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

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:13:09 -0400 (EDT)

(BTW: lets not Cc: our entire thread to Industry and Heritage.  There are 
representatives that read this forum).

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, tOM Trottier wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 10, 2003 at 14:07
> Russell McOrmond <discuss@digital-copyright.ca> wrote:
> ..
> >   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 don't think the 97 act REQUIRES publication.

  If this is not the case, then why are people claiming that the copyright
extension relates to possible defamation?  This is one of the arguments
given to me as to why the term of 'protection' (privacy protection, not
really copyright protection) should be extended.

  I'm just thinking out loud here, but ff the work is not 'published',
then what is the issue and other than asking for more government handouts
(err...royalties from old works ;-) what is the justification for
increasing any copyright term beyond 50 years?

  What is the definition of 'published'?  If a previously unpublished work
is donated to a museum or some archivist to preserve it, is that not
publishing?   I haven't re-read that section of the act recently, so don't 
remember how the act defines that word.

  If I publish a magazine that only one person subscribes to, the
copyright term count-down should start from when I publish this magazine
to that one person -- not some future date when my readership for an
archive increases.

  If something I publish today only becomes royalty-bearing 50 years from
now -- tough!

> What if something is "not yet published." Does the author have any rights if 
> someone takes his unpublished manuscript and publishes it without any 
> permission? 

  This is an infringement of the rights of that author, but is it an
infringement of copyright?  If I call you nasty names in written text,
this too is not covered in the copyright act (it is covered under Tort
law).  If I stab you, this is also not covered by the copyright act.

  There are other laws to deal with these other situations.

> I agree with your other points on tying copyright to creation date
> rather than the author's death.

  I suggest it be clarified to performance or publication date.

  Trying to determine 'creation date' is almost as full of holes as the
current contradictions on author's death.  When exactly does 'creation'
happen?  Any piece of software or a position piece I write today can be
said to be an opus of all that I've done previously.

  It can be said it took me 35 years, 2 months, and 2 weeks to write this
email ;-)

---
 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