We need a method of ensuring that independant innovators and creators get paid without having to subscribe to the existing models.

As a specific example how do we pay a songwriter who doesn't belong to Socan? This is a signifigant question, as Socan collects and distributes royalties with only a few exceptions to the exclusion of all others. Here's the catch 22, Socan has rules for membership while other entities that you may need to interact with to become a member of Socan don't want to talk to you unless your a member of Socan. I'm not suggesting that we get rid of the collectives, but we do have a lot of barriers to circumvent.

As a member of a small EMI organization copyright affects the way we do testing, and the closed nature of IEEE affects the way we do research.

Test standards published by Canada and the EU are costly, and often republished (at full cost) with minuscule changes. It is possible for a test to cost less than the test standard. As a result, technology innovators often test to old standards, or assume that standards from differing regions will match.

This is not a healthy way to do business, and the elimination of crown copyright would certainly be helpful to innovators.

A great deal of information is obscured by the closed nature of IEEE, copyright changes that discourage copyright aggregation would help innovators everywhere.

With over twenty years experience in the technology industry. I have done a fare number of interviews and selections. It has become clear to me that the best candidates are consistently the ones who have developed experience at their own initiative. Education is secondary. If we create an environment where it is not legal to reverse engineer hardware, or 'hack' software/media, innovation in Canada will die.

I am also concerned that the 'moral rights' movement will spread to hardware with similar consequences, but have seen no evidence of this as yet.

Finally, a great deal of research goes to waste when it is discovered that a given solution or discovery has been patented and not implemented. We need to ensure that patents are either brought to market, or transferred to those who will. In the same way, copyright aggregators should be required to return ownership to the original creator, or the public domain, if a work is not currently being distributed.

1. There need to be broad exemptions from restrictive copyright law for educational institutions so that they can "foster innovation and creativity" in Canada.

2. There needs to be a concerted effort on the part of the government to support innovation and creativity financially.

3. The language of the government needs to be supportive of the arts in Canada.

4. Content created by Canadians needs to be a source of revenue from other countries. Therefore there needs to be active cultural missions and activities abroad promoting works in all of the languages of Canada in countries where they are also common languages, e.g., How many times have the people of Martinique been introduced to the poetry of Patrice Desbiens? How many times have native-speaking North Americans in other parts of the Americas been offered media or print texts in languages accessible to them? I'm told by Northern Tuchtone, Yukon natives that they understand and are understood by the Navajoh. Let's foster these opportunities for synergy, cultural and otherwise.

I think it is funny. All of these discussion questions and topics. Are worded as if copyright changes are going to happen. From what i read on this forum and on the internet, is that much of Canada and Canadians don't want any changes or updates to copyright. The government can change in a blink of an eye with a minority government. Just look at what happened in Newfoundland with the conservatives in the last election. And that was just with a Newfoundland issue. Now he's talking about all of Canada. Does Harper really what to go into an election where the polls are so close, on an issue like this? Canadians aren't stupid. Are we really to believe that Harper cares about musicians and artists? Please. We all know the real reason. They are getting pressured. If there is a federal election in the fall, I will not be voting conservative again. My vote will go to who ever says that copyright is fine the way it is.

Bonjour,

Une autre façon de penser pour les développeurs est d'utiliser des licences open-source tel que GPLv2/GLv3.

Le code source est gratuit et libre. Le développeur organise une structure autour de cette valeur et offre des services payants de support, de conseils entre autre.

Celui qui ne veut que le code pour sa propre utilisation, sans support est libre. Il est régit par la licence que son développeur a instauré dans le code, seulement.

Ceci permet un partage des connaissances. Selon ce type de licence, une modification apportée doit être remise au public et/ou au développeur original.

De plus, l'abolition des brevets informatiques ou leur transformation permanent en droits d'auteurs, qui aurait une durée limité dans le temps, pour devenir du domaine public faciliterait, à mon sens, l'éclosion d'une socité plus juste équitable.

Merci.