Read: [next] [previous] message
[d@DCC] What do you think the ideal copyright law would look like?
From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
First, please send letters to your MPs about the current consultation that is happening on "Counterfeiting and Piracy of Intellectual Property" - http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3930 I posted a copy of the letter I sent to my MP at http://www.cluecan.ca/pipermail/discuss/2007-May/001199.html I posted a BLOG article earlier that might be interesting to discuss here as well, for those who don't like commenting on the BLOG. Copyright is not a binary yes/no question. What should it look like? http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3932 A few differences from what I've written in the past. I enjoy these types of conversations as it allows us to each think not only about changes we don't want to see, but changes we do. The one that I would like to highlight is: "f. industries who only provide the technical means for recording, communicating or distributing works should not be offered copyright. Only human creators (authors, photographers, performers, directors, etc) should be offered copyright, not broadcasters or sound recording makers. Creators should be offered tools to enable them to skip intermediaries and make their own choices as to how to exercise their own rights. No matter how a creator is employed, the first holder of copyright should be the creator and copyright could only transfer to an employer as part of a contract." As most will know, the loudest lobby group in the copyright revision talks right now is the recording industry. This makes sense, given their industry is currently redundant and they are fighting for basic survival against progress. Musicians will tell you that the roll of the labels is to be a "big bank" to pay the up-front capital costs for the recording and distribution of recorded music. As the capital costs went down with new technology, so did the need for these third-party investments. New technologies have always caused changes to copyright laws. While this has sometimes involved adding new exclusive rights, or transforming a requirement to obtain permission to only a requirement for payment (compulsory licenses). I think it is time that we removed the exclusive rights that were granted to the providers of historically expensive means of recording, communicating or distributing works. While there is a debate at WIPO right now about a broadcasting treaty, we need to go to opposite direction and revoke the existing exclusive rights that providers of broadcast equipment have. The same with makers of sound recordings who no longer have any need for an exclusive right. Songwriters and performers should have rights, but makers should not any more than the local hydro company should have a copyright simply for providing electricity. Any thoughts on this idea, or anything else in my "ideal copyright"? Darryl Moore has posted some ways he agrees and disagrees with my ideal, and Karl Fogel offered a correction of my interpretation of his article. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable media player from my cold dead hands!" _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Read: [next] [previous] message
List: [newer] [older] articles
You need to subscribe to post to this forum.