Re: [d@DCC] C-36 thoughts

From: Kristofer Coward <kris _-at-_ melon.org>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:28:56 -0400
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0305252243460.23340-100000@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305261025250.2837-100000@calcutta.flora.ca>

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:43:24AM -0400, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 25 May 2003 mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
> 
> > than in the regulations, and if we're revising the requirement at this
> > time, now might be a good time to make it a condition for copyright
> > protection, which would be a good thing to do.
> 
>   I don't think I agree with the thinking so far on this.
> 
>   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.
> 
>   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, 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 unpublished work can be published in the future should be clearly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).
> 
>   I tried to approach this topic with someone from the writers union last
> week who supports term extension.  Their reasoning claims that some
> unpublished works that say things that 'may harm the reputation of people
> still living' was a legitimate reason.  I think this is another case where
> those who have spent too much time talking about hammers believe that the
> only thing that exists are nails:  term of copyright should not be used in
> this way.  Separating economic rights from moral rights or tort law issues
> is very important -- different laws, or parts of laws, exist to serve 
> different purposes.

Everything looks like a nail indeed.  Using copyright law to address
defamation issues? Don't we already have some significant redundance in
our defamation laws (ISTR there being both federal and provincial
defamation legislation when I look back on the last time I was probably
defamed.)

-- 
Kristofer Coward				http://unripe.melon.org/
GPG Fingerprint: 2BF3 957D 310A FEEC 4733  830E 21A4 05C7 1FEB 12B3
--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca