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 excessively restrictive and punitive laws proposed by this government will make the vvast majority of Canadian citizens instant criminals. This government must represent its constituents regardless if they agree with them or not.
rakey2_anotherlawyer [2009-07-21 04:04] Nº du commentaire : 146 Reply to: 93
It's sounds like a conspiracy but it's more true then many of us realize.
We've all heard of computer viruses. Some of those viruses share files and we don't even know our computers have a virus.
If laws like C61 pass then everyone with an internet connection could EASILY be framed if their computer gets a virus.
In fact if you have access to someone's computer you can frame them for lawsuits of $20,000 just by sharing one song, which takes about 15 minutes to do.
So instead we should make downloading and sharing legal, and crack down on those who profit from burning and selling copies. personal use and sharing of art should be legal in Canada.
I am a Linux user and don't have the money to by an Apple computer and don't wish to contribute to e waste by upgrading hardware every 2 years.
I would like to be able to view my legally purchased DVDs on my computer without being a criminal. C-61 makes it illegal to use decryption software not supplied by the media corporations who don't support Linux. What am I supposed to do other than use open source DVD viewers which require the use of a decryption software. Its like buying a Ford and told that I can't fill gas from Chevron only Ford approved gas !
Fair use is completely eliminated from C-61. I would either like the ability to make one backup for my personal use or have media companies be forced to replace broken CDs and DVDs for the price of blank media. Currently they make us pay for the same content multiple times.
rsmits [2009-07-21 00:30] Nº du commentaire : 110 Reply to: 91
I certainly agree with the poster. I don't object to paying for a DVD. What I object to is the idea that my government might make me a criminal if I watch MY DVD, that I have paid for, on MY computer, merely because I run Linux.
It has to be legal to play legally acquired DVDs on any hardware I choose, not just on ones approved by entertainment moguls.
rakey [2009-07-21 00:53] Nº du commentaire : 119 Reply to: 91
I buy a lot of CDs and DVDs. I am first to agree that we should be able to watch our purchased content on whatever system we choose.
I have been forced to upgrade (buy new) DVD players in the past to play DVDs, as far back and when the movie "The Abyss" came out on DVD.
I agree that we should be able to use software programs to make a backup copy of that which we paid for or to otherwise convert it so it can be played on whatever system we own if it is capable of playing CDs/DVDs.
cokhavim [2009-07-21 04:53] Nº du commentaire : 150 Reply to: 91
I am another Linux user, and I totally agree. One thing I would like to add: I travel a lot and buy legal DVD's from other countries that make great movies. If I'm not allowed to decrypt my own legally bought DVD's how am I supposed to watch them? Must I buy a whole new laptop or DVD player from every zone in the world just to play my non-zone-1 DVD's? That's ridiculous! Every DVD player in Canada be sold as zone-free, or it should be legal for Canadians to remove zone restrictions from their own DVD players (eg. through decryption software) in order to view their own legally bought DVD's from other zones.
vikram [2009-07-21 13:05] Nº du commentaire : 197 Reply to: 150
Region code enforcement has been discussed as a possible violation of World Trade Organization free trade agreements or competition law. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has warned that DVD players that enforce region coding may violate their Trade Practices Act. The government of New Zealand is also considering a similar ruling. This means that all DVD players sold in those territories have to be region-free. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_region_code)
If you buy it DVD you should be able to view it wherever you like and whenever you like as long as you don't distribute copies commercially. I believe the legal term is called quite enjoyment.
I would like to government of Canada to stand up for consumers and not the media corporations for once and allow fair use and quite enjoyment of legally bought products.
jrm [2009-08-15 22:47] Nº du commentaire : 1690 Reply to: 91
It should be illegal to distribute a product such as a DVD which doesn't always work due to hidden and confusing systems (ie DRM). These products, which are defective by design, are not fit for sale. I would like to see the government of Canada protect consumers from scams like the DRM on DVDs.
Copyright laws take money out of my poor pocket and give it to the rich. This law is about wealth protection and creation not about art or creativity.
The lenght of time a copyright is valid for should be shortened.
rakey [2009-07-21 00:57] Nº du commentaire : 120 Reply to: 74
I disagree about the rich comment. I am a photographer struggling to make a career out of my photography work. I seek only to prevent my work from being copied and distributed beyond the original buyer of the media.
If you need to make multiple copies for your own use and not to give to friends, acquaintances or strangers, then this should be allowed.
I do however agree that 50 years may be too long. 2-5 years, howver, is too short. I advocate the period be changed to something more realistic that would give my benefactors time to start a new life after I'm gone, perhaps relying initially on income from my copyrighted works. Perhaps 7-10 years would be more realistic.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-21 11:27] Nº du commentaire : 178 Reply to: 120
Older terms for copyright were typically for a period plus an extension. A work would be under copyright for, as an example, 14 years, at which point the author would have to submit paperwork to have it renewed for an additional term. This allowed a number of works to enter the public domain by asking the author the simple question 'is it worth my time to renew this?'
Typically this would be for one extension, but there's no reason it couldn't be for more.
A proposal for from Professor Lawrence Lessig in the US would be for an initial term of 10 years, followed by yearly renewals that cost one dollar. This would allow big corporations to protect their talking mice for as long as they wanted, while allowing access to works that the owner no longer cares about if they are indeed still alive.
I sincerely doubt we'll get a serious re-consideration of copyright term this time around, but automatic, retroactive extension as has happened in the US and elsewhere (putting public domain works that have already lapsed back under copyright) should not happen here. As an artist myself, I know that my work 'stands on the shoulders of giants' (to paraphrase Newton). But I also know that if there's a toll all the way up I'll never be able to make the climb.
rakey [2009-07-21 17:40] Nº du commentaire : 263 Reply to: 178
I think Professor Lessing has hit the nail on the head and proposes a good solution.
I really don't care if copyright protects my work after I'm dead. My wife may. That is up to my beneficiaries to decide. But that's getting into area beyond this discussion..
aclausen [2009-07-21 17:56] Nº du commentaire : 267 Reply to: 178
"A proposal for from Professor Lawrence Lessig in the US would be for an initial term of 10 years, followed by yearly renewals that cost one dollar. This would allow big corporations to protect their talking mice for as long as they wanted, while allowing access to works that the owner no longer cares about if they are indeed still alive."
But is the public good being served by allowing a certain talking mouse to essentially remain out of the public domain in perpetuity? The whole notion of copyright as it was formulated initially was to allow a limited period of essentially monopoly control (save for Fair Use) before the work went into the public domain. Thus the creator got a chance to make some money, but in the end society got its payment for creating the very notion of intellectual property.
If you simply allow Walt Disney to create an infinite protection then you create the situation in which society has sacrificed a liberty (recognizing the notion of "intellectual property") but with no payback.
To put it another way, the only reason intellectual property exists is because of the general recognition that sometimes legal fictions (like making corporate entities, to a limited degree, legal persons) create a benefit. But if you essentially take away the benefit, then why should society even tolerate the notion of "intellectual property" at all? As I've said repeatedly, art, music and literature all existed for millennia without the benefit without such protections.
My opinion is that copyright should be an absolute 25 years, period. No renewals, no nothing. A quarter of a century is plenty of time for any artist to profit from their work, to enjoy society's largesse of creating the idea of a "intellectual property". After that, society gets the full benefit.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-21 21:58] Nº du commentaire : 318 Reply to: 267
I'd agree with you generally that shorter terms are better. I placed Professor Lessig's suggestion here in the context of opening more debate (Professor Lessig argued Eldred v Ashcroft at the US Supreme Court against retroactive copyright term extension).
Another approach might be a limited term (10-25 years for example) followed by a series of possible extensions (e.g. every 1-15 years) to a certain limit (say 50-100 years total).
This allows for valuable works to stay protected for a long but limited time, while leaving open several windows for orphaned works to enter the public domain. It also mandates regular reconsideration by the copyright owners as to the value of a work. Simply put, if it isn't worth your time to renew, let it go.
Personally speaking, as an artist, I'd love to live to see the day that transformative works are created from mine, but that's just me.
kendal.bushe [2009-07-22 16:46] Nº du commentaire : 484 Reply to: 267
I agree with the notion of an absolute copyright, but would suggest that there should be flexibility in the term, depending on the type of media being considered. Here, I suggest reading an excellent essay by Richard Stallman:
Here, he describes the "deal" made between society and an artist releasing their work into a space where it could be copied. The deal is that we allow them some exclusive license for copying their work for some time in exchange for the artist releasing it. The question we should be asking (according to Stallman) is: how low can we go?
It's like bargaining for the price of some goods: how much freedom (to copy) are we willing to give up as a society in exchange for ensuring that artists still make the material available. Until we start finding artists who decide "I'm not going to make my music any more, then", we've not dropped the number of years low enough!
For computer software, a copyright term of 5 years might be appropriate. How many people are still running out to buy 5 year-old software? On the other hand, maybe a book or a painting should be longer - like 25 years or even the lifetime of the author/painter.
This should be where the real debate is happening - not about whether or not people should be allowed to view DVDs they've legally purchased …
xcelsior1 [2009-07-21 15:34] Nº du commentaire : 223 Reply to: 74
You obviously don't know many songwriters. To say they in anyway are "rich" shows an ignorance to the current arts situation that I can't even begin to understand. Songwriters (v. "Artists) rely strictly on back end and their copyright royalties to keep the lights on. Period. As for length of copyright, the shorter the period after death a song stays in copyright, the less valuable it is to potential publishers and therefore the less a songwriter gets for the publishing share of his work.
Scott Watkins [2009-07-21 16:42] Nº du commentaire : 235 Reply to: 223
In fairness, there's plenty of people getting rich off of copyright who have nothing to do with the originators of the work.
xcelsior1 [2009-07-21 16:47] Nº du commentaire : 237 Reply to: 235
Yes, I can agree with that. And there are people who really took the original writers to the cleaners and they are scumbags. But there are also people who legitimately bought publishing from the writers and paid them fairly for it with an eye to profit from it and I don't see anything wrong with that either since the writers were still rewarded for their work.
DavidK [2009-07-24 15:36] Nº du commentaire : 804 Reply to: 237
Need to differentiate between a primary use (by which a writer, say, gets paid through a contract with a distributor/producer/publisher) and a secondary use (where say a consumer PVRs their favourite show, watches it 5 days later or banks a DVD copy of it to loan to a friend). There's no money for the creator in any of those secondary uses, which currently infringe copyright.
But consumers want to do it; so legalize it - as long as you institute a way for some renumeration to flow through to the creator. Collective licensing is the solution. Then the PVR or the DVD includes a modest tariff that will find its way to creators. Consumer gets to do what they want with the material (non-commercially, of course), and the creator of the material is appropriately rewarded. Creators have mortgages or rent to pay too.
MatthewSherrard [2009-08-15 14:31] Nº du commentaire : 1674 Reply to: 223
The role of content resellers, versus content creators, should be de-emphasised as much as possible as we go forward, despite their protests. While they prefer to be thought of as #1, as it has been in the past, that is no longer the case, nor is it viable for a healthy system.
Far more appropriate now are services which provide a platform for direct content creator licensing and selling of content. For example, iTunes does not appear to try to lay claim to ownership of works it sells, it merely provides a platform for their sales.
I would much prefer we work towards a system in which songwriters are appropriately remunerated /all the time/, rather than ripped off up front and provided dribs and drabs from SOCAN for a few years.
There should be a mechanism by which performers can enter into fair agreements with songwriters without having to make it "worth it" for a publisher.
vancoUVer Records [2009-07-30 13:53] Nº du commentaire : 1153 Reply to: 74
What ever industry your in I hope your association or union is looking out for your individual rights.
michaelmatthews [2009-08-23 05:35] Nº du commentaire : 2020 Reply to: 74
I receive income from my creative work and I am not rich.
crade [2009-08-24 13:48] Nº du commentaire : 2029 Reply to: 2020
No one is claiming you are rich, but if you are not rich, then you are probably not a factor in why the lobby groups are trying to push in new laws.
The money in the copyright balance doesn't sit with the creators, and it certainly doesn't sit with the consumers. The lobby groups pushing for new laws are not interested in changing where the money in copyright is, they are interested in getting more of it into the hands of the big corporations they represent. What is it that has your convinced that your interests are the same as theirs?
Is a lower or middle class creator going to benefit from preventing people who purchase their content from format shifting it or time shifting it? Are they likely to benefit extending the copyright to longer that 50 years after they are gone? Are you really going to benefit making breaking digital locks for any purpose illegal?
Keeping in mind the acts of copyright infringment that are already illegal, which of the new laws the lobbyists are pushing for do you think is actually going to help a lower or middle class creator and why?
Je suis contente avec l'actuel lois, mais j'aimerais qu'il soi compris aussi les publications digitaux dans le Web.
Copyright laws affect me greatly as well as a consumer. I feel the restrictions of the laws the US is pushing on us and other countries are an affront to my personal freedoms. I feel that the US legislators are on the wrong track, heading in the wrong direction entirely and we must learn from their mistakes. The balance in copyright legislation is currently tipped to benefit the rich few, and we must correct it, not make it worse.
Restrictions such as dictating what medium I am allowed to use to listen / watch / play my software / media fill me with a deep resentment. I understand fully why they exist, and this understanding strengthens my resentment. The companies only need to create the software / media once, why should they be allowed to force the consumers to purchase it again every time a new technology comes out?
For my fellow voters:
I would encourage you to focus on art as being important not predominantly as a means of corporate profit.
Ensuring that large media distribution companies remain profitable should not be one of the goals of copyright legislation, and should not be confused with ensuring creators and artists remain profitable. You might just as well try to create legislation to ensure that horse carriage manufacturers remain profitable after the invention of the automobile. If their business model does not work, let them adapt, or let new companies take their place.
Let these corporations promote and encourage new work, not profit endlessly off previous work because there is now a new technology to play them and people can't use it without paying again for it. Let the extent of copyright be such that works created in our lifetimes are available to us to use as stepping stones and building blocks for creating new works.
For the government:
I would ask you only to do what your electorate wants. Do not let lobbyists, companies, or outside interests have a voice that is disproportionate to the number of voters they represent.
aqnd [2009-07-20 20:06] Nº du commentaire : 50 Reply to: 45
I agree entirely.
As a citizen of CANADA, I see more and more laws being influenced by our neighbours to the south. Some of them have merit, however seeing the bill introduced (C-61) earlier this year on copyright, it made me wonder where I was actually living.
While the United States may yield to corporate greed, I was hoping that Canadians would respect the freedoms of the individual and not of the large corporations. If I purchase a movie, CD, or piece of software, I am purchasing a right to use it for certain terms. The terms in the case of a film are that it is to be used for non-commercial use and for private viewing only. As long as I abide by those rules, as a licensee of said media, I should be allowed to transfer that DVD to a format playable (for MYSELF) on a portable video player. Or take that audio CD and make MP3's for MYSELF to listen to.
No law will stop piracy, so by introducing copyright restrictions as came up in the past (C-61) only harm the consumer and do nothing for the large corporations who claim to be hurt by piracy.
A prime example is the encryption used on HD-DVD's and Bluray discs. Not only was this encryption broken within days of release, but the videos still find their way onto the internet. Yet as a consumer, wanting to watch my movies legally on my computer, I can't. Why? Because of the endless hoops I need to jump through just to get my computer to be "verified" to play these movies (HDCP). If for whatever reason my drivers fail, I can no longer watch the movies I have paid for a license to watch.
Under new copyright legislation, it would then be illegal for me to rip the disc in order to watch it. In essence, the consumer loses, and piracy wins (continues on as normal).
If new laws are to restrict people into purchasing the same item more than once in order to have it on their ipod or netbook, would that not lead people to simply pirate that copy in the first place? Is that not what the intent of these archaic laws are in place to prevent?
In the digital age, everything is about the flow of information. By placing restrictions on this, you only prevent innovation and growth as you're essentially installing roadblocks.
I only ask that in this copyright reform that FAIR USE is emphasized on the rights and freedoms of the consumer.
danielsnider [2009-07-20 22:32] Nº du commentaire : 75 Reply to: 50
I agree completely with the above. As a consumer in the land thats strong and free I still feel threatened with how I'm allowed to use my media. We should not be affected by the United States inclination to ensure mass media corporations make massive profits. Set Canada's heritage free by allowing grass roots artists become successful on the net. When the restrictions of current copyright rules are loosened Canadian artists will spread like wild fire. Canadians will be able to see more, hear more and enjoy more Canadian culture! And become internationally acclaimed. I strongly shun America and their attempts to control the market. Piracy is here to stay. Don't cripple the future. Government should leave file sharing alone. Sharing files increases the value of our society without costing citizens their money. Government should help artists focus on the aspects of their profession that will retain value. Such as live appearances.
Government: Leave corporations and lobbyists out of this consultation. Listen to artists and consumers.
crade [2009-07-21 02:10] Nº du commentaire : 133 Reply to: 75
I should mention that I do not advocate illegal file sharing, nor do I believe "piracy" (arr matey! What a rediculous p.r. term) is here to stay, at least not in the amounts that we see today (which we see equally here and in the U.S. if we have our eyes open by the way). I believe the extra illegal activity we are seeing is a form of rebellion against what people see as an unfair state of copyright law. I am relatively confident simple compromise would bring it under control.
If you think longterm, it is also likely that the illegal file sharing would eventually degrade if the U.S. style strong arm tactics are used instead. They would eventually forget they were once allowed to freely transfer their records onto cassette to listen to in the car, lend books and tapes to friends, buy software oversees and use it at home, have the whole family share the use of a single software program, etc, and will then accept the new rules.
I prefer the first option though, and I think option 2 would be more trouble. I know I would make sure to teach my kids and grandkids that we once had those freedoms.
I can tell you how I *don't* want them to affect me. I don't want them to put me in prison for exercising my right to free speech. Any law that criminalizes reverse engineering or deciphering is an attack on free speech.
Besides being morally wrong, any such law would have enormous chilling effects on innovation.
See the Dmitry Sklyarov case. The PhD student had a look at Adobe's ebook software, puzzled out that the way they hid the content from the user was a simple alphabet substitution -- changing A to M, B to N, C to O, etc. He then traveled to the US to give a talk on his research and was arrested under the new DMCA law. He was imprisoned, away from his young family, for months.
This is how the large media corporations have changed US copyright, we can't let it happen here. We assert our rights to investigate the things we purchase. If Ford sells me a car with the hood welded shut, it is my right to crack it open and have a look underneath.
Terry0 [2009-07-20 22:35] Nº du commentaire : 76 Reply to: 44
I agree, the goverments laws are about supressing the peoples freedoms, to use what the people paid for.
danielsnider [2009-07-20 22:44] Nº du commentaire : 79 Reply to: 44
A law against deciphering or reverse engineering is absolutely an attack on free speech. I will not stand for any punishment of understanding how something works. It's a customer freedom to use their product as they wish. We must stay far away from the above use of the DMCA law.
cndcitizen [2009-07-20 22:45] Nº du commentaire : 80 Reply to: 44
sjbrown, I don't think it is free speach but more of privacy that they want to limit. Most computer security holes are found by people reverse engineering products to make sure their corporate networks are safe before they release something to their users.
If someone told me I was not allowed to investigate something that they release or installed on my computer then I would never install it…look at the SONY root kit that created a security issue for thousands (and still ongoing) compromised computers when they installed root kits on their CD's to play when they were loaded on PC's…
If it was me I would want the bill to allow for lawsuits against companies that compromised the security of my computer by doing crap like that.
matt.bouchard [2009-07-23 13:06] Nº du commentaire : 657 Reply to: 80
Creating more lawsuits is not the answer, cndcitizen. Do you have a legal team standing by? I know I don't. Many of our laws are pretty good, particularly those for landlord-tenant, but who can afford to go up against the mega-corp that owns their apartment building when they steal your damage deposit? Anyway, I'm getting off track.
I agree that the rootkits thing was horrible (a decent discussion on Wikipedia for those not familiar. If you don't like Wikipedia, read the references at the bottom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal), but lawsuits are not the answer. Neither are stiff financial penalties (Discussion of the EU versus Microsoft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case), so what do we do when big corporations won't play nice. Well, since corps want all of the good things about being a person under the law, why not treat them like a person. The rootkit was basically breaking and entering with some light identity theft. Unfortunately, we don't have great laws for this kind of betrayal, even at the person level, but let's pretend (for the sake of my gradually weakening argument) that the rootkit thing was equivalent to murder. So, we seize all of their assets (difficult in a multinational corp) in compensation for the victims, and we charge the board of directors as accessories to murder. One case like that, a bunch of rich white people (or perhaps rich Japanese people in the case of Sony) go to jail for a while, and the problem goes away. Extreme, I know, but show me an example of when a big corporation has been brought to heel, and we'll use that model. Corporations are not evil, they just want to make money. In fact, they have a strong, Darwinian (verging on biological) imperative to make money. Ack. I'm sounding too much like an anticorporate nutbar. In summation, real punishments for corps who break the law and when I buy I banana I can do whatever I want with it: eat it, throw it away, use it as a paper weight, blend it in a smoothie, or as a personal pleasure device. Why isn't it the same with copyrighted material? I bought it. It's mine. I can do what I like with it. If you don't want to sell it to me, don't.
cndcitizen [2009-07-23 14:39] Nº du commentaire : 672 Reply to: 657
Haha…I love the part of the Banana…."I want my copyright like I use my banana…" that is the new Slogan for Copyright…
With respect to the Sony issue, I was shocked that they were not sued as a class action…lots of people were and still are subject to that evil deeds…
matt.bouchard [2009-07-27 18:00] Nº du commentaire : 989 Reply to: 672
Thanks for the reply! I'm glad you liked "The Banana Summation". As for Sony, I remain amazed at how little fallout there was. The reason may be at the heart of all of this discussion. Most people don't really have any idea what Sony did, let alone what they did wrong. I'm not sure whether it's just people not understanding their rights and the importance of protecting them or just ignorance of technology. In any case, we need a place for tech savvy advocates to talk to real people. Ahh, my dreams.
meikipp [2009-07-24 22:45] Nº du commentaire : 863 Reply to: 44
Plus his actions were legal in Russia where he wrote the software…