Copyright laws affect me both as a producer (an academic and an open-source computer programmer) and a consumer. In theory, as a producer, it gives me some control over my works. In practice, however, any journal I publish in will insist on a copyright transfer, and I actually lose the ability to distribute my work until fifty years after my death. Further, I feel that it is wrong that, while I have access to most academic publications through the university's subscription to various journals, the public, who has is in effect paying for the research to be done, does not.

As an open source computer programmer, I am in the strange position of copyright law ensuring that my work remains open. This largely thanks to the fancy legal footwork of the GNU General Public License (GPL), which makes the use of my work contingent on agreeing to likewise sharing any derivative work. This is in stark contrast to a standard software license that seeks to ensure the software is not shared. Nonetheless, they both depend on copyright law giving the author the right to set the circumstances under which their work may be copied. In either case, the term of copyright is much longer than is needed in the fast-paced world of computers. A few years is all it takes software to become obsolete.

With regard to being a consumer, I am quite concerned with having full access to content I have purchased. I feel if I have paid for content then I have upheld my end in the producer-consumer relationship that is copyright and I should then be able to move my content between my various devices, access it on the devices of my choice, and otherwise manipulate it for my personal use. I am strongly against the enactment of any blanket anti-circumvention clause that will make all of these things impossible, especially at a time when most online stores have tried and are now abandoning digital rights management (DRM) as untenable.

I also note with some irony that the biggest use of DRM to date has been in region-encoding systems that prevent the interoperability of content from one region with a device for another region. This use flies directly in the face of the very World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty that is quoted as the reason for implementing these measures. Specifically, footnote eleven says "[i]t is further understood that Contracting Parties will not rely on this Article to devise or implement rights management systems that would have the effect of imposing formalities which are not permitted under the Berne Convention or this Treaty, prohibiting the free movement of goods or impeding the enjoyment of rights under this Treaty."

Finally, as a Canadian, I do not want to see the United States' current practice of example making being reinacted in Canada. I feel that if Canadians find it necessary to dissuade private copying, then we should do so in a reasonable Canadian fashion, something akin to speeding fines, and not blanket restrictions on consumer rights, life-time internet banishments, or life-ruining million-dollar lawsuits. I also object to having to pay a private copying tax unless I am actually allowed to engage in private copying in practice.

[updated 2009-09-13 22:01]

Canada's copyright laws affect me by imposing a controlling framework over my participation in our society. In responding to all of these copyright discussion questions, I propose that the basis for understanding how we should treat copyright needs to be founded in day-to-day living human society. I'd say this holds by and large for our treatment and interaction with all manifestations of various intellectual creations.

I'm not going to talk about specifics. Not specific stipulations, rules, or terms on how I think the copyright laws should be written or applied. I'm sure that there are a number of suggestions for that but I would like to see some background principles in place from which the specific rules are set. If questions arise as to the specifics or proper application, then a verification against the background principles would help determine the best approach. So I'll answer these questions, as briefly as I can, with what I think the background principles ought to be.

Canada is because Canadians are. In our everyday activities we create our own culture while apprehending it. In order to participate at even the most minute levels of creating our culture we're constantly experiencing everything around us to inform and inspire what it is we put into our culture. Really it's just how we live in a society with other people—I'm trying to describe a self-nourishing loop. For example, when I write a novel, I'm drawing on my lifetime of ideas which has been influenced by every experience I've had. My experiences include everything in the world around me that I come in contact with, physical or otherwise. Whether initially created by humans or not, the fact of the Canadian environment is as much a part of our social experience as are the ideas we convey in our culture.

I believe that when I expose any of my ideas publicly (that is, when I do not keep them to myself), whether in a manifestation like a book, music, painting, etc. or even verbally, those ideas become irrevocably a part of our society. The moment we manifest a product of our intellect in the public sphere (our commons) at least one other person has now somehow apprehended them in his or her experience. The lives of those people are influenced by their apprehension of the ideas. In turn, those people will somehow contribute them, in their own ways, into society. Maybe someone will read a book I've written and then recommend it to someone else; a simple example. Maybe someone will see a painting that an artist made and be inspired with an idea to compose some music, which then eventually gets performed and heard by other people. A bit more involved, but just as much a part of the loop that is a living society.

That loop is the vibrancy of a living society. Without this constant interchange of ideas and creativity to even the simplest, most banal degrees, we cease to be a society. That is, without it, everyone keeps everything to oneself, which could only be possible if one were to live entirely by oneself, isolated from all other human interaction. In other words, in the absense of human society.

Current trends in copyright discussions tend to focus too much on the economic aspects of creator's rights or else simply the notion of “ownership”. This is a mistake because it neglects the priority of the entire background principles taking place that enable people to manifest their intellectual creations within our society in the first place. It is however mostly possible and reasonable to identify creators with proper attribution to their works. From this attribution there are plenty of ways encourage our economy without assuming restrictive ownership-style rights. But this is more for a later question. I mention it here only to say that the economic concerns (which tend to wield an overbearing influence in copyright legislation) have profoundly impact our lives in the way we apprehend and participate in our society. These economic concerns should not be mixed into the purpose of copyright law, which in my opinion is to better our society by fostering creativity in the living space for manifesting our intellectual works.

Canada's copyright laws affect me because I want to participate in a living Canadian society. I want to experience our society and I want to continue contributing to it. I do not want our society to die, I want it to neither be excluded nor exclude the rest of human society. Finally, I do not want to live isolated from all other humans. In order for this to be my reality, the controlling framework that is copyright must, by all means, neither restrict my liberty to apprehend all the creative intellectual elements of our society and environment nor restrict my liberty to contribute in kind.

Modernizing Canadian copyright law requires a focus equally on fostering creative expession and on ensuring the possibility for everyone's apprehension of those forms of expression. Modern Canadian copyright law should emphasize a lack of restriction on the exposure, apprehension, distribution, and redistribution of all public intellectual manifestations. Canadian copyright law should focus on strengthening the freedom of our commons and affirming that this is our cultural lifeblood. At the same time, Canadian copyright law should clarify and enforce proper attribution for all who contribute their ideas in whatever form manifested. The framework of modern Canadian copyright law should be minimal in its control of social participation.

[updated 2009-09-13 12:38]

Let me discuss briefly the concept of a "digital idea".

I don't think anyone on these forums is advocating that anything that you produce for profit should be "free" nor that we live in a society that takes away work created by people and gives it away for free. That kind of concept is some kind of futuristic totalitarianism and I pray that we and our descendants never see that happen in reality.

However, our society is evolving, at least most parts of it. The ideas that we come up with today are generally quite complex and it's hard to be completely innovative without using someone else's concept as the building block of your creation. And to express such ideas, before it was sufficient to use text and explain those idea in thousands or millions of words, as the world moved slower. Today, we need digitized information, starting with text, picture, sound, movie, and so on. And even with all the multimedia, it is often hard to convey the gist of your idea without interpersonal communication. So even with total digitization of our ideas, we are still at a loss of expressing them fully and without confusion.

Ideas are just thoughts, and even with patents and copyrights, they are free to propagate. Before, we let ideas propagate as text, as that was their level of sophistication. Today, ideas are represented in a digital format, with all the "bells and whistles" that computer world allows. If we start preventing free flow of ideas, digital ideas in this case, we start preventing free flow of thought, and we go towards a different but again extreme road of totalitarianism.

Music, movies, and art in all the other forms should not be free, as that takes away the motivation for creators to invest time in producing great art. However, there is only one channel that allows free flow of digital ideas and that is the Internet. Art in all it's forms can still utilize all other channels to provide return on investment (including the Internet itself) and do so with all the legal protection that the law provides. But, there should be at least one way for art and digital ideas to propagate freely among people in the sphere of non-commercial interests.

That is why non-profit sharing is so important and crucial, not just for Canada but for the entire world. Creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (the key to creation of capital) all depend on free flow of ideas, and Internet is a great catalyst for all of those. Please do not let near-sighted greed and selfishness of special-interest groups attack our creative society at it's core.

[updated 2009-09-12 11:41]

The copyright laws should be modernized by simplifying them. The only concept that needs protection is that if copyrighted material is used in a product to make money then a percentage of that money should go to the creator of whatever copyrighted material is used. Any other use should not be penalized or hindered.
The current copyright laws offer plenty of protection for creators already. These proposed new laws are draconian in nature and serve only to protect big business at the expense of the rights of human beings. They attack the rights of consumers and whittle away at our privacy and freedoms. They have already had a devastating effect in our educational institutions in restricting the free flow of knowledge and information and these new laws have set their sites on the internet with the intention of restricting the free flow of knowledge and information over the greatest library the world has ever seen.
As politicians I hope you will keep in mind the interests of the people who elected you and not the interests of big business who have not elected you. These laws do nothing to make Canada a better place for its citizens.

[updated 2009-09-11 14:47]

Since it seems inconceivable that the federal government will defy the US entertainment industry, I think the most important change for the Canadian revision of the DMCA is provision for heavy criminal penalties for bogus takedown requests, regardless of whether the victim of the bogus complaint suffers any harm, combined with substantial cash penalties payable to the victims of such bogus requests.

[updated 2009-09-11 01:36]

I would like to address how broadcasters in both Canada and the United States can cite “copyright” and the Radiocommunications Act as a legal means to justify denying Canadians from accessing content from the American broadcasters even though these Canadians are willing to pay monthly subscription fees to the service provider, who in turn, presumably compensates the copyright holders.

Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;”

Furthermore, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

What I ask is that when drafting any new copyright legislation (or telecommunications legislation), that Parliament considers both the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is irresponsible of the government to draft law that would deny the basic rights of Canadians enshrined by the Charter. Today this is the case with the Radiocommunications Act and possibly by the current and prospective legislation on copyright. There is no legal justification for government to prohibit Canadians from acquiring, through payment or subscription, information that is broadcast from sources outside of this country.

For example, if a Canadian with Latin American roots, purchases a subscription from Directv to watch television programs from Chile, Peru, Brazil, or Mexico (programming not available from a Canadian broadcaster), this Canadian would be breaking Canadian law and can go to jail and/or be fined up to $1000 a day for such illegal acts. In civil court cases filed against me by Bell Expressvu (now Bell TV), Directv, and Dish Network, these huge corporations cite both the Radiocommunications Act and the Copyright Act for justifying the prohibition on Canadians from viewing foreign broadcasts.

Canadian broadcasters can not be everything to everyone. They can not act as the filter of international (or domestic) information and decide what Canadians can watch. This would be a form of censorship. Canadian broadcasters operate on a profit model; not as a goodwill organization to help individual Canadians acquire information and content that, in essence, forms the basis of “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.”

It is my submission that whatever form or language the Copyright Act adopts, it can not make criminals of Canadians for merely exercising their lawful rights under the Charter. In addition, the Radiocommunications Act needs to be revised to respect the Charter rights of Canadians.

[updated 2009-09-09 13:18]

How do Canada's copyright laws affect me? Well if we can be certain of anything, it is that in the digital age of the internet, any user comes into contact with media and therefore becomes affected by copyright laws. My focus is on the uses that would be legitimate. It is not right to use a piece of media without having paid for it or having gone through a legal, legitimate route to acquiring it.

However when one acquires a piece of media, it becomes theirs. That is to say that if one buys a DVD of Indiana Jones, they now own the movie. That does not mean that they have owner's rights to the intellectual property, but that they own the media regardless of format. Thus if I want to transfer the movie from my DVD to my hard drive for backup or to my iPod for a trip, even if I circumvent DRM and as long as it is for personal use, it should be my right to do so.

As it stands today, media companies deny this logical right to me because they wish to make more money selling me multiple formats of the same movie. Why should I spend more money on the same content? That makes no sense; it is unjust and unreasonable. Rights like these, that make sense, that are fair and that protect the consumer from overtaxing corporations, must be included in Fair Dealing provisions.

It is important to pay for intellectual property and I in no way defend those whom will outright steal the content and/or sell it for personal gain. However, preventing what should be an evenhanded right because of those whom will steal or simply for the economic gain of the already incredibly rich media companies is terribly unjust. Those whom will steal and sell to make their money, will find ways to do so regardless of the law or technology. Preventing this kind of right then will only put good, honest Canadians outside of the law.

[updated 2009-09-09 10:28]

I am a freelance writer who sees a number of problems in the current copyright environment, much of it stemming from poorly conducted studies of who copies what. I’d like to see rigorous, independent scientifically sound studies performed to really sort out who is copying what, and which copying is done by people who are truly ‘lost customers’. There also needs to be a more accurate system for the actual collection and distribution of moneys developed. With the current systems, I suspect there is far too much money being collected in some areas, not enough in others, and a general mal-distribution of multi-millions of dollars.

I have several areas of concern:

1. Over-zealous collectives that have no scientifically proven method for fair or accurate distribution of millions of dollars. A single collective collects money through licences and other fees to the tune of millions of dollars each year. While a small portion of that money is indeed accurately distributed to creators as a form of royalty, most money is not so well targeted. In one collective, millions of dollars are divvied up between anyone who decides to join the collective – even if members haven’t had anything published in decades. There is something wrong with a system that collects money, and gives, frequently, to the wrong people. I fear both print and music collectives have similar methodologies – with collected money rarely getting to the correct creators.

2. Levies on recording equipment – even when not used for music. I am a journalist who relies on using recording material to record interviews and lectures for use in my reportage activities. Over the years, many of my dollars have been sent to the music industry and divvied up among artists I don’t listen to – simply because when I purchased recorders, tapes, writable CDs and the like I’ve had to pay hidden levies. I don’t record music – only material I need to do my job. There is something wrong with a system that assumes everyone is recording and archiving music. Many of these recordable media are being for recording and archiving of non music material (such as storing family photos, work-related PowerPoint presentations, work-related databases, home movies, etc.). I doubt a true, impartial scientific study has been undertaken to truly quantify what is being recorded and archived.

At the very least, people like me should be able to claim back money spent on music industry levies! Is it possible to set up a system so people like me can claim this money back? Better yet, get rid of these levies -- they don’t make much sense.

3. Access to information. Fair dealing/fair use is an important concept in an educated and democratic society. One needs to be able to have access to information for educational use, for background for work-related projects, personal growth, for researching material for product development, and more. An important part of fair dealing is being able to make a single copy of an item (a book chapter, a magazine article, etc.) for personal use. Imagine the 12-year old child working on a history project not being able to make copies of chapters so he can take them home, highlight with markers the relevant passages, and finish his/her assignment. Someone who makes copies for personal use was never in the market to purchase the complete works. That 12-year old child (as with most of us) will throw out or delete the copied material once the project is finished.

Any royalties/levees attached to making those single copies for personal use are misguided – they increase the cost of getting information making it less accessible to people in general. If people are less able to pay for material, then in the long-run you have a less educated society. Rules that allow for certain percentages of books, etc. to be copied for personal use are reasonable. But be wary of collectives that want to add fees to anything and everything that is copied. The spirit of copyright protection is to prevent the exploitation of creators – not to restrict access to information or stop people from learning.

4. Library licenses. Has a proper, independent scientific study been done to see just how much copying done in libraries is for anything more than personal use? From my own observations of watching and chatting with people at library photocopy machines, pretty well everyone was copying material for personal use – studies, personal growth, etc. They weren’t making copies for profit. But, this needs proper study. If the vast majority of copying in libraries is done for personal use, then why do libraries pay copy licence fees? Where do those fees go? Where are the data? (Also, libraries already pay additional fees for their books, related to copyright.)

5. Corporate copying licences. I used to work at Roger’s media, and like many corporations I believe the company has to pay a copying licensing fee to a collective. Nobody that I’m aware of ever came into the building to study just what was being copied (did they? Is that study recorded somewhere?). Never, in the years I worked for the company, did I see anyone copy anything that was for anything more than personal use – not for exploitive purposes. Has anyone studied, independently and scientifically, what is being copied inside of various companies and whether it really warrants the companies having to pay for copy licences? (And please, don’t confuse my using your material as background information for a project I’m working on with copying your material and selling it for profit)

6. Internet usage levies. The Internet is a unique beast in that it is like a vast library available from homes, schools, libraries and cafes. Anyone who puts up a website or creates a blog is aware that the content becomes a part of this vast, international library. If people do not want certain material available to all, there are very simple technologies that allow for things such as password protected areas. There should not be hidden levies or fees collected by collectives to divvy up between their members. Instead, have people who don’t want their material public put it behind passwords. Besides, the Internet is international – what if all the sites I use are foreign? Why should I pay levies for Canadian sites I don’t use? As a website owner who would be allowed to benefit from a collective, why should I be sent distribution fees for visits that were made to other people’s sites?

7. Penalties for schools. Having schools pay additional levies for Internet usage is collecting money for material that is largely for personal use (which, by definition, is free). (If the concern is about file-sharing or music stealing – schools can easily block those sites). At even $4 or $5 per child, the amounts asked from schools is daunting. Remember, many can’t even afford enough textbooks for their students. This money would better be used for actual educational material.

8. Music in dental offices. Background music in dental office, garages, shopping malls, and even many types of restaurants is just that – background. The primary activity of going to the dentist or other such places is not to listen to the music. Royalties should be paid if the primary activity of a place is to listen to the music – say retro night at the dance club – not for getting your teeth drilled or your car fixed. (It’s things like this that sometimes makes me think it’s a ‘money grab’ – and to fix it there should be a cap on how much a song is actually allowed to earn before profits above and beyond go into an artist development fund).

9. International marketplace for movies. Many of us travel, or order things from overseas – such as documentaries or television shows from the UK’s BBC. But when the BBC show arrives here in Canada, your Canadian DVD player can’t play it because of copyright protection. I was allowed to buy it, let me play it. Likewise, when my friends in Australia and the UK order a show from the CBC, they can’t play it there – so why buy Canadian? It’s time to catch up with the changing marketplace and consumer demands. By not keeping-up ends up encouraging people to download shows, etc.

10. Too many collectives. Need I say more? And, to whom are they accountable? Who monitors them, and is it done effectively? Who should really make up a collective?
-30-

[updated 2009-09-08 19:23]

As a lifelong collector of music - on LP and CD - as well as a music retailer and a performing musician, I've had a chance to witness the way the industry works and frankly, I don't think it's worth saving.

Folks like CRIA are representing an industry that, for most of the last century, has run on theft, bribes, price-fixing and crying wolf at every attempt to curtail their criminal business practices.

Even while the record companies were gorging themselves at the teat of overpriced CD reissues (and remasters, and vinyl-replica-sleeves, and anniversary versions) of the same music they'd already stolen from the artists, they'd sown the seeds of their own destruction by embracing the new digital format known as CDs.

The fact is that the playing field has now levelled. Traditional radio, or even video TV stations no longer hold absolute marketing sway over what the public listens to. Digitization means that anyone with a computer and a microphone is a recording artist and has control over how they choose to sell or share the content they create. The indentured servitude model of the record companies is no longer relevant for many artists, and the fact that it is difficult, as it has always been, to make a living as a musician has not staunched the flow of music into the marketplace on iota - in fact the opposite is true - there is more product to choose from than ever before, as well as the opportunity for consumers to cast their vote in the marketplace by paying for - or not - content that they value - or not.

Like it or not, the internet is the cyberspace equivalent of the wild west - there are few enforceable laws - and we are entering a new era where rules cannot be written because there is no consensus on the value of digital content and how it should be delivered. As one of the dinosaurs who think CDs suck (an anachronistic standard developed in the era of Commdore 64s) and MP3s are a joke, I welcome the development of a digital standard that is worth paying for - like perhaps DVD audio (why is EMI remastering The Beatles for CD now, when the CD era is clearly ending?).

So - the industry screams for handouts like the blank CD levy - but have failed to deliver quality of content and format to consumers who quite rightfully have rebelled - and I say this with all the ironic glee of someone whose business has suffered as a result but as a consumer of music first am sick of being ripped off.

I don't have a tidy solution to this, but I urge the deep-thinkers who are contemplating legislation in this area NOT TO GIVE THE RECORD COMPANIES ANYTHING THEY ASK FOR. They deserve the fate they have sown for themselves long ago.

[updated 2009-09-07 18:19]

Copyright realy only protects those who can Afford an Expencive Lawyer which for the ost part big Media companies or Huge artists. the chance of small artists or composers benifiting from your laws and r revenue sharing from blank media is less than the costs you impose on us to create our work with our blank media

[updated 2009-09-07 12:34]

Laws that ensure copyright is properly protected are necessary, with an eye to the fact that this can or is someone's livelihood and so fair and just compensation is needed. This protection of copyright in all areas is important not just for artists and businesses, for in many ways it benefits all Canadians and the Canadian economy as it enhances our identity or view of ourselves collectively. Saying this, we currently see the sale of materials subsidized by Canadians being sold off with seemingly little benefit to us other than as some footnote saying where it was first created. This discussion requires a larger frame and needs to be explored in light of the individual or group needs and within the context of what is ultimately good for our society. We all benefit from each others contributions regardless of the field, but we too are supported in many ways by our society that allows us the health, time, energy and opportunity to create and think freely or not if we choose.

Because of the greed factor some argue that rights for copyright should cease after the death of the creator. If this creation, intellectual property... is the gift that is passed on down to one's progeny as their inheritance, is it any less their right than the cottage, stock portfolios, trust funds, mementos or other items that are bequeathed to them. Many Canadians who create do so because they love what they do and receive little recognition or renumeration for their efforts within the course of their lives. Denying these rights perpetuates this and allows others to benefit more greatly than those to whom there is a deep connection.

Just copyright says we value the contribution made by these people.

It tells us that to work hard and sacrifice one's time energy and resources to create what we imagine, perceive, hear or believe is worth at least this protection.

It doesn't always ensure big pay cheques for most creators live in obscurity.

It does provide the opportunity for proper compensation when the public begins to recognize the efforts of the individual or group and the body of work that they have contributed to the fabric of Canada and the world.

It does not permit the exploitation of this work so that others benefit before the one(s) who toiled to create it whether living or deceased.

[updated 2009-09-06 09:50]

I agree that copyright should cease after the original creator's death, I don't agree with the whole financial gain (and quite massive after death, work more valuable) that happens today, it's just a big scheme to get rich people richer while the consumer keeps paying for it.
I also think that copyright should stay with the entity that produced the work originally and not be sold to a third party. Use agreements should be in place for anybody that wants to use the work on any basis (commercial or not).

[updated 2009-09-06 02:00]

Copyright affects me in many ways. It affected me as a student, it affected me as a researcher, it affects me as a software developer and it affects me as a consumer.

When I was a student, I noted that the books are too expensive and new editions do not really make any significant difference from the old ones, just re-shuffling problem numbers, books were also deliberately removed from the library reserves or were made available in very small quantities, all that to kill used book market and to force students purchase expensive books. After my first term I managed to keep my book budget to zero by using library reserves and downloading books for free (à la guerre comme à la guerre).

When I was involved in research activity, it was harder than usual to access needed materials and many things were not searchable in full text because of copyright restrictions. Also, because Digital Restriction Management measures do not understand what fair dealing is, it slowed down my work. I also understood that my research will not be visible to many people because instead of a wide circulation among peer researchers at other universities it will end up in some proprietary database behind a paywall, so that a publisher can make a profit of it (a “very good” use of government grants paid by taxpayers, I guess).

I am developing embedded software for a company now, but copyright affects me and them to a lesser extent, because my company’s model revolves around delivering custom hardware and software solutions, and software proprietary nature is less an issue.

I am also a taxpayer, and expect my taxes put to good use and benefit from the services I pay for in taxes. But while I can use US government works without restrictions (except restrictions on special logos like NASA logo), all Canadian government work is behind Crown copyright. Crown copyright looks like double-dipping of Canadians to me, first I am paying taxes, and second, I am paying crown copyright fees. And the most important, corporations are likely interested in getting government research works where problems are described and solving them to make our world better, but they are slowed down by crown copyright.

And the most important thing, I am now more responsible consumer, because of extreme copyright, because of continuous hostilities from those believing in supremacy of copyright just above everything else.

I avoid “commercial music product” and “commercial films” (“commercial” with a negative connotation here). Most of today’s works are formulaic, have no soul, because their creators did not put energy in them. If I did pay for this “corporate formulaic product”, my money would go to the pockets of accountants, lawyers and lobbyists working for the entertainment cartels, which then would be used to initiate lawsuits and have laws passed with intent to persecute millions of people who share culture (culture is meant to be shared and enjoyed together), even if there were no proven damages and one download has not been proven one sale lost. Most music made today deserves one-time radio-style sampling and most movies deserve only to be viewed once, I can’t simply imagine putting them as physical product on my shelf.

When I am choosing an electronic device, I will choose a device that belongs to me, a device where I can compile and run my own software. I take into account whether a company chooses to restrict my freedom because of its own arrogance (Apple with its walled garden app store on locked down iPhone) or submission to the entertainment cartels (“Hd disk format wars are over - The Inquirer” http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1043337/hd-disk-format-wars). So, I will skip iPhone and those music players and other hardware that “plays for su-u-u-re”.

Speaking of “playing for sure”, digital domain normally gives eternity to works that merit it; works outlive their formats, and I expect to be able to transfer the works I have chosen to purchase in electronic format to one of my many devices or do format upgrade myself. Files obtained for free from file sharing networks are eternal, and so should be works I choose to buy from online stores. But the so-called “authorized” online music and video stores are selling C.R.A.P. (Cancellation, Restriction and Punishment), and many uninformed customers learned it the hard way, when the license servers for the products they purchased were turned off and their music and movies became unplayable random junk (Major League of Baseball, Yahoo Music, MSN Music and Walmart DRM are just some examples). I was not one of these customers.

I will also voluntarily skip Blu-Ray and HD-DVD or anything else that was screwed up by the entertainment cartels. I know that even film creators are REQUIRED to pay the copy protection mafia thousands of dollars just to put their movies on Blu-Ray, even if they DO NOT WANT to screw up their customers with copy protection and they KNOW that copy protection will NOT work (“ASCII by Jason Scott / Another Blu-Ray Strike” http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1462 ). No way, I don’t want to put my money in the pockets of the copy protection mafia either. And I thought DVDs with their unskippable advertisements and “viewer is presumed to be a criminal” copyright notices were bad...

It is important to remember that industries depend on their consumers, not the other way around. Even if consumers are their most important income source, I do not see consumers mentioned in submissions written by accountants and lawyers claiming to represent creative industries (http://iconoclaste.ca/tiki-view_blog_post.php?blogId=1&postId=389). I just see whining about how those pesky downloaders prevent them from getting money to which they are entitled. Are they thinking that writing a music album must result in materializing yet another mansion on a private island? And who said that every inhabitant of the planet has to buy music? We have more forms of entertainment today while in the seventies only books and records were available. But the budget of an average family for entertainment did not change, so, it is very logical that music gets less attention and money (See: Dmitry Silnitsky. “Big Music Beat-to-Bit” on p2pnet.net http://www.p2pnet.net/story/27344 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/27258 )

So, I am a responsible consumer who has a will to boycott those who are arrogant towards me. And the entertainment cartels know that I am not the only one, but they tend to blame “freeloaders” and not their own arrogant behaviour and illusions they are living in.

As a future parent, I am concerned that my children will be brainwashed in school by one-sided copyright propaganda favouring corporations, like Captain Copyright or the new “Promoting Respect of Intellectual Property Rights” initiative being developed DURING this consultation (and likely to be passed as The Answer). This means that either I will need to home-school my children or in other ways have to undo what the school will teach my children so that they have all sides of the story.

As for the changes, I will provide my answers in other questions.

[updated 2009-09-04 01:59]

I hope the implication behind many of these comments and responses is not that the only way to have "the arts" in one's life are for them to be monetized. There will ALWAYS be, exponentially, way more free art than commercially-crafted artistic products. Any assertion that even echoes a tone of quantitative value for "the arts" over art makes my skin crawl.

Art will always exist whether monetized or not. Music existed well before ceramic cylinders and oral tradition existed well before summer blockbusters. In both cases performers traveled and made money playing songs and relaying stories passed through generations.

I heard much of this arrogance at the Toronto Town Hall where there was an echoing sentiment that relaxing copyright would destroy "the arts". You know what, "the arts" can take a flying leap off the CN Tower and hope its sense of entitlement will save it - ART will endure.

And before you claim this is somehow too tertiary to the copyright conversation going on here, consider that "the arts" is about persistent PR myth that people who get paid to write or perform are doing something no one else can do. Art does not demand copyright. "The Arts" does.

Are some professional writers better than your neighbour at writing? Maybe.

Are some professional singers better than your cousin at singing? Maybe.

But for most of my life, there's only been one thing that's divided "the arts" from art - marketing.

And marketing is just not worth THAT much to me.

[updated 2009-09-03 02:50]

As a professional in Canada’s cultural sector, the Copyright Act affects me on a daily basis. I am often responsible for securing permission to use protected material in a number of ways, including in online exhibitions, in virtual databases, and in physical publications.

Despite the many resources at my disposal, locating copyright holders can be a significant challenge. It can be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to find a copyright holder several years after the death of the first copyright holder/maker. It can be difficult to work with copyright holders who have little knowledge of their rights and/or interest in administering the affairs of the long-dead maker. It can also be difficult to identify the copyright holder in the first place, especially if the maker died intestate.

While I think it is of utmost importance to protect the rights of makers during their lifetimes, I do not believe that this protection needs to extend into death. Deceased people cannot benefit economically from their work.

I would like to suggest that the term of copyright protection be reviewed. While I understand that Canada’s term of “life + 50” is shorter than in other countries, I believe it is still 40 years too long; a term of “life + 10” seems more reasonable. Reducing the length of time for which a work is protected would still allow copyright holders to benefit from the work following the death of the maker, but would simultaneously promote the use of the work by galleries, museums, publishers, researchers and other users. It would reduce the administrative load on cultural workers, and ensure that the public—for whom the work was ultimately created—could enjoy it relatively soon after the maker’s death. Further, it would emphasize the fact that copyright exists to protect to the maker of a work, not to protect benefactors, heirs or administrators who seek to profit from someone else’s work.

[updated 2009-09-01 13:37]

I find Bill C61 confusing and frustrating. Who does this draconian proposal benefit? Who are the people in favor of it?

All of the media industries have already adapted to the internet and file sharing.

Music Artists - play live shows; Use internet/file sharing to build a fan base cheaply. Use digital technology to record/distribute cheaply.

Movies - Box office returns are as high as ever; Most movies utilize product placements; There is also 5-15 minutes of commercials before a movie starts

Video games - free to play models; ongoing content to discourage piracy; some in game advertising

As a digital consumer, I've been able to experience the artistry of smaller projects that I would simply never been exposed too. Much of that is Canadian content that doesn't not have the exposure of American projects. Nonetheless, I've still supported the media arts with my money. I love seeing movies in the theater, good bands play a live show, and always shell out for a good video game.

Yes, I understand that significant corporations are struggling with the last decade of information tech growth, but that is irreversible. It is now ingrained in society. It is not the government's purpose to force an oppressive legislation on its people so that dying corporations can survive a bit longer.

I oppose Bill C61.

[updated 2009-08-31 11:46]

Please not the US model of criminalizing of consumers. Please not the US model which favours corporations over people.

[updated 2009-08-31 11:03]

Speaking strictly to the audio side of the debate, before the days of digital, this was a simple matter. Piracy was always possible if you had the money to afford the proper equipment. Not many people did, and piracy was easy to detect and not a real problem. When consumers were given the ability to record through technological advances and affordable equipment, such as cassette tape, we easily added a blank media levy. Now that we are in the digital age problems such as copy degradation are no longer an issue and we can copy to our hearts content without loss of quality.

We have let pandora out of the box, we will never be able to put her back. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Soon we will have DTV and the debate continues.

In my view what's really at issue here are two things. The authors ability to produce content, and the publisher/record companies ability to exploit it. This is dominoes. If I, a musician, spend large amounts of money to produce and promote content I should be compensated by the people who have decided to keep a copy of that content. If the unchecked downloading of content continues and the very first copy of something I have sold starts circulating for free, I will never recoup my costs let alone make a profit. This in turn causes me to never produce new content due to the fact that I have already used up all my money the first time. To the people who say that most of the artists revenue comes from live performance, I don't think they know what they are talking about. To quote an unknown author, "It takes about ten years to become an overnight sensation". The Rolling Stones may make lots of money by selling $150 tickets, but what about the not yet knowns playing in bars. If they are lucky they might make $100 per man per night. Sounds OK untill you factor in time spent learning how to play an instrument, rehersing, leg work to hustle gigs, loading and unloading equipment, setting up, tearing down, driving to and from, etc.. Sounds to me like less than $0.50 per hour for many years until you "make it". Musicians must really love what they do when less than 10% of them ever amount to anything. They deserve to be compensated for any content floating around in the ether.

Record companies and publishers make thier money by having authors assign thier copyrights to them for the value added task of promoting and distributing thier work. Artists can do this themselves but most don't have the knowledge, time, or money to do it themselves so they rely on the big boys. They should be compensated.

Getting down to what should be compensible and what shouldn't. If I own a copy of somthing because I paid for it, I should be able to make as many copies as I like in whatever form of media I choose without having to pay again. after all I can only listen to one song at a time in one place at a time no matter how many places I have it stored. Digital is great untill it breaks down. I have old vinyl (and clay) records that can still be played again even though my record player is broken. If my iPod breaks, I will completly loose my ones and zeros. If I lend a copy to someone should they have to pay for it? If they make a copy or never give it back, yes. Who do they pay? If I gave my only copy (CD) and didn't get it back they should pay me dirctly. If they make a copy, then return the CD they should pay someone but how would you ever be able to control that, or even prove that they didn't already have a paid copy and lost it.

I agree that CIPO needs to modify the copyright act to deal with the fact that file sharing is not going to go away. We need to be carefull though that we don't create undue hardship for consumers while trying to protect those that already have millions of dollars. If a blank media levy worked for cassette tapes and blank CDs, why wouldn't it work for a blank hard disk, thumb drive, new iPod, etc.. An idea has already been put forth to place a levy on internet access itself. This might be workable only if nobody minds that the record companies will probobly get paid for data transfer that they have no rightful claim to. Levies don't address something very important. If my song get downloaded, I will never see a dime of any levy as I am independant and not a member of Socan.

[updated 2009-08-30 15:06]

As a member of a small organization specializing in electro magnetic compatibility, copyright affects the way we publish our research and development papers. Traditionally we and our peers published research papers with the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) however that approach is no longer satisfactory. IEEE retains the copyright to all submissions, and its distribution is highly exclusive even among its own members.

We now publish independently, and are waiting patiently for IEEE to “open up” or be replaced.

I would like to see Canadian copyright law formulated in a way that would discourage copyright aggregation. I see no reason why any organization should require exclusive rights to a work.

[updated 2009-08-30 12:54]

"Women Fined $1.9million For Downloading 24 Songs. (that cost $0.99)" Do we want this to happen in Canada?

We Canadians do not want to pay fines to companies that are 10000 times the original cost of the original goods. That is exactly what is happening in the US. Lawyers are deciding the fines, not the government. Respecting creators for their work should be in the law, but there are also the aspects of punishment. Punishment shouldn't happen in the courts and SHOULD NOT be decided by corporate lawyers. That is both a drain on the legal system and the only good that comes out of that is corporations can hire a team of lawyers to sue people. A punishment cap of 5x-100x (reasonable limit) should be place on goods that have copyright attached to them. The fines should be decided BY THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE CORPORATIONS.

People go on the internet since it is a source of resource, but you can break copyright laws just by being on the internet. That is not right. Making a strict system like the US is just non-sense, we might as well ban the internet. If we can embrace this concept, then it is not hard to come up with a system that is like speeding tickets. If we find people break copyright law, the person gets fined, the creator gets a portion of the penalty, and everyone will be on their way. This would be an effective solution to the current internet age and it can be a solution into the future where data will be exchanged even faster.

Goods that are brought by the consumer should not have any condition on it that allows corporations to charge per-usage fees. Unless the material REQUIRES the usage of corporation resources, there is absolutely NO REASON for the corporation to charge the usage of such material once again. There should be a distinction between distribution and usage. If corporations want to charge lifetime usage on the goods, they can do so when they set the price. After that, they lost the opportunity!!! If a person brought goods, they should be able to do anything to it (alter it to another format, sell it, whatever) and use it anytime other than "copying AND distributing" it. THE LAW SHOULD NOT ENTER MY HOME AND I SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR USING THINGS THAT I OWNED.

Finally, creators should be rewarded for their efforts, but if creators are not careful and their works leaks into the public domain via some vehicle, then the creator should sue the vehicle (i.e. the person who leaks it) and not the public (some random citizen) who knows after the fact. Creators can do many things to safeguard their work, we can't have a system where the creators leak their work and then ask for payment after their work is in the public domain. This is how the 1.9million reward (above) happened, and IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY. At most, the creator can collect a "reasonable fine" from people who are caught with the material through illegal means, BUT THAT IS IT. NO 1.9million, NO CORPORATE LAWYERS TO DECIDE THE FINES.

Law kills creativity. Having no law would provide the most creativity and innovation to Canada, but if we do need a law, then we shall have a legal system that recognizes copyright but also the need to foster creativity. Having a fine-similar system as a penalty for copyright breach would provide a balance of power to consumers and copyright holders. Lowering the copyright length of certain types of material will also foster more creativity in this fast-moving digital age as many have already requested.

[updated 2009-08-30 10:00]

The very fact Canada is even having a discussion around changing our copyright laws to more closely match the USA sickens me. Almost the entire rest of the world is FAR more liberal with copyright laws than Canada is right now, and we are discussing making them even more stringent? Shame on our government for even considering it.

If citizens had even 1/10 the amount of pull business does here we may have a shot at doing the right thing and actually RELAXING our copyright laws to match the world as a whole, but instead due to corporate money we are talking about further strangling the market so even more money can be made at the expense of innovation and real progress.

I'll say it again. Shame on you! Start relaxing our copyright laws rather than even investigating whether they should become draconian like in the USA. Canada is a beacon of common sense in North America and that is why I love it so much. We need to continue to lead the common sense path and not get sucked into the rubbish that has been going on south of the border for the past decade.

So to summarize. Do we need copyright reform? Absolutely. So lets look to our friends in Europe like Denmark or Sweden for a new model to build off of rather then take a giant leap backward.

[updated 2009-08-29 21:59]

Regarding music, I agree with the comment that there has been an increase in live performances by artists. In my small town I have noticed a large increase in the number of live performances by local and out of town musicians whereas ten years ago most clubs were playing recorded music by international performers. I don't know if this is due to the internet or whether peoples tastes have changed. Either way, it is good to see the local musicians getting work and to hear the talent. My advice is to not fiddle with something that is not broken.

[updated 2009-08-29 03:50]

Perhaps what really needs to be reformed is contract law, not copyright law.

Would we have standard video formats like DVD and Blu-ray locked down with DRM, if consumers had any real negotiating power vis-a-vis the large companies that distribute content? Would artists be paid cents on the dollar for their work, if they had real negotiating power with the same companies?

(There is plenty of precedent for solutions, e.g., in consumer protection law, or even in collective bargaining for employment contracts.)

But if we are to reform copyright law first, then we should at least make sure that whatever rights the law grants to consumers, contracts and digital locks cannot take away - exactly the opposite of what was done in Bill C-61.

[updated 2009-08-28 17:42]

Mr Nanos,

While I know that these forums already have many messages, there are other articles you should include in your analysis. The Georgia Straight has been running a series of articles. I'm not endorsing these article, given as an independent software author I strongly disagree with the views from the major label recording industry as well as the entertainment software lobby who seek to put people like me out of business (as well as their frontal attacks on property and other rights). I also disagree with the government imposition of business models, as promoted by lawyer Marian Hebb.

I'm simply believe that these articles, and the comments to them, should be considered.

Darrell Evans: Challenging the B.C. government's abuse of Crown copyright
http://www.straight.com/article-249911/darrell-evans-challenging-bc-governments-abuse-crown-copyright

Russell McOrmond: Canadian law should be updated to protect us from digital locks
http://www.straight.com/article-249403/russell-mcormond-canadian-law-should-be-updated-protect-us-digital-locks

Graham Henderson: Canada needs copyright rules that foster digital music market
http://www.straight.com/article-249203/graham-henderson-canada-needs-copyright-rules-foster-digital-music-market

Ferne Downey: Performers seek made-in-Canada consensus solution to copyright
http://www.straight.com/article-249171/ferne-downey-performers-seek-madeincanada-consensus-solution-copyright

Danielle Parr: Canada's video game industry needs copyright law that protects digital locks
http://www.straight.com/article-248821/danielle-parr-canadas-video-game-industry-needs-copyright-law-protects-digital-locks

Bill Henderson: Voluntary music file-sharing fee would benefit songwriters and fans
http://www.straight.com/article-248110/bill-henderson-voluntary-music-filesharing-fee-would-benefit-songwriters-and-fans

Geof Glass: How Canada's new copyright law will affect you
http://www.straight.com/article-247860/geof-glass-how-canadas-new-copyright-law-will-affect-you

Elizabeth May and Griffin Carpenter: Canada needs principled approach to copyright
http://www.straight.com/article-247597/elizabeth-may-and-griffin-carpenter-canada-needs-principled-approached-copyright

Marian Hebb: Collective licensing would help Canadian writers get paid on-line
http://www.straight.com/article-241403/marian-hebb-collective-licensing-would-help-writers-get-paid-online

[updated 2009-08-28 14:16]

The apathy of Canadian gov't has gone on long enough w.r.t copyright enforcement. Even this panel is just a 'commission to do nothing' - a classic tactic by those who intend to do nothing but who want to look as if they are. Get off your butt and pass copyright law!

[updated 2009-08-27 19:08]

Canadian farmers would have a hoot at this issue. Imagine a farmer that grows potatoes. The farmer then gives his potatoes almost for free to a big distributor. That distributor then re-sells the potatoes at a profit to stores. The stores sell the potatoes at a less significant profit to you. You bring the potatoes home…. Then suddenly in the night, the distributor breaks into your house, steals back the potatoes, and re-sells them again to stores. Of course there is also the potato levy that compensates the distributor for potentially stolen potatoes too. Also the distributor collects the damages from prosecuted potato stealers too.
My question is how many times can the farmer(artist) and the consumer can be screwed over by the distributor. In a digital age, the distributor brings no value to the equation. Imagine a job where you only work one day and then take the rest of your life off. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. That is the danger of a copyright model of that completely favours the distributor. The artist is out their busting their butt, while the distributor is relaxing collecting usage fees from draconian DRM, damages awarded, and levies. Why in Canada we are letting the distributor write the law? Should all foxes be allowed to run the hen house? I think the digital age has made this business model irrelevant. These companies are using all of their wealth and power to justify their absurd existence. Get rid of them. Create a government run distribution collective that charges the artist the actual digital distribution cost on each work sold (this includes music, videos, book and any form of media). If we do decide to get hitched to our miserly distributor, I would expect that big media will be at the forefront issues like increased minimum wage, increased protection for labour, and fair-trade (not free trade) deals with other countries so the consumer will be able to afford DRM, damages and levies they propose.

[updated 2009-08-27 11:16]

Rights to privacy and consumer protection cannot be compromised for corporate profit. We have seen where the Canadian competitive edge can get when things are left in corporate hands and Canada now has one of the worst consumer market and infrastructures for internet access and wireless communications for the developed world. Canadian consumers pay many times more than their OECD counterparts for wireless data and internet speed. Both of this affects me personally. Wireless data plan costs are limiting the resources of my university sponsoring my undergraduate research and limits my ability to develop open-source or commercial software in Canada. Slow and irregular internet speed blunts my competitive edge internationally when co-operating with multinational development teams.

For one, I believe the government should actively engage the market in regulating all actors and acting as representative for consumers. While not a legal expert, I believe that, at least in the field of software development and telecommunications, proprietorship kills creativity as well as potential market for innovation. Organisations that promote standardisation and industry co-operation should be protected while infrastructure or protocol monopoly should be held to competitions assisted to equal footings.

Also as a consumer, I would like to narrate an example in the video game industry that is increasingly becoming the trend in our entire technology marketplace.
In the past, a consumer is expected to purchase a console and a game and from this point on, he has purchased the rights to use the product in whichever way he desires. I firmly believe that consumer freedom, purchased with money, should be defended. Now, a consumer needs to purchase an Xbox 360, for instance, then games, then the rights to use their networking infrastructures for a limited time, then purchase additional contents to fully unlock the gaming potentials, then trade money for "Microsoft points" where the user then loses his leverage on the monetary value of the contents to be purchased as is at the full wit of the corporation, then realise that the points can only be purchased in denominations of 1000 even if the consumer would ever need 100, then realise that none of his original and surplus points can be used because he is not in the same geographic location where he first registered the machine.

Imagine a world where the consumer would not only be expected to pay for the value of the product plus the profit margin at a supermarket, he needs to also pay for the time spent in the market by the minute and the rights to access the other half of the market. For the sake of the example, the user has to trade in the money he wishes to spend into Canadian Tire money in minimum transactions of 100$. Then be told that the money he just traded is only good for the store in the next city. This policy would rightfully be regarded as belligerent and insulting. Yet, this is seemingly the trend in our tech world, because, in the case of Microsoft Xbox, the company holds the proprietary protocol of all games' networking capabilities and provides middleware. If you wish to be in the Microsoft camp, there is no possible competitions from hardware manufacturers, game developers or internet service providers. While the recently revised C-61 bill need not affect Microsoft or the gaming industry, the example illustrates well the trend in our technology market.

I believe the corporations of today has already amassed enough power to control how and when we can use the products we have already purchased in the digital marketplace. To let this corporate power run unchecked would, in my opinion, be a failing in our government's role to represent a population powerless against corporations. Otherwise, we would truly be limiting innovations from all to the benefit of one's profit.

Discouraging the use of these supposed intellectual leverages to limit innovations and competitions in order to amass profits would definitely be in concert with the Canadian industry's commercial interests and moral values.

Finally, I believe that allowing ISPs to collect, track, store our online activities is a very serious offence against the individual freedom of citizens an an intrusion of privacy, especially when left in the hands of for profit corporations. Taxis doesn't record who comes on and who gets off of a taxi, even if it could lead to the resolution of serious crimes. Neither should ISPs since their business is to provide infrastructure. Nothing else. When a corporation is granted the rights to reach outside of its business sphere to conduct activities that can even elude to the control or monitoring of citizens, we are starting down a very dangerous slippery slope.

[updated 2009-08-26 22:43]

The governments job should first and foremost be to serve the populous. Bill C-61, however, puts large corporations way ahead on the list of priorities.

Adopting the American model for copywright law is simply foolish. People are being sued for millions of dollars for downloading an albums worth of songs (http://vivirlatino.com/2009/06/19/court-sticks-mom-of-4-with-2-million-dollar-fine.php).

Instead of following in the footsteps of the Americans let us, for once, be a leader and develop a real copyright law for the true digital age. One that maintains the privacy of the people at it's forefront.

[updated 2009-08-25 23:03]

For copyright law to be just and relevant it needs to limit its persecutions to those businesses which make money from another creator's works without prior agreement, not on those who wish to further develop on the original work's merits through research and sharing. In the same way that chefs cannot copyright a recipe, it is unmanageable to expect society bow to artists wishing to copyright words, sounds or other elements of an idea. Copyright law should be modernised to include greater emphasis on collective culture: New uses for art and ideas that do not profit monetarily from its use.

[updated 2009-08-25 16:45]

I am an international songwriter who's income is directly related to copyright issues. I invested in my education and am continually investing in the creation of music through employment of other musicians, producers, studios, pressing factories and the list goes on. I don't know of a single entrepreneur who would make an investment in a market that is continually leaning toward not allowing me to break even. There are a number of stores popping up which address the idea of fair treatment for the production of goods... "Fair Trade". In the case of music there is no such thing. The artist is expected to create so that we all benefit. The providers of access to content need to be a part of this equation for it is our product that is being provided. If there is a feeling that all creative things should be free would I be considered unemployed? where would I go? This is the question?

[updated 2009-08-24 21:51]

I am a composer of orchestral and chamber music. I have lived and worked in Canada since 1985. The income that I derive from my creative work is an important part of my livelihood. As a creator I believe the Government must enact Copyright laws that ensure copyright is properly protected and fairly compensated. Protection of copyright is important for artists and businesses, and benefits all Canadians and the Canadian economy.

[updated 2009-08-23 05:33]

How would you feel to be sued for $4.5 million dollars? You may think it would be for large investment fraud or something highly criminal? No, it is for sharing some music via the Internet for NO PROFIT.

Read the following: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jul/27/filesharing-music-industry

Do we want a repeat of this scenario in Canada? Do we really want to give this power to CRIA and their affiliates, so they can abuse the system and bankrupt ordinary Canadian citizens like you and me? I think not - copyright is a privilege that we as citizens give to them and not the other way around.

[updated 2009-08-21 22:09]

As a creator, I believe it's crucial that copyright is properly protected and fairly compensated.
For some artists, this compensation (performance royalties) is their only income.
It's healthy for economy and arts when artists become their own economic entities independent of government help and corporate sponsorships!

Re: Online sharing - I believe that to solve this complicated and sensitive issue, discussion with attention to lots of details is still needed. Perhaps some kind of variation of 'Blank Tape Levy' could be a reasonable solution.

[updated 2009-08-21 10:58]

I have found only two contributors to this forum, in any of its five topics, who seem to agree with the moderator that “Canadian copyright law needs to be updated …”

Hundreds of contributors seem to disagree.

If you can find more who seem to want strengthening of copyright law, I would appreciate learning of them.
It appears that you can contact me directly, if you wish, by clicking on my username.

[updated 2009-08-19 22:44]

The copyright laws should remain as they are. Inforcing stricter copyright laws will choke the flow of hundreds of intellectual professions that stem from Canada. By removing a very large set of learning materials from emerging painters, musicians, graphical artists, coders, 3d resource specialists and many other artistic and non-artistic job paths will result in a significant reduction in the number of people that choose these jobs.

Leaving our country very much devoide of artists, something about canada that I, and many others, take great pride in. Furthermore this will leave our country with many more unstable manufacturing jobs which we will not be able to keep in Canda, because of cheap labor costs in places such as India or China.

The lack of technologically knowledgable programmers and other related proffesions will cause Canada to fall behind in computer and communications technologies leaving us at a great diadvantage on the world stage.

All in all a change in copyright laws will do damages to the the current sturdiness of our economie and remove the originality, charm and ingenuity of our country and of our society. Modernizing copyright laws is NOT necessary, and would not help anyone but large corporations, who, don't need any more help then they already have.

[updated 2009-08-19 17:02]

This legislation will marginalize e-learning and distance education. I am a student of Athabasca University living in New Zealand. AU is providing me with the courses I need to complete my degree. I need distance learning to fulfill my degree requirements while working full time in a foreign country. The restrictions within this legislation will most certainly inhibit my distance learning thereby preventing the completion of my degree. This legislation fills me with great concern for the future of my school and the future of my education. Without AU finishing my degree would be impossible due to the location I am currently living in. Surely there must be a way to balance the existing laws to protect all those involved thereby protecting rights, e-learning, and the rights of learners.

[updated 2009-08-19 02:50]

Copyright on the internet is effectively "null and void". How does this affect me? I can ignore copyright laws and take just about anything I want without any consideration for the copyright owner.

[updated 2009-08-18 20:56]

I will respond from two different, although overlapping, perspectives: that of a citizen and that of a university professor. Let me put on the second hat first and explain why present copyright is not very useful to my work as a teacher or as a researcher.

As a teacher and researcher, I need to read the work of my colleagues and have my students read them as well. Many texts are thus produced by myself and colleagues in other universities and published in academic or scientific journals. Now, a cursory look at this situation could lead someone to believe that this is just a standard process of consumption. A closer look, however, reveals striking differences with the world of novels, cookbooks and similar commercial printed materials.

For one thing, when I publish an article in a journal, I am not paid. This is not like writing for a magazine. I do research based on time paid by my university and resources either donated by myself, my university (library resources, for example), or a research grant (for equipment and/or student assistants who often finance part or all of their studies in this fashion). The results of this research, I publish, meaning that I spend considerable amounts of time organzing and interpreting the results of my research. Then, when this process is complete, I submit an article to a journal. The editors of the journal, in turn, send my article to two or three (or sometimes more) referees who evaluate the quality of my work and make suggestions to improve my article. They do so (and I do so for others) for free. Why? Because paying for this would be seen as possibly tainting the intellectual process which must remain as pure and objective as possible (for example, many journals practise blind reviews). Then my work, once accepted, may be edited for style and laid out according to the rules of one journal and then it is printed and/or placed on some website, but locked behind some barrier to allow limiting access to subscribers only. In the meanwhile, I have been asked to surrender all of my property rights to the publisher. Note that the research has not been paid for by the publisher and neither has he paid for the refereeing. Some editing and some work associated to publishing are done by the publisher and the published issue is available in some form, be it print or a pdf file or an html document. This article becomes part of a journal that is subscribed to, in a very large majority of cases, by libraries.

Such journals are very expensive, reaching in some cases well over $20,000 per journal for a one-year subscription (e.g. Brain Research). In any case, they have become so expensive in general that fewer and fewer individuals subscribe to them. Only libraries can still buy such journals, and then only some of them. But who supports libraries, if not universities and research centres? And who supports the universities and research centres, if not various levels of the governemnt, be it provincial in many cases, and federal in a few other. In summary, research results produced with the help of public money is given away to publishers who have them evaluated for free and then these same companies turn around ans sell these results to the libraries researchers, teachers and students need to carry on with their work. And these publishers, in particular the larger ones among them, be they commercial companies (such as Reed-Elsvier, Wiley, Springer, etc.) or scientific associations (like the American Chemical Society) make handsome profit from this situation: around 40% for companies like Elsevier.

Now, if I want my students to read my own papers, I am supposed to clear the photocopying of my own articles with an organization such as Cancopy or its equivalent in Québec so that royalties can be redistributed to the publishers (and a commission is paid to this organization). This is heavy, cumbersome and it tends to encourage freer but perhaps less than ideal sources of information.

In short, the production, dissemination and use of scholarly materials requires much freer channels of communication and this is justified by the fact that it is originally given away by academics to publishers. If academics refuse to abandon their rights, publishers will often refuse to publish, independently of the intrinsic value of the paper. Of course, if you are Einstein, you can play games, but most of us ar enot Einsteinns, nor should we have to be simply to exercise effciently our basic tasks. This translates into a number of costs and a loss of energy that globally affect the research and educational processes in a negative way. In short, an economist could probably quantify the loss to the Canadian economy related to this deleterious and absurd context.

Recommendation number one: treat documents used in educational and research contexts completely differently from the general comemrcial channels, especially when they are documents that are exclusively research research results. This recommendation can be extended to research monographs, by the way.

As a citizen, I am concerned about the equilibrium about property and feeding the public domain. The present limitations on intellectual properties are often presented in words that suggest this is needed to create incentives for the creators. This is all well and good, but no one has yet succeeded in explaining to me how property extending up to 100 years after the death of the author (e.g. in Mexico), or even 50 years after the death of the author (e.g. in Canada presently) can create incentives for the creator. Lyrical words to describe the concerns of an author for his great-grand children have been occasionally been adduced by lawyers trained in the fine arts of kitsch rhetoric, but they do not cut much ice as far as I am concerned. The original time spans were 14 years renewable once and, in many ways, this 14 to 28 year period still appears very reasonable to me. In any case, it seems to have played its role quite well if I judge the quality of literature in the nineteenth century in most countries that harboured any kind of literature.

Recommendation number two: go back tot he original terms of copyright, i.e. to 14 years renewable once.

Another concern I have relates to orphan works, i.e. works whose owners are unknown. Now that copyright is automatic and requires no registration, countless works remain pinned in a property regime that no one wants for them, but no one knows how to solve. This calls for a num,ber of solutions:

Recommendations number three: By default, make all orphan works part of the public domain and let them remain so if no owner appears within five years after the decision is taken.

Recommendation number 4: Revert to compulsory registration of copyright to make it valid and keep a publicly accessible registry of copyrights to help identify owners of literary or intellectual property in general.

Recommendation number 5: Make the registration lapse after five years, thus forcing the owners to renew it every five years, until expiration of the copyright. if they do not renew it, the work belongs to the public domain. In this fashion, owners that do not want to keep their intellectual property, or do not care enough to keep it, can abandon it very easily. It is a little like someone deciding not to pay taxes on a house, except that the effort here is simply renewing the copyright every five years for free (or a very small maintenance fee).

I am also concerned by the restrictions placed on my ability to copy a piece of intellectual property that I have purchased. If I am allowed to copy a book to keep a copy in my country home, or copy a cd to keep a copy in my car, i do not see why I should be prevented from doing so by various technical methods such as DRM's.

Recommendation number 6: DRM's should simply be forbidden. At the very least, circumventing them to exercise legitimate property prerogatives should be allowed.

In conclusion, certain activities such as teaching, research, exercising medical professions, etc. require as wide an access to information as possible. The new copyright law should take these situations into consideration. The copyright law to be crafted should also maintain a strong sense of how important it is to encourage not only creativity, but also the commons or public domain.

One point I have not broached, perhaps it is so blindingly obvious to me: all documents produced by the government and government employees should immediately belong to the public domain. The example set by the US government is excellent in this regard. The long battles around Statistics Canada results belong to the world of kafka, not to Canada. The coming copyright law should incorporate this provision as well. It will be my 7th and last recommendation.

[updated 2009-08-18 18:39]

How about if we use the Creative Commons model as a starting point for copyright modernization (http://creativecommons.org/). It allows creators to control how their works are used and creates multiple remuneration / royalty structures for the same work as a function of the user. For example, an artist could allow an NGO to use their song, but commercial interests would have to pay.

[updated 2009-08-18 14:17]

Short answer: No, we shouldn't change copyright law in Canada.

Canada's copyright laws are so 'behind the times' they're actually cutting edge from a citizen/consumer's rights perspective. I think it would be a huge mistake to reform copyright laws in Canada; certainly a mistake to reform them with industry lobbyists and their sympathizers calling the shots.

The rest of the developed world is steadily slipping into a state where corporations have more rights than people, where you're considered guilty until proven innocent, and governments bend over backwards to shore up failing business models. I do not want to see that happen in Canada, so I cannot support any attempt at copyright reform.

[updated 2009-08-18 01:31]

My family creates copyrightable material: stories, poetry, songs and recordings thereof. With liberal copyright options (such as Creative Commons -- http://creativecommons.ca/) our creations can be consumed widely whilst appropriately attributing the works to us. That's much more useful than "all-or-nothing" laws.

We also have many friends and associates in formal arts and entertainment industries. The various attempts by Canada to deal with modern realities have only benefitted corporations and lobbyists, not artists. We have an opportunity to do something truly different, and liberalise Canada's copyright laws. We could defy the powerful corporate slaveowners that offer chains masquerading as contracts.

We cannot stop piracy; it would be a neverending war that will never end. The only benefit is to keep citizens in fear, artists broke and bureaucrats employed. It is absolutely not worth it.

But a -consumer- of digital media and electronics I stand to be greatly impacted by changes to the Canadian copyright regime. I am worried that this Government may wrongly adopt the American approach to digital copyright law as evidenced by prior draft bills including Bill C-61.

It is essential that Canadian copyright laws -advance- consumer and creator interests by not employing an all-encompassing prohibition on the development and manufacturing of circumvention devices and technologies, commercial trade of circumvention devices and technologies, the possession and/or utilization of any device or technology that can circumvent a TPM or DRM for a non-infringing purpose or otherwise lawful activity such as fair dealing, interoperability, time and format shifting.

The Copyright Act should be amended to bring the backup copy provision into the 21st century by expanding the right to make an archival backup copy to all digital consumer products regardless of format or media.

Amendments to the Copyright Act seeking to add provisions relating to the liability of Internet intermediaries and subscriber actions should take a “notice and notice” approach that will provide the best balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the fundamental rights of individual and academic expression.

Amendments to the Copyright Act need to ensure that statutory damages are limited and users must be protected from statutory damages if the user has good-faith to believe their actions and use of the work in question was fair and non-infringing, or if the user is engaged in purely private and non-commercial activity.

The concept of technological neutrality is paramount when considering changes to Canada’s copyright regime that will withstand the test of time. The Government must not integrate protection for specific technologies or business models into any amendments to the Copyright Act (e.g. all-encompassing prohibition of circumvention devices and technologies). Any new legislation should be technologically-neutral to maintain flexibility into the future.

To further foster innovation, creativity, competition and investment in Canada and to position Canada as a leader in the global digital economy, it is important to expand and protect the doctrine of fair dealing. As fair dealing will undoubtedly provide any new legislation with the elasticity to adapt to future business models and new forms of creativity.

In order to direct and facilitate the digitization of Canadian heritage, a clear commitment needs to be made in order to preserve the current term of copyright. A pre-determined and generally accepted public domain date must be established for the good of all Canadians and the preservation of the heritage we so proudly maintain.

Finally, I strongly believe that as a member country actively engaged in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Canada should not allow this non-transparent trade agreement to override the democratic process and legal framework of the Canadian domestic Copyright Act. While supposedly designed to address counterfeit physical goods as well as Internet distribution and information technology, ACTA provisions may prove to over-ride any type of domestic copyright laws and negate the entire copyright reform process.

Fortunately, there remains time and opportunity for Canada to draft legislation to ensure that the rights, values and interests of all Canadians are reflected in a truly Canadian-to-the-core approach to copyright reform. I am encouraged by the public consultations on copyright that the Government is engaged in and I am confident that this will open up the development of Canadian copyright policy to more than just traditional lobby groups and the corporate interests that have directed policies in the past.

[updated 2009-08-13 19:34]

What follows is a VERY LONG post ... but I do think it revelant for ALL to consider GOOGLE's position vis a vis Intellectual Property, just to REMIND everyone, a) the web ain't 'FREE' , and b)they have A LOT of 'Power' to 'Control' YOUR interaction with the internet - at their sole discretion.

Of particular interest to 'content providers' is this phrase - "Content (whether those rights happen to be registered OR NOT... ) ...

READ it as 'content providers' and READ it as 'consumers'. UNDERSTAND it for what it is: Google is a 'for profit' business. We 'use' their services UNDER CONTRACT, in either capacity.

From Google's Terms of Servce:

1. Your relationship with Google

1.1 Your use of Google’s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the “Services” in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google. “Google” means Google Inc., whose principal place of business is at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States. This document explains how the agreement is made up, and sets out some of the terms of that agreement.

1.2 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with Google, your agreement with Google will always include, at a minimum, the terms and conditions set out in this document. These are referred to below as the “Universal Terms”.

1.3 Your agreement with Google will also include the terms of any Legal Notices applicable to the Services, in addition to the Universal Terms. All of these are referred to below as the “Additional Terms”. Where Additional Terms apply to a Service, these will be accessible for you to read either within, or through your use of, that Service.

1.4 The Universal Terms, together with the Additional Terms, form a legally binding agreement between you and Google in relation to your use of the Services. It is important that you take the time to read them carefully. Collectively, this legal agreement is referred to below as the “Terms”.

1.5 If there is any contradiction between what the Additional Terms say and what the Universal Terms say, then the Additional Terms shall take precedence in relation to that Service.

2. Accepting the Terms

2.1 In order to use the Services, you must first agree to the Terms. You may not use the Services if you do not accept the Terms.

2.2 You can accept the Terms by:

(A) clicking to accept or agree to the Terms, where this option is made available to you by Google in the user interface for any Service; or

(B) by actually using the Services. In this case, you understand and agree that Google will treat your use of the Services as acceptance of the Terms from that point onwards.

2.3 You may not use the Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a binding contract with Google, or (b) you are a person barred from receiving the Services under the laws of the United States or other countries including the country in which you are resident or from which you use the Services.

2.4 Before you continue, you should print off or save a local copy of the Universal Terms for your records.

3. Language of the Terms

3.1 Where Google has provided you with a translation of the English language version of the Terms, then you agree that the translation is provided for your convenience only and that the English language versions of the Terms will govern your relationship with Google.

3.2 If there is any contradiction between what the English language version of the Terms says and what a translation says, then the English language version shall take precedence.

4. Provision of the Services by Google

4.1 Google has subsidiaries and affiliated legal entities around the world (“Subsidiaries and Affiliates”). Sometimes, these companies will be providing the Services to you on behalf of Google itself. You acknowledge and agree that Subsidiaries and Affiliates will be entitled to provide the Services to you.

4.2 Google is constantly innovating in order to provide the best possible experience for its users. You acknowledge and agree that the form and nature of the Services which Google provides may change from time to time without prior notice to you.

4.3 As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google’s sole discretion, without prior notice to you. You may stop using the Services at any time. You do not need to specifically inform Google when you stop using the Services.

4.4 You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, your account details or any files or other content which is contained in your account.

4.5 You acknowledge and agree that while Google may not currently have set a fixed upper limit on the number of transmissions you may send or receive through the Services or on the amount of storage space used for the provision of any Service, such fixed upper limits may be set by Google at any time, at Google’s discretion.

5. Use of the Services by you

5.1 In order to access certain Services, you may be required to provide information about yourself (such as identification or contact details) as part of the registration process for the Service, or as part of your continued use of the Services. You agree that any registration information you give to Google will always be accurate, correct and up to date.

5.2 You agree to use the Services only for purposes that are permitted by (a) the Terms and (b) any applicable law, regulation or generally accepted practices or guidelines in the relevant jurisdictions (including any laws regarding the export of data or software to and from the United States or other relevant countries).

5.3 You agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by Google, unless you have been specifically allowed to do so in a separate agreement with Google. You specifically agree not to access (or attempt to access) any of the Services through any automated means (including use of scripts or web crawlers) and shall ensure that you comply with the instructions set out in any robots.txt file present on the Services.

5.4 You agree that you will not engage in any activity that interferes with or disrupts the Services (or the servers and networks which are connected to the Services).

5.5 Unless you have been specifically permitted to do so in a separate agreement with Google, you agree that you will not reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, trade or resell the Services for any purpose.

5.6 You agree that you are solely responsible for (and that Google has no responsibility to you or to any third party for) any breach of your obligations under the Terms and for the consequences (including any loss or damage which Google may suffer) of any such breach.

6. Your passwords and account security

6.1 You agree and understand that you are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of passwords associated with any account you use to access the Services.

6.2 Accordingly, you agree that you will be solely responsible to Google for all activities that occur under your account.

6.3 If you become aware of any unauthorized use of your password or of your account, you agree to notify Google immediately at http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=58585.

7. Privacy and your personal information

7.1 For information about Google’s data protection practices, please read Google’s privacy policy at http://www.google.com/privacy.html. This policy explains how Google treats your personal information, and protects your privacy, when you use the Services.

7.2 You agree to the use of your data in accordance with Google’s privacy policies.

8. Content in the Services

8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All such information is referred to below as the “Content”.

8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.

8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service. For some of the Services, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (see http://www.google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.

8.4 You understand that by using the Services you may be exposed to Content that you may find offensive, indecent or objectionable and that, in this respect, you use the Services at your own risk.

8.5 You agree that you are solely responsible for (and that Google has no responsibility to you or to any third party for) any Content that you create, transmit or display while using the Services and for the consequences of your actions (including any loss or damage which Google may suffer) by doing so.

9. Proprietary rights

9.1 You acknowledge and agree that Google (or Google’s licensors) own all legal right, title and interest in and to the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in the Services (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). You further acknowledge that the Services may contain information which is designated confidential by Google and that you shall not disclose such information without Google’s prior written consent.

9.2 Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use any of Google’s trade names, trade marks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features.

9.3 If you have been given an explicit right to use any of these brand features in a separate written agreement with Google, then you agree that your use of such features shall be in compliance with that agreement, any applicable provisions of the Terms, and Google's brand feature use guidelines as updated from time to time. These guidelines can be viewed online at http://www.google.com/permissions/guidelines.html (or such other URL as Google may provide for this purpose from time to time).

9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.

9.5 You agree that you shall not remove, obscure, or alter any proprietary rights notices (including copyright and trade mark notices) which may be affixed to or contained within the Services.

9.6 Unless you have been expressly authorized to do so in writing by Google, you agree that in using the Services, you will not use any trade mark, service mark, trade name, logo of any company or organization in a way that is likely or intended to cause confusion about the owner or authorized user of such marks, names or logos.

10. License from Google

10.1 Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive licence to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google (referred to as the “Software” below). This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by the Terms.

10.2 You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

10.3 Unless Google has given you specific written permission to do so, you may not assign (or grant a sub-licence of) your rights to use the Software, grant a security interest in or over your rights to use the Software, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights to use the Software.

11. Content licence from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this licence shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.

12. Software updates

12.1 The Software which you use may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Google. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new software modules and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Google to deliver these to you) as part of your use of the Services.

13. Ending your relationship with Google

13.1 The Terms will continue to apply until terminated by either you or Google as set out below.

13.2 If you want to terminate your legal agreement with Google, you may do so by (a) notifying Google at any time and (b) closing your accounts for all of the Services which you use, where Google has made this option available to you. Your notice should be sent, in writing, to Google’s address which is set out at the beginning of these Terms.

13.3 Google may at any time, terminate its legal agreement with you if:

(A) you have breached any provision of the Terms (or have acted in manner which clearly shows that you do not intend to, or are unable to comply with the provisions of the Terms); or

(B) Google is required to do so by law (for example, where the provision of the Services to you is, or becomes, unlawful); or

(C) the partner with whom Google offered the Services to you has terminated its relationship with Google or ceased to offer the Services to you; or

(D) Google is transitioning to no longer providing the Services to users in the country in which you are resident or from which you use the service; or

(E) the provision of the Services to you by Google is, in Google’s opinion, no longer commercially viable.

13.4 Nothing in this Section shall affect Google’s rights regarding provision of Services under Section 4 of the Terms.

13.5 When these Terms come to an end, all of the legal rights, obligations and liabilities that you and Google have benefited from, been subject to (or which have accrued over time whilst the Terms have been in force) or which are expressed to continue indefinitely, shall be unaffected by this cessation, and the provisions of paragraph 20.7 shall continue to apply to such rights, obligations and liabilities indefinitely.

14. EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES

14.1 NOTHING IN THESE TERMS, INCLUDING SECTIONS 14 AND 15, SHALL EXCLUDE OR LIMIT GOOGLE’S WARRANTY OR LIABILITY FOR LOSSES WHICH MAY NOT BE LAWFULLY EXCLUDED OR LIMITED BY APPLICABLE LAW. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OR THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF IMPLIED TERMS, OR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. ACCORDINGLY, ONLY THE LIMITATIONS WHICH ARE LAWFUL IN YOUR JURISDICTION WILL APPLY TO YOU AND OUR LIABILITY WILL BE LIMITED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.

14.2 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND “AS AVAILABLE.”

14.3 IN PARTICULAR, GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS DO NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT TO YOU THAT:

(A) YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS,

(B) YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR FREE FROM ERROR,

(C) ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED BY YOU AS A RESULT OF YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE, AND

(D) THAT DEFECTS IN THE OPERATION OR FUNCTIONALITY OF ANY SOFTWARE PROVIDED TO YOU AS PART OF THE SERVICES WILL BE CORRECTED.

14.4 ANY MATERIAL DOWNLOADED OR OTHERWISE OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF THE SERVICES IS DONE AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK AND THAT YOU WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR OTHER DEVICE OR LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM THE DOWNLOAD OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL.

14.5 NO ADVICE OR INFORMATION, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, OBTAINED BY YOU FROM GOOGLE OR THROUGH OR FROM THE SERVICES SHALL CREATE ANY WARRANTY NOT EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE TERMS.

14.6 GOOGLE FURTHER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.

15. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

15.1 SUBJECT TO OVERALL PROVISION IN PARAGRAPH 14.1 ABOVE, YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT GOOGLE, ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR:

(A) ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY.. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, ANY LOSS OF PROFIT (WHETHER INCURRED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY), ANY LOSS OF GOODWILL OR BUSINESS REPUTATION, ANY LOSS OF DATA SUFFERED, COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSS;

(B) ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY BE INCURRED BY YOU, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OR DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF:

(I) ANY RELIANCE PLACED BY YOU ON THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY OR EXISTENCE OF ANY ADVERTISING, OR AS A RESULT OF ANY RELATIONSHIP OR TRANSACTION BETWEEN YOU AND ANY ADVERTISER OR SPONSOR WHOSE ADVERTISING APPEARS ON THE SERVICES;

(II) ANY CHANGES WHICH GOOGLE MAY MAKE TO THE SERVICES, OR FOR ANY PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY CESSATION IN THE PROVISION OF THE SERVICES (OR ANY FEATURES WITHIN THE SERVICES);

(III) THE DELETION OF, CORRUPTION OF, OR FAILURE TO STORE, ANY CONTENT AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS DATA MAINTAINED OR TRANSMITTED BY OR THROUGH YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES;

(III) YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE GOOGLE WITH ACCURATE ACCOUNT INFORMATION;

(IV) YOUR FAILURE TO KEEP YOUR PASSWORD OR ACCOUNT DETAILS SECURE AND CONFIDENTIAL;

15.2 THE LIMITATIONS ON GOOGLE’S LIABILITY TO YOU IN PARAGRAPH 15.1 ABOVE SHALL APPLY WHETHER OR NOT GOOGLE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH LOSSES ARISING.

16. Copyright and trade mark policies

16.1 It is Google’s policy to respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable international intellectual property law (including, in the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and to terminating the accounts of repeat infringers. Details of Google’s policy can be found at http://www.google.com/dmca.html.

16.2 Google operates a trade mark complaints procedure in respect of Google’s advertising business, details of which can be found at http://www.google.com/tm_complaint.html.

17. Advertisements

17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information.

17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.

17.3 In consideration for Google granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Google may place such advertising on the Services.

18. Other content

18.1 The Services may include hyperlinks to other web sites or content or resources. Google may have no control over any web sites or resources which are provided by companies or persons other than Google.

18.2 You acknowledge and agree that Google is not responsible for the availability of any such external sites or resources, and does not endorse any advertising, products or other materials on or available from such web sites or resources.

18.3 You acknowledge and agree that Google is not liable for any loss or damage which may be incurred by you as a result of the availability of those external sites or resources, or as a result of any reliance placed by you on the completeness, accuracy or existence of any advertising, products or other materials on, or available from, such web sites or resources.

19. Changes to the Terms

19.1 Google may make changes to the Universal Terms or Additional Terms from time to time. When these changes are made, Google will make a new copy of the Universal Terms available at http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en and any new Additional Terms will be made available to you from within, or through, the affected Services.

19.2 You understand and agree that if you use the Services after the date on which the Universal Terms or Additional Terms have changed, Google will treat your use as acceptance of the updated Universal Terms or Additional Terms.

20. General legal terms

20.1 Sometimes when you use the Services, you may (as a result of, or through your use of the Services) use a service or download a piece of software, or purchase goods, which are provided by another person or company. Your use of these other services, software or goods may be subject to separate terms between you and the company or person concerned. If so, the Terms do not affect your legal relationship with these other companies or individuals.

20.2 The Terms constitute the whole legal agreement between you and Google and govern your use of the Services (but excluding any services which Google may provide to you under a separate written agreement), and completely replace any prior agreements between you and Google in relation to the Services.

20.3 You agree that Google may provide you with notices, including those regarding changes to the Terms, by email, regular mail, or postings on the Services.

20.4 You agree that if Google does not exercise or enforce any legal right or remedy which is contained in the Terms (or which Google has the benefit of under any applicable law), this will not be taken to be a formal waiver of Google’s rights and that those rights or remedies will still be available to Google.

20.5 If any court of law, having the jurisdiction to decide on this matter, rules that any provision of these Terms is invalid, then that provision will be removed from the Terms without affecting the rest of the Terms. The remaining provisions of the Terms will continue to be valid and enforceable.

20.6 You acknowledge and agree that each member of the group of companies of which Google is the parent shall be third party beneficiaries to the Terms and that such other companies shall be entitled to directly enforce, and rely upon, any provision of the Terms which confers a benefit on (or rights in favor of) them. Other than this, no other person or company shall be third party beneficiaries to the Terms.

20.7 The Terms, and your relationship with Google under the Terms, shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. You and Google agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, California to resolve any legal matter arising from the Terms. Notwithstanding this, you agree that Google shall still be allowed to apply for injunctive remedies (or an equivalent type of urgent legal relief) in any jurisdiction.

April 16, 2007

©2009 Google

[updated 2009-08-13 15:24]

I am glad that Access Copyright does disburse some funds to reward us for when our creativity has been copied. With the coming of e-books and in general the ability of digital copies to be as perfect as the originals, copyright may become very hard to enforce. New models will come about, and they will diminish the importance of big names both artists and distributors. Consumers will begin to get what they want instead of what the big names want them to have.

[updated 2009-08-12 16:29]

Yes, the existing laws need to be modernized in order to protect the intellectual property of the content producers, primarily the authors of the content and then those enterprises that prepare and disseminate content on behalf of its authors.
As a writer, I am fed up with people copying my material rather than purchasing my material. I respect everyone's intellectual property and, in return, expect everyone to respect my intellectual property rights.
There should be no free lunch when it comes to intellectual property. The state's role is to ensure that there is fair and reasonable compensation to all content producers as well as to the industries that distribute this content.

[updated 2009-08-12 13:10]

To ALL Writers of English-as-a-First-Language:

My first language is English, but it seems, as a budding internet ‘content provider’, I must now, out of necessity, learn a SECOND language if I am to ‘participate’ - and hopefully ‘profit’ – off the glories of the ‘digital economy’. To do so, I, like everyone else, must have some form of ‘basic computer literacy’.

So, I wondered, does someone ‘own’ HTML? Is that software 'language' 'patented' or 'copyrighted' somwhere? I ‘googled’ it. (It took me two seconds to find out….o’ the marvel of it all ….) I think it relevant to share that Wikipedia information here.

In 1994, Sir Timothy Berners-Lee, physicist, founded the WORLD WIDE CONSORTIUM at MIT. It comprised various companies that were willing to create INTEGRATED standards, and recommendations to improve the quality of the Web, primarily using HTML, a software he developed to communicate with his colleagues. Berners-Lee made his idea available freely, with no patent and no royalties due.

As of August 2009 The W3 Consortium has 365 members with offices in sixteen regions around the world. Members include ONLY businesses, nonprofit organizations, universities, and governmental entities. There is NO provision for individual membership.

The COST of membership is given on a sliding scale, depending on the character of the organization applying and the country in which it is located. Countries are categorized by the World Bank's most recent grouping by GNI ("Gross National Income") per capita. For example, the fee charged to for-profit COMPANIES with annual gross revenues exceeding €51 million was €65,000, regardless of location. In Lower Income Countries (LIC) such as Pakistan and Kenya, nonprofit organizations and for-profit companies with AGR under €7.65 million pay €975.

In 2004, individuals from Apple, the Mozilla Foundation & Opera Software founded the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG). They are interested in evolving HTML and RELATED TECHNOLOGIES. Since then, the editor of the WHATWG specifications, Ian Hickson, has moved to Google. (!) Chris Wilson of Microsoft was invited but did not join, citing the LACK OF PATENT POLICY to ensure all specifications can be implemented on a royalty-free basis. (- !)

Both groups are now working together to continue to maximize the use of HTML 'language' on the net.

…. hmmmm, how does my small membership as an English speaking book published author with Access Copyright figure in this big scheme of things? How does the Government of Canada? What is the POINT of Copyright Law for Authors if any content ON-LINE, morphed thru the language of HTML, is instantly accessible&available for download-?

Looks to me like I gotta get me some HTML 'language skills' FAST cuz it truly seems like 'traditional authors' must either ‘SUBMIT or Die!’ here.

--- You might want to also consider Jeff Davies’ timely & thought provoking tome, ‘WWGD? What would Google Do?’

And yes, google it.

- Blasted thing.
(...and yes, that's just an example of 'stunted pidgeon speak' to a fluent converser of HTML in the webby universe, aka 'the digital economy' ... )

sigh

[updated 2009-08-10 14:57]

There has been a lot of talk lately about 3 strikes laws to deal with p2p file sharing. These laws are often referred to as graduated response, to make them sound reasonable. But they are not reasonable. The idea is that after 3 unsubstantiated allegations of copyright infringement, you lose your Internet connection. No court of law, no requirements of proof... which is completely unconstitutional. Canada should resist pressure to implement any 3 strikes or graduated response clauses which would remove the rights of Canadians to due process.

[updated 2009-08-10 12:57]

Renowned US Copyright Scholar Raymond Nimmer published a post on his blog today that it extremely relevant to this discussion. While I strongly encourage anyone interested to read the entire post (linked below), I excerpted some of the most pertinent passages below:

http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/intellectual-property-content-protection.html

It is fair to say that, while the user generated content machines (such as U-Tube) thrive, many commercial content producers are struggling. Clearly, the user-generated content sites document that if one gives content or the ability to distribute it away free, there will be takers and the site may become immensely profitable. But – what if a content owner desires to charge for content? Are current laws and business practices adequate to support that choice?

Should we care? Yes.

While valuable works are produced by individuals not seeking to commercialize their work, other important information projects only occur where substantial financial support or commercial benefits exist or can be realistically sought. Intellectual property law must support both and the range of options in between, but it is too often easy to ignore one of these models in policy discussions.

Some of the economic stress of the content industries is attributable to the inevitable adjustments caused by new technology and social expectations. Thus, a business model that assumes that a content producer or publisher can charge high prices for copies faces the likelihood of greater seepage (piracy) in a digital world than in a plastic world. But while many in the public are comfortable copying commercial content created by others, most do not do so without authorization. One role of law and its enforcement, of course, is to shape and influence expectations about complying with the norms set out in law. The business model may remain viable if relatively effective technology controls become acceptable in modern markets or if social expectations change to reduce or cabin in piracy at a level that is sustainable and whose costs are covered by sale or license fees generally. But the greater digital seepage means that the economics and scale have changed; this heightens, rather than reduces, the need for and the character of supportive laws for the content producer.

Unless properly adapted, modern copyright and related law may not support content industries even remotely of the scope and depth of those that historically have existed.

It may seem odd to be discussing a risk of failure in content industries at a time when the Internet created a huge upsurge in the amount of information available. But the reason lies in large part in the provenance and character of information. A difference exists between content generated and published without review by individuals, and content generated by concerted research or creative effort of financed groups of professionals. The motion picture “Wizard of Oz” may not be perfect, but the quality of that product differs from the video on U-Tube by Joe Smith who filmed himself eating pizza. Many studio products, of course, are not well done, while many individual products are excellent, but one does not have to denigrate the work by Joe Smith to recognize that society is the loser if his content becomes the sole entertainment content available. If these types of content reside on a continuum, however, the problems of law sustaining the content development reside closer to the “Wizard of Oz”, while the explosion of information on the Internet lies closer to the Joe Smith video. Law should provide a basis that promises to sustain both the commercialization model and a model in which the content developer gives her product freely to the public. It is with reference to professional or commercial content that the incentive structure of traditional intellectual property law has its greatest bite, and it is here that the Internet and other digital systems have their most potentially disruptive impact. ...

We are where we are today in terms of intellectual property policy and its impact on the content industries in part because of an on-going conflict between groups that, respectively, seek enhancement or protection of property rights, and those who would prefer a diminishing role for intellectual property (especially for copyright) in digital environments. One theme frequently cited by the latter group argues that “information wants to be free” and that to the extent that commercial incentives or profit online are desired, they should be sought in ancillary ways, such as through advertising revenue, while the information itself is made freely available. The difficulty is that this business model has largely been a failure and those who have been able to follow it tend to be content “aggregators” or providers of other services, not content creators or publishers. They survive and thrive, rightly or wrongly, by collating the work of others (often obtained for free). But in a world of limited or no profit for newspapers or other content-providers, who will be left to create that content? ...

There are, of course, many other issues regarding the impact of digital technologies on content creators and providers. But the basic issue in reference to law and legal policy involves a need to develop a balance in intellectual property law that preserves what we have ... and that supports realistic business models for those industries. To do so requires a shoring up of property law and judicial interpretations of existing law that support, rather than a continued erosion of the position of content developers and providers. In doing this, the interests of individuals and companies who create content they do not desire to commercialize also need to be protected, but this does not support widespread, substantial copying of the work of others or relying on that work to develop a commercial enterprise profitable for the aggregator or other commercial entity.

[updated 2009-08-09 22:48]

Devil's Advocate here: -
Who OWNS the Copyright to this site?

1. The Government?
(Didn't they hire Nic?)

2. Nik Nanos?
(Isn't this his business's software app & presumably 'patented/copyright' 'concept'?)

3. Or do we, the contributors?
(Are not MY words my OWN -? And, as taxpayers, do we not 'own' this government 'data', presuming that it does fall under 'Crown Copyright'?)

Why, and/or, why not.

Perhaps Nik will enlighten us at the end of the forum ....

[updated 2009-08-08 18:23]

I tried to email this as a formal submission but it was ignored so I'm posting it here. I've also resent it from another email address.

1. How do Canada's copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?

I am an assistant professor in library and information science and a computer programmer. As an academic, I write articles based on my research for which I own the copyright. I also write software for my research for which I own the copyright. Canadian copyright law should be written so as to support the work of academics and software creators by allowing creators, such as myself, to make decisions about how to distribute, share and sell our work. This means that copyright law should support and encourage open access research and allow for alternate license models such as Creative Commons and the GPL.

I am also a Linux user and a purchaser of DVDs and Ebooks. Under Canadian law, I can legally watch my purchased DVDs on my Linux computer, as I have legally purchased the DVDs (or borrowed them legally from the library). Bill C-61, which made no distinction between legal, non-infringing uses and illegal uses, would have made this perfectly ordinary activity illegal as Linux DVD players break the DRM on DVDs. Canadian copyright law should be modernised to protect my fair dealing rights to watch my legally purchased DVDs and move my legally purchased ebooks to new devices I buy. In fact, fair dealing should be strengthened to ensure that it can never be overriden by commercial interests.

2. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time

Copyright law should be modernised to increase support for innovation by encouraging new and different models for information sharing and distribution. In research oriented areas, this would mean providing support for open access research and open access journals. In other areas that could include support for Creative Commons styles licences which both support the copyright of the creator and allow the creator to be flexible in determining what rights they wish to retain for themselves and which they wish to allow to others. For example, using a Creative Commons licence a creator can specify that their work can be used for any non-commmercial uses without requesting special permission.

Additionally, the provisions of fair dealing should be strengthened to encourage research in the sciences, social sciences and the arts. Researchers should be able to make reasonable use of materials without needing permission from the author in order to critique, review and extend existing research. This is necessary to the progress of science and the arts. Provisions should also be included to allow for the use of parody as a method of critiquing an existing work, an exemption which is not currently present in fair dealing.

The rights of users to format shift and time shift information and media should be enshrined in the copyright law. Including these provisions would remove the need to have special provisions for the physically and developmentally disabled as a format shifting right would allow anyone to copy or convert their legally purchased media into a format they can use. In any case, DRM should never be allowed to override the fair dealing rights of users or their right to access materials they have legally purchased. Copyright law should criminalise criminal behaviour only, such as commercial piracy, and should not pretend to control the ordinary actions of ordinary users who are simply making reasonable use of their legally purchased materials.

3. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?

The term of copyright should be shortened in order to foster innovation and creativity. Copyright terms lasting up to 50 years beyond the life of the creator do not create an incentive to create additional materials. In fact, the increasing length of copyright is more likely to have a negative effect on innovation and creativity as it encourages publishers and businesses, generally the owners of a creator's copyright, to stick with tried and true formulas instead of trying new things. A shorter copyright term would encourage businesses to be more innovative in order to stay at the top of their fields by constantly bringing in new creators. Creators would still be able to sell their works and make money from their work, even if the copyright expired, as they could sell signed copies or provide other value added items that no one else could provide.

4. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?

Canada should become a leader in the open access movement for academic research in order to encourage the flow of scientific research in the country. Academic research increases when it is shared (the academic research model requires that academics publish their work so other academics can build on it) and businesses also benefit from a strong research sector as they can work with academics to innovate or work on practical issues stemming from academic research. A strong Canadian research sector would encourage investment in Canada.

Competition would also be fostered by supporting the development of open source software in Canada, software which could be used by Canadian government offices, businesses and ordinary users. Open source software allows its users to contribute directly to development by contributing bug reports and even by submitting changes designed to improve the software. Many businesses, such as IBM and Sun, contribute directly to the development of open source projects and are able to sell support services for such products. Many Canadian companies do so as well. Canadian businesses are important to the Canadian economy.

5. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?

Canada can lead the world by strengthening fair dealing provisions such as format and time shifting to ensure equal access to information and media for all people, including those with physical or developmental disabilities. We should be a leader in this area in order to ensure that none of our citizens are left out of the global, digital economy. To achieve this, Canada should enshrine strong protection for tools which break DRM (digital locks) when they are being used for legal, non-infringing purposes.

Canada should modernise its copyright law to provide global leadership in the development of a copyright system designed to foster innovation and creativity and to support the public good, not corporate greed. Copyright laws were restricted in their scope (what rights are controlled by a creator) and their duration (length of the copyright term) for good reason. Excessive copyright stifles innovation and creativity.

[updated 2009-08-05 21:40]

It seems to me that most of the debate around copyright takes into account two parties only: the creator and the consumer. In this construct they are put into a relationship of opposition to one another. Looking at it from the vantage point of an author, teacher, and publisher, this seems completely wrongheaded. Creators and consumers are part of one cultural environment, they need one another, just as writers and artists need to write and create, everyone needs to read and listen to music, and schools need to have access to the cultural heritage without impoverishing students and enriching multinational corporations.

Somehow the other parties and agencies involved in the circulation of cultural and information commodities have disappeared from the discussion. Let's bring them back in. Writers and creators should be paid for their work just like carpenters and seamstresses. Canadians should have access to cultural products. This is causing difficulty only because copyright law is defending the property rights of corporations rather than the income rights of artists. The solution is to create copyright law in conjunction with a cultural policy that ensures that these needs are met through the generation of funds from government and from these same corporations that profit from the relationship.

Writers and creators should be paid for their work. Where should the money come from? It should come from funds developed through a public-private partnership drawing on sales taxes, corporate profits, licence fees, government subventions, educational budgets, and other appropriate sources of revenue. In the past, people discussed taxing videotapes, CDs and even computer disks to generate income for the musicians, actors and directors who were the "content providers." Changes in copyright law should be examined in relation to this objective.

Any solution that pits artists against their audiences represents a failure of imagination and a political failure of government to serve its country's needs. Readers and listeners have a right to read and listen; writers and musicians have a right to create and to be paid for their work like everyone else; scholars and students have a right to study these works without succumbing to usury. It is time for government to do their job so the rest of us can do ours.

[updated 2009-08-05 11:10]

Something for nothing.

That's what a few people are advocating here, and it's just not fair. Who here would work for free? Nobody, because we must all eat and we all need a roof over our heads. So why should creators and providers work for free? Just because a few malcontents say so? Would they work for free? Of course not.

All creators and providers want is what they are due. Payment for use. Without this, the motive to create is deeply lessened, and the supply of new material will wither away to nothing.

And if the malcontents are still upset, they can always go to the public library. That's why it exists.

[updated 2009-08-05 08:18]

A mistake that the government should avoid is to assume that organizations fighting for stronger copyright restrictions actually represent the view of all their "constituents". My company is an established Game Software developer that sells worldwide, but I could not DISAGREE more with the statements made in the Vancouver roundtable by the Entertainment Software Association representative. My company has also been a Chamber of Commerce member since 1985, yet again I strongly disagree with the Canadian Chamber's lobbying for more restrictive Copyright regulations. In particular, the worst possible thing both for my industry and software consumers in general would be the addition of anti-circumvention rules into any new copyright legislation. These not only have been proven to not work for the prevention of software piracy, but DRM often creates animosity among software consumers and sometimes ends up actually resulting in increased piracy from a disloyal fan base.

Anti-circumvention restrictions have been abused by industry in the US and they should be avoided in any new Canadian legislation.

-- George Geczy, BattleGoat Studios, Ontario.

[updated 2009-08-04 16:53]

When dealing with crafting laws that will be universal in scope on a national setting, there are clear conflicts that must be resolved. What information can be copied, when (if) such copying will be allowed, the uses allowed of any copies created.

Rights of the owners of the intellectual property, any coorporation involved, private citizens and government bodyies must be addressed in a way that will ensure costly and counterproductive litagation will be at a minimum.

One of the most important things for the government to ensure, is that any law passed, will be 100% legal when weighed against the charter of human rights, the constitution and existing laws. If there are grounds to challenge any new copyright laws in these areas, the cost to the Canadian tax payers will be extreme.

We must also be careful about introducing foreign elements into our laws purely for the sake of diplomacy, due to the possibility of conflicts with the above mentioned articles.

[updated 2009-08-04 05:59]

We need to make sure that nothing gets reproduced without compensation to the writer. I've made my living as a freelance writer for over thirty years. It's tougher out there now than ever. Pay per word has been static or even declining among the lesser publications for decades. Reproduction of original works by other than the authors is all too easy with modern technology. The publishers don't protect us - rather they insist on taking all reproduction rights if they can for a pittance. Creators need to get paid fairly in order to have the time and means to continue. Most other industries protect and assist their creators much better than the publishing field. We need to fix this pay and fees gap for the good of the writers and society. Starting with a copyright law that has sharp teeth and makes sure all writers get a royalty for work reproduced would be a great beginning.

[updated 2009-08-03 16:36]

I have come to the realization that the average, non-rich, Canadian citizen (and even non-Canadian citizen) has no rights according to Canadian government. Some of the evidence of this is the following:

1. The rounding up of Japanese-Canadians (even those persons of Japanese ancestry born in Canada) and sale of their possessions without their consent during World War II. in effect this ripped the human rights from these people at the command of the Canadian government. If any government, democratic or other, has this power then no one has any rights what-so-ever-- not even the basic human rights that many individuals believe they have.

2. The RCMP's gross negligence and incompetence in many recent instances including the Dzieka?ski taser incident in Vancouver which killed a Polish immigrant, and "Operation Deception" in which Alain Olivier, a homeless Canadian citizen with no criminal record, was persecuted and entrapped to commit drug-related crimes, which practices were against the RCMP's own rules and regulations.

3. The apparent, quiet attempt to pass copyright reform bills C-60 and C-61 by the Harper government without consulting the Canadian people never-the-less taking a meeting with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who represents the intrest of the State of California and the Hollywood entertainment industry.

4. The apparent lack of knowledge or interest of the Industry Minister Jim Prentice to answer the hundreds of questions posed by Canadian's concerning their stake in Canadian copyright law in 2007 realizing that the last time Canadian's were asked their opinion was back in 2001.

I have to now wonder about the sincerity of the government today in regards to this website. Is this an attempt to appease the masses, making us believe we have a voice when in reality the powers-that-be are already willing to construct copyright laws that restrict our supposed "rights" in our use of media. Who is in control of this government? The corporate money bags that lobby Canadian politicians with their endless supply of cash and meetings designed to nudge their "objectivity" away from interest of consumers? Or is it the U.S. government attempting to cram the draconian-style DMCA, designed to "protect" the entertainment industry while rendering the consumer's "rights" null and void, down Canada's collective throats?

Why am I here voicing my opinion when my honest belief is that the Canadian government is not protecting my "rights" as a Canadian citizen? Because the internet allows me to as it is not controlled by any government and gives venue for the average to express their voice. I also refuse to sit by without commenting on this issue when there are lame-duck politicians willing to reconstruct Canada into a boot-kissing 51st state.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
- George Orwell, "1984"

My government-critical rant is done for now.

[updated 2009-08-02 21:01]

I believe that existing laws should be modernized to permit online file sharing and downloads of music and videos. I should be up to the huge music / movie corporations to come up with innovative ideas and ways of providing incentives for people to buy music and movies. I went shopping for a dvd the other day and I was surprised to find that a movie that is 15 yrs old still is selling for $29.95! They need to get with the times. Make it more affordable and people will buy.
The advent of itunes and other music sites makes it possible to get music more affordably. New young artists benefit from having their music file shared because people will listen to their music who may otherwise not listen to it. This provides incentive for them to buy the music.

[updated 2009-08-01 09:37]

Could someone please explain to me how 'software developers' and/or 'software programmers' are represented (or not) by the current Copyright Act in Canada.

Wouldn't it make sense that 'software' and all adjunct 'programming'/language' fall under 'patent protection' not copyright? This seems an area that needs to be 'modernized'.

We need to distinguish between the 'software programmers' - who are basically responsible for shaping the digital economy (and it's products) - with the users of it, meaning, both 'content creators' and 'consumers' (aka Joe Public).

[updated 2009-07-31 15:04]

Here's how I see our current situation. Correct me if I'm wrong:

The current / past copyright market hasn't been driven really by supply and demand, it's more been driven by control. The copyright horders have a supply nob and a demand nob and they play with them to try to make the maximum profit for them. There has been no real competition, copyright by existing definition is a complete monopoly on particular content, but our past system has also made it easy to transfer all these monopolies to a single (or a few colluding) companies, giving them more or less absolute control over any consumers wanting to purchase media. There has been little to no protection for the actual creator, they are often just tricked or muscled out of their copyrights and left making next to nothing off their work, and there is little to no protection for the consumer either who are unprotected by either legislation or competition. Some consumers have rebelled and resorted to illegal activities. The controllers have been raking in a vast fortune.

Now finally we have some competition. There is an alternate link the creators can use to get to the consumers. The copyright horders are in trouble. The creators are realizing they can bypass them entirely as technology is providing them with the means to do so. If things are left as they are, it is likely the creators will stop handing over their copyrights and the horders will eventually crumble.

Except: The horders have ammased such money and power that they are able to influence government representatives and even statistical data. They have set up the rebelling consumers as scapegoats and used their influence to instate laws in the US to get them some control over the new link between creators and consumers. They have been using their control to choke the alternate link and make it unattractive to consumers. They have used their influence to get the US to push this control out to other countries.

[updated 2009-07-30 13:53]

I’m a writer who has published two collections of short stories, both nominated for awards. Like other creators, I need to get paid for my work. No one questions paying a potter for a vase or a builder for a house. In the same way, those who create work that can be digitized (including writers) need protection under new copyright laws so that their work cannot be reproduced for free. These laws must recognize the immense importance of imaginative work in contributing to the well-being of all Canadians. And they must protect licensing regimes so that monies can be collected and distributed on behalf of writers.

[updated 2009-07-29 23:51]

Presently, we have a strong legal system in Canada to protect inventors and creators, and allow them for plenty of opportunity to capitalize on their labour - and with support of Internet and electronic media, things such as plagiarism and infringement are much more easily detected. However, we do not have a strong system in place to protect consumers, ordinary citizens like you and I, from arbitrary claims by special-interest groups that intend to erode our rights and freedoms - and day after day, they succeed in doing so. We need to change this situation and possibly take away some of these "rights" given to content creators to balance the two sides. Copyright is a privilege that we as a society grant to content creators, and when that privilege starts jeopardizing our freedoms, that is when we have to step back and revise the principles behind it.

Fair use is a simple concept: if you are going to obtain something for personal or educational use, without intent to sell it or otherwise commercially gain from it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And if you are going to share it with others at your own expense (i.e., pay for the digital connection through which content is shared) who will use it for the same non-commercial purpose, you are not doing anything wrong. If anything, you are promoting the sharing of information, content, and ideas that have cultural or informative value to them, and that is a great benefit to our society. It is not piracy or whatever other negative term special-interest groups (like CRIA) choose to attach to it.

Copyright protection needs to stay outside of the domain of civil liberties, and deal with interfering commercial interests, such as illegal copying of materials for commercial distribution. It cannot and it should not enter into domain of citizen policing, such as through special-interest groups policing ordinary citizens by monitoring their personal digital data transfers. If there is a commercial conflict of interest between Internet-service providers (ISPs) and content providers (e.g., ISPs may be selling digital connections to users based on the advertising claim that the users will be able to use their connections to obtain copyrighted content), then that issue can simply be mediated without endangering or eroding consumer rights. For example, by instituting a mandatory fee (tentatively named CANAccess fee, similar to CANCopy fee charged through libraries) that is added to the Internet access bill of each user/account. The proceeds of this fee would go to content providers. The similar concept was instituted for blank digital media, like CDs and DVDs, and it can just be applied and extended to Internet.

Finally, looking towards the future, with the increase in capabilities of technology, copyright laws should not stop and hinder free flow of information, but should instead encourage it. Informed society is a strong society, and technology can be a great catalyst for change. However, all change is difficult and I hope we as a society can see the technology for its potential, and not listen to and accept the fears and disinformation propagated by special-interest groups, whose only aim is to protect their shortsighted and very narrow interests.

Thank you.

[updated 2009-07-29 22:22]

The idea that they are trying to make it illegal for me to copy my movies and music to what ever format I choose is asinine when I buy a movie or music disc for my use I might want to copy it to my mp3 player or on to my computer to make control of my music easier and that is my right in this country,riaa and their ilk are trying to steal this right from us it is up to the music and movie industry to find a model that the consumer finds palatable not the other way around it is also governments job to do what the majority want them to and not what big business tell them they should!!The majority in this country seem to think that they are being treated poorly by the movie and music businesses and are fighting back and somehow the governments of the world think they work for business not the people.WAKE UP OTTAWA AND WASHINGTON you are here to serve the people and their desires so get to it and tell the business men to take a hike do you job!!!

[updated 2009-07-29 18:15]

It is simply weird to think that one's work can be pirated or copied by anyone who feels inclined, thus removing any chance to income for all the hard work that has gone into its creation. Books, magazine articles, any kind of written material do not just "happen". They take significant amounts of time, research and effort. Unless I am mistaken, these same requirements are part of learning to be a plumber or a politician. Their efforts are paid for. Authors should get the same return on investment. No one would expect a plumber to call and fix something without being paid.

[updated 2009-07-29 12:44]

Above all the rights of the individual to freedom of use of a purchased product must supersede any rights given the Corporations.

Copy rights legislation should apply only to commercial (for money) infractions of any future law implemented.

[updated 2009-07-28 20:22]

Canada's existing copyright laws have a chilling effect on my work and on my life. These laws should be modernized by taking into account the diverse ways through which Canadians create and innovate.

[updated 2009-07-28 18:05]

I think that the Copyright Act should be re-written to eliminate elements that are specific to particular media formats, etc - in essence, a simplified set of rules to govern all intellectual property, for which, copyright applies.

It has always been the responsibility of an intellectual property's creator(s) to track/investigate infringements concerning their work - so that violators can be held accountable under law.

This being said, it seems that the creator(s) of such work must ask themselves the following question: how do I wish to be rewarded or recognized for my work. If the answer is to maximize monetary gain based on their work or ensure that proper credit is given - then it is worth considering that this information should be secured in some manner - and access to the material limited. If the goal is to share ideas and information to the greatest number of people - limiting access to material(s) might be of less concern.

The various media formats all have different (potential) concerns when it comes to securing and/or limiting availability to information. It should be the responsibility of the creator(s) of intellectual property to choose what level/manner of security suits them best - not a decision made by government/law (such as in the case of digital locks). However, the consequences of infringement should be legislated - so that owners of such intellectual property, regardless of type or format or methods of distribution chosen, have some backing upon discovering that their copyright has been violated - should they choose to pursue the matter.

[updated 2009-07-28 07:04]

I e-mailed this in as a formal submission, but I think it should be posted here so it can be discussed too (plus it’s taking a long time to make it to the formal submission page).

I am a huge fan of Japanese films and music and there are several copyright related issues I encounter as a Canadian consumer of foreign media that I am sure many other people in this country face as well. Though I was born and raised in this country, Canada is a multicultural nation and prides itself on being such. People from other nationalities often keep an interest in media from their home countries, and I believe that it is very important that the Government of Canada keep the multicultural aspect of Canada in mind while they craft this new piece of legislation.

The copyright issues I will deal with below are all issues that have affected me or have the potential to affect me personally at some point. Some of these issues are unique to me, some are unique to foreign media consumers in general, and others are copyright issues all Canadians face in this increasingly digital and globalized world.

DVD REGION CODING
When it comes to foreign films, there is no guarantee that the film you’ve been waiting for will ever get released in North America. For example, it took 50 years for the original Godzilla film from 1954 to be released uncut in North America in any format (including theatrical and television) and the uncut version of “King Kong vs. Godzilla” from 1962 has yet to be released here at all. I have DVDs imported from Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, and even one from the UK. Some of these I have bought because they were the first home video version I could get my hands on (“X-Cross”, “Gamera the Brave”) and others I have because they have not been released here yet and probably never will be (“Battle Royale”, “Crying out Love, in the Centre of the World”). In Bill C-61 there was a section that would have legally forbid the circumventing of digital locks and the punishment for doing so was to pay $20,000 in damages. This provision would have essentially made it a punishable offense of $20,000 for me to watch my own legally bought DVDs. Also, Bill C-61 would have banned the distribution of devices and software lets me, other foreign film fans, and this nation's many immigrants watch the films they love but cannot acquire on Region 1 DVD.

It is very important that we do not ban the circumventing of region coding in the new copyright bill. There is really no reason to do so and it really just doesn't make sense in a country that prides itself in its multiculturalism. Also, importation of media and the sale of imported media must not be limited or made illegal.

BACKUPS/PRIVATE COPIES
DVDs and CDs are extremely delicate. People who see me handle my disks often comment on how I am so careful with them. Yet, despite my best efforts, the disks somehow manage to find a way to get scratched or damaged. I am also finding that many DVDs don't properly clip into their cases and soon the centre of the disk starts to crack, eventually leading to the destruction of the disk all together. Other times the clips are too loose or break, causing the disk to come loose in its case and get scratched up while being transported. In short, DVDs and CDs are generally destined to wear out over a few years if you use them regularly, no matter how well you treat them.

The music I buy from Japan is from the girl group Hello! Project (which is broken down into several small subgroups such as Morning Musume, Berryz Koubou, and C-ute) and Hello! Project releases are generally distributed in a very specific structure. For singles there are 4 releases: the regular edition, the limited edition A, the limited edition B, and the Single V. The limited editions only have a few thousand copies produced each. For this paragraph, I want to focus on the limited editions in particular. The limited editions include the CD single (also available in the regular edition) and a DVD that may contain a dance version of the single's music video, a close up version of the group's members singing the single, a making of the single's official music video, or a making of the cover art of the single. Whatever is included on the DVDs in the limited editions is generally only ever released on that DVD. In short, within a few weeks they are all sold out and there is no buying a second copy if the original breaks.

When it comes to using disks of any kind, whenever I want to watch a different movie or listen to a different song I have to go pop open the player, take the disk out, put it away, pull out the other disk, pop it in, and hit play. This can be particularly annoying with those music video releases I mentioned in the above paragraph as often the DVDs contain just one or two 5 minute music videos (and an equally long copyright warning at the beginning that you can't skip). To get around this nuisance, I have a USB memory stick full of music videos that I have ripped from the DVDs. Whenever I want to watch music videos I pop in the USB memory stick and I can choose any music video I want when I want without having to change the disk every single time and without wasting my time sitting through the copyright warning each time. Whenever I buy music, I immediately copy it to my laptop hard drive so I can switch songs without changing disks and then I also copy it to my mp3 player so I can take it anywhere without having to carry a heavy backpack full of CDs around with me, and risk damaging them in the process. Also, filling my laptop hard drive with movies makes traveling so much easier because I can take all my favourite movies on vacation without having a suitcase dedicated solely to DVDs.

What I would like to see in the new copyright bill is the legal right to backup the media I have purchased (music, video, or other) onto any medium of my choosing, in any format of my choosing, for personal use, regardless of whether or not there is a digital lock on the media of any form.

NON-COMMERCIAL FILESHARING
Once upon a time people got around riding on a horse and buggy. People made a living making whips, horse shoes, and wagons. Then came the car and all those jobs disappeared. The same is happening in the music industry right now.

Though I am from Toronto, I spent two years studying film production in Thunder Bay. While I was there, I discovered Hello! Project for the first time on youtube and then began to seek out more of their music through filesharing sites. After becoming a big Hello! Project fan through filesharing, I returned to Toronto at the beginning of May 2008. I quickly found a little shop that carried imported Hello! Project CDs and began buying them there. Now, one year and three months later, I have spent approx. $1300 on Hello! Project CDs, DVDs, and even two Hello! Project posters. Interestingly, I found that the majority of the first Hello! Project merchandise I purchased were all things I had already downloaded while I was in Thunder Bay. The reason for this was because I was already hooked on those specific songs and videos and I wanted a physical copy of them. Rather than hurting Hello! Project's sales, my downloading habit became a form of free advertising and turned me into a paying fan. I can honestly say I'd be willing to spend literally thousands of dollars on Hello! Project CDs and DVDs if I had the money. I am now planning to go Japan to see a Hello! Project concert in January.

Filesharing is also great for allowing the consumer to have any song they want instantly from anywhere in the world without having to go to the store right that second. Even Itunes doesn't offer that since they restrict by region. For me especially, filesharing allows me to have new songs released in Japan while I wait for the physical CDs to make their way over the Pacific Ocean where I can get then buy them. I actually listened to a downloaded copy of Morning Musume’s single “Mikan” on the bus as I went to the store to purchase the “Mikan” CD.

As a new independent Canadian filmmaker, I have to say I think the internet is actually one of the greatest tools I have. In the past I would have had only a really tiny chance of ever being able to create my own film. Even if I managed to get a film made, I’d have to rely on a company to take a risk on releasing my film across Canada and then I’d have to rely on foreign companies to distribute that film in around the world. Now the internet has presented me with a worldwide audience I would never have been able to reach 10 years ago, and it is all thanks to filesharing. For no more than the cost of their internet bill, Canadian artists have a place to advertise, build a fanbase, share their culture, and distribute their work worldwide. If they want to make money, artists can ask for donations, sell merchandise, and/or create websites funded by advertisements. Some will eventually become popular around the world and end up making lots of money, and others won’t. Being an artist is not a guaranteed way to get rich and never has been, but the internet certainly offers a great opportunity to Canadian artists that didn’t exist just a few years ago.

In the 1980s, American film companies lobbied the US Government hard to get the VCR declared an illegal device because it allowed for copyright infringement. When it was finally declared fully legal, the movie companies then had to find a way to make money off it and the home video market was born. This has become a major source of income for the film companies and a huge source of tax revenue for the Government. The same needs to be done with filesharing. Rather than try and do the impossible task of eradicating filesharing, we should focus on what is possible: turning filesharing into a source of revenue for artists and the Government, even if that means the huge record labels have to significantly change or even die.

Filesharing is here to stay and Canadians, especially the new generation, don’t want to see it made illegal. Rather than waste time and money trying to create a piece of legislation Canadians don’t want and is doomed to fail anyways, Canada should take the initiative and show the rest of the world what a great thing filesharing can be for artists.

PORTABLE ENTERTAINMENT DEVICES
I think anyone should be able to copy any legally acquired music and video onto their own portable entertainment devices (Ipods, mp3 players, etc). There is absolutely no reason not to allow this and the new copyright bill should expressly allow this sort of transfer.

TV RECORDINGS
When I was about 8 or 9 my mom made what she probably considers the biggest mistake of her life. She taped the dubbed and edited version of "King Kong vs. Godzilla" off television for me. I kept that tape for years and rewatched it over and over again. I quickly became a Godzilla fan and spent all my available money (which wasn't much at the time) on Godzilla videos. Now, a decade and a half later, I am a huge fan of Japanese films in general. I have bought every single Godzilla film (many of them more than once) and my shelves are completely loaded with DVDs. I also have a huge tub sitting in my room full of DVDs because I have no more room to put them anywhere else. This whole collection, which I have spent thousands of dollars building, is an indirect result of my mom taping "King Kong vs. Godzilla" off TV on a VCR; an act the media companies fought long and hard to have made illegal in the late 70s/early 80s.

Please don't make it illegal to record things off TV. Please don't put a time limit on how long those recordings can be kept. If my mom had to get rid of "King Kong vs. Godzilla" after I watched it as a kid I would have been devastated and I would probably not have spent so much of my money on movies over the last decade and a half. Putting such restrictive controls on how one can use television recordings is a bad idea all around and I am sure the Government of Canada knows it as well as I do.

THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
I am sure you have had the concept of disconnecting repeat filesharers' internet connections proposed to you at some point. This is complete insanity on so many levels and should not even be considered at all. Don't even go here. Just don't. No.

[updated 2009-07-28 02:29]

I say that if a private company wants to implement digital locks on their products then they should be allowed to. After all it's their products and they can package them anyway they like.

If that digital lock can be easily broken then that's their problem, not our governments. The government should not have to spend the time or money policing its citizens because a company implements a weak digital lock.

[updated 2009-07-27 13:43]

The existing copyright laws should not be modified, but re-written, from scratch, simplified and made coherent. For one, that's practically the only way we can understand what is being written. I dispute the validity of any law that is so written as to obfuscate it's meaning or that has elements that are contradictory.

[updated 2009-07-27 13:01]

I don’t directly rely on copyright to earn a living. My self-employed friends and people I work for in the arts do. I constantly use and enjoy creations protected by Canada’s copyright law and I am encouraged by the prospect of an ever increasing number of works being made accessible to me online. Despite some academic hyperbole, I don’t see a trend towards works or information being digitally locked up. To the contrary, I think works and information are more accessible than ever before and will continue to be so in increasing volume even after our legislators finally implement adequate legal protection against people that deliberately pick digital locks to gain unauthorized access for their own use or financial gain. I understand that some producers and publishers need that protection for the digital locks they may apply to works in which they have heavily invested. However, I also understand that Canadians that have legally acquired access to those works should not be stripped of their freedoms to use them in accordance with fair dealing exceptions or their reasonable expectations concerning time and format shifting. Nor should they be worried about their personal privacy being invaded. But more than anything, I appreciate that copyright is the basis upon which Canada’s professional creators are able to earn a living from making available the creations that me and my family enjoy on a daily basis, a good number of which are the best in the world. Without such basis, or a basis unnecessarily weakened by the added uncertainty of open-ended exceptions to copyright, Canada’s professional creators and their creations would be negatively impacted, and consequently, so too would Canadian culture. That’s primarily how copyright affects me. Like most others, I value Canadian professional creators and I understand they need more than lip service when it comes to modernizing our Copyright Act. They want people to enjoy and use their works and they need to get paid if the practise of their art is not simply to be reduced to hobby status. I hope that the Canadian Government will finally modernize our law by implementing the provisions of the WIPO Treaties and other legislative measures to help ensure that our creative community is respected and fairly remunerated.

[updated 2009-07-26 15:20]

There need to be more than just two Town Hall discussions on copyright. That the Toronto venue filled within two days of being announced is a strong indicator that Canadian citizens want to be involved in these consultations. Limiting participation to 300 people at only two venues is NOT the open discussion that Canadians expect. At the very least, there should be Town Hall meetings in the capital city of each province, and the larger population centres. I suggest:

Vancouver,British Columbia | 611869
Calgary,Alberta | 968460
Ottawa,Ontario | 874433
Edmonton,Alberta | 822319
Hamilton,Ontario | 653638
Quebec City,Quebec | 645623
Winnipeg,Manitoba | 632063
Kitchener,Ontario | 409112

(If there's a way to communicate with the people responsible for these consultations please let me know, and post it prominently on this Web site)

[updated 2009-07-25 23:29]

It is time to remove the term “copy” from the rights discussion. If we were starting from a greenfield today without the history of copyright we would never consider putting the control point at the copy level. In the digital age copying is necessary to consume the media content. It's copied from disk to memory, from memory to screen from device to device. Attempts to update copyright laws have skirted around this issue by using vague terms like “fair use” but have not addressed the reality that it's no longer relevant. The consumer requires the right to make copies for their own personal use.

When copyright was originally created it was not possible to manage all the points of sale but the cost of copying made it the correct control point (at the time). If we started today with the same goals it would make sense to put the point of control at the point of sale. The right should be the right to sell for profit from the creative work. If we were starting from a clean slate I'm convinced that is where the rights would end.

If we take into account the history of copyright we can no longer stop at just the right to profit. We now need to include the right to distribute. This is still not a manageable control point but the right holder needs legal recognition that no other party can distribute the content without their permission.

I believe the above two rights are how the courts have ruled on the existing copyright laws so this isn't radical thinking.

The rights are also not practically manageable today. They are too long and measuring for the time the creator dies just complicates this. The recent example of Amazon selling copies of 1984 from a publisher that didn't have the rights is an example of this. It should be easy for a company to identify who the rights holder is but it's practically impossible today.

The existing copyright laws were extended because of the less the 1% of creative work that is still making profit after 10 years. Companies like Disney and bands like the Beatles do not need the laws modified to protect their profits but that is what has happened.

I personally believe that the right to distribute should be limited to 10 years from the point of creation and the right to profit from should be limited to 20 years. My logic for extending the right to profit beyond the distribution right is because of derivative works such as movies being made from books.

[updated 2009-07-25 11:55]

I want to focus on just one statement for my discussion.

"Canadian copyright law needs to be updated to give Canadian creators and consumers the tools they need to engage with confidence in the digital marketplace."

I believe that this statement has in it all that we need moving forward. What worries me is that we will go too far at the request of industry lobby groups. The point of updating copyright laws is to give creators confidence. We want to encourage creators. So let's do that.

The tools:
1. 20 years of protection. This is an enormous amount of time to generate a profit. It then allows derivitive works that create new and interesting content and digital libraries of older content such that the culture generated by that content is preserved for future generations to enjoy.

2. While it has just as many potential privacy concerns, a digital fingerprint on digital content tying it to the purchaser would make it trivial to trace pirated material back to the entity that illegally distributed it, while not preventing that consumers from making copies for personal use such as backups and device shifting.

The industry constantly tells us that DRM is there to prevent illegal reproduction of their works. But what are they really asking for? What DRM really does is "fix" a bunch of problems facing the industry today. And that is new technology. Every time new technology arrives, the industry loses a bit of control over their product, when and where and how it can be used. What DRM does is give the content owner ultimate control over all aspects of their content. While this is not necessarily true of the current technology, say DVDs, consider future technologies in an always connected world: Is that movie you bought going to be broadcast on CBC tonight? With DRM the owner could block access to the movie today so that they can protect the ad revenue they will get by ensuring the only way you watch it is on CBC instead. Want to listen to that new album on the go? DRM technologoies could detect that you are no longer in your house and that could be an extra charge. That sounds ridiculous, but with DRM they have all the right in the world to do just that.

DRM also stifles the free market. Consumers have very little they can do as it is. At best, we can speak with our wallets and give our business to someone we feel respects us as consumers. With DRM we essentially lose that right. Let's use a hypothetical example: You buy an oPod. You love it and the convenience that oSongs affords you and purchase all your new music there and even some old music since it's so convenient. Over time you spend thousands of dollars building your library. Then the quality of the products coming from Orange start to degrade to the point where you feel you have to do something about it. But when you consider going to the product from Tangerine, you find all your oSongs are locked to an oPod. It makes more economic sense to shut up and put up then to repurchase all that content again. Consumers would lose their voice.

So what is DRM about? DRM is asking the government to take away all rights from the consumer and give it to the producer. It's not the government's job to create revenue streams through new laws. Nor should the government be giving unlimited rights to one group over another. The government's purpose is to have as little intervention as possible while ensuring that creative individuals can be remunerated for their efforts.

[updated 2009-07-25 10:57]

S.41, Copyright Act: 163 ­words, versus S.31, Bill C­61: 4,311 ­words. That's not "an amendment".

[updated 2009-07-25 08:21]

Imagine a world where you wouldn't let your friend borrow your screwdriver because you bought it for you and that after 3 uses of it you would have to call the company to reactivate it.

Imagine not being able to play a single note of music on your guitar because someone else played it before.

Imagine not being able to invent an electric drill because someone already had the rights to a tool made for driving screws.

Imagine locking up everyone in jail because there are criminals out there.

I say let's not punish the honest people because of the criminals. I mean would you ban forks because someone could kill with it?

Let's not kill our own evolution for the sake of money.

Anyways remember one thing any great ideas or inventions no matter what have been successful so I say NO to these new laws.

[updated 2009-07-24 23:25]

It should be permissible for me to load content from media like CDs onto devices such as iPods, because content providers cannot be relied upon to support this usage reliably.

File sharing and other non-commercial infringement should not be criminalized, and should not carry large statutory damages, because this is not proportionate to the severity of the transgression. However, escalating warnings through ISPs (eg "three strikes", with subsequent disconnection) seem reasonable to control this usage.

[updated 2009-07-24 21:04]

I am an assistant professor in library and information science and a computer programmer. As an academic, I write articles based on my research for which I own the copyright. I also write software for my research for which I own the copyright. Canadian copyright law should be written so as to support the work of academics and software creators by allowing creators, such as myself, to make decisions about how to distribute, share and sell our work. This means that copyright law should support and encourage open access research and alternate license models such as the Creative Commons and the GPL.

[updated 2009-07-24 16:51]

I am a Linux user and a purchaser of DVDs and Ebooks. Currently, I have to break the encryption on DVDs in order to watch them on my computer (I do not own a TV). This is currently legal under Canadian law as I have legally purchased the DVDs. Bill C-61 would have made this normal activity illegal. Canadian copyright law should be modernised to protect my fair dealing rights to watch my legally purchased DVDs and move my legally purchased ebooks to new devices I buy.

[updated 2009-07-24 16:40]

I don't think we need to "modernize" our copyright laws. Truly we need to ignore the imaginary issues that big business wants us to believe. File Sharing is with few exceptions free in all ways and done in private. It is very common and it is NOT stealing. It is simply SHARING which is in the nature of human beings worldwide. It is in our interests to not pander to Newscorp, Time Warner, and Disney which are not in our interests as CANADIAN'S we are not American's and therefore do not have to have extreme copyright laws. The current laws are fine thank you very much.

[updated 2009-07-24 16:15]

Before I reply, I would like to point out that I find it very disturbing that my password to this site was emailed back to me in plaintext. This is a security flaw and makes all users vulnerable to hacking and it is a sign of a credible website that passwords are kept encrypted. If there is personally identifying information being stored about me that's the least I could hope for.

It is mistakes like this that make me pleased for this public forum to be taking place. Public servants need to be properly informed in order to make good decisions.

Copyright law affects every aspect of my life, from school (teachers who claim copyright over test questions, using materials for projects, writing articles criticizing a copyright holder using their works) to entertainment (downloading or watching movies and music online) to my family (scanning grad photos for my parents which technically belong to the photographer) to my writing (using characters and scenes from copyrighted works).

Existing laws are too stringent and biased towards large corporations who can afford to litigate anyone who even makes use of their materials under the Fair Dealing clause. There are entire blogs dedicated to documenting when corporations who rip off independent artists' designs for use in fashion (fabric patterns are copyrighted) and then turn around and sue the independent author of the work. The use of the internet necessitates copying and sharing - to view this website I am copying and relaying information from a government server. It is just stupid to think we can turn back the clock and pretend that none of this is happening. Copying of works will continue regardless of what the law is.

Existing laws need to reflect more society's instinct towards copyright - that unless you are using someone else's material with the intention of making a profit then you are not breaking any rules. That if you pay for something once it is yours and cannot be revoked (see the latest Kindle scandle as copies of 1984 were removed remotely without informing the customers). That Fair Dealing is essential to the a balanced discussion of public life and people should be protected from corporations using copyright to quash criticisms. In an ideal world, Digital Rights Management (DRM) and End User Agreements (EULA) would be illegal because it infringes upon consumers rights to own what they pay for.

Tighter legislation will only turn copyright law into even more of a joke, and when citizens stop taking their laws seriously there's a problem with how the government is being run - it will just be unsustainable, as was the case with alcohol prohibition in the United States.

[updated 2009-07-24 13:27]

The laws should begin to be flexible and up-to-date, all laws are inflexible pieces of paper that attempts to govern flexible humans, think of the Thomas-Russet case, is it even logical to have laws punish her to that of an extent?

We should have laws that govern fair use, and do not protect companies. If a new format is better, we should be able to upconvert old format into new format with quality loss for free.
New format to old format, for free as well. And the definition of a "new" format should be that it improves quality over older formats for the END user. if you got a HD-DVD version of a movie and it is HD, you should be able to move that onto Blu Ray or onto HDD since they are equally "HD". If you want a new Blu Ray quality file, and you only has DVD, then you have to repurchase only if there the newly released has better quality (think, if they gotten the original high quality movie master for star wars and did a nearly 1:1 conversion onto Blu Ray, then that should be considered a major upgrade compared to VHS, if they did this with Blu Ray and it is same or similar quality to DVD, then that should be out of the window and for free)

There should be incentives for new formats, but not because they allow for vender lock in like with UMD with sony PSP (movies for PSP, not so cool if you use UMD, most people uses the internal flash option for a reason), but because they genuinely offers some thing new and good for the end user (dvd vs blu ray, if quality of video is up there).

[updated 2009-07-24 10:00]

I am a DJ/Producer and soon to be artist. Copyright effects me on several levels not just in my profession but in my personal life as a Canadian. I want to first start by stating how this effects me and everyone else here, and how copyright effects our democracy in the 21st century. I am completely disgusted that the children of the 60’s who are the majority in parliament right now, that are prepared to throw out charter rights they fought for, for their children and future generations due to virtually the same system of control we are having to fight off today. Current copyright effects free speech, self expression, and the freedom to choose. Companies who deal with DMCA type legislation shoot first, and ask questions later. Fair dealing provisions are usually put on the back burner to favor the control of the rights holder. This in turn relates to a huge number of online media being taken down that might not necessarily be against a copyright law, which has effected free speech, parody, self expression, and freedom of choice. We need to ensure that our charter rights as citizens are being respected through any change in copyright law over that of labels, talent, and industry. Without those rights, we are not a free democratic society, and I’d hate to see the day Slash from G+R takes control as our global leader. This debate on control has become somewhat of a farce in the music industry. It has got completely stupid, thanks in large part to our politicians.

Remixed video’s are having an impact on our democratic system globally, and we cannot allow a system of control where we cannot use these videos to question our politicians or government regards of who owns the rights. Democratic values and free speech must trump the rights of content owners. For those of you from the 60’s who are too old to remember what free speech is all about, here is an example of free speech in the 21st century that must be protected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VafZic-UM_Q

Now on to the music industry. There are now 2 separate industries currently. One that is trying to preserve an old business and financial model, who has been suing consumers, pushing away their main source of income, and not doing what they need to in order to effectively promote talent the right way, nor understands how to do this, and the other that has moved on. If you don’t buy a bag of dog poop as a consumer, it’s not my responsibility to go to the government and wine about it and try to force people to buy that bag of dog poop. It’s my job as a professional sales/marketing/promotions person to find ways to sell you the bag of dog poop and make you think it’s the best bag of fertilizer you will ever get. Back before P2P, label reps were extremely good at promoting and selling their dog poop. Today artists in the industry indie and commercial are being under promoted in a huge way and artists often have to rely on getting outside help with that promotion and paying out of pocket for it (which is a HUGE expense), when the labels should be looking after and learning how to use social media, and P2P as a way to promote and sell music. It might surprise some of you that the music industry is actually built on sharing music. That’s what drives sales. If you don’t know how to make money, nor how to promote talent in this industry today through the sharing of music, you don’t belong in the industry representing talent, and you won’t survive for much longer regardless of any change in copyright law. We, the other side of this industry that has adapted are getting a nice kick back off of the “good old boys” as artists leave these labels in search of people who actually know how to sell and promote in a digital market.

The other industry we have right now is one that is building on small – medium sized labels who give a lot of the control over distribution back to the artist, and is the future no matter how hard the old guys have tried to push us out. We are much stronger, and have a bigger voice due to their incompetence in the old industry, however because of the massive confusion out there as who represents who our government seems to be peeing on us all the time, and not listening to those who actually represent Canadian Talent! As a DJ, we used to be serviced through record pools back in the mid 90’s. Today we are serviced through the artists and labels directly. Today’s labels in this part of the industry know how important it is to bridge the gap left by members of the CRIA (who don’t represent the majority of talent in this country and many of us in the industry would wish Mr. Henderson would stop misleading our government and general public on that fact) between artists and consumers and other industry professionals involved in the success of artistic talent.

The reality of this industry, as an artist you don’t need a million dollar contract anymore. Technology has made it extremely cheap to produce professional music, so those costs have gone down. You don’t need a major distributor anymore or the need to press CD’s. You can sell music on any number of sites, even your own, and if you are techsavvy you don’t need a promoter. People are still buying So all of these costs have gone down. I’ve spoken with several promoters and concert tickets and merchandize is way, way up on a global scale for artists. Music is still being purchase whether you use P2P or not. Bands are directly funded through the fans on donations, promotional events, fan clubs..all up.

And one last thing, it’s not just teenagers, and low income individuals using P2P. The other part of the industry that has adapted, everyone uses P2P! Labels end up scouting for talent, signing tracks, bookings are made for gigs, professional opportunities where song royalties are paid either through TV ads, TV shows, Global FM Radio, video games all through the use of P2P. Money is being made through the sharing of music, as it was back in the 90’s. The only difference, we don’t need the label rep to hand us a big bulky “free” cd anymore. P2P is a great way for the consumer to sample music, and discover new sounds, and we in the new industry support it, use it, and all of us are making money off of it. Those of us in the new industry recently held a conference to discuss new and exciting idea’s and share our successes with the old guys, until they started preaching about how “evil” consumers are and how “they will squash” P2P. Artists have moved on, the consumer has moved on and I hope our government will move on from this if copyright law is to be relevant at all in the near future. It needs to be built into the networks, like it is with cable TV (to shut the old industry up) and those making money off of works need to pay royalties. That’s what we need, that’s what this industry needs. We don’t need some yahoo’s with guitars controlling our fundamental charter rights. They belong on stage entertaining us not in control of us, and I find it completely humorous that industry has been let to do this by the children of the 60s. What an utter humiliation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBkuiChImb8

[updated 2009-07-24 03:18]

1. How do Canada's copyright laws affect you ? How should existing laws be modernized.

My name is Jean-François Gariépy and I am the director of an online museum about computer history. The museum is known online as 'EmuWiki.com - The Encyclopedia of Emulation'. It was founded in 2007 and is progressively becoming one of the most dominant emulation websites. Emulation consists in creating programs that are simulating a platform on another 'host' platform to allow inter-operability between these platforms. For example, an old Atari game from 1977 cannot be played by most people since the Atari consoles of this era have been damaged / thrown away and are becoming rarer every year. Additionally, they are not being sold anymore. To remedy to this situation, emulators are often used. They allow people to use the legacy games/programs that they legally own on their new computer system. Emulation is regarded by a lot of experts in digital culture preservation as one of the most efficient way of preserving digital content and insuring that we do not lose the capability to see old software/content in action. For example, think of what would happen in 100 years if current computers were considered outdated and if the programs that we currently use could not be executed anymore on the future computers. We would not be able to recover current documents, play current games, use current databases, view current websites... Computers are actually evolving on much faster time scales than this hypothetical situation, and without emulators, as I am writing this, we would not even be able to use programs designed 20 years ago. I am concerned by copyright laws in Canada because I make constant efforts in order to respect Canadian laws by distributing only public domain content on my website. In emulation, content can be split in 2 categories : emulators, the programs that are created by independent programmers and that are completely legal provided some conditions (numerous law cases confirmed their legality in the United States, and we expect emulators to have the same legal status under the Canadian laws, although there is no case law in Canada). These emulators are able to execute ROMs. ROMs are copies of the old programs / games and a lot of them are illegal and are not distributed / encouraged on our website. However, some companies accept to give up their copyrights on some particular software, and in these cases we are happy to distribute these public domain programs / games for free. I am sure that a lot of Canadian citizens will have a lot of things to suggest on the copyright reform, but as far as I'm concerned I will focus on a single point that really needs to be improved: the default copyright expiration.

2. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time

I think we can agree that one of the fundamental values shared by a majority of Canadians is our desire to preserve our heritage, culture and tradition. Although it might not seem like it, digital culture is occupying a growing place and we can all foresee a future where digital media becomes the main source of information and entertainment for Canadian citizens, and thus the main support of our culture. One of the things that strike me is how efficient publicly financed initiatives such as libraries, universities and museums are at preserving ''non-digital culture'' such as music, books and films, but how useless they become when talking about digital culture. Just think about all the software and games that were made in the 1970's, the 1980's up to now. Is there a place in the whole world where people actually care about preserving this part of our heritage and have the financial means to do it ? Beside some isolated projects that are way too limited, the answer is no. One might argue that software does not need to be preserved because the disks that contain the software are durable and the growing Internet distribution of programs makes them immune to extinction. Throughout my experience, I can tell you that this is totally false. Computer programs are always at a click away of being thrown in a virtual garbage that keeps no trace of it - every single day, in my practice, I witness the disappearance of great software / games that would have deserved to be preserved. The problem of the little attention that we give to preserving digital content is huge, and it goes beyond the scope of the copyright laws themselves; however some changes are required in the copyright laws to make our job easier and to allow us to save as many programs / games as possible. The 50-years expiration of copyright model has to be switched from an automatic adhesion to a voluntary adhesion. I propose to change the 50-years automatic expiration of copyrights to 20 years and allow an optional adhesion to the 50-years copyright protection . Any company / author who produces movies, music, software would have his commercial interests completely protected for 20 years after the publication date. For companies that are not satisfied with this 20 years protection, it would be as simple as including a copyright notice in the license, the DVD cover, or the CD pamphlet such as: 'This content retains its copyrights up full length allowed by law after publication'. This would give us an additional 30 years window of opportunity to start preserving most of the software, and we would then have to patiently wait these 30 years to preserve the content of authors who would have took the 50-years option. The 50-year option could be took retroactively for content published before the law is voted; this means that a company could announce that it wants all its copyrights to be maintained for 50 years, and it would automatically protect all of its content published before voting the law. One of the most common problem in software preservation is that the companies who published the software 20 years ago went bankrupt, the authors cannot be contacted, some of them are deceased, and the product is not commercially available, and this often means that this particular piece of software is about to disappear. To be able to say that after 20 years, the copyright is expired 'by default', unless stated otherwise, that would mean thousands of additional software / games being preserved. To apply this law would mean that we could already start distributing and collecting copies of programs from the 1970's without having to wait for 2020 to do it. From 2009 to 2020, just imagine how much cassettes / disks in the world will be lost, destructed, or simply thrown away. It is clear to anyone who knows how fast computers evolve that online museums distributing copies of 20-years old software harms in no way the industry; in fact computer programs lose almost all their commercial value in less than 5 years after publication.

3. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?

I think I answered this question in point 2. To foster innovation we need educated people. One of the important point in education is to know about your past, your history and your culture. By changing laws to insure that our heritage is better preserved, we insure that our children will know what happened before them, and we hope that this will inspire them to build a better future for Canada. Interoperability, free access and knowledge will be the new advantages in the future economy; they probably already are. Canada has a once-in-a-lifetime occasion to take the lead of the new digital economy by writing the first 21th-century-pertinent copyright laws in the world. This would have a direct impact on the preservation of our culture, but it would also depict Canada as a leader in copyright laws and most likely a model for other countries.

4. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?

In the growing digital economy, attractive countries are those that stop limiting and that start thinking in terms of free and global access. If you want Canadian economical / cultural / artistic / virtual initiatives to be recognized worldwide, you need to give them the freedom that they need to operate. When you look at successful web-based companies like Google or Yahoo, you understand that success in the new digital world is not attained by limiting access, but by liberating access. One of Google's initiative, Google Books, is a good example of that : while every single book company in the world wants to sell books, Google Books decided to give them away for free in PDF format when they are in the public domain following the expiration of copyrights - and they still manage to make money indirectly through their ad system. We would like to do the same thing with computer programs, but these are volatile and they do not last as long as books; reducing the default copyright expiration to 20 years would make the copyright laws more pertinent with the time-scale of computers programs. As long as we keep the 50-years expiration model, which might be pertinent for books, we lose programs, contents and games - forever.

5. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?

I think you will receive many proposals during these audiences, but as far as I'm concerned, Canada has a unique chance to position itself as a leader in cultural preservation by allowing museums such as mine to do their job : that is to make historical software / games available, free without worrying for copyrights on material that - anyway - is not being sold anymore. Additionally, the 50-year optional protection would guarantee that no commercial rights are being offended and would insure a fair protection for companies who actually want that protection. I would say that the state of the current law is one of presumption - we presume that the authors actually want that 50 years protection. I would be surprised that this presumption is verified in most cases.

[updated 2009-07-24 00:19]

I would like unfettered access to digital media. DRM is a failure. Let us purchase digital content without artificial limitations (the way the pirates do).

Perhaps government should be less involved in copyright? If convenient and cost effective ecommerce solutions existed then the current levels of policing (at the tax payers expense) may not be necessary.

[updated 2009-07-23 20:00]

My biggest concern is the ability to use content I have paid for on various devices. DRM should not be allowed limit the right of the consumer to change the format of content to be able to be played on other devices than it was originaly designed for. I should be able to put the legaly purchased music from any cd onto my computer or iPod.
Allow us to change the format of any electronic content without violating copyright.
Violation of copyright should be focused on financial gain. Content paid for should not in any way be considered to violate copyright if it is being used only for personal use.

[updated 2009-07-23 18:00]

As part of my masters studies in biz-admin at RRU, I did a research paper on copyright in Canada. My findings were very interesting for three reasons.

1. Lobby groups such as RIAA and MPAA do not have the best interests of Canadian citizens or businesses. They have been caught trying to influence Canadians and politicians through inaccurate data and false reports. Their views on what copyright should mean is not only misaligned with Canadian societal and business needs, it is anti-competitive, and mis-aligned with the new digitial medium we live in today.

2. The financial losses incurred through copyright violations by Canadians are grosely innaccurate by up to 1000%. In fact, Canadian citizens those found to pirate movies and music were actually big consumers for music and movie products - including digital media purchased online, and movie tickets. Furthermore, my data found that claiming a pirated media as a lost sale is innacurate due to the fact that if the person couldn't afford it, it is not lost revenue. It is innacurate to make this claim on sales that would never exist.

3. True financial losses from copyright violations were from two sources. A. Companies that do not accurately track software license usage through mis-management or B. Companies that use software and refuse to pay license costs or hide their use of said products.

Some side-notes:

A. The number of those who could afford to purchase software vs those who pirate is negliable as a majority of them become future customers/clients either through using the same software (paid) at work, or purchasing a new version when released. Viral marketing at it's best - and research from Industry Canada I found confirmed this fact.

B. Copyright is a big issue for libraries, educatational institutions, and small businesses. From photocopying fees to office music, copyright has become expensive to maintain and deal with. For example, a local dentist office has to pay $XXX a year to play music over their speakers - music they purchased from a local store but have to license it with some music right/copyright association to play it to their customers. That is not reasonable as studies have proven that music played stimulates interest in music which in turn creates customers. Second, the fees for photocopying and the amount of time and effort in policy and process creation to educate staff at educational institutions, plus the photocopying fees they are charged, is astronomical and not reasonable. It was found this increased their operational costs and forced them to pass the charges onto the students/families.

It is not reasonable to Canada or Canadian citizens and its businesses to be charged additional copyright fees for photopcopying an article 20 years old - this new practice is expensive to implement, maintain, and is negatively impacting our economy. It more importantly stifles research and education - copyright laws restrict what can be photocopied and how much. Educational and research institutions (primary and post secondary) should be exempt from copyright restrictions and fees to help stimulate innovation and creativity.

[updated 2009-07-23 15:09]

Expand fair use. Expand personal use. Shorten copyright terms. Forget WIPO.

[updated 2009-07-23 12:55]

The thing that scares me most about recent attempts by other nations to modernize their copyright laws is the side effects on property ownership and consumer rights.

A particular example of such a law is the DMCA in the United States and the fact that it makes it a crime to circumvent copyright protect devices. After this change, regular goods such as consumer electronics and print cartridges started appearing on the market that incorporated highly questionable uses of copyright protection devices that stifled the purchaser's rights to use the devices for whatever purpose they saw fit.

For example:
- Computer Gaming systems such as the Microsoft X-BOX incorporated a "copyright protection scheme" that made it effectively illegal to modify the machine to run software that hadn't been approved and licensed by Microsoft (so-called "Home brew" software), thus preserving the revenue stream generated by this licensing and approval process at the expense of consumers' rights.
- Printer manufacturers such as Lexmark incorporated "copyright protection devices" into their print cartridges with the effect of stifling competition from other printer ink vendors to preserve their high margins on these products and preventing the otherwise natural downward pressure on prices that benefits consumers.

Such grievous abuses come at the expense of consumers' rights and are counter productive to a functioning economy.

Furthermore, the copyright enforcement mechanisms defined by the DMCA circumvent an individual's right to be presumed innocent until found guilty in that a complainant in a matter of copyright infringement can issue orders to an individual's Internet Service Provider to remove content from the accused individual's website without proof or due process or indeed involvement from any sort of law enforcement or judiciary agency. Relating to the specific examples above, this practise has been routinely used to stifle discussion and information about how to refill printer cartridges and use consumer electronics for lawful purposes that do not benefit the commercial interests of their vendors.

It is absolutely critical that discussions of this matter do not centre entirely around people downloading music for free. The film and recording industries are only two users of copyright and any reform must respect the rights to fair pricing and property ownership that Canadians currently enjoy!

[updated 2009-07-23 09:19]

The main problem is that everything relating to Canadian media consumption is archaic and the changes need to come not only in copyright law, but also in updating the laws of the CRTC. These laws are preventing the ability of Canadians to consume media in legal ways on the internet. There are NO good ways to get media legally over the internet in Canada without resorting to piracy. We need services like Hulu, Last.fm, and Pandora to be available in Canada, but they aren't, and they are driving many people to piracy.

The solution to this is the modernization of the copyright and CRTC laws to encourage the consumption of legal media. The solution is not to make the CRIA to have near unlimited power like the RIAA in the USA. If moral, ethical and legal solutions exist, ones where the artist gets paid for their work, people will steer away from piracy and use these services.

[updated 2009-07-23 02:35]

Is the goal of "updating" copyright to preserve the rights of the original authors, artists and creators? Or is the goal of "updating" copyright to preserve the revenue stream of various media organizations?

Under current law if I buy a book, a song, or a piece of art it is mine. I may do with the original as I as I see fit, I may even copy that original for my private use. I may not sell or distribute that copy. Why does this need to be changed, or "updated"?

If I buy something, why must I then buy it again so I can use my original copy as intended? Just because media formats have changed why must I buy my media over and over? Or why can i not sell or trade my original media as I see fit?

Why should some third party be able to take my media away from me? Or control how I use my media? What if I want to watch my DVD on my laptop, why should I need special software? Or even worse why does the distributor have the right to disable my ability to play my dvd or audio cd on my computer?

How much enforcement is included in the "updated" copyright to force the media companies to actually account for and distribute royalties to the artists they claim to represent and protect?

How much enforcement is included in the "updated" copyright to protect the "end-user"? What rights do I have if the copyright holder retroactively disables or deletes my media as with the recent example of Amazon and Kindle?

I can go on and on. What will these updates do to protect Canadians who create and Canadian end users?

[updated 2009-07-23 01:49]

One problem with this forum: If there are replies, you cannot rate (agree...disagree) with the original comment.

2 ways to fix:
- allow rating both comments and replies (better)
- reword "Rate this comment" to "Rate original comment" (not so good)

[updated 2009-07-23 00:00]

I have scanned most of the comments on this board; and have yet to see a comment that is for the direction this copyright reform seems to be taking.

I really do hope that the politicians actually read these comments and that all of this is not just lip service. - some of the comments on this board are incredibly insightful and thought out.

I personally would like to see 'in a perfect world' a central location on the internet to get all of my entertainment needs; be it TV shows, movies, music, etc.
It could be run by an arms length crown corporation, or private; it doesn't matter to me (but I am of the opinion that more outside revenue for the gov. means less taxes)
Artists could then get compensated properly, and alot of the 'evil' corporations could be held at bay - and media could be reasonably priced.

Anyways, I'm going on a tangent, but the bottom line is: make it easy to be legit and the majority of people will.
I have absolutely no problems paying money for my entertainment needs, but I hate feeling gouged for everything, and then treated like a criminal.
I also want to set up a home media centre. But am holding off at the moment as everything that is legal has 'do not record flags' and drm and other bs. It is really holding tech back.

Please politicians, listen to the people on this one, and do it properly. I am very tired of Canada never taking a lead in anything.
I understand you are under tremendous pressure from vested interests, but you represent us, not them.

Cheers.

[updated 2009-07-22 23:38]

Canada's current copyright laws currently affect me very little. The levy on recordable media is barely noticeable, since I barely record anything onto a disc anymore.
In my opinion, existing laws should be modified very little. I do recognise the rights of the copyright holder; however the rights of the user must be preserved and not be allowed to sink to the dismal state that the U.S. has. The RIAA (and through logical extension the music companies), through the fact of having enough funds to do so, has become its own private police force, using the civil courts to terrorise citizens. Through out-of-court settlements, they extort money simply because a trial would be costly to defend against. The trials they have won have had outrageous awards in the millions for songs that are sold for dollars. They claim millions lost to piracy, but cannot verify that those who did pirate would have bought from them in the first place. All the while, they collect the lion's share of the profits and little goes to the artist.
Technology changes and they do not. They dig in their heels and indulge in a fantasy that since they have have always taken in great sums of money, they are entitled to keep on doing so. Rather than adapt, they influence politicians to subvert democracy, enacting laws that go against the will of the people, that benefit the wealthy and rob the rights of the common man.
Once again a fiefdom has arisen. They are the new lords over the serfs; they rule not through religious or military force, but by unadulterated avarice. Kings annointed by the Almighty dollar. We can never allow ourselves to sink into this state.
Laws that benefit the rights of the privileged few over the majority of the people are undemocratic and unjust. Sneaking laws through, destroying our rights behind closed doors, is a despicable, cowardly and repugnant ACTA... I mean act.
If lawmakers want to modernise laws, they should first start by coming into the twenty-first century and out of the twelfth.

[updated 2009-07-22 21:43]

Canada's copyright laws make it so that I can't afford to listen to emerging new Canadian artists, because I don't have money to buy CDs. I love music, I love the work that artists produce for us, but I can't afford to pay for it. While the obvious retort is 'if you can't pay for it, you can't have it', this is not fair when it comes to music, art, or anything whose value is subjective- music, art, and literature serve important roles by providing avenues for thought and discussion for all Canadians, regardless of income.

Copyright should defend the author's intellectual property from someone else wanting to profit from it, but personal use shouldn't be covered under this. The internet is an incredible tool towards equalizing access to information, media, and entertainment for all people regardless of income, and this should be encouraged. It is inconceivable that the government would want to tighten copyright laws (making it harder to get access to music and movies without paying) while at the same time cutting funding to Canada's public braodcaster- where are people with little disposable income supposed to get their art and entertainment from?

Musicians make very little money from the record companies (the companies that sue Americans for tens of thousands of dollars per 'infringement'); the bulk of their income comes from concerts. If their music is more accessible, more people hear it, so more people come to concerts? I'm not willing to drop $15 on an album I've never heard, but if I know I like a band I'm happy to spend $15 on a concert.

[updated 2009-07-22 20:31]

End them. Copyright is dead. And for good reason.

This isn't a question of what we should do. The digital revolution has destroyed any notion of commercial copyright. It is a foolish, and futile.

[updated 2009-07-22 19:09]

I sent the following in an email to the consultation before I found this forum. I'm reposing it here in case anyone wishes to comment on it.

--

I hope to make a formal submission later, but wanted to help get the conversation started.

In 2001 I made multiple submissions to the consultation that was made at that time, and have spent much of my volunteer in the 8 years since dedicated to trying to engage people in some pretty key aspects of what was discussed at that time.

My 2001 submission had a few key themes: http://www.flora.ca/copyright-2001.shtml

- "A new economy, or a new product for the old economy?"

The question is whether the proposals that much of the copyright consultations at that time, as well as those of today, are based on thinking that knowledge is a new product to be added to the old economy, or whether we are discussing something new. I believe that the zero marginal cost (to the producer) nature of knowledge expands the possibilities beyond those of tangible property, and much of the excitement around the new knowledge economy have been about the ways that knowledge is different than tangible goods.

Much of the policy that came out of the USA's 1995 National Information Infrastructure Task Force was focused in the opposite direction, which is what could be done to cripple modern technology in order to make knowledge more scarce -- more like tangible >$0 marginal
cost goods. The USA policy laundered these backward ideas through WIPO in 1996, and passed them within the USA via the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). There has been pressure from the USA for Canada to equally cripple its position within the emerging knowledge economy by adopting similar backward-facing policy.

I feel that the term "Intellectual Property" has blinded far too many people to the ways in which knowledge is nothing like tangible property. Many of the most effective solutions to problems we find in the new economy, including copyright infringement, come from recognising these differences. It has encouraged people to equate entirely unrelated concepts such as copyright infringement and "theft". I go into more details in an article on the Digital Copyright Canada website: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_Debate

- "The Three Rights"

The basis of much of the copyright conversation in Canada since we indicated interest in 1996 (interest! not obligation!) by signing the treaty has been the policy laundered WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). These treaties radically expand the concepts within Canadian copyright to not only including "moral rights" and "mass-copying rights" (commercial uses of copyrighted works), but now to "access rights" where copyright holders are presumed to be able to control how, when, and with what specific brands of technological assistance audiences are able to access copyrighted material.

I strongly believe we should be going the opposite direction, mandating that copyright not be allowed to be abused to dictate to audiences any aspect of their own personal technology choices. I believe that any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses, VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen and not a third party.

To understand the nature of the attack on the rights of technology property owners we see from some "copyright" proposals, see: Protecting property rights in a digital world http://www.flora.ca/documents/digital-ownership.shtml

- Popular software business models

As a software author I discussed a few different business models utilised in software. It is important to realise that the Business Software Alliance (BSA, CAAST, etc) represents only a few firms utilising a specific business model. They do not represent the entire software sector. Their proposals are aimed more at harming competing business models than they are at reducing copyright infringement. The statistics they use to justify their proposals are critically flawed in that they do not accurately differentiate infringing software from software created and distributed using alternative business methods.

The invalidity of statistics that claimed to demonstrate "harm" for the major studio movie sector, the major recording labels (note: not the "music" industry), and the BSA members was shown with the recent recall of a "study" by the Conference Board of Canada. We need to move forward with a science based approach to this policy, not the science fiction brought forward by companies trying to protect themselves from new economy competition.

- Potential conflicts with other Public Policy

I discussed how many of the proposals made, such as those in the 1996 WIPO treaties, have implications far beyond copyright into areas such as competition law and existing trade agreements. This is above the conflicts with tangible property law already mentioned.

While 8 years have passed, it is my impression that the Canadian government is still stuck in the 1995 thinking that became the 1996 WIPO treaties. We should not be looking at technology owners as a threat and using anti-circumvention legislation to circumvent their technology property rights. We should not be introducing new concepts into copyright such as the undefinable "making available" right which simply makes clearing copyright related rights so expensive that only the old-economy style companies will be able to do so.

We should also not be giving old economy phone and cable companies further excuses to inspect and filter our communications by holding them liable for communications that they do not censor based on an unfounded accusation of a copyright infringement (the so-called "Notice and Take-Down" regime). We need to be moving forward to encouraging companies that want to offer proper Internet Services under the original innovative end-to-end design to eventually replace the phone and cable companies. Economic textbooks including "The Innovators Dilemma" explain well why phone and cable companies will be the least able to offer services which -- when they are configured correctly -- replace what was previously offered by phone and cable services.

Copyright needs to be clarified and simplified if it is to regulate the activities of private citizens. Rules which were created to only regulate commercial activities in a historical technological context cannot simply be carried forward (or made worse, as has thus far been proposed) and regulate non-commercial private activities. Modernising copyright should include rejecting the backward direction proposed in the 1996 WIPO treaties, and heading in a very different direction.

Russell McOrmond
http://www.flora.ca/

[updated 2009-07-22 18:38]

The most effective type of copyright bill would be principles-based.

There are simply too many variables that exist in the digital world, and new ones that are created each day.

Example: if you have purchased media in x format, you may turn that media in x format into y format and z format. However, it would be illegal to obtain a superior format to x without purchasing a license for the version with superior quality.

While I don't like paying for a movie on DVD and Blu-Ray, it is ultimately up to the distributor to provide incentives to "upgrade" and it is ultimately up to the consumer to make a decision to buy it or not.

[updated 2009-07-22 16:57]

As both a producer and consumer I don't believe that I have conflicting views.

What is important is the ability of the consumer to make backups of all multimedia they have purchased.

Electronic media, hard drives, dvds, etc. all fail. It is not as if it is my fault if my hard drive crashes and all media is lost. Why do I need to buy my movies and songs again? Legal backups should be an intrinsic part of the copyright legislation.

[updated 2009-07-22 16:52]