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 »
As a long-time music creator and author of song lyrics, I believe the Government must enact Copyright laws that ensure copyright is properly protected and fairly compensated. Protection of copyright is important for artists and for businesses, and benefits all Canadians and the Canadian economy.
jrm [2009-09-05 14:59] Nº du commentaire : 2249 Répondre à : 2248
Do you have any specific copyright changes that you believe would meet these goals?
Extension dur droit d'auteur 50 ans après sa mort. Ouin, c'est loin d'être l'enjeu principal des artistes vivants de ce monde. je ne crois pas qu'il faille en faire un débat. 50 ans c'est ok selon moi. Mais on devrait réviser la part de tarte qui reviens a l'Artiste quand il s'agit de vendre un cd. Par exemple l'énorme part qui revient à un éditeur qui sommes toutes donne 2-3 ou 4 coups de fil pour gagner sont dà» (50% des droits d'auteurs). Obliger les radios à payer des droits de diffusion (aujourd'hui c'est souvent l'artiste qui paye la radio pour y passer). En fait il faudrait baser la rémunération de chauqe partie en fonction du travail accomplit.
Strong public domain and expanded fair dealing are important for innovation, because new works are built upon older works, usually available the public domain and via fair dealing.
The government at the minimum should commit not to increase the copyright term. Berne convention permits this.
But to foster creativity, Canada should take leadership and link copyright term to creative activity, instead of linking it to author's life (or death). Copyright term should not last for X years after author's death, it should last for Y years after the work was communicated by the creator to the intended audience. Society does not pay for author's life; it pays for author's creativity. This change not only links reward to creativity, but also makes it simpler to assess the expiration of copyright on a work.
A shorter term would act as a filter, and a quality filter is good for the society. Great works created by personalities with charisma are known to retain and even increase their value: they are sold for real money without special marketing efforts even in the era of "de-facto everything free". Because great works retain their value without regard to copyright term, copyright term matters more for average works than for quality ones. So, now there is an incentive to create a quality work that is "above" the copyright term just by virtue of its quality.
Another possible approach to the above filter is to give a short initial copyright term (like 5 years) and letting the creator express interest and extend it once or twice (or even up to current term of 50 years). This would give benefit to the society without impacting the creators too much: works that generate income can still benefit their creators and orphans enter into the public domain pretty fast. This term extension could be done for a fee payable to the government, and the rationale is quite simple: if the work generates income, the creator is interested in extending its term and is able to afford the fee; otherwise the work does not bring as much value and can just fall out into public domain and someone else may build another work upon it that has more value.
In case of the government, who is paid by taxpayers and works for taxpayers, a different model should be used and crown copyright should be eliminated. This will bring more transparency and enable citizens and companies to solve problems that were found in government-sponsored research. It may mean more taxes for taxpayers, but the benefits of increased transparency and reuse of government work will outweigh the cost in the long term.
carla [2009-09-04 20:02] Nº du commentaire : 2216 Répondre à : 2197
You say "new works are built upon older works" which is true, but copyright does not protect an idea but merely the expression of said idea. Therefore, public domain works are not necessary to the creative process. ie. A person can write a book about a magic school. Harry Potter(and the other books about magic schools that came before and after it) do not have to go into the public domain for this to be accomplished. People can create their own story without copying Harry Potter.
Additionally, requiring payment for copyright extension is like saying that only commercial work is worthy of protection. This is not true. ie. Many great films are created by people who cannot pay for the marketing that will make them a blockbuster. This is not a reflection of their quality.
You say "Society does not pay for author's life; it pays for author's creativity." "Society" as a whole doesn't pay for an author's creativity. Each buyer of a book purchases the *product* of that person's creativity ie. a book. There shouldn't be any negotiation about whether the creator should be compensated for the product by every single buyer. Other products do not all of the sudden become free after "x" number of years.
arts [2009-09-04 21:44] Nº du commentaire : 2219 Répondre à : 2197
Different terms for different kinds of works is a discussion that should be on the table -- but I don't understand why certain intellectual property should not be transferable after death. Tangible property -- real estate -- is transferable, and far more limited in terms of quantity than is intellectual property. Human creativity is limitless -- there will always be more of it.
With better understanding of fair dealing, there is no reason to demand public domain for a novel, for instance, in order to build upon that work. Writers do it all the time, and if they aren't clumsy about trespassing on valuable intellectual property rights (as in the case of the Harry Potter lexicon), the results are perfectly acceptable under present law.
Novels are a great example of why copyright should extend past death. Many novelists only become famous posthumously and have led impoverished lives. Being able to transfer their copyright to heirs is quite possibly the only chance they have to leave an inheritance. Why take away that right, when leaving it in place has zero negative impact on collective culture?