I think most people recognize that innovation and creativity do not take place in a vacuum. They go hand-in-hand with the living loop of our society. In order to foster more innovation and creativity, it's essential to liberate exposure, apprehension, distribution, and redistribution of all public intellectual manifestations.

The best way to encourage innovation, which by definition builds on what exists already, is to encourage the free-flow of ideas in all their forms. Creativity likewise often flourishes as people are inspired by their apprehension of other's creative works. Modern Canadian copyright should boldly recognize the infinite, free reproducibility of ideas as a common good, necessary for innovation and creativity. This would help ensure their apprehension.

To foster innovation and creativity modern Canadian copyright should also ensure recognition of creators. This is important for at least three reasons. First, because it identifies those participating and thus calls attention to the life that is Canadian society. Second, knowing the creator of some sort of intellectual manifestation helps enable social interaction between people. If I know who wrote a song, I can find more of her work, which might further inspire me to create something or otherwise participate in our society, or I can collaborate with her. Finally, something just feels right about being able to identify a creative work with its author. Authors feel entitled to recognition of their labours contributing to the living loop that is our society. Recognition of the elements composing our commons by our commons, encourages us to participate.

[updated 2009-09-13 12:42]

Syndication by (large) private firms used to be the best way for an artist to reach a wide audience. These corporations provided us all a service (the delivery of goods) and were justly compensated for it. However, they also acted as "gatekeepers", keeping content homogeneous, conservative, and mainstream.

Now, the cost of entry into the artistic market has been substantially lowered, allowing anyone to participate. This "new" situation better reflects the Canadian values of cultural plurality and freedom of expression. Legally imposing digital restrictions now will stifle new business avenues for many innovative artists not deemed acceptable by the gatekeepers. Thanks to the internet, these gatekeepers are no longer necessary and should not be artificially propped up by backwards-looking legislation such as those being considered.

To answer the question more directly: Net-neutrality, and complete absence of DRM-related wares should be ensured by legislation, if we are to foster the important cultural contributions of our artists.

[updated 2009-09-10 12:22]

Changes should be made to the law that will support the creator, give them rights and allow them to do as they please with their products. Laws that will protect the creator from corporations that wish to take away their rights, and keep the creator in charge of their own content. As well we should protect the content for a suitable amount of time. Protecting the content of a creator that has died 50 years ago does not make sense. This does not encourage the _dead_ artist to produce more content, it simply keeps the content out of the public arena and continues to role in money for their great grandchildren, which does _not_ encourage innovation.

[updated 2009-09-09 12:11]

Give us some freedom. The very few companies that run the entertainment make enough money and whine about losing a small percentage. We the consumers demand some freedom. We bought the good now let us do what we wish with limits of course. Limits that are well thought out, not the absurd limits of the Bill C-61. Let us share. Let us be free. Free commons is the way to go.

[updated 2009-09-06 02:54]

Strong public domain and expanded fair dealing are important for innovation, because new works are built upon older works, usually available the public domain and via fair dealing.

The government at the minimum should commit not to increase the copyright term. Berne convention permits this.

But to foster creativity, Canada should take leadership and link copyright term to creative activity, instead of linking it to author’s life (or death). Copyright term should not last for X years after author’s death, it should last for Y years after the work was communicated by the creator to the intended audience. Society does not pay for author’s life; it pays for author’s creativity. This change not only links reward to creativity, but also makes it simpler to assess the expiration of copyright on a work.

A shorter term would act as a filter, and a quality filter is good for the society. Great works created by personalities with charisma are known to retain and even increase their value: they are sold for real money without special marketing efforts even in the era of “de-facto everything free”. Because great works retain their value without regard to copyright term, copyright term matters more for average works than for quality ones. So, now there is an incentive to create a quality work that is “above” the copyright term just by virtue of its quality.

Another possible approach to the above filter is to give a short initial copyright term (like 5 years) and letting the creator express interest and extend it once or twice (or even up to current term of 50 years). This would give benefit to the society without impacting the creators too much: works that generate income can still benefit their creators and orphans enter into the public domain pretty fast. This term extension could be done for a fee payable to the government, and the rationale is quite simple: if the work generates income, the creator is interested in extending its term and is able to afford the fee; otherwise the work does not bring as much value and can just fall out into public domain and someone else may build another work upon it that has more value.

In case of the government, who is paid by taxpayers and works for taxpayers, a different model should be used and crown copyright should be eliminated. This will bring more transparency and enable citizens and companies to solve problems that were found in government-sponsored research. It may mean more taxes for taxpayers, but the benefits of increased transparency and reuse of government work will outweigh the cost in the long term.

[updated 2009-09-04 02:13]

As a member of a small EMI organization copyright affects the way we do testing, and the closed nature of IEEE affects the way we do research.

Test standards published by Canada and the EU are costly, and often republished (at full cost) with minuscule changes. It is possible for a test to cost less than the test standard. As a result, technology innovators often test to old standards, or assume that standards from differing regions will match.

This is not a healthy way to do business, and the elimination of crown copyright would certainly be helpful to innovators.

A great deal of information is obscured by the closed nature of IEEE, copyright changes that discourage copyright aggregation would help innovators everywhere.

With over twenty years experience in the technology industry. I have done a fare number of interviews and selections. It has become clear to me that the best candidates are consistently the ones who have developed experience at their own initiative. Education is secondary. If we create an environment where it is not legal to reverse engineer hardware, or 'hack' software/media, innovation in Canada will die.

I am also concerned that the 'moral rights' movement will spread to hardware with similar consequences, but have seen no evidence of this as yet.

Finally, a great deal of research goes to waste when it is discovered that a given solution or discovery has been patented and not implemented. We need to ensure that patents are either brought to market, or transferred to those who will. In the same way, copyright aggregators should be required to return ownership to the original creator, or the public domain, if a work is not currently being distributed.

[updated 2009-08-30 12:55]

I think it is funny. All of these discussion questions and topics. Are worded as if copyright changes are going to happen. From what i read on this forum and on the internet, is that much of Canada and Canadians don't want any changes or updates to copyright. The government can change in a blink of an eye with a minority government. Just look at what happened in Newfoundland with the conservatives in the last election. And that was just with a Newfoundland issue. Now he's talking about all of Canada. Does Harper really what to go into an election where the polls are so close, on an issue like this? Canadians aren't stupid. Are we really to believe that Harper cares about musicians and artists? Please. We all know the real reason. They are getting pressured. If there is a federal election in the fall, I will not be voting conservative again. My vote will go to who ever says that copyright is fine the way it is.

[updated 2009-08-28 14:51]

Since the invention of the phonograph, the high cost of recording and distribution of music allowed an industry to evolve where a small number of multi-national cartels had the money and the power to choose who got access to recoding studios and radio airtime. Just as it was expensive to record an album - it was expensive to copy and share. Technology has changed this.

Music is now cheap to record, copy, distribute and promote.

If you want to "modernize" our copyright laws, then let’s really recognize technology as it exists today and make sure our laws reflect it.

* Lets acknowledge that any DRM can and will be broken, and for the foreseeable future, it is technologically simple for average citizens to share songs. While this make it harder for a small number of "super-star" artists to record a single song that could earn them more than an average person earns in a lifetime, this ease of distribution provides the majority of artists a huge advantage. There no longer are a few corporations that can make or break a career. The easy distribution of music brings an artist's music to new people. These new people can become fans, and support the artist by purchasing concert tickets, t-shirts, posters, and deluxe enhanced music compilations. If you want to modernize laws, lets make sure that NEW ways of doing business are supported. We don't need new laws to enforce old ways of working.

* Lets acknowledge new ways of creation. One of these new ways is to take existing songs and remix them - change then - combine then with other songs - to create new art. If you want to modernize laws - lets make sure that these new art forms are supported. We don't need new laws to limit the way that art is created.

So yes - the current copyright laws probably need updating. They need updating to acknowledge new technology and new ways of creating art. They need updating to protect the Canadian people from multinational corporations who wish to control the creation and distribution of Canadian art and Canadian culture.

Create laws that embrace new technology, rather than by fruitlessly trying to suppress it. Acknowledge new technology and new thinking – don’t legislate outdated business practices.

[updated 2009-08-22 12:59]

Require that ISP's pay a license fee, just like radio and television does. Original authors and creators must be compensated when their products are used online.

[updated 2009-08-18 21:04]

There are thousands of songs written everyday for no other reason than the ownership of the hits and other good ones.
That's not good culture.

Music groups have replaced neighborhood baseball teams.

RIAA corporations no longer have anything at all to contribute to music-making other than status-monopoly.

My son and his friends, who are trying to prepare for jobs to help save the world, make recordings in the basement which are as good as most of those protected by RIAA-MPAA.

They mount them on the internet, participate in local events, and welcome a bit of appreciation.

It's a problem that they must write all their own songs for it, because there is no way they can hassle a rendering of something "owned".

Those who think they deserve to make a living by composing songs should try doing something useful.

The fewer impositions on music by copyrights the better.

[updated 2009-08-17 01:02]

Copyright, at this moment, is an institution entirely within the hands of corporate entities and needs to be reformed to bring rights back into the hands of creators. To this end, the time period for copyright expiration needs to be lowered, fair use of copywritten materials should be far less restricted and corporate entities should not be allowed to copyright materials.

[updated 2009-08-14 02:04]

We need clearer definition of what can and can't be sampled. What constitutes a substantial innovation? What freedoms do people have when creating a work which utilizes someone else's work.

Fair use also becomes a hot topic that needs clearer definition... By allowing unlicensed fair use clauses to exist, and let content creators build off other people's work, we will foster innovation and creativity. Setting clear and strict limits on what constitutes innovation and what is plagiarism (How much was copied verbatim, how much was modified, and how much was new material) in fair use not requiring a license.

by writing these limitations in clear plain language that can be understood by 10 year old children, we would improve Canadians' understanding of the laws, so that we can innovate within the rules and guidelines of the law.

[updated 2009-08-11 19:09]

This is kind of long video from Duke univerity about copyright and sampling in the US and how it has expanded the industry...along with the legal side of it...keep in mind that this is in the US but should be thought about how any restrictions would impact our laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_eULq_aP60#t=2m57s

[updated 2009-08-11 02:48]

As a "content provider" for articles and books, I feel that my efforts should be rewarded whenever they are used. My fees for articles are built into the cost of magazines and payment for books I write comes from sales of those books and public lending rights. Without such reward, I would not generate the "content" unless I made the personal decision so to do. Once published, whether or not a fee has been paid, my writing remains mine — except when I deliberately transfer those rights such as "work for hire" and in which case, my fee arrangement changes.
It is crucial that copyright protection for my writing remains in place so that I may continue to benefit from my labours.

[updated 2009-08-04 20:30]

Most definitions of "innovation" involve building upon prior elements of culture, technology and society - to that extent, innovation and copyright are often at odds.

New copyright restrictions do little to "encourage innovation" in IP creators - instead proposed rules seem to be aimed at increasing the long-term exploitability of IP with usually very little additional benefit to the original creator. New Copyright legislation should focus on the creators and consumers, and not the media conglomerates looking to "monetize" the access to culture and public knowledge.

Some areas need improvement, in particular protection against counterfeiting and other for-profit infringements, but attacks of large media groups against individual consumers and creators should not be the guiding principle of copyright reform.

[updated 2009-08-04 17:04]

The Copyright isn´t the only way to manage the Intellectual Property. It is the Copyleft and example of it the Creative Commons licenses. More information:
Copyleft: http://translate.google.es/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcopyleftlicencias.blogspot.com%2F&sl=es&tl=en&hl=es&ie=UTF-8
Creative Commons: www.creativecommons.org

[updated 2009-08-01 13:43]

Please excuse me as I may not be fully acquainted with copyright laws.

If I were to request one change it would be a clause to prevent businesses from exploiting creators. I may need to clarify what I mean by exploit:
example 1) Some businesses, rather than hiring/contracting an artist for artwork/music/photography/etc., hold a contest for a desired creation where they offer a prize (sometimes a mystery prize) and fame. A number of creators (sometimes young creators or older creators who are down on their luck and figure they have nothing to lose) put a lot of time and effort into their entry and are not compensated fairly for their work. Only one person wins the prize (the prize may or may not be worth the effort).
example 2) Joe Shuster (Canadian) and Jerry Siegel created Superman and sold a 13-page story and all rights to the character to DC comics for $130. "Shuster was involved in a number of legal battles concerning the ownership of the Superman character, eventually gaining recognition for his part in its creation." clipped from Wikipedia's article on Joe Shuster.
Superman is a world-recognized character and has made the publishers a hand-full of money (possibly more).

If copyright is in place to protect the creators (and not record labels/publishers/businesses that hire creators), then there may be an opportunity to set something in place to prevent certain profiteering.

If a law was set in place to stop particular contests or ensure that creators are paid royalties if profits exceeds a certain amount, artists could feel comfortable in being innovative and creative in Canada without the fear of being used/exploited by employers.

I know that royalties are usually negotiated in the contract but not all contracts include royalties "in case of wealth and fame." I'm not saying that publishers/music labels/movie studios don't deserve to make money... just that if they make a lot of money, the creator is ensured a slice of the pie.

[updated 2009-07-30 21:58]

Thoughts on Copyright:

Telling stories is one of the few things a computer cannot do. Ask it to write you a novel or a magazine article or a short story -- it can't. That still takes human labour, human experience.

It took years of reading, false starts and rejection to train myself to write. Now I spend 4-5 years on each novel. I read for research, invest my own money for travel and interviews. I "represent Canada" at every reading. There are easier ways to make a living.

Zero-valuations, for instance of domestic labor, send the message that people don't value the activity. When you demand products for free, you are also requesting low product quality and a fall in supply.

Microsoft would never have fueled a world economy if Gates had not owned the words in his programs.

So I urge the Canadian government to make copyright provisions stronger. If the law says Canadian writers must be paid for work done or reused by print and online publishers, the publishers will seek technical solutions to do so, and companies like Microsoft will gladly supply them.

Shauna Singh Baldwin
www.ShaunaSinghBaldwin.com

[updated 2009-07-30 10:37]

I'd like to see every internet user pay a blanket fee that gets distributed based on what gets downloaded. I'd pay a few hundred bucks a year to be able to download at will. SOCAN and such already track usage of music--it is not hard to track what is being downloaded. Everybody could even have software installed that reports what gets downloaded, then rights holders could be paid based on what is actually being consumed from out of the blanket fee.

I'm a copyright holder, and I've seen my work on bit torrent sites. I don't have a problem with my work being shared, but knowing that I'm getting a royalty for that would be even better.

[updated 2009-07-28 19:36]

great for the government to give us a venue to discuss, but will this actually be read. They invite corporations to the meetings, all who are in favor of tough copyright and crackdown from what i have read so far.

i do agree with comments below that we have thousands of you tubers and creative artists who show innovation on the net everyday.

[updated 2009-07-28 16:06]

To best foster innovation and creativity in Canada, you have to do the opposite of everything proposed in the C-61 bill. Industry does not want copyright laws to help promote innovation. They want to promote the status quo.

Ask yourself these questions:
Why can't you copy a movie to your computer through a program like itunes, just like you can with a CD? Is it a crime to desire to have your movie library on your laptop so it is available wherever you go?

Is it fair to place copy protection on a blu-ray and then charge for a "digital copy" that you could have made on your own easily if it wasn't for the copy protection?

Why can you not use your own legally purchased mp3 (ie., from a CD or itunes) as a ringtone on many phones? Is that a fair practice to try to force you to buy ringtones from the service provider at the cost of $3 for a 20 second clip.

Why do you have to buy a new phone when you switch cell service providers? How is the loacking of phones fair practice, even if you purchased your phone without a contract?

Isn't it a violation of privacy for a game to install a program that always runs in the background reporting back to the manufacturer that can't be removed without a re-format before you accept the license agreement?

At this time industry appears to be free to do anything they want, as long as it is done under the guise of protecting their copyright. They are using them for anticompetitve means, and giving them more rights will only make it worse.

Why?
Record labels are finding themselves less and less relevant. Digital distribution and cheap recording software makes them less of an asset than they once were. They don't want to refine their practices to meet the new age, they would rather resist the change through any means possible.

Cable providers are looking at a potential huge drop in revenue as online video grows in popularity. If something really innovative came out that made online video better than cable, they would be in trouble. So naturally their stance would be to delay this change as long as possible, although they should be figuring out how to profit from this change.

Copyright law needs to be refined to prevent abuse from industry, which at many times is trying to stiffle innovation and progress.

We are shifting from traditional means of distribution to all digital, and industry is resisting it. We didn't compensate wagon manufacturers when cars came out. They had to innovate or be left behind. That is what these companies have to do now. Don't give them the tools to stifle innovation.

[updated 2009-07-27 12:44]

Copyright protection developed in a time and for reasons similar to Patents for Inventors. The principle is sound - society offers protection to individuals for their creativity. However, over time, the two have differed.

A patent is given and provides protection for a specific length of time. So the implicit contract with inventors is: society will provde protection (through the courts) for your creativity, but in return, at the end of the protection period, your invention is offered to all for the common good.

So why can not copyright work the same way? When an artist develops a work, from the moment it is published, released, broadcast, etc., it is protected for a given length of time. At the end of the protection period, the work enters the public domain - like patents.

The current copyright laws seem to be such that works will never enter the public domain. Where is the consideration offered by the artists for the implicit contract? Society will protect an artist, but shouldn't society receive some benefit (like patents) within a reasonable amount of time?

So my basic question for a new Canadian Copyright law - Why should an artist recieve lifelong (plus) protection for creating a song? Are aretists any better or is their work more important than a scientist that creates a cure, an engineer who creates a device or a programmer that creates a solution who only receive society's protection for a set duration?

[updated 2009-07-26 11:46]

The term “computer program” should always replace “technological measure”, “digital technology” and “technology, device or component” cryptic wording.

[updated 2009-07-25 08:39]

The simplest form of copyright is not have it at all. We should learn to share and contribute to society as whole. Why keep the information for yourself? For profit and self ego?

Most of copyright issue has to do with who own what and who gets the money. If all else failed, the legal system has to sort out the mess. Not only it takes everyone's time and resource to argue and counter argue, our society is not progressing as we should. We should eliminate copyright. It holds no purpose except for people who wants to make profit.

Heck if you look at all the open source project out there, there are people who are willing to share their knowledge with others. This is what we should be moving forward as a society. Stop with the old non-sense who owns what and how much profit to be made. These are capitalist dream and it doesn't work for everyone.

Only 3% of the world are own by rich which hold 99% of the copyright content. What happen to the rest of the middle and poor? We got nothing except continuing to pay for the rich. If you ask me, why should I continue paying for something which I don't own.

[updated 2009-07-24 17:10]

I think one idea is to allow the *original* creator of the work to hold onto the rights for their entire lives (i.e. until death). However, if it is ever sold or transferred (i.e. to their kids or record label) then it should become public after only 5 or 10 years. Just an idea.

[updated 2009-07-24 12:37]

Digital locks can prevent researchers from exercising their fair dealing rights. Any new legislation should not make it a penalty for researchers who break locks in order to exercise their fair dealing righs. For example, for the past three years, faculty at our university, with the aid of federal funding, have been investigating the use of mobile devices for learning. In order to do so, they have had to unlock mobile phones to test them in multiple environments and use them with different telephone companies and with assorted applications.

The iPhone was not available in Canada for 18 months after it was made available in the United States. We were able to circumvent this under present legislation. Even now, legitimate Canadian iPhone owners cannot download many applications that are reserved for Americans, without circumventing technological measures.. For example, the Voice over IP application for Internet telephony SKYPE is not being made available in Canada. We are able to circumvent this using our fair dealing for research rights..With Bill C-61’s anti-circumvention clause, researchers would not have been able to legally conduct these investigations in the future. They will be at a disadvantage in keeping up with research using new technologies. The Americans can guarantee their researchers a permanent lead in selected technological developments, simply by applying digital locks.

[updated 2009-07-23 18:14]

Let's look at first principles here. A copyright is a government granted monopoly to the use of an expression of an idea.

The grant of a monopoly can be useful to encourage the producer/purveyor of something. It is however, dangerous and its use must be limited with a constant eye to the public good.

Another thing to note is that, for the most part, the commercial life of copyrighted material is far shorter than the protection.

For example, consider songs, science textbooks or photographs produced in the 1960's by someone who dies this decade. The vast majority them have no commercial value these days. They are valueless, but will be unavailable for public use, modification and enhancement for another forty or fifty years. The technical means for preserving them for the future exists, but they will be lost because they receive monopolistic protection.

Isaac Newton said "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." These days, powerful interest groups have long since Teflon(TM) coated the shoulders and backs of giants and are trying to put on slippery kneepads and grease the tops of their shoes.

Copyrights should be of relatively short duration. If they are renewable, it should not be automatic.

[updated 2009-07-22 23:49]

Copyright laws that make it illegal -- or even difficult -- to format-shift, or to break DRM will result in customer lock-in to one company's data formats or playback devices. This is a detriment to a free, competitive market. To allow competition to thrive, customers need to be able to switch from one provider of goods or services to another without fear of criminal or civil prosecution. If users are afraid they will be unable to format-shift their content in the future, they will be less likely to buy content now.

[updated 2009-07-22 17:47]

Get rid of copyrights on personal and educational use and allow people to modify content that's protected by DRM.

[updated 2009-07-22 11:36]

I love this quote by a pair of economists about the problem of free digital goods:

"...charging price equal to marginal cost ($0.0) almost surely leaves the producer bankrupt, with little incentive to maintain the product except the hope of maintenance fees, and no incentive whatsoever to make another one except for that warm fuzzy feeling one gets from impoverishing oneself for the general good.”

Bradford de Long and A. Michael Froomkin in their article “The Next Economy?"

Many erroneously assume the free distribution afforded by the Internet is incentive enough to drive creativity and innovation. This view is quaint, but in very unenlightened.

For a primer, I encourage people to read Information Rules by legendary economist Hal Varian and Daniel Shapiro. It is a great review of the economics of digital goods.

Lawmakers need to extend copyright protection further, not give in to rollback pressures. The Internet certainly lowers barriers to entry for creators of works, but it does nothing to foster quality or innovation.

The distinction between amateur and professional musicians, for example, has been useful over the decades. Without payment for works, all will be amateurs.

That can't be good.

David H. Brett

[updated 2009-07-21 22:05]

Legal bans should be on use, not on invention.
We need to be sure to avoid setting legal limitations on creating copyright protection circumvention devices. This is important on multiple fronts.

The new devices themselves are of course innovative. They also encourage creating better copy protection. Innovations in both these areas of technology have been a driving force in recent history for technological advancement. Also, this little battle is educating people and encouraging our next generation of software developers.

Lastly, as laws across nations vary, and companies are not careful about ensuring users rights are protected, copy protection mechanisms may need to be overcome simply to ensure the comsumers are able to exercise the rights provided to them by the law.

[updated 2009-07-21 14:40]

No copyright changes are needed to foster innovation and creativity in Canada. We already have the perfect medium to inspire many generations to come - the internet. Making file sharing illegal will only serve to suffocate this creativity (and of course line the pockets of record company executives).

And exactly what do you mean by "there is a strong consensus in Canada that our copyright framework needs to be updated?" Are there statistics to prove this? If you read the comments on "Copyright forums begin in Vancouver" (CBC, 20 Jul 09), it seems Canadians are OVERWHELMINGLY in favour of leaving things as they are.

I think the real problem here is how you phrase this question. It should read "How should we foster innovation and creativity in Canada in the information age?"

[updated 2009-07-21 11:54]

Another slanted question that tries to imply that copyright laws somehow drive innovation and creativity when this is not true at all. So I guess in that context no changes are best.

[updated 2009-07-20 23:47]

When you speak of fostering innovation and creativity in Canada, I can't help but think of current patent laws. If you invent something, you have the right to make use of it to the best of your ability, and to be given credit and compensation when others use your invention. After all, inventors put a lot of time and energy into making useful discoveries.

However, as I understand it, patents in Canada last somewhere along the lines of 20 years (maybe less). I take it that this is to foster innovation, to ensure that inventors don't rest on their laurels and strive to come up with something bigger and better.

So, why do copyright laws allow for the ownership of works for a persons lifetime, plus another 50 years? Working in the science, I can't help but think I'm getting the short end of the stick. Someone writes a piece of music, and can make money off of it for their entire life, and then pass it on to their children. But someone who discovers a cancer treatment has only twenty years to go through the hoops of human trials, mass production, and marketing to get their druthers?

I'm not arguing for an extension to patent lives. After all, I do believe they foster innovation, and inventions that withstand the test of time also become available for public use within an acceptable timeframe, to foster further innovation without paying fees.

What I'm arguing for is a reduction in the life of copyrights. Let books, repositories of information and ideas, become free to the public at an earlier date. Music and movies too. In many cases these items are sold only for a few years anyway. At least let them out into the public sooner so that these creative works can inspire a wider audience, inspire them to innovate and create in science, technology, and art.

[updated 2009-07-20 21:40]

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

Legalize downloading, track the downloaded songs then distribute cash to those artists. This would ensure that the most downloaded artists recieve some $ from ISP subscribers.

The framework the government seems to be supporting is one where anyone with a computer virus could be framed and sued for downloading a single song but at least those doing all the lawsuits would be collecting settlements from those who don't know any better or can't afford to fight a company in court.

[updated 2009-07-20 17:32]

I would point out that the the statement "But while there is a strong consensus in Canada that our copyright framework needs to be updated" is not valid.

Old business models and associations that profit from others work for ever are unsustainable business models and pushing for copyright reform as they did in the US to draconian rules.

Canada's copyright should be simple so everyone quickly understands it and limited to comercial use for 2-5 years period, educators and private use should be exempt. 50 years after the death of the author is crazy and should be shortened.

We currently pay a social tax on private use of copyright works and I am happy to continue to pay that for DRM-free or restriction free personal use of products I purchase for ever.

[updated 2009-07-20 15:26]