Re: [d@DCC] C-36 Going Back to Committee Tomorrow!

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:17:59 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Wallace J.McLean wrote:

> C-36 is starting clause-by-clause in committee tomorrow morning, 9:00,
> Room 308 West Block, House of Commons, 9:00 a.m. to noon.

  Canadian New Media (I am assuming Jeff Leiper, Editor) has an article in
the issue sent out today called "Extensions to be scrapped from Bill C-36"  
where he suggested that "contentious sections 21 and 22 would be on the
chopping block when committee members are given a chance to propose
amendments."

  I am assuming you were also at the meeting and could comment in more 
detail?


  I am also still confused.  Is this purely an economic argument about
(economic rights in) copyright not extending beyond 50 years after the
death of an author for unpublished works?  If the works were never
'published' (however that is defined), and there is no 'forced
publishing', then what really is the issue?

  Is this really a simple case of some non-creators (estates,
corporations) wanting monetary handouts in the form of protectionist
public policy?


  While I have read well articulated articles explaining why these
extensions should not exist, I have yet to read anything reasonable as to
why they should.  There must be some proponents of these extensions that
have written somewhere that I can read?

  There must be people willing to write about the other side of this 
story.

---
 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