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

From: ag737 _-at-_ freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean)
To: discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:55:14 -0400 (EDT)

>  If this is not the case, then why are people claiming that the copyright
>extension relates to possible defamation? 

Because claiming that not extending copyright will cause an imbalance in
the flux of the universe and the channels of chi would be too outrageous?

>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.

It's one of a few everything-but-the-kitchen-sink arguments that HLMM Inc.
have thrown at PCH and the Committee.

>  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?

Precisely. And if the work *IS* defamatory, the author can't be sued...
the only one to go after is the publisher, whether that publisher is the
copyright owner durin term, or the copyright owner or any other part,
after the work enters the public domain.

In either event, defamation law and a judge, not copyright law, should be
the arbiter of what is or isn't defamatory, and whether something should
be, or should have been, published.

>  What is the definition of 'published'?  If a previously unpublished work

We're into angels and heads of pins here.

>is donated to a museum or some archivist to preserve it, is that not
>publishing?

Probably not.

   I haven't re-read that section of the act recently, so don't 
>remember how the act defines that word.

Is it defined?

>> 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 someone takes his unpublished manuscript and publishes it without any 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?

Yes.

>If I call you nasty names in written text,
>this too is not covered in the copyright act (it is covered under Tort
>law). 

The nastynaming is, yes/

>  Trying to determine 'creation date' is almost as full of holes as the

Absolutely. Angels and pins again.

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