[d@DCC] Copyright act review
russell at flora.ca
Mon Sep 15 11:38:33 EDT 2003
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Wallace J.McLean wrote:
> Plagiarism is a bad thing, but it is not the proper subject matter of the
> Copyright Act.
Canada's copyright act is different than that of the USA. We have both
a statutory and common law history, attempting to protect both material
and moral rights in the same act.
Saying it doesn't belong in the copyright act today is not helpful in
the short term. There are many things in the copyright act that do not
belong there, such as the treatment of photographers as different from
other creators for what amount to privacy issues. Whether the artist is a
photographer or a painter, the subject should have some rights to privacy
that have nothing to do with and should superceed any moral or material
rights of the creator.
The problem is we need to strengthen the other laws first before things
can be taken out of the copyright act. If moral rights are to be
protected elsewhere, then these other acts of parliament should be
strengthened. Currently they are not strong and a removal of moral rights
from the copyright act would essentially remove protection of moral rights
While some intermediaries would benefit from the removal of moral
rights protection, I simply do not see that as a good thing.
> If I want to make use of someone-long-dead's words I have to bear the
> copyright implications in mind. If it's public domain, I don't have to
> worry about the economic rights, and shouldn't have to worry about the
> moral ones.
You are stating that you shouldn't have to worry about moral rights
without explaining why you think that way. I realize you think that way
-- I just don't understand nor currently agree.
I am open to be convinced, but currently I believe that moral rights
should be strongly protected, including receiving much stronger than
transferable material rights.
> > I didn't say Intellectual Property protection. I said a different form
> >of "public domain" which would grant some moral rights to a community.
> That's a form of intellectual propery.
What is? Are you suggesting that anything that has any type of
protection of material or moral rights protection is a form of
intellectual property? You seem to have embraced and extended that term
even beyond what WIPO has...
> Which is why the CA needs to be overhauled and re-draftred, and why no new
> adhockery should be engaged in in any future reforms.
There needs to be agreement on the first principles before such things
can happen. Given I don't see agreement even in this forum, how can we
expect to have a re-drafted copyright act that would somehow end up better
(rather than worse) than the current one?
Some coders believe they can write software before ever talking to the
customer or hammering out a detailed requirements specification. Like
software coding is the last and least important part of the software
creation process, drafting and passing acts of parliament is the last and
least important part of that process.
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
More information about the Discuss