Discussion of "A framework for copyright reform"

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: No DMCA in Canada <canada-dmca-opponents (at) flora.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 19:28:03 -0400 (EDT)

  Here are my own quick notes, being included in:
http://russell.flora.org/drafts/copyright-2001.html#framework

  I believe we shouldn't just focus on the
anti-circumvention-circumvention aspect of the reform process, and
continue to discuss other aspects as well.

  If anyone has references on any aspects of these discussions, please
post so that we can all try to learn from each other!






  Discussion of "A framework for copyright reform"
  
     * Digital issues

       The consultation paper seems to suggest that the most
       controversial of the digital issues, the making illegal of the
       circumvention of technical measures aimed at limiting access to a
       work, is already part of a new WIPO treaty that Canada signed in
       December of 1997. I feel very frustrated that this highly
       controversial and fundamental change in copyright law was pushed
       forward without considerable consultation worldwide with the
       constituencies involved.

       It should be obvious that there is great controversy with the
       international protests of the US's DMCA, the arrest of Russian
       citizen Dmitry Sklyarov by the US's FBI, and the resulting
       chilling effect on international academics and researchers who
       might otherwise attend conferences in the USA.
       I will discuss a few recent cases involving the US's DMCA under
       case studies.

     * Technology-enhanced Learning

       It has been argued that with the movement out of the
       brick-and-mortar physical education institutions, that many of the
       rights afforded educational institutions should be extended beyond
       those confines. As an example, a private citizen doing
       technological research that is intended for wide public
       presentation (for example, the work to be released in the public
       domain or licensed under a public license such as those used for
       Free Software), should be afforded all the copyright exemptions
       that a library might.

       {provide more meat to this argument....]

       The issue of liability of Internet Service Providers is also an
       important question. Unlike a traditional library which has a
       catalog of all materials, many ISP's do not even know what
       information is stored on their computers. It is a fact that I am
       myself only aware of a small percentage of the materials that
       computers I manage are publishing, and it would be impossible to
       hire people to manage such things without pricing myself totally
       out of this business.

       The argument that ISP's should be treated as a common carrier has
       been made before, and it should be the customer who is publishing
       the information and not the people who own and manage the
       computers that should be liable for any legal issues, including
       copyright. ISP's may be required by law to divulge customer
       records for some proven offense, but to hold ISP's liable is
       simply unworkable.

     * Term of Protection

       While the suggestion has been made to increase the limit to the
       lifetime of the author plus seventy years after the author's
       death, the existing limit is already overly biased in the favor of
       copyright holders. The problem is of two forms:

          a With the ability of authors to transfer copyright to other
            persons or to non-living entities such as corporations, this
            creates a legal loophole to essentially bypass the
            requirement that the information eventually become part of
            the public domain. With this in mind, the suggestion has been
            made that the term of protection should start from the time
            of first performance/publication, and not from the death of
            the current transferable copyright holder.

          b The length of the term of protection should be tied to the
            nature of the information. While it can be argued that 50
            years may be appropriate for works such as books, this
            argument does not at all apply to other fields. Obvious
            examples are "news" where such materials change at a much
            faster rate, or computer software. In these cases the term
            should be lowered such that copyright on works such as
            computer software would be more in the order of 10 years
            rather than a potential maximum of 50.
       

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 RMS clarifies Freedom http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-05-04-GPL.html
 Free Sklyarov http://www.dibona.com/dmca/ http://www.freesklyarov.org/ 
 http://www.flora.org/dmca/ Oppose DMCA in Canada!

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.flora.org/dmca/