The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting Pieces Together
ACTA Guide, Part 1: The Talks To-Date
ACTA Guide, Part 2: The Documents (Official and Leaked)
ACTA Guide, Part 3: Transparency and ACTA Secrecy
Copyfight at the Library of Parliament Committee |
| Print | |
|
Thursday May 15, 2008
|
|||||||||
|
It looks like Industry Minister Jim Prentice has yet another group that will be unhappy with his forthcoming copyright bill - the Library of Parliament. Macleans Kady O'Malley live-blogged a committee hearing today (short summary here) during which a fight over copyright broke out. The Library called for a special fair dealing exemption for Parliamentarians. The issue created considerable debate with some support for raising the issue in a report back to the House of Commons or discussing the matter with the Speaker of the House. The prospect of Prentice providing the necessary access to his own colleagues while denying individual Canadians their fair dealing rights strikes me as unlikely, yet it highlights again why the government still desperately needs to consult more broadly on the bill. Update: The Library of Parliament Committee minutes report that the Committee decided to hold a meeting on copyright and that "a friendly letter be drafted and sent to the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage for consideration prior to a bill being introduced in the House." Comments (5)
WJM
said:
|
|||||||||
|
... On the other hand, if Prentic is so eager to make Canadian copyright law fall into line with international practice, it is very common in national copyright laws to provide for a blanket exemption from infringement for uses of works by government employees in carrying out their duties - which would save the Canadian taxpayer a lot of money in collectivized fees each year. Many of those same countries are also examples of where public laws, at very least, and often official documents, emblems, etc., are also not copyrighted and hence public domain. There's an opening here... |
|
... This isn't a new idea. It came up in Bill C-32. And even then it was agreed it was a narrow exception and wouldn't interfere with collective licenses. |
|
Edward Palonek Could it be that they are missing the bigger picture here. This will not be a perfect law, and if they do, do not agree, the fair dealings will still apply based on context. [ link ] |
|
A Real Business Example my example if my isp offers me the ability to BOND 2 or three internet lines my idea was to purchase 2 -3 modems and take them apart and rehouse them for resale such that it would be an easier sell , i would not be able to do such a thing without massive license fee restrictions under a DMCA style law much as our fellow canuck who modified a garage door opener and got sued over it. Note I have told whom i would have used for startup on htis to forget it and if the law comes favorably i will have had a great idea that won't go no where. P.S. It has been tested to defeat bells traffic shaping to boot. |
Subscribe to this comment's feed