Re: [d@DCC] Bill C-36: Copyright term extension

From: Jason Young <jyoung _-at-_ lexinformatica.org>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Cc: "Samuel E. Trosow" <strosow -_at_- uwo.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:57:18 -0400
References: <Pine.SOL.4.44.0305091106380.12296-100000@softbase.math.uwaterloo.ca> <3EBBD4A4.2000902@uwo.ca>

I don't know when Parliament prorogues (anybody?), but I fully expect 
more activity before this session ends, as per the short term agenda 
in the s. 92 report, see http://shorl.com/fefatrafrehisy. They've got 
a lot of ground to cover.

Jason

At 12:17 -0400 03.05.09, Samuel E. Trosow wrote:
>My big question is whether this is the extent of the legislation 
>that will be proposed this year. Is this it? or is there more 
>coming?  It's good that it doesn't try to extend term across the 
>board for all works, and there's nothing about WIPO implementation. 
>I agree that the implications for permanent public access seems very 
>positive at first glance.
>
>Sam Trosow
>University of Western Ontario
>
>
>Matthew Skala wrote:
>
>>Today's ILN highlights Bill C-36, introduced yesterday in the House of
>>Commons.  Some very brief comments, with links, here:
>>   http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lw/?id=2003050901
>>
>>This Bill extends copyright for unpublished works.  It also apparently
>>extends the copyright for some published works that were published
>>posthumously.  It doesn't have the sweeping application to almost
>>everything that the US Sonny Bono Act has.
>>
>>I'm surprised I haven't heard anything about this Bill before today.
>>There was apparently an Industry Canada comment process about copyright on
>>unpublished works, but I don't remember hearing about that either until
>>today, and the deadline for comments was March 7.  I don't think this was
>>ever posted to this list before now.  Are other participants aware of it?
>>
>>Before we get too upset about Bill C-36, I think we should analyse it
>>carefully, because it contains a bunch of other terms that may be
>>significant too.  On balance, Bill C-36 might even be one I'd support.
>>For instance, in my quick skim of it just now (I won't have much time
>>until Sunday to take a close look), I see that it has terms for requiring
>>the holders of an old recording to give a maximum-quality copy to the
>>National Archives, so that it can be kept available to the public.  That
>>sounds like a Very Good Thing as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>I'd love to hear other people's analysis of this Bill.
>>
>
>
>--
>For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
>links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca


-- 

---
http://www.lexinformatica.org
http://www.privaterra.org
http://www.epic.org
PGP KeyID 0x46E11518
--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca