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
Why Copyright? Canadian Voices on Copyright Law - The Trailer |
| Print | |
|
Monday November 10, 2008
|
|||||||||||||
|
Coming later this month . . . Comments (6)
Joe Clark
said:
|
|||||||||||||
|
Truth in advertising? Perhaps more accurately entitled “Selected Broadly-Concurring Canadian Voices on Copyright Law.” |
|
It's CANADIAN after all! Advertising is accurate. Most of those who were too loud during the first days of introduction of Bill C-61 by Minister Prentice, are NOT CANADIAN! I am talking about Canadian Recording Industry Association of America and other foreign interests who told Prentice to introduce a draconian legislation, while slandering Canada worldwide. |
|
grunt why is it, after some embaressing news leak (like china's capturing feeds, or bill gate's new patent troll corp) that 'internet addiction' gets a LOT of play in the news? from 'terrorist' to 'lone nut' in one easy click? Have those lock-ups gotten 'modernized' too? pat |
|
... If copyright is intended to be an incentive to create new creative works, why is it that we are granting the benefits of copyright to those incapable of creating anything? For example, an artist who is dead will never, ever be able to create anything, so why do copyrights extend after the death of the creator? As another example, why do corporations get the benefits of copyright? A corporation is merely a legal fiction intended to make raising capital easier. As such, it is not sentient, and therefore not capable of any thought at all, let alone creative thought. Copyright is not free, there are costs to society, so perhaps one of the things we should consider is narrowing the focus of copyright to direct the benefits to those who can respond with the creativity that copyright is intended to encourage. |
|
RE: Kelly Gray The standard answer on the incentive created by giving protection to works by deceased creators is that it provides incentive to new creators by assuring them that their work will provide for their children and grandchildren (or other future heirs). As for allowing corporations to get the benefits of copyright, you have a point about corporations being legal fictions incapable of thought. However, corporations also have capital and the ability to maintain environments that can stimulate creativity. Many creations involve a lot of people; giving the copyright to the corporation that employs them all is much simpler and more effective in terms of licensing and other negotiations than if every contributor owned some part of the copyright. Those employees' contributions are taken into consideration in their salary and other compensation. This also provides them a more stable income than if they had to rely solely on revenue from a copyright. |
|
Re:Kelly Gray My standard question to that standard reply is "why should copyright be different from every other field?" My work involves a fair amount of creative thinking, yet if I want to ensure that my heirs have an income, I have to set aside the money now, while I'm still alive. The same applies to just about everyone else on this planet. Is there some reason why copyright holders are incapable of doing the same? As for the corporations, yes they have the capability to maintain an environment that can stimulate creativity, the question is, do they actually do so. If you look at the recording industry you find things like this quote from folksinger Janis Ian: "Again, from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money." Or perhaps you could ask the artist Prince, who's musical career was almost destroyed by his record label over a contract dispute. Then again you could ask the Ford Motor Company or Toyota, both of which are attempting to use copyright to restrict the use of photographs of their products. I could go on, but I think you see my point. Corporations seem to be using copyright as a bludgeon to control and extract the maximum amount of money from the artistic work. The creation of new works seems to be secondary at best. More often, something new is created only as a last resort when all other means of extracting money have failed. |
Subscribe to this comment's feed