Read: [next] [previous] message

Re: [d@DCC] Getting the government to recognise audiences as an interested party

From: Neil Leyton <leyton _-at-_>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at)>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:05:39 -0500
References: <>


I think we're on the right track with that, from the users (audience?) 
perspective... however, it may be appropriate to also add the creators 
angle, ie. in this case, many creators are on side with the users' 
perspective, vs. the intermediaries'.

Perhaps after the last paragraph we could add,

FURTHERMORE, we feel that certain prior PR as well as legal 
communications from certain intermediary groups who control - but do not 
actually create - copyrights have been unfair in their claim to 
represent creator's interests, and we urge the House to also take into 
account the voices of independent creators; as we feel that their 
interests align themselves with ours.

Something like that...? Sorry, not feeling particularly eloquent today...


Chris Brand wrote:

>Ok, let's put something substantial on the table for discussion.
>How about this :
>We, the undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the
>House to the following:
>THAT the Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision in CCH Canadian
>Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, stated that the exceptions to
>copyright infringement in ss. 29 and 30 of the Copyright Act are
>more properly understood as being users' rights;
>THAT the Copyright Act itself is recognised as being a careful balance
>between the rights of creators, intermediaries and users;
>THAT historically consultations regarding changes to the Copyright
>Act have mostly taken place with creators, intermediaries and some
>special audiences such as educators and librarians; and
>THAT digital technologies give copyright holders the ability to
>prevent audiences from using and accessing works in ways that have
>been traditionally understood not to infringe copyright
>THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon parliament to ensure that
>audiences are recognised as interested parties and consulted just
>the same as other interested parties about any and all proposed
>changes to the Copyright Act and to ensure that any such changes
>preserve all existing users' rights.
>I've mixed the words "audience" and "user" above, which I don't
>like. I prefer the word "audience" (possibly defined as including
>readers, viewers and listeners) but the Supreme Court said "users",
>which I think is a good argument in favour of using that word.
>Perhaps I should add something saying that users of copyrighted
>works include viewers, etc and then use "users" throughout ?
>I've kind of combined my type 1 & 2 petitions into one, which I
>think shows, but I don't whether that's a good or bad thing. I'd
>like to hear feedback on all aspects of the above. Note that I've
>deliberately chosen not to enumerate rights but instead to ask
>that all existing rights be preserved - this is a deliberate
>attempt to get broad acceptance for the petition and lots of
>signatures. I could certainly see a follow-up petition, probably
>with fewer signatures but asking for more.
>For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
>links to other related sites please see

For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see

Read: [next] [previous] message
List: [newer] [older] articles

You need to subscribe to post to this forum.
XML feed