Re: [Cdn-DMCA] 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: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:45:47 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:

> - reconsider the length of copyright validity on a per-case basis instead
>   of keeping it in its current state which is grossly considered as 
>   "one size fits all".

  I believe we need to start with a default, and then continue with such
discussion.  We really want to push for "date of first publication" to
attempt to un-tie copyright length with the death of the author.  We may
also want to tie copyright to a 'human' author (or authors), not allowing
corporations or other artificial institutions to hold copyright at all.


  We would also want to have the length-setting done on a sector-by-sector
basis, not case-by-case or we will get into the same problem that the
patent system has now.  The patent system may have great ideals, but the
beurocratic nature has taken over where pretty much anything, even if it
fails the basic tests for validity, is granted.  The system leaves the
courts to sort the whole mess out.  By leaving it to the courts it now
ensures that those with the most money/biggest lawyers win.

  For small contributors like myself, even the threat of lawsuit when I
know I am correct is enough to potentially force me to back off unless
there are some freedom-fighting-lawers willing to take the case on
probono.



> - cancel what they signed in the WIPO treaties about the anti-circumvention.

  It is important for us to note this WIPO treaty as it frames part of the
discussion.   Us smaller-players (We have the numbers, but not the money)
will be pitted against big-money lobbiests who will be trying to convince
the Canadian government that even the extreme interpretation that the USSA
took is not strong enough.

  We need to make our arguments clear and obviously correct.  The
submission that David Skoll sent in
<http://www.roaringpenguin.com/dmca-comments.html> makes a good argument
suggesting that "Sanctions Against Means of Circumventing Copy-Protection
are Bad for Technology"


>   Copyright laws are already there to protect copyright.


P.S. (potentially off side-note: please only reply in person and not to
the list).


  This ongoing debate about copyright includes people from all angles of
the political spectrum.  It has often forced me to think considerably on
other topics, and I have noticed confusion as to who-supports-who in all
of this (the lines aren't always clear).


  Try to read the piece " .comment: The Digital Millennium Rape Act" and
if you are a supporter of gun control like myself, see if you are made
uneasy about that.
  http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3642/1/


  On the other hand, see if you can read

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ 
  "Courtney Love does the math"

and compare that with my own

http://russell.flora.org/papers/byemetallica.html 
  "Bye, Metallica: a lost fan"

and see if you think that Courtney actually agrees with me and not Lars as
she suggests.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Free Sklyarov http://www.dibona.com/dmca/ http://www.freesklyarov.org/ 
 http://www.flora.org/dmca/ Oppose DMCA in Canada! (C) reform process....
 http://russell.flora.org/drafts/copyright-2001.html My submission...

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