ARCHIVED — Mark Wilson
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
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 Mark Wilson received on September 16, 2001 via e-mail
Subject: CONSULTATION PAPER ON DIGITAL COPYRIGHT ISSUES
An Individual's Response to the CONSULTATION PAPER ON DIGITAL COPYRIGHT ISSUES of June 22, 2001
Mark Alan Wilson
The case for putting constraints on the use of IT (software and hardware) is a difficult one. It should be kept in mind, however, that the strongest voices calling for restrictions come from content providers, many of whom have strong financial incentives for exploiting certain aspects of IT. Their right to do this and to have their interests protected is undeniable, but IT is much more than simply a vehicle for copyrighted material. Putting restrictions on it from such a narrow viewpoint will be a mistake.
To my understanding, naively misguided perhaps, the highest virtues of our nation and the society which allows it to exist, are those of personal freedom and liberty. In recent years the emphasis seems to have shifted toward protecting the interests of certain industries. Certainly the DMCA benefits only these particular industries, while placing other industries and certain personal liberties in peril not to mention the negative effect it is having on IT development.
Since the Dmitry Sklyarov case began, a number of free software and open source software projects have either closed or gone underground. Not because of prosecution, but for FEAR of prosecution. This is impermissible in our society - in a free, democratic society. IT is where it is today because of the imagination and curiosity of scientists and engineers. Any new legislation should take into account, and to protect this creativity. Breaking, cracking, hacking and reverse engineering software and hardware can not be considered a crime if IT is going to continue to develop in a way which is useful for all.
The interested parties certainly have a right to protect their interests. It is, however, the duty of our government to protect the rights, freedoms and liberty of its citizens. Technology and the future will thank you for this.
(Conversion info removed)
(2 html files removed)
- Date modified:
