Re: [d@DCC] Draft FAQs on copyright

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 23:34:58 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Philipa Lawson wrote:

> If anyone is interested in reviewing our draft Questions and providing
> feedback, please email me directly (see address below) and I'll send
> them over.

  What is the copyright on these?  If you wanted I can accept these
attachments and convert them to HTML and PDF (using OpenOffice.org) and
publish them on the digital-copyright.ca site.

> FYI - I have learned that the Heritage Committee is planning to call
> witnesses starting next week, until Nov.6th, on the s.92 review.  They are
> not looking at specific issues at this point in time; just the process, and
> overview issues.

  Could you clarify what would be process and what would be an issue?  Is
the question of what issues are tied together (TPM and reverse
engineering/etc) and what order things will be dealt with a process issue?

  Would a recommendation to do further studying of "open collaborative
methods for the production of public goods" (like WIPO was supposed to do
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/openwipo.html ) before proceeding on digital
copyright issues a process recommendation?

  My submission was intended to be entirely on issues and didn't clarify
things that would suggest questions of process at all.

> I'm hoping to have some students attend the hearings, and post summaries of
> the testimony online.  Will provide an update on that, later.

  When I looked at some of the past proceedings I wonder if more public
witnesses should be there. When I glanced at the minutes from June 17,
2003

http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoCom/CommitteeMinute.asp?Language=E&Parliament=138&Joint=0&CommitteeID=3274

I noticed very odd process issues which made the copyright extension a
little odd.  I even saw "An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote." where
that request seemed to have been completely ignored as the meeting was
adjourned.


> CIPPIC plans to file a submission later this month; I gather that the
> deadline is not hard and fast, at least w.r.t. parties who aren't going to
> be called to testify this fall anyway.

  If submissions are going to be translated, how will we know what is a 
final deadline?  I would like to keep my submission a bit dynamic as I 
keep seeing better references or thinking of more concise ways to say 
things than I have in my quickly-drafted submission 
http://www.flora.ca/copyright2003/

---
 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