<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="Tiki CMS/Groupware via FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://wiki.faircopy.ca/lib/rss/rss-style.css" type="text/css"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://wiki.faircopy.ca/lib/rss/rss20.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>Tiki RSS feed for forums</title>
        <description></description>
        <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-forums_rss.php?ver=2</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:25:30 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Tiki CMS/Groupware via FeedCreator 1.7.2</generator>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        <item>
            <title>PLATFORM: Freedom and Creativity</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=126</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Freedom and Creativity

A big chunk of our platform - needs a lot of work......]]></description>
            <author>Billm</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:42:39 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PLATFORM: DRM and Anti-Circ</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=125</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Digital Rights Management and Anti-Circumvention
Digital Rights Management on works such as movies and Cds hasn't worked, and is being abandoned by the Record Industry Association of America and iTunes among others.  As such there is no longer any need for legislation regarding the circumvention of such technological protection measures. Likewise, new legislation should not support similar measures with regard other devices such as Trusted Platform Modules, or Trusted Computing initiatives which create similar  access, security and privacy problems.]]></description>
            <author>Billm</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:41:25 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PLATFORM: Remix</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=124</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Remix
Fair dealing rights should be extended to Re-Mix, transformative fiction and tribute musicians. Currently such cutting edge art forms are regarded as theft. Pablo Picasso said, “Good artists copy, great artists steal,”  meaning that new creativity builds upon existing culture. ]]></description>
            <author>Billm</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:40:02 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PLATFORM: Crown Copyright</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=123</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Crown Copyright
Government documents are produced at taxpayer expense. Yet taxpayers are prevented from copying such documents by Crown Copyright. We would like to see Crown Copyright documents placed in the public domain, or if this is not feasible, placed under a different, open style licence, such as a Creative Commons licence or a GNU Free Documentation Licence..
]]></description>
            <author>Billm</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:39:06 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PLATFORM: Legal Simplification</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=122</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Legal simplification
Copyright law is far too complex. If ordinary citizens are expected to comply with copyright law on a daily basis in information society, then it must be comprehensible and simple. Generally, we would like to see copyright law written in plain language so that it is understandable buy those who use it.
]]></description>
            <author>Billm</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:38:25 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PLATFORM: Orphan Works</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=121</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Orphan Works
Copyright is the responsibility of creators, who should be required to make themselves known in order to benefit from copyright law. This should be done via a very simple, computerized registration and renewal process. In the case of  'orphan' works, works whose author is unknown, a 'good faith' search for the copyright owner should be sufficient to render the work usable, without compensation. Should the owner be discovered at a later time, compensation should begin from the date of contact, and should not be grandfathered.]]></description>
            <author>Billm</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:36:08 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PLATFORM: Duration of Copyright</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=120</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Duration of Copyright 
MPAA past president Jack Valenti , has said the the duration of copyright protection should be “forever less a day”. During the last century legislation has extended the term of copyright protection again and again.  Long terms distort the nature of the copyright bargain and destroy the public domain. The public interest is best served though short copyright terms, with works passing into the public domain as quickly as possible. Term limits should be based upon the commercial lifespan of the majority of works and the  earning period of individual works. It is pointless to extend copyright protection to  works which are no longer generating revenue. 
The moral right of attribution should be unlimited.
Copyright should be registered with a computerized central authority. This will also solve the problem of future 'orphan' works, works which others would like to use, with permission, but whose owners cannot be determined. 
Copyright is not a life insurance policy or a pension plan, although some seem to feel that it should substitute for both. While life insurance and pension plans are a good idea for creators, the proper place for such provisions is in the contracts creators sign with corporations. The public interest is best served by short terms for copyright.
Copyright is a bargain between a creator and the public, it should not be regarded as property, inheritable through several generations. Such policies destroy the public domain by keeping even century old works unavailable for public use.
The initial term of copyright should be ten years, renewable electronically for two additional terms of ten years, where significant retail sales continue. Where sales are no longer significant, copyright should lapse.  In the case of the very small percentage of individual works that continue to enjoy substantial retail sales after 30 years, provision should be made for the extension of their term, on an individual basis, in ten year increments, up to the death of the author or fifty years whichever is longer. [Should this be five years, renewable for four extra terms to a maximum of twenty five years?]]]></description>
            <author>Billm</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:21:46 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PLATFORM: Flexible Fair Dealing</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=119</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Flexible Fair Dealing
Fair Dealing should be expanded substantially using broader brush  strokes and concepts similar to Fair Use in the United States. Fair Dealing categories are currently too narrow.
Fair dealing rights should not be overridden by other clauses in copyright law or abusive licences that force users to set aside their rights.
Fair dealing rights need to be expanded with respect education, parody, satire and literary uses similar to the United States, remix, unlimited private copying for legitimate uses, such as backup or archival use, reverse engineering, time-shifting, format shifting, 
Fair dealing rights should be expanded to include non-commercial use of works. As in New Zealand, it should be the purpose of infringement that determines its legal status rather than the activity of  infringement itself or the circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) or Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs).
 ** a fair dealing circumvention right regarding technological protections, where the purpose for using the copyrighted works is legal. There is no reason why technological protections should interfere with the normal, legitimate use of copyrighted works. 
** be detailed about the distinction between fair dealing narrow and specific categories – list them CSIA – and the fair use broader categories “such as” which allows for wider interpretation.
** expand a list of fair dealing/use rights – ie reverse engineering, access, interoperability, ]]></description>
            <author>Billm</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:17:47 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PLATFORM: Looking Forward</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=118</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Looking Forward:
A few observers are expecting the Conservative government to fall, either in the fall or spring.  Maybe maybe not. At that time we will have to be ready to move forward with election publicity on the subject of copyright. The Conservatives have announced their intention to modernize copyright legislation in Canada, by introducing a new bill in the fall. We will have to be ready to criticize that and mount an appropriate campaign. We have the two new bills currently before us. And now we have  the government's copyright consultation which is in progress until September 13. We have seven weeks left, and we most definitely have to keep our eye on the ball and stay focused. 

For all of the above activities, we will need a policy platform.  Not something cast in stone but a current version which we can update where needed moving forward. By identifying issues, a platform provides leadership to those who know less about copyright than us but would like to contribute, say by writing a submission. But it will be useful also for the website, for brochures, for press releases, for event handouts and so on. So as a result of our first meeting we're putting this forward as a first effort for about a weeks discussion. We'll then consolidate the points into a platform. Please participate in the discussion. We began with Geof's list of topics, but we'll add others. Try to keep each issue in its own thread.

To begin we've started with Geof's list of ideas and tried to put some flesh on the bones. Discuss and add other ideas as needed.

We want to set up a submission/letter writing  campaign which will help people figure out what they want to say. We want to help them put these things in their own words and insert their own examples. 
We have to revise our website. We have to revise our wiki. We have to streamline the categories and make it more useful to the public. Most of the wiki receives no traffic, no contributions and is not used by the public or the group. We need to drop these sections and concentrate on our main mission – copyright issues, submissions, and legislation. 
We  need to adopt URLs that are short and can be easily copied from a brochure. http://faircopy.ca is good but http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-index.php is not. We should use a tinyurl or a virtual host like http://faircopy.ca/issues or /submissions or /letter-writing to point to different part of our wiki and website.
We need to discuss changing the name of the group. As James Moore was confused about the nature of the group, others are too. Are we an extension of Michael Geist and Fair Copyright for Canada etc? We are a coalition and quite independent and diverse and our name should reflect all these things. ]]></description>
            <author>Billm</author>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:16:10 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Can you help?  Questions about C-61</title>
            <link>http://wiki.faircopy.ca/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&amp;comments_parentId=113</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Hi all.

I'm meeting with Ed Fast on Tuesday, and I know this is last-minute, but I finally slogged through the entire Copyright Act and C-61 on Thursday and Friday, and had some time to organize my thoughts this afternoon.  I've got the main talking points fuzzily in place (will organize properly by Tuesday morning), but there were a set of things in reading through the bill that I wasn't very sure about.  I'd prefer to be more educated than less, so I'm wondering if some you who are more lawyerly-minded than I could give me some insight on some of these things.  Also, if you know of some other forum where I could post these questions, that would be helpful.

Ok, here they are (most questions refer to C-61, unless I specifically note they're dealing with the original Copyright Act):

1. About network video recording.  Do I read 29.23(5) correctly?  I read: You’re not allowed to use “network personal video recorder service” = “a service that allows a person to store recordings of programs in a service provider’s networked facility in order to access them at any time.”  That is, because it’s not on my machine in my home, I’m not able to use it.  This is technologically backward if I understand it correctly—it’s directly against the trend toward cloud computing and Internet-friendly applications.  Also: how does this fit with the section on network caching on pg. 26 31.1(4)?  I understand the difference in intention, but is it technologically all that different?  Could the distinction stand up in a court?

2. About using the Internet in the classroom.  Am I right in flagging 30.04(5) as dangerous for educational institutions using the internet?  Here’s the dangerous clause: you’re not allowed to show internet available material in the classroom if “the educational institution or person acting under its authority knows or should have known that the work or other subject-matter was made available through the Internet without the consent of the copyright owner.”  It seems to me that this is open to a wide range of interpretations, include very restrictive ones, that would basically eliminate the use of any Internet page that doesn’t explicitly discuss the copyright status of the material on the page.

3. From the current Copyright Act: Do I understand 30.6 correctly?  Are we really not guaranteed the right to make a back-up unless the seller explicitly says so?  If so, is this different from the U.S.?  I had heard something along the way that backing up copies was legitimate.

4. About distributing anti-technological-lock software.  Section 41 lists exceptions for lock-breaking technology.  It seems to me that this is a loophole just waiting to be exploited.  How are you going to be able to tell legitimate from illegitimate use?  Vendor of digital lock-breaking program claims it is only selling/distributing the program for legitimate use, and can’t be held liable for its misuse by some customers.  Is the vendor responsible to make sure his/her customers are using it legally?

5. About alternative copyright standards.  I did not see any mention in the bill or the current Act that allowed for registering copyrights under a more flexible CC-like license?  Is there any flexibility to the law?  Should this be something to request?  I don’t know the legal implications of all this.

6. About the blank media levy: What is the rationale for this?  How can you tax something that is illegal?  The act seems to directly link the levy with piracy, yet especially with C-61, it is exceptionally explicit about what qualifies as piracy.  If the bill achieves its goal of eliminating piracy (and if it’s not, why write it?), why should there be a levy?  It seems to tax legitimate uses of blank media to remedy illegal uses.

7. Obscure legal question.  This is not one I’m terribly worried about, but I’m wondering if I’ve read a contradiction in the bill in 30.02.  An educational institution is not allowed to make a work into a digital copy if the author refuses.  However, the penalty, if I read it correctly, is just to pay what they would have via a collective society (e.g. CanCopy).  My question is: is this not a practice waiting to happen?  I deliberately contravene the author’s wish and then pay the fine equaling what I would have wanted to pay in the first place?  

8. Another obscure legal question.  I don’t think this is an important question, but I’m a little confused by it.  C-61 repeals section 36.  Does this mean there is added liability to individual copyright holders?  If I read it correctly, 36 says that if someone has some claim to part of the copyright, they can sue separately.  But if they do, then the rights holder is made party to the claim, but doesn’t have to pay any of the legal costs.  I may be totally misreading this, but did we remove a protection of the rights holder?
]]></description>
            <author>KevinSchut</author>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:59:38 +0100</pubDate>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
