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

From: ag737 _-at-_ freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean)
To: discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 12:14:11 -0400 (EDT)

>  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 was, but I don't know much more than Mr. Leiper. Committee members
Allard, Bonwick, Girard-Bujold, Strahl, and Lill, representing all four of
the parties present at the meeting, alluded to the agreement to pull those
sections. At the moment that hasn't been formally done, they have only
been pencilled out, and the formal withdrawal of those sections won't and
can't happen until at least Tuesday when they seem to be inclined to rush
the (rest of) the bill through clause-by-clause. To what end, since the
House won't be sitting to give it a Third Reading until at least September
15th, but hopefully when C-36 does come back out of committee it will be
without the problematic copyright clauses.

>  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death of an author for unpublished works?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?

There's the economic interest of those who would like to see longer
protection, but unfortunately few to none have yet stood up to make the
economic arguments for the public domain, and free (liber, not gratis)
access to works, and the economic benefits that accrue to an economy, and
the economic activities generated, by the existence of the public domain.

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

Pretty much. That, and they make some spurious claims about possible
defamation issues, which should be the business of the publisher (whether
the owner of copyright during term, or a third party after the transition
to the public domain), the (provincial) law of defamation or libel, and a
judge to settle. It has no business entering into a debate over (federal)
copyright law in the first place.

>  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?

This is about it:

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incrp-prda.nsf/vwGeneratedInterE/rp01109e.html

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incrp-prda.nsf/vwapj/cpuwe.pdf/$FILE/cpuwe.pdf

(Sorry about the PDF)

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

Eventually the minutes of evidence of the Committee's hearings will be
published to the web. When they are, I'll circulate those links as well.
They have to wait to be converted from "blues" (rough transcripts) to
final copies, and to be translated from source language to the other
official language. Then the positions and arguments of the proponents,
whether Departmental or third party, will be made very clear.

Hopefully, the problem areas of C-36 will be excised, but we have to
remain vigilant. Heritage obviously tried to sneak and rush this through,
and I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see them make at least one
more crack at it, in a stand-alone bill or in another rider clause,
sometime between September 15th and the moment poor old Lucy Maud's papers
and diaries come into the public domain. Toujours vigilant !



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