Patent vs Copyright…

The difference between the two is that for patent application you have to SHOW some type of creative or new work. The issue with patent (and very well documented) is that people come up with the same ideas at the same time and release them and some other company patents them…(amazon single click)…the patent law is not perfect but it does have a good basis with limiting protection to a set time from time of registration…I think 17 years (please correct me).

With copyright it is different because there is no basis on putting your work through copyright…it is automatic…so if you steal someone elses idea and push it out and then defend it, it is up to the original author to bring a suit that can take years to settle…

Copyright should be for AUTHOR or creators only and a limited time like 14-20 years for comercial gain…if you have a cool gadget then patent it.

I'm going to take this question for my discussion about copying. I think this is something that is sorely misunderstood by many people because so few of us actually know how a DVD player, or a CD player work.
Copying is REQUIRED to play any CD, DVD or Blue-Ray disc, or even mp3s and other non-physical media. I'm not going to spell out the circuits and data path of a disc player or personal music device. What you need to know is that every one of these devices must copy, in part or as a whole, the content they are to play from the source medium (disc or hard drive) into their internal memory. The only difference between this and ripping the content to another device is the level of persistence. It is illegal to steal a million dollars, even if you give it back a week later.
Copyright law should reflect technological realities as much as the purpose of use. To foster a digital economy this is essential to allow device/software creators to understand the legality of their creation based on its technical capabilities and operations.

Writing this I cannot help but see the similarities to how our brains work. We copy and imitate from birth, it is how we learn language, listen to music, watch movies, etc. Studies have even shown that the brain cannot differentiate between a memory and a current experience, which is why dreams are so real. We are copying machines, it is how we are fundamentally built.

Balance the rights of both consumers and producers of digital media.

For producers, this means the ability to distribute copy-protected versions of their media to regulate how's it distributed.

For consumers, this means that rights that we have for physical media - to resell it, to use it on multiple devices of our (as opposed to the producer's) choice, and to use it in perpetuity once it has been purchased - should extend to the digital realm.

What we as a society value doesn't depend on the form media occurs in - our values are our values, and we fit new media to them.

Besides being a "buzzword" what it meant by the phrase: "global, digital economy?"

Most "Intellectual Property" such as patent and trademark law appear to be beyond the scope of this consultation. However, patent and trademark law is being leveraged in an attempt to enforce Digital Rights Management. For example, I have heard rumours that digital video standards are a patent mine-field. Trademarks are use to signal "authorized players" that must license the patents in order to decode the content.

The biggest difference between "analog" and "digital" is the ability to use (forward error-correction) or (re-transmission) to facilitate loss-less copying.

I think loss-less copying is what really scares the so-called "content providers." One thing that becomes lost in the debate is: that EVERYBODY is a "content provider" to varying degrees. Digital Rights Management systems would have "content providers" pay a license fee to play only on "authorized players." The wide-spread use of DRM threatens free-speech.

Wow, that was dense.

It is important that we do not follow or base the new copyright laws off of current, backwards copyright laws in the US or giving in to their demands to draft their DMCA in to our law. A great source for abuses of copyright law is Techdirt and Slashdot.

A) With eBooks and Audiobooks becoming more popular, laws need to be created to protect the consumer. A recent article, which is only an example of all the similar stories, on Techdirt talked about how Kindle(eBook reader from Amazon) users who legally bought copies of the book 1984 recently found it unreadable. This is because the publisher of the book changed their mind and did not want to sell eBook copies of the book AFTER it was already for sale. This would be the same as Sony coming to your house and forcefully taking back a 52" tv because they don't want to sell their products in Canada.

B) DRM(digital rights management), also known as 'copy protection', needs laws to focus it on what it was first claimed to do; protect the rights of both the consumer and enterprise. Presently this is certainly not the case and is constantly abused to protect the interests of the business at the expense of the consumer's rights. One example that made the major news circuit was one of Sony's DRM schemes that installed what is known as a rootkit, where it introduced major security flaws and provided unneeded and illegal control over a person's computer. As it stands, the general application of DRM is to protect the interests of a company by placing extreme limitations on the consumer, often to the point where legitimate use can render the product unusable and the software for the DRM oft times has flaws or short comings where a legally purchased product may not operate as it should or at all.

C) Making digital copies of products, such as DVDs, CDs, Movies, etc, should be legal. I am a part of the generation that lives by the current technologies. I have a laptop, netbook, ipod, HDTV, wii, dvd player, etc, and I don't always have the time to sit down at home. I purchased a copy of something and should have the legal right to enjoy it whenever I wish. I should be allowed to make a copy to keep on each of my devices so that I may use my purchase wherever I am.

D) Fair Use is a very important issue to properly address. Their is a huge difference between sampling or being inspired by something and plagiarism. Since the overwhelming success of the Harry Potter franchise the author has been forced in to many legal battles over others claiming that she copied or stole her ideas from their works. Almost without exception the similarities between the two works has been vague at best - a good analogue is a motorcycle company suing a bicycle company - and their should be laws to prevent and protect authors, photographers, musicians, etc, from pointless lawsuits like this.

E) Wireless phone locks. In Canada and many other countries, wireless carriers such as Rogers, Bell and Telus, engage in locking their phones so they can only be used on their private networks. I understand that this was originally done to insure that the wireless carrier recoups the money they subsidize the phone for, but there is not need for this practice to be continued. The contracts signed to get the phone at a discount protect their revenue. We should be allowed to switch to another network that supports the technology the phone uses(GSM/CDMA/etc) if not in a contract to one company and I should be allowed to purchase any phone(using the right wireless standard) and have the wireless carrier support it and enable all features.

Effets 1984 - Le droit d'auteur versus Le droit du consommateur
Je le mentionne parce que c'est arrivé il y a quelques jours. Au états-unies, via le service Kindle, le livre téléchargeable 1984 a été effacer sur tout les appareils Kindle. Dans ce cas particulier, l'explication d'Amazon (le propriétaire du service Kindle) avait spécifié que le livre avait été soumis par un éditeur ne possédant pas les droits de diffusions et qu'ils allaient rembourser intégralement les personnes qui avait acheté le livre. Ce qui est correct.

Toutefois, je crois qu'il faudrait inclure dans la loi, une disposition ne permettant pas au créateur et auteurs d'exercer un contrôle absolu sur un produit culturel tel un film, une piè ce musical, un logiciel, etc. Si le produit a été produit et acheté en conformité avec la loi, il devrait être interdit d'avoir recours à un dispositif de contrôle empêchant en partie ou en totalité son utilisation. Seul un magistrat devrait pouvoir exercer ce pouvoir.

One of the most important things is to decide to lead, rather than follow. In particular, following the USA is not the way to lead.

The global digital economy will be led by countries with extremely fast, cheap connectivity (both wired and wireless) very widely available with the users determining the best use for it, and maximum ease of use of digital material. That means a vibrant public domain, broad fair use, easy location of rightsholders, minimal number of people to deal with to clear rights, and maximum freedom to use material in a novel manner even if the rightsholders don't agree. It also means that governments at all levels need to make all the raw data they collect and the results of all the research they fund freely and easily available.

Finally, we need to lead the way internationally by pushing for agreed minimal standards for exceptions to copyright, for a follow-on to Berne that reduces the term of copyright to something more reasonable in an era when business moves much faster than it used to and more in line with the expectations of most Canadians, for no new copyright-like rights for broadcasters, and for recognition that "counterfeiting" is about deceiving the consumer, not harming the producer.

Since our internet infrastructure is so bad its hard to say how copyright laws might help/hinder online business. Bottom-line is we need more competition to see growth.

Nik, nnanos@nanosresearch.com

Can you fix the website so that is not locked to 800x600 some of the threads are being squished…for users that are out of the 90s we can see wider screens and would appreciate it.

Thanks,

In this global, digital world we must also consider the impact other countries decisions will have on our own system. If other countries ever revise their copyright laws to allow private sharing, the digital world we live in would enable individual Canadians to access that content regardless of what we decide on now. The only way to prevent this sharing would be to expend lots of resources on the monitoring of those communications and have a way of forcefully preventing the users in Canada from accessing that content.

The US has already presented itself as a leader in the "stronger copyright" direction, and it has resulted in the criminalization of reverse engineering and events like Dmitry Skylov, a Russian who got arrested after giving a presentation on eBook security methods in the US. They are currently trying to allow the searching iPods and computers at the border to fight against unauthorized digital copies, and normal people are getting sued for obscene amounts of money.

We could also be a leader in that direction. However, I propose we become leaders by finding and implementing a way to properly reimburse the content creators without treating on the rights of the average Canadian. This truly is uncharted territory, and right now more than ever the world needs someone to take a chance with copyright reforms that respect both the creator and the consumer. Bill C-61 as it was written was an insult to Canadians; it would have benefited a few private interest groups at the expense of the individual Canadian's right to privacy and free speech (reverse engineering - not sure where this falls). I just hope the legislators have opened their eyes since bill C-61 and are able to avoid a rehashed DMCA.

Reduction of copyright term to the 25-year range. Elimination of Crown Copyright. Resistance to prohibitions on reverse engineering, to media industry-influenced technical specifications in electronic devices, to a regime where a notice of infringement can suppress speech without verification of infringement.

The US model is an invitation to failure. When industry reponds to the new environment creatively instead of defensively, there may emerge more tenable methods to promote innovation and investment. DMCA sytle reactions only prolong the transition and reduce innovation.

I believe the copyright act is adequate for dealing with the legitimate concerns of the people of this country. It already bans the unauthorized reproduction of copyright products. What more do you want it to do? I don't see where it can do more. Where we have a problem is in compliance to the law but given current technology I don't see where we can make people comply more. In most cases such compliance is based on the good will by the citizens of the country. I personally that spirit of good will was violated by the Liberals when they instituted the CD levy on people who purchase blank CD's and other electronic devices for storing content.

People pirate because of a few main reasons:

1. There is little to no DRM free, reasonably priced alternative (not really true anymore for music, depending on what you feel a reasonable price is)
2. There is no reliable, easy way to get the content digitally through legal means (Movies, TV, some Music, E-Books, etc).
3. Its very easy to get pirated material. Much more so then to get the digital equivalent.

The answer, IMO, is for the industry to smarten up, remove DRM form all media, and provide the media, digitally and DRM free at a reasonable price (RIAA recently conceded that DRM is dead).

Digital downloads do not require packaging or shipping, storefronts, etc. They require much less staff to produce and sell. Really, a huge portion of the costs are gone when compared to traditional media. So technically they should be cheaper than their physical counterparts.

As someone else pointed out once you've purchased the licence for a particular work, its yours, you should be able to switch formats (iPod, HTPC, CD, etc) without incurring any additional costs as long as you are not increasing the bit rate/quality. (ie: if you purchase a DVD version of a movie, it does not give you the right to download an HD version, but the opposite is true.)

- Recent studies show that piracy may in fact increase digital sales, not decrease them.
- Certain people will always pirate. If you add throttling, and web snooping capabilities they will (and are) switch to encryption and private VPNs.
- I believe that it is much more cost effective to give up this ridiculous fight and offer people cheaper, easy to use methods of getting what they want.