[d@DCC] Hill Times letters: "Paying protection money to Access Copyright not legitimate"

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: James Rajotte - Conservative Industry Critic <Rajotte.J (at) parl.gc.ca>, Charlie Angus - NDP Heitage Critic <Angus.C (at) parl.gc.ca>, chpc (at) parl.gc.ca, "Hon. Liza Frulla - Minister of Canadian Heritage" <Frulla.L (at) parl.gc.ca>, Brian Masse - NDP Industry Critic <Masse.B (at) parl.gc.ca>, Maka Kotto - Bloc critic for Canadian Heritage <Kotto.M (at) parl.gc.ca>, Bev Oda - Conservative Heritage Critic <Oda.B (at) parl.gc.ca>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Paul_Cr=EAte_-_Bloc_Industry_Critic?= <Crete.P (at) parl.gc.ca>, "Hon. David Emerson - Minister of Industry" <Emerson.D (at) parl.gc.ca>, INDU (at) parl.gc.ca, "McGuinty, David - M.P." <McGuinty.D (at) parl.gc.ca>
Cc: General Copyright Discussions <discuss -_at_- list.digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:16:50 -0400 (EDT)

Russell McOrmond
305 Southcrest Private,
Ottawa, ON
K1V 2B7
Phone: (613) 733-5836


   I suspect many members of parliament are subscribers to the Hill Times. 
Page 5 of this week's issue contains 4 letters that are critical of a 
position piece from Access Copyright board member Christopher Moore.

   As someone who has spent much of the last 4 years dedicated to this area 
of policy I am familiar with the other 3 letter writers.  Chris Brand, 
Darryl Moore and I are all software and non-software authors who work in 
the high tech sector (I believe Chris and Darryl are professional 
engineers).  Laura Murray is an associate professor, and also the author 
of many works including the first chapter of the book "In the Public 
Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law".  This is a book that 
anyone involved in copyright should read.

   I hope that parliament will accept our advise.  I don't believe Canada 
needs any exceptions to copyright, whether it be an exception that allows 
Access Copyright to be dishonest and collect royalties where none should 
be owed, or an exception that says that educational institutions don't 
need to pay which presumes that everyone else should.

   What we seem to need is clarity in the law that recognizes implied 
licenses so that we don't have either Access Copyright or expensive 
lawyers in the pockets of authors and other Canadians.

   We also seem have a need for educational material for some of the older 
authors who do not understand how new media work, and seem to attack what 
they do not yet understand.  The Internet facilitates a full spectrum of 
options for the production, distribution and funding of creativity. 
These choices -- including those that are competitors to Access Copyright 
-- must be protected in law.

   This issue seems to be getting a considerable amount of press, with 
misinformation from both the Access Copyright and educational sector sides 
of the debate.  While there is nothing in Bill C-60 that addresses this 
issue, I believe it should receive clarity and closure in the short term.

Thank you.

Russell McOrmond


More detailed articles on this issue:

Exposing the extremists in the Canadian copyright debate
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1094

Uses and Abuses of Technical Protection Measures (TPMs)
http://www.flora.ca/documents/tpm-use-abuse-200510.html

-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  2375+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60 which protects antiquated Recording,
  Motion Picture and "software manufacturing" industries from change...
  http://KillBillC60.ca    Sign--> http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss