Digital Copyright Canada

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Wallace J.McLean wrote:

> There is an excellent article at 
> 
>   http://www.thehilltimes.ca/2003/june/9/malley2/
> 
> concerning the brewing storm over the Copyright Act amendments included in
> the Trojan Horse bill C-36.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-36/C-36_1/C-36_cover-E.html

  I am having a hard time with this one as I am realizing I do not agree
with either of the positions most widely stated.

  I find it very frustrating when in the claimed name of non-Creators
(estates and corporations), any extensions to copyright are made.

  Isaac Newton once wrote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on
the shoulders of Giants".

  This is no more true than for creators of works under copyright, which
is why the protection of the public domain upon which we stand and exist
is so important. Real creators know that they exist within that balance
between their rights, the rights of those that came before them, and the
public domain.

  It is in the protection of the public domain, and thus the protection of
creators' rights, that I get involved in this debate.

On Unpublished works:

  A living creator has a choice to publish their work, or not.  They can
decide to throw their notes away, or keep them private for whatever
reasons they choose to do so.

  Contrary to the amendments to the current copyright act in 1997, I
believe that an heir should have that same choice: to publish a work or
not.  They should have the right to throw notes away or keep them private
for whatever reason they choose to do so.

  I am disagreeing with both extremes in this debate: those who believe
that unpublished works should be forced to be published and fall into the
public domain after a certain period of time (I see this as a privacy
issue, not a copyright issue), as well as those who want to create further
complications and loopholes in the copyright act by extending the term of
copyright.

  In my mind, copyright should affect published works, not unpublished
works.  If the worry from those who wish to extend the term is *honestly*
that some series of letters from a dead person may defame some living
persons, is this really a problem properly solved in the Copyright Act?
These issues should be dealt with under different legislation (privacy,
tort, etc), as entirely different issues are being brought up than those
that the copyright act should be dealing with.

  If all some people understand is a hammer, must we legislate that
everything be transformed into nails?

  How long should the term of copyright be?  The extremely morbid
reference to the death of a creator is something I will never agreed with.
Society should not be receiving benefit (the start of the count-down to the
release to the public domain) from the death of a creator.

  This is something I included in my submission in 2001 which I believe
still holds http://www.flora.ca/copyright-2001.shtml (search for "Term of
Protection").

  If the term of copyright protection was not tied to the death of a
creator, then it would considerably simplify the question of term of
copyright.  The complexity and loopholes that trying to determine the date
of the death of the creator (or the death of the last creator in the case
of multiple authors) would be removed.

  In my ideal world, the term of protection would be similar to the
following, with all terms starting from date of first
performance/publication, for works such as books, music, paintings, etc
(traditional copyright works).

  - Clearly defined and non-transferable 'moral rights' would have a term 
    of 100 years.  What constitutes a 'moral right' needs to be clarified 
    in the law as there is much confusion currently.  We need to avoid 
    creators (or non-creator copyright holders) claiming economic rights
    as if they were moral rights.

  - Economic rights would have a term of 50 years for creators.

  - Economic rights would have a term of 30 years for non-creators
    (estates, corporation, etc) copyright holders.

    This is consistent with how things are today with creators 
    receiving a longer term of copyright than non-creating copyright 
    holders.  In this case the difference would be a fixed 20 years 
    rather than an unknown "rest of life".  This difference needs to be 
    retained to offer some additional incentives to protect creators 
    against 'work for hire'.

    Note: While I consider copyright infringement to just be copyright 
    infringement, I sometimes think that "work for hire" (what the USA
    tries to call "contractual rights") is close to what I would consider
    theft.

From my submission: http://www.flora.ca/copyright-2001.shtml#framework

    The length of the term of economic rights 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.

  My understanding of Creators' Rights for non-software creation has
expanded much since I entered the copyright reform process.  If someone
from either extreme of this debate wants to convince me, I am trying to
keep an open mind.  I remember reading the Canadian Copyright Act in the
summer of 2001 and finding it to be an ugly piece of patch-work with
inconsistencies and complexities which I believe should not exist.

  The reason for entering into this specific debate as all, is that I
worry that Canada may enter into that slippery slope that the USA has with
its harm to the public domain.  I am very supportive of the work done by
the folks at http://eldred.cc/ and would hate to have to have a similar
group created in Canada.

  As a creator I continue to stand on the shoulders of giants, and hope
that everyone will work together to protect the public domain upon which
we all stand.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

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

Digital Copyright Canada

[d@DCC] Dead person publishing? Bill C-36.

All Canadian Citizens are "Rights Holders"!