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 »
There's no reason why music or literature should be treated any differently from a vacuum cleaner or a pharmaceutical (except, of course, for the graft paid by industry associations for this special treatment).
What would be the objection to eliminating copyright as a separate entity and simply issuing a patent on publishable material with the same 17-year lifespan of exclusivity?
After all, a great deal more effort and expense generally goes into the production of a new physical product, so why is the system geared toward greater reward for less-expensive production?
Is there a real, justifiable reason for copyright lasting longer than a patent?
sjbrown [2009-07-31 17:07] Nº du commentaire : 1217 Répondre à : 1176
In both cases we are granting the creator with a monopoly on a particular piece of human knowledge. How long should the monopoly last? I think the test is basically: who does the monopoly hurt and how badly are they hurt?
I argue that the harm caused by a monopoly on a cancer drug is greater than the monopoly on a hit song.
Also, reverse engineering is allowed on copyrighted works whereas with patents, reverse engineering may still end up infringing. I don't agree with this, it's just the current state of affairs.
Hotshotharry [2009-09-10 15:31] Nº du commentaire : 2400 Répondre à : 1176
Very good point !!!!!!!!!
Please excuse me as I may not be fully acquainted with copyright laws.
If I were to request one change it would be a clause to prevent businesses from exploiting creators. I may need to clarify what I mean by exploit:
example 1) Some businesses, rather than hiring/contracting an artist for artwork/music/photography/etc., hold a contest for a desired creation where they offer a prize (sometimes a mystery prize) and fame. A number of creators (sometimes young creators or older creators who are down on their luck and figure they have nothing to lose) put a lot of time and effort into their entry and are not compensated fairly for their work. Only one person wins the prize (the prize may or may not be worth the effort).
example 2) Joe Shuster (Canadian) and Jerry Siegel created Superman and sold a 13-page story and all rights to the character to DC comics for $130. "Shuster was involved in a number of legal battles concerning the ownership of the Superman character, eventually gaining recognition for his part in its creation." clipped from Wikipedia's article on Joe Shuster.
Superman is a world-recognized character and has made the publishers a hand-full of money (possibly more).
If copyright is in place to protect the creators (and not record labels/publishers/businesses that hire creators), then there may be an opportunity to set something in place to prevent certain profiteering.
If a law was set in place to stop particular contests or ensure that creators are paid royalties if profits exceeds a certain amount, artists could feel comfortable in being innovative and creative in Canada without the fear of being used/exploited by employers.
I know that royalties are usually negotiated in the contract but not all contracts include royalties "in case of wealth and fame." I'm not saying that publishers/music labels/movie studios don't deserve to make money... just that if they make a lot of money, the creator is ensured a slice of the pie.
We are so glad that we can be our own in the industry without the monopolizing middle things . We are able to do our own business without having to be apart of the mess because we know what team we are on.
Thanks to our government for what they have done with the society of composers, authors, & music publishers of Canada .
Get to know who is on your team folks,copyrights is too big .find what is for you in it.focus on that.
Thoughts on Copyright:
Telling stories is one of the few things a computer cannot do. Ask it to write you a novel or a magazine article or a short story -- it can't. That still takes human labour, human experience.
It took years of reading, false starts and rejection to train myself to write. Now I spend 4-5 years on each novel. I read for research, invest my own money for travel and interviews. I "represent Canada" at every reading. There are easier ways to make a living.
Zero-valuations, for instance of domestic labor, send the message that people don't value the activity. When you demand products for free, you are also requesting low product quality and a fall in supply.
Microsoft would never have fueled a world economy if Gates had not owned the words in his programs.
So I urge the Canadian government to make copyright provisions stronger. If the law says Canadian writers must be paid for work done or reused by print and online publishers, the publishers will seek technical solutions to do so, and companies like Microsoft will gladly supply them.
Shauna Singh Baldwin
sjbrown [2009-07-30 14:13] Nº du commentaire : 1154 Répondre à : 1147
I agree that it is unreasonable to demand products for free, and that creators should get paid. I think those notions are already covered by our current Copyright law.
How should copyright be made "stronger"?
Should it be made stronger by removing people's right to tinker with their property? Because that is what bill C-61 proposes to do.
email@example.com [2009-08-05 06:00] Nº du commentaire : 1315 Répondre à : 1147
10 print "Idealistic rhetoric "
20 goto 10
Vanity publishers will not profit from the laws. This law will only help people who can afford to pay endless registration and legal fees.
The oligopoly's lobbyists will ensure peoples greed will subdue the ignorant, punish the defenseless, and consolidate the market.
Recent events in the news concern me regarding the limitations companies can put on the use of electronic devices.
With Amazons Kindle, first there was the deletion of purchased e-books (sale was complete even if it shouldn't have occured, no take-backs allowed). Second, there is the news that the Kindle has the ability to read aloud its e-books, but that it's being disabled because it impacts sales of audiobooks. That's just a built in format shift, and I think it's criminal that they would restrict the method by which one enjoys their purchased product. I would hope that in Canada format shifts would be allowed and the laws would be used to prop up a business model that allows the same content to be sold more than once depending on the format one prefers.
The article for this story is found at 'http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/672156'
Next, is the suppression of new telephone business models. I've heard that both Skype and Google voice, programs that provide a cheaper alternative to regular phone numbers/telephone bills are being repressed on cellphones. Most of the stories focus on the iPhone, and how they limit the sale of applications for their device. Those seem to be protectionist corporate policies that stifle innovation.
New companies are offering a cheaper alternative with similar functionality, but nope, can't use them cause less money would be made by other existing companies.
In both these cases, it seems there should be limits on what rules a company can enforce on technological products. If new applications that work on the product are developed that work just fine and offer cheaper alternatives to the consumer, they should be allowed.
Hotshotharry [2009-09-10 15:35] Nº du commentaire : 2401 Répondre à : 1101
Can't agree more ! If I bought a text work and had my mac readit to me that's my business ! It's not an allowable restriction of copyright!