ARCHIVED — David Ranger

COPYRIGHT REFORM PROCESS

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED REGARDING THE CONSULTATION PAPERS

---

Documents received have been posted in the official language in which they were submitted. All are posted as received by the departments, however all address information has been removed.

---

Submission from David Ranger received on September 11, 2001 via e-mail

Subject: Consultation Papers on Internet Copyright Issues

to: copyright-droitdauteur@ic.gc.ca

September 11, 2001

David Ranger
(email address removed)

Response to: CONSULTATION PAPER ON DIGITAL COPYRIGHT ISSUES
June 22, 2001
Issued by:
Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Industry Canada
Copyright Policy Branch, Canadian Heritage
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html


My name is David Ranger. I am writing this as a private citizen of Canada.

I am personally against some of the issues of digitial copyright, particularly the ban against circumvention devices.

Copyright Laws are to "to stimulate the production of cultural content and diversity of choices for Canadians", and other reasons listed at the above mentioned website. The laws are so people will want to create new content. That's what they are there for. A common way for people to create new content is to allow them to make money off it in such a way that they can make money off it. In a society with no copyright laws, when that content is published, there is nothing to prevent anyone else from just taking their work, and selling it in the market, and competing against the original author. The laws are there to prevent that.

I feel that Copyright Laws should be restricted to the distribution of copyrighted materials. Fair use allows me to make a copy of the content for my use. The creator would not be dissuaded from creating further content because people are making second copies for themselves. Sure, they could make more money if people paid for those second copies, but the point of Copyright Law isn't to make as much money as possible.

People have always had the ability to make copies of copy protected content, and it hasn't stiffled innovation or the creation of new content. Since the internet has arrived, more new content has been made and flourishing. For years, there has been the ability to buy a 2nd VCR and make copies of any movie, or tape something off TV. Anyone can take a picture and make a photo copy, or tape a band playing at a concert on cassette. Copyright Laws should be there so when these things occur, they aren't distributed. If I buy something, I should be allowed to make a copy of it, but not distribute or sell the copies to the public.

Most are in it only for the money, which is very understandable. If everyone paid for their 2nd copy, the would make more money. If everyone paid for everytime they viewed the content, they would make even more money. If everyone paid simply because the content is available, they would make even more money. A line needs to be drawn. A balance made between the public interest and the copyright holder's financial interest. That line is fair use.

Copyright Laws should prevent distributing and selling copies of copyrighted content to the public. Digital Encryption restricts fair use and circumvention devices restore our fair use. If circumvention devices were banned and all copy righted material were protected, we would be at a new level of Copyright Laws. Paying for a personal copy. The technology is already there for content creators to charge usage or monthly fees to access the content. Without circumvention devices, there would be little stopping them from charging everytime you view the content.

Copyright Laws are so the content creators make new content. If you're getting $5 everytime someone reads your book, and without circumvention devices, people will be paying $5 everytime they read your book long after you've died. Why create new content when you can retire on a single book? Would you be willing to pay $5 everytime you read a book? What if you had no choice?

When I buy content, 20 years from now, with that content still in my possesion and still viewable, I can still read it. With digital copy protection and digital content, 20 years from now, I may not still be able to use it.

That situation doesn't currently exist, but the technology is there to allow it. If you ban circumvention devices, you take away the publics only method of gaurenting fair use and preventing that situation. Laws like this don't create new content, they stiffle it.

Make laws that allow content creators to protect their work, but don't make a law that prevents our fair use.


David Ranger
(address removed)

---