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 »
The law needs to be format neutral. The test of a good copyright law is one that can last one hundred years rather than ten. This trend of updating the Copyright Act every 8-12 years because of changes in technology is ridiculous. Good law should be applicable far into the future. There is nothing about the Internet and the digital world that doesn't echo the copyright controversies around player pianos, the introduction of radio, and horror of horror the photocopier.
à‰viter le piège technologique : la technologie change, tout comme les goà»ts des consommateurs, il faut laisser parler le marché et non le museler par la loi. Spécifiquement, il faut criminaliser le contournement des mesures de protection technologique uniquement pour des fins de violation (comme la vente illégale de musique sur des CDs copiés), afin de permettre l'utilisation équitable de ces oeuvres chiffrées. La responsabilité des intermédiaires, comme les fournisseurs d'accès à Internet, doit être limitée si leurs clients enfreignent la loi et un régime d'avis-et-d'avis doit être mis en place (à l'opposé d'un régime d'avis-et-de-retirer). Il faut permettre les copies de sauvegarde pour tous biens numériques, comme les données, pas uniquement les logiciels comme c'est actuellement le cas. Finalement, tous devraient avoir le droit d'utiliser les oeuvres numériques légitimement acquises en la transférant de support ou en les visionnant à leur gré.
Alexandre Enkerli [2009-07-28 17:41] Nº du commentaire : 1070 Reply to: 970
La conservation et l'archivage des documents numériques est un problème épineux qui dépasse le cadre de la loi sur le droit d'auteur mais qui peut être rendu encore plus problématique par cette même loi.
Le fait d'empêcher à tout prix la distribution non-commerciale rend difficile la sauvegarde de notre patrimoine culturel. Les solutions proposées jusqu'à maintenant sont d'ailleurs orientées vers une destruction progressive de ce patrimoine au profit de la vente de certains produits de consommation. L'exemple de la gestion des droits numériques par l'utilisation de moyens technologiques contraignants est un exemple typique de ce problème: les oeuvres ne sont pas protégées des effets néfastes de la contrefaçon et du piratage industriel, mais elles sont poussées à disparaître avec les «loquets numériques» qui les accompagnent.
En fait, la diffusion large et ouverte des oeuvres pourrait permettre à ces oeuvres de subsister à l'épreuve du temps. Par exemple, une pièce musicale qui est diffusée sur une grande variété de supports, numériques et analogiques risque de conserver sa pertinence bien plus longtemps qu'une oeuvre dont la distribution a été restreinte de façon artificielle.
To stand the test of time, copyright law needs to explicitly state the rights and responsibilities of users and creators of copyrighted works. This needs to be written in simple language that is easy to understand.
As the purpose of copyright is to ensure continued creative innovation, and creative innovation always relies upon previous creative works, we must ensure copyright produces a strong public domain of work, and all created content must become part of that public domain (unencumbered by any DRM) after a reasonable period of time, say 50 years from day of creation.
Users of copyrighted content will only buy that content if they can use it. That stands to reason, and also to the documented issues of problems of purchasing DRM encumbered media have presented. DRM is at least equal in "negative" value to the consumer as the perceived value of it to the creator. We all know that increasing perceived value helps sales, so conversely, reduction in value lowers sales. DRM lowers a product value as it puts unreasonable demands on the user, and reduces the opportunities for that user to use the content. It is therefore vital that DRM removal, region code removal, and other such measures not be criminalized. Not only has DRM proved in-effective, it has a detrimental effect on sales. The marketplace has responded to DRM by shopping at online stores that do not use DRM. Any law that enshrines DRM is automatically out of date.
focal [2009-08-02 00:56] Nº du commentaire : 1264 Reply to: 963
Why 50 years is "reasonable period of time from day of creation"?
One needs to state a criteria that will guide you in choosing a "reasonable" period of time. It has to be honest enough that if the conclusion that a period of ZERO length is reasonable, (namely that the creation should enter the public domain immediately) then it shall be so.
Here is a (free) e-book that states a criteria and concludes that copyright laws should be eliminated. I am not sure if I agree, but it is one of the few works that pose the question in a honest and direct way.
A new copyright system that will stand the test of time:
The problem we are currently facing within our copyright system is that it is a product of the Industrial Age. The current system worked fairly well in protecting individuals and corporations from predation by other corporations, an Industrial Age problem. However, we're in the Information Age now and the old copyright laws have been perverted to protect corporations from individuals, which is absurd. The existing copyright laws don't work this way, they can't work, and we shouldn't even try to make them work. We should toss them out and build a new system.
As the Industrial Age unfolded, and corporations sprang into existence off the ability to mass-produce stuff, there was a natural progression towards packaging and selling copies of 'ideas', a term I'll use to describe stories, songs, and other works currently defined as Intellectual Property. Mass-production technology and equipment was required to take advantage of this packaging, and this made the packaging and selling of ideas profitable for corporations. For example, while it was possible to sit down and copy the story from a book by hand, it was not economical to do so for profit. Only corporations had the resources to mass-produce enough copies of anything to make any difference and the legal framework that grew during this era reflected this. Copyright law works reasonably well to protect individuals and corporations from the greedy profiteering of other corporations that were attempting to mass-produce works that they were not entitled to. The more flagrant the un-entitled copying, the larger the target these corporations became, and, hopefully, the more money they could be sued for. However, this system fell apart during the Information Revolution.
In the Information Age, ideas don't need to be packaged. They exist as information and once produced they can be copied, transported, distributed, and consumed for virtually nothing. A story, a song, a movie, this site, everything digitised exists in an ephemeral state, merely a pattern of encoding. They aren't even the bits that they are stored in, just the orientation. Moving a song from one place to another doesn't make the original place lighter, the new location heavier. Nothing really moves, except information. Copying a song, a movie, or anything digitised is no different than telling someone an idea you had, a thought shared between friends. This is the result of the Information Revolution, the free flow of ideas, in whatever their form. Of course, this causes a few problems for corporations in the business of selling copies of ideas.
Corporations, claiming a erosion of profits, have pushed to use the old copyright system against individuals instead of other corporations. This makes no sense. When ideas are freely copied between people, or even millions of people as it the promise of the Information Age, there is no profit making, no legal target getting rich through ill-gotten gains, just individuals. The most flagrant violator, responsible for sharing huge quantities of protected information to millions of people, could be child with no income at all. What's more, said child might not have even intended to share with so many people. Copyright is a legal system designed to punish abusers through financial levies. How can this work against people that are not profiting from said abuse? Where will the money come from?
The reality of the situation is that in the Information Age, there is no longer any money in distributing copies of ideas. How could it be otherwise when it costs nothing to make a copy? The Industrial Age is over, replaced by the Information Age. Unfortunately, as with most revolutions, there is a messy side. Corporations, and the individuals that create ideas, must adapt to this new reality. Clinging to the past, attempting to enforce a legal framework that no longer makes sense, will only delay the inevitable. Things have changed, ideas can now be freely copied, and attempting to profit from the distribution of copies is an idiotic thing to do. Yes, corporations will fail, business models will have to dramatically alter, artists will have to find a new way to earn a living. But, these old business models and ways to earn a living did not always exist. They were products of the Industrial Age, but that age is done. We're in the Information Age now, and people are going to have to adapt to this new reality. So too will the laws.
How should the new laws look?
First, they must reflect the reality of the Information Age. When ideas; stories, songs, movies, anything that can be digitised; can be copied for free, the concept of "distribution rights" makes no sense. No one can control the flow of information once it has been published; any obstacle put up to obstruct this flow will merely divert the flow to another path. As such, laws that protect distribution rights must go; they are anachronistic and have no place in our future.
Second, ideas will always have creators and these people need this status protected. Within the academic community, people that copy the ideas of another are expected to cite their sources; to not do so is called plagiarism and is a serious academic offense. This concept must be extended through legal protection for all distributed works. Any distribution or use of an existing idea, in whatever form, must be accompanied by a citation of its source, the creator. Failing to do so should result in some form of punishment.
Third, the right to profit from an idea must be protected. Now, this concept must not be bastardised, like the current copyright system, to include the right not to have profits eroded through un-sanctioned distribution. Vague "potential future profits" cannot and should not be protected. However, if anyone is to actually profit from the distribution or use of any idea, then the creator of said idea should be entitled to at least a reasonable share of these profits. Assuming there is a clear citation path outlining all that have had a reasonable input, as would be the case if the second point were legally implemented, then legally established royalties would make sense.
If the above three points were implemented within a legal framework, Canadian creators of ideas would feel comfortable publishing them because they would know that those ideas would be accompanied by citations, thus improving their ability to raise income for new ideas. These creators would also have legal recourse if some corporation managed to find a way to profit from their ideas. Together, this approach will encourage publication, which is the fuel of the Information Age.
We have gone through a revolution and are now firmly within the Information Age. As with all revolutions, there is some turmoil and change. The Industrial Age concept of packaging and selling copies of ideas is an obvious loser and those profiting from this now-defunct business model must change. Protecting them through a flawed and unenforceable legal framework will only delay the inevitable. These people must find a new way to earn a living, just like the blacksmiths and stable-boys of old. We simply don't need them anymore. Many people decry that this change will leave artists, the creators of ideas, with no way to earn a living. However, this argument is absurd. If there is demand for what a person creates, then the business model to pay for this will evolve. If people want the creative output of an artist, they will find a way to pay that artist to create. Just because one approach, the selling of copies, has now failed, it does mean that there is no way for artists to earn a living. Yes, times have changed and some old ways of doing things no longer work but new ways have and will be created in their stead. The Information Revolution promises far more gain than loss.
The Supreme Court of Canada has commented on the nexus between Canadian values and interests and technological advancement in a copyright context. In the 2004 Tariff 22 case, it stated the following:
"The capacity of the Internet to disseminate 'works of the arts and intellect' is one of the great innovations of the information age. Its use should be facilitated rather than discouraged, BUT THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE UNFAIRLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO CREATED THE WORKS OF ARTS AND INTELLECT IN THE FIRST PLACE." [MY EMPHASIS]
Our legislators should be guided by the above passage. They may also continue to be guided in some respects by the way in which other jurisdictions, that share similar outlooks on copyright and copyright laws, have modernized their acts. The United Kingdom and Australia are two such examples.
Much criticism was levied at Bill C-61 as being "too American" for some it was politically convenient to label it the "Canadian DMCA". That's just a bit too easy. Polemics of that sort dovetail nicely with our long, deeply entrenched tradition of defining ourselves by what the United States is not. However, objectively looking at how many other countries have modernized their copyright laws and implemented the WIPO Treaties over the past decade, if Bill C-61 was too American, it was also too European, too Japanese and too Australian, to name only a few on a list of many. That's not to say Bill C-61 could not be improved to help ensure that Canada's professional creators' ability to earn a living is not eroded over time. In this regard the government would do well to build on the existing private copying regime and to encourage collective licensing models that provide broad access to users and fair remuneration to creators.
Jkobo [2009-07-26 17:22] Nº du commentaire : 928 Reply to: 924
Very well put. I think we need to start looking at innovative idea's on how to apply copyright digitally. One of those idea's is located:
Which basically is in sync with the passage you quoted above.
Jkobo [2009-07-26 18:43] Nº du commentaire : 930 Reply to: 924
Just to add some notes here as well. The UK to my knowledge hasn't concluded yet it's approach to digital copyright reform. They too have been holding consolations on that front with respect to obtaining the proper balance for copyright for the past year or so.
WIPO, is also currently undergoing studies of the exact same thing. There has been concern from member WIPO nations that the right balance hasn't been struck because of pressures from the US industry alone, to the point where they too are now holding consultations and forums on this subject. So in effect we are doing the same thing here.
So the notion of some with respect to implementing WIPO to solve their problems, when they are basically engaged with the same issues we are discussing here is disproportionate in many respects.
I agree with you in protecting the copy regime, but in innovative non-liner ways. We need to look at basically overhauling the definition of copyright as it's applied to the digital networks.
My belief is, that in order to make copyright relevant today and enforceable we need to build remuneration into the networks somehow. Otherwise, laws will largely be unenforceable without a police state, which the majority of nations and society, excluding the US have rejected on this issue, and the reason why many member states at WIPO are looking at ways to truly reach a balance, and ACTA member states now are asking for the exclusions of the Internet from IP enforcement negotiations. We can fulfill our roles here with the respected treaties by showing the rest of the world what a truly balanced approach looks like.
People called C-61 "American" because those that were representing Canadian voices on this subject were not actively involved with the draft of this legislation (including Canadian Creator Groups who disagreed with lobbyists such as the CRIA, MPAA that are headed up by American interests), and the Canadian voice on copyright reform differs that of the language of C-61 which I'm sure you can see by looking at some of the responses here, and one of the core reasons why this consultation is taking place.
sjbrown [2009-07-26 19:01] Nº du commentaire : 931 Reply to: 924
I agree that kneejerk anti-American sentiment has no place in debate.
The DMCA and bill C-61 both outlaw tinkering, that provision has had strong negative effects. So it is useful to look at the US law as a cautionary example. We should learn a lesson from it and its application in the US and make sure Canadian legislation contains no anti-circumvention provision.
Chris Brand [2009-07-27 15:49] Nº du commentaire : 976 Reply to: 924
And that same year, in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, the Supreme Court said that "The Copyright Act is usually presented as a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator. THE PROPER BALANCE AMONG THESE AND OTHER PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES LIES NOT ONLY IN RECOGNIZING THE CREATOR'S RIGHTS BUT IN GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO THEIR LIMITED NATURE.", "In my view, the Moorhouse approach to authorization shifts the balance in copyright too far in favour of the owner's rights and unnecessarily interferes with THE PROPER USE OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY AS A WHOLE." and "the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. […] The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively." (my emphasis)
In drafting C-61, the government clearly was not guided by these words. Therefore, it was broadly criticised as being "too weighted in favour of rightsholders" and "unbalanced", which were the more reasonable criticisms.
It is also worth noting that good copyright law for the USA and the UK, both of which are net exporters of copyrighted works, is not going to also be good copyright law for Australia and Canada, as net importers.
wsheffer [2009-07-27 20:44] Nº du commentaire : 1007 Reply to: 976
Thanks for your comment, Chris. As you likely know, Tariff 22 came after CCH. Here is more from the paragraph in Tariff 22 that I originally posted:
"This Court has recently described the Copyright Act as providing 'a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator (or, more accurately, to prevent someone other than the creator from appropriating whatever benefits may be generated)' (Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc.,  2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34, at para. 30; CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada,  1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13, at para. 10). The capacity of the Internet to disseminate 'works of the arts and intellect' is one of the great innovations of the information age. Its use should be facilitated rather than discouraged, BUT THIS SHOULD NO BE DONE UNFAIRLY AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO CREATED THE WORKS Of ARTS AND INTELLECT IN THE FIRST PLACE." (my emphasis)
I am not sure what parts of Bill C-61 you found unbalanced -- perhaps all of it, but I imagine your primary concerns involved those provisions dealing with TPMs and DRM. I am fairly indifferent to those provisions myself relative to other copyright reform issues. However, as far as I know, the approach taken in Bill C-61 was not radically different from the approach to adequate legal protection taken by Australia, the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union, and by many other countries, including the U.S. over the past decade. I am not sure that any of those countries have put their citizens at an economic, innovative or cultural disadvantage. Arguably, EU countries have done more than other parts of the world to address copyright balance when it comes to protection for TPMs, but are there any EU countries that have lesser statutory protection than was proposed in Bill C-61?
Chris Brand [2009-07-29 15:30] Nº du commentaire : 1112 Reply to: 1007
The European Union has not yet ratified the WIPO Copyright Treaty or the WPPT (neither has the UK by itself, for that matter), and it's not clear what legislative changes they need to make in order to do so.
Australia effectively accepted the USA's demands on the way they amend their Copyright Act as part of a trade treaty. As I understand it after talking to a number of Australians, they essentially recognised that the changes they made to copyright were bad for Australia and Australians, but the trade benefits that they got in compensation made them worthwhile overall. At least they got something of value for giving the USA what it wanted.
The UK, US, and Japan, of course, unlike Canada, are huge exporters of copyrighted material, so they will naturally benefit from a particular model of copyright law (particularly if they can get other nations to adopt that same model).
I think the best international model for copyright law revision is probably Israel.
As for C-61, any bill that grants vast new rights to rightsholders and almost nothing to users (C-61 was very cleverly drafted to appear to give users rights while in reality giving almost nothing - for example, allowing us to record TV, but only to "videotape") is not, in my opinion, "balanced". Historically, copyright law has always ratcheted in one direction - more rights that last longer for rightsholders. What we need is sound economic analysis about where the "sweet spot" is. what little economic analysis there is seems to indicate that the law already gives too much to rightsholders, so giving more is not good economics.
wsheffer [2009-08-05 10:09] Nº du commentaire : 1319 Reply to: 1112
All members of the EU, including the UK, have indeed implemented into their national laws the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties in accordance with the EU Copyright Directive:
Article 6 of the EU Copyright Directive concerning protection of TPMs and rights management information, is arguably more rights-holder friendly than the DMCA or the Australian legislation or what was proposed in Bill C-61. With that said section 6(4) on user exceptions is important and could be instructive for our legislators.
When speaking of rights-holders, it's important to discern between creators and their producers. The economic 'spot' many Canadian creators find themselves in could definitely be 'sweetened'. One way of doing this is to amend the Copyright Act in a manner such that rights creators have under the Act are not stripped away by the contracts they enter into with their producers and publishers. Again, there are instructive examples in EU countries on this front.
Chris Brand [2009-08-05 14:37] Nº du commentaire : 1337 Reply to: 1319
ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=16 and http://www.wipo.int/ treaties/ en/ ShowResults.jsp? lang=en&treaty_id=20 show that, as I believe I said, the EU and UK have signed but not ratified the WCT and WPPT (some EU countries, such as Belgium, have indeed ratified one or both). I'm not aware of any more authoritative source.
I do agree that the EU has taken an interesting approach to some of this stuff, and that there are some ideas there that may be worth emulating.
And yes, I always distinguish between the actual creators and the intermediaries. In fact, I find it hard to understand why so many creators are pushing for the same things that the intermediaries are asking for - historically, what's been good for the intermediaries has not generally been good for the actual creators (despite the rhetoric the intermediaries always use).
wsheffer [2009-08-05 15:37] Nº du commentaire : 1344 Reply to: 1337
Thanks again for your comments, Chris. If all of the EU countries have already implemented in their national laws the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties in accordance with the EU Copyright Directive (which they have) I am not sure that I would make too much of the fact that the EU has not formerly ratified those treaties en masse. Put another way, if Bill C-61 had passed in to law, I trust you would not really care too much whether or not Canada formally got around to depositing instruments of ratification with the WIPO. According to the WIPO table you posted, Australia has not, but we know what its copyright law now provides. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think so.
I'd suggest that copyright is good for creators, users, and intermediaries alike. Problems arise when the latter have monopoly-like control on copyrights, which they can use to their advantage against creators (e.g. inequitable copyright contracts) and users (e.g. high prices for access). But those are market/competition/bargaining power imbalance problems not copyright ones.
Chris Brand [2009-08-06 12:36] Nº du commentaire : 1379 Reply to: 1344
I'm always very wary of statements like "copyright is good". Water is good, but too much will kill you. I think that some copyright is good, but we've currently got too much. It's stifling both creativity and technology, and that needs to be fixed.
wsheffer [2009-08-06 13:00] Nº du commentaire : 1382 Reply to: 1379
Well, it's hard to respond to such a broad statement (I'm not sure in what regard you think we have too much copyright), but I would note that if we have too much copyright in Canada as you state, the overwhelming majority of our trading partners around the world are absolutely drowning in it. I include, Israel, a country you mentioned earlier as probably the best international model to follow, which despite having recently imported American style fair use, has a longer term of copyright protection (life plus 70) and higher statutory damages than Canada.
Chris Brand [2009-08-07 13:56] Nº du commentaire : 1409 Reply to: 1382
Ok, here's an example. Software. Copyrighted for at least the life of the author plus 50 years in all Berne countries. I suspect that no software has ever entered the public domain. Parts of our history like OS/360, MS-DOS and Windows 3.1, parts of our culture like Pong, Asteroids and Pac-man - all are still locked up. I don't see how anyone benefits from that, including the original creators, but especially today's creators who are unable to build upon those earlier works.
Copyright is supposed to be a bargain - you get a monopoly on expression for a limited period of time as an incentive to create cultural works that add to the public domain. These days, society is not getting the benefit.
wsheffer [2009-08-10 22:43] Nº du commentaire : 1494 Reply to: 1409
While not a software expert, it seems to me that the very programs you mention indeed continue to be built upon in no small part because of the protection copyright affords. Society has clearly benefited from the bargain.
sjbrown [2009-08-11 01:32] Nº du commentaire : 1501 Reply to: 1494
The point was that the works mentioned are are not being built upon. They are nigh-abandoned.
Chris Brand [2009-08-07 14:09] Nº du commentaire : 1410 Reply to: 1382
BTW, the idea that "everyone else is doing it", so of course we should, too just doesn't work for me. For counter-examples, how about China ? According to the propaganda we get from the US, it should be impossible to be a professional musician in china, but that's not actually the case. They don't sell copies, of course, but they are still able to make a living as musicians.
Copyright imposes a huge amount of friction on business. Half the cost of a documentary can be licensing fees, and producers are often forced to remove film that they'd prefer to keep for purely financial reasons. Copyright isn't helping those creators.
Eo Nomine [2009-08-07 18:11] Nº du commentaire : 1415 Reply to: 1410
"BTW, the idea that "everyone else is doing it", so of course we should, too just doesn't work for me."
Fair enough. But something we all need to appreciate (and which doesn't get highlighted enough IMO) is the fact that we exist in a global context and participate in a global economy. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the digital environment, which is virtually borderless. Consequently, we are not an island, and while we clearly need to introduce copylight laws that are appropriate for Canada, implementing a copyright regime that is substantially different from those of our trading partners is deeply problematic. As it is, Canadian creators are generally benefiting from the enhanced copyright protections available in other jurisdictions while we do not extend the same rights and priviledges to their creators…so it's little wonder that they're more than a little frustrated with us.
"Copyright imposes a huge amount of friction on business."
Speaking of sweeping statements, this one is pretty broad, and not always applicable. In my experience as a copyright lawyer, the majority of businesses that encounter copyright or licensing issues just deal with it, obtain the necessary clearances or work around it, and move on. The example of documentary filmmakers you provide suggest that you object to the fact that they are required to pay license fees to use others' copyrighted works…even tho many documentary films are themselves commercial projects that are exhibited in theatres.
So, because documentary filmmakers have to pay license fees, copyright is bad or overly strong? While I don't mean to demean or minimize the issues that documentary filmmakers may face in acquiring clearances, one of the main issues I have with this sort of argument is that it basically suggests that the whole copyright regime (which actually does work for a large number of creators) is flawed or broken because a relatively small group is inconvienienced or adversely affected. Should we really be designing our entire copyright regime around small, niche groups?
meikipp [2009-08-09 17:14] Nº du commentaire : 1451 Reply to: 1415
"Should we really be designing our entire copyright regime around small, niche groups?"
Maybe not, but it seems to many of us that the handful of copyright collectives actually pushing for something like Bill C-61 are the small, niche groups who want something that is incompatible with Canadian values.
Chris Brand [2009-08-10 19:10] Nº du commentaire : 1483 Reply to: 1415
I think there are plenty of examples of groups that are suffering today because of too much copyright, including :
Librarians and archivists
and, of course, users (which in practice is everybody)
Overall, my gut feeling is that copyright as it stands is currently doing more harm than good. That it's hurting creators is particularly galling. I don't have a problem with commercial documentary filmmakers having to pay some reasonable amount of royalties, but that amount should be a reasonable small proportion of the cost of making the film. 50% is not reasonable. I do have a problem with copyright regulating what Canadians do in the privacy of their own homes - the Act was always intended to be a business law governing commercial activity. We shouldn't need to hire a lawyer to decide whether we can legally record a TV program or rip a CD to our iPods. Innovators should be free to create new consumer electronics that *could* be used to infringe copyright, just as tool-makers in general are free to create tools that *could* be used to break other laws.
I find it amusing that "as a copyright lawyer" of course you don't feel that copyright imposes friction on business - you are part of that friction !
We shouldn't be designing laws around small, niche, groups, but historically we've done exactly that with copyright.
The global issue is important. The trouble is that a small number of very powerful countries who benefit from "longer, stronger" copyright regimes have been able to impose their ideas on the rest of us. If the US wants us to implement "US-friendly" copyright laws (and they clearly do), we should be getting something for it. That's what happened in Australia. Giving it to them for free is just stupid.
wsheffer [2009-08-10 22:36] Nº du commentaire : 1493 Reply to: 1483
Respectfully, I think you continue to overstate the United States' influence and understate the number of countries around the world (including the entire EU) that have implemented the WIPO Internet Treaties' provisions. I don't think we are in the habit of slavishly following the U.S. on copyright policy -- if we were, American fair use would have been part of our law long ago. It's not. Further, a so-called "Canadian DMCA" (as consumer advocates like to call it) would have long ago passed. It hasn't. Our term of copyright protection continues to be shorter relative to the U.S.
You earlier suggested that Israel is probably the best place Canada can look for inspiration, but yet that country has a longer term of copyright protection (life plus 70) and higher statutory damages.
meikipp [2009-08-13 11:58] Nº du commentaire : 1605 Reply to: 1493
The US has spent the past 10 years putting pressure on other countries to adopt their DMCA legislation. They've done it through bilateral trade agreements (and these agreements never allow expansions to fair use). We haven't passed a DMCA style law mainly because we've had a series of minority governments that were hindered in trying to pass unpopular legislation.
However, it's worth considering that implementing WIPO doesn't have to mean implementing a US style copyright law. The WIPO treaty does not require 3 strikes legislation to cut of your internet connection, notice and takedown schemes, protection of DRM that overrides fair dealing and so on. Those are only one way of implementing WIPO… there's no evidence that they are actually a good idea, and plenty of evidence that they lead to anticompetitive practices and have a chilling effect on computer science research.
wsheffer [2009-08-20 23:03] Nº du commentaire : 1917 Reply to: 1605
Meikipp, the Liberals held a majority for several years after Canada signed the WIPO Internet Treaties in 1997.
I would find your argument more convincing if you could name a single European Union country that has implemented the WIPO Internet treaties in a markedly different fashion than the U.S. when it comes to TPMs and DRM.
meikipp [2009-08-21 05:42] Nº du commentaire : 1923 Reply to: 1917
No one else rushed to implement WIPO either, except the US. It's just not a big issue next to desires for world peace and to end poverty. Copyright consultations in 2001 in Canada proved the issue was unpopular with voters and Bill C-60, the Liberals copyright bill, vanished when the election was called.
As for the trade agreements, it's not a surprise since signing the trade agreements required implementing WIPO the same way as the US. But, they aren't the only country pushing for this, just the most obvious.
The market is the force that will ultimately decide the fate of DRM and TPMs. Notice that iTunes is now selling music DRM free. DRM hasn't stopped piracy, it only hampers legitimate customers.
How about really soliciting public input on a new copyright act, rather than trying to bury a sham public consultation away in the summer months when consumer protection organizations are hard-pressed to respond?
ahankinson [2009-08-06 13:18] Nº du commentaire : 1384 Reply to: 913
What's your suggestion, then? Or are you just a bellyacher who isn't satisfied with anything?
There are two months of public consultations. If a CPO can't get its act together to put forward its own views in that amount of time, then it's doing a poor job.
How about protecting the rights of the people instead of rolling over and being a lapdog to American media conglomerates that are increasingly irrelevant.
THe scary woo of the MP3 player.!There's nothing particularly new about MP3 players, compared to tape records of previous generations.
The clear lesson of digital media is that consumer rights to back up and transfer their music and videos to new generations of media storage should be agressively protected, instead of limited.
A put-back notice should take effect immediately. Once the party that files the take-down notice has received the contact information for the poster, this should be entirely sufficient to allow normal legal procedings to be pursued. The 14-day waiting period for restoring sites that are subject to a take-down notice is punitive for those against whom wrongful claims have been submitted, and serves no legitimate purpose.
There should be penalties AND damages for a wrongful filing. Damages are too difficult to establish in the case of takedown notices against non-commercial sites. The lack of penalties for a wrongful take-down notice mean that malicious parties can file take-down notices to suppress material they don't like.