : 2534
Yes I agree. And that is one of the problems. Differentiating between copyright LAW and licensing of protected works.
There are increasingly strident and extreme positions being taken on both sides. Neither are "right".
For starters, unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is NOT theft. It is simply an violation of copyright laws. As such it is in a totally different legal category than property theft. To imply such shows a total misunderstanding of the rights and limitations of a copyright holder.
At the other end, just because technology might *allow* us to create digital copies, doesn't automatically give a "right" to do so.
The answer lies somewhere in between. We have to protect the limited rights of the copyright holder, recognizing that these are a limited set of rights. We also have to protect society's access rights as well.
We must not forget the original intent and benefit to society that caused copyright law to come into existence. We must also recognize that technology has advanced to the point where the implementation of that intent may need to be reviewed and updated.