[d@DCC] Copyright act review

[Russell McOrmond]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Wallace J.McLean wrote:

> We need a pre-emptive coalition against term extension here in Canada; the
> US example has shown that a reactive one gets nowhere, even in a country
> with a (theoretical) constitutional limit on the term of copyright.

  I agree.  I don't quite understand the logic behind increasing the term 
of copyright, nor do I understand the logic behind the tie to the death of
a creator or the lifespan of their heirs.  There is some logic for moral 
rights, but economic rights should be from the time of legal publishing 
for all forms of copyright holders.



  What I believe we also need to counter the copyright extension movement
is another form of "public domain" where some limited moral rights (such
as the right to be associated with a work as its creator) are retained,
but all economic rights are expired.

  When I was at the meeting of the Creators' Rights Alliance the topic
before I spoke was Traditional Knowledge.  The problem here is the
commercialization of stories, methods and names from indigenous peoples
by outsiders.  Examples given are band names appropriated by companies who
then trademark those names and claim them as if they were their own.

  Current copyright, patent and trademark laws simply do not fit as we are
talking both about community-claimed stories,methods,names (not
individuals or small definable groups) and ideas from generations past
where any term would (and should) have expired.

  One 'off the cuff' suggestion from one of the people at the meeting was
to extend the term of various types of protection to infinity, and suggest
that bands copyright, patent and trademark all their stories, methods and
names.

  Not only do I think this is an extreme answer to the problem, but that
it doesn't address the problem.  The problem is copyright, patents and
trademarks applying to situations where the "prior art" in the culture
should exclude them.  Simply put, a problem can never be solved in the
mind-set (or by the legislation) that created the problem in the first
place.


  I then wondered if the problem can be solved by the creation of a
different type of "public domain", possibly called a "community domain"  
where derivative works didn't automatically receive new forms of
copyright, patent or trademark protection without the permission of "the
relevant community".  Derivative works that would be released into this
new "community domain" with only limited moral rights protected would not
require permission, and would instantly become part of our common 
heritage.

  The concept of a "community domain" will seem familiar to the Free/Libre
and Open Source Software communities.  It can really be thought of as a
derivative of a minimalist non-copyleft free/libre license.  Specific
moral rights are retained, but economic rights in the form of royalties
(non-Free Software) or derivative works (copyleft Free Software) are
relinquished.

Thoughts?

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca