Re: [d@DCC] C-36 thoughts

From: Krishna Bera <keb _-at-_ cyblings.on.ca>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:03:35 -0400 (EDT)

On May 26, Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca> wrote:
>   I would prefer if we supported having the term of copyright dependent on
> such a requirement, not copyright entirely.  As an example, copyright is
> 10 years across the board from date of publish/etc.  If copies are then
> sent this would be used to increase term by some additional amount (up to
> 50 years total).  No 'after death' clauses for economic rights.

Any "published" work of expression folds into the general society 
in the sense of becoming an integral part of a cultural landscape or identity
within a couple generations (approx 30 years), imo.
This means it is likely that for creators of new works
it will be natural to incorporate part or all of the old work in their own, 
whether deliberately or inadvertantly, and pointless to restrict it.
(Should chat with writers / musicians / cultural anthropologists 
to confirm/refute this off the cuff observation ;))
Therefore, i do not see any reason to extend moral rights,
by which i mean control over use of the work in other works,
longer than about 30 years after initial creation, 
never mind death of anyone.
What about creating a third, historical, right
whereby the original creator gets credited in perpetuity?

>   Moral rights should be separated.  50 years after death is appropriate,
> but only for natural persons which are capable of death.  Corporation
> should not be able to claim moral rights at all, 

Being capable of death should not be the criterion for having inalienable rights.
Human beings and other natural living creatures must have them,
social constructs such as corporations must not - it is a matter of our survival.
The fact that the latter have any rights is a grave error, imo.

> and 'work for hire' (if
> it should exist at all) should only apply to economic rights.  Whether an
> unpublished work can be published in the future should be clearly
> understood as a moral and not economic right, and thus not transferable
> (other than to an estate after death).
[...]
>   Maybe there should be a condition for publishing of unpublished works
> that they may be optionally subjected to tort law.  If a living author
> would have been successfully sued for defamation, then those unpublished
> works should simply be purged and never published.  Having a defamation
> time-bomb capability built into our copyright regime does not seem
> appropriate at all.  Dead authors should not be able to defame!

Whoa there!  if defamation is something settled in civil courts,
it is too weak a criterion.
Unpublished works of dead authors are one of the primary sources of
revelations of wrongdoing, e.g., criminal acts or regimes' human rights abuses,
since they can contain personally embarassing confessions.
Imo, they should ALWAYS be published, or at least publicly archived.

-keb

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca