[d@DCC] Latest in Creators Connecting public letter series: letter from Susan Crean to Russell McOrmond

[Chris Brand]

Russell wrote :
>March 31, 2004 letter from Susan
>http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/crean20040331.html

This one struck me as particularly easy :
> So my question is, in what way is the public interest 
>served, and the public domain enriched, by organizing 
>things so that Sullivan Entertainment can take Anne 
>Shirley to the bank, while Lucy Maud's children and 
>grandchildren are cut out of their contracted share? 

Because the resulting work will be cheaper to produce and
should therefore be more affordable to Canadians.
(I actually think this is a misleading example, because
it sounds like a contractual dispute made to sound
ideological).

She also makes this point :
>In that context, "the right thing to do", at least as a 
>base point is probably "nothing that you wouldn't want 
>another artist do to you."
Is she advocating that writers should have the power to
disallow criticism of their works ?

And this one :
>Unlike every other kind property, though, the main asset 
>I have, the one which I devoted my life and ingenuity to, 
>has a sunset clause attached to it, after which the 
>exclusive right of the owner to exploit the property expires.
Why should copyrights, which are by their nature "unlike
every other kind of property" be made to behave like every
other kind of property ? It's very hard to get people with
this kind of belief to understand what "non-rivalrous"
means.

I'm also very scared by the idea that "because aboriginals
have traditionally had perpetual control of their cultural
works, they should get indefinite copyright".

Chris

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