Tracking the Copyright Consultation Roundtables: Fair Dealing Emerges As Top Issue |
| Print | |
|
Thursday August 13, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The copyright consultation roundtables have now passed the midway point with five completed (there may be as many as four still to go - Edmonton, Quebec City, and Toronto are confirmed, Peterborough is also apparently on the list). With many of Canada's big copyright groups having already appeared, it is worth taking stock of where things stand. While there have been many issues raised - everything from ending crown copyright to reforms to photographer provisions - four in particular have dominated. First, there has been more support for extending fair dealing than any other issue. Over 20 participants have cited the need for expanding fair dealing, most calling for a much broader approach. There have been just a handful of opponents to this approach, primarily from the publishing and copyright collectives. Second, the need to implement the WIPO Internet treaties has been raised repeatedly. Of course, WIPO implementation on its own doesn't say much - the key question is whether to adopt a C-61 style approach or a more flexible C-60-like approach on the anti-circumvention provisions. Thus far, there has been more support for linking anti-circumvention legislation to actual copyright infringement than for the C-61 DMCA-style model. Third, there has been a steady stream of support for new levies and fees to compensate online copying. This has taken the form of an ISP levy for legalized P2P, an expanded private copying levy, or broader collective licencing schemes. This support derives primarily from the collectives and some artists groups. Fourth, the role of intermediaries has come up frequently. ISPs and consumer groups have expressed support for the notice-and-notice system found in both C-60 and C-61. Others have called for notice-and-takedown, while yet others have hinted (or directly called for) a three-strikes system. The chart below highlights the 64 organizations and individuals that have participated in the roundtables along with their key messages.
Comments (7)
Bob Morris
said:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
... As I read the submissions, very few people are trying to deny fair dealing. What they are saying is that it has limits and that these perhaps aren't the 'anything goes' that are sometimes suggested. Don't you think it would really help the consumer case to define some reasonable limits? |
|
... Debunking the ESA's Danielle Parr is easy, Id be willing to believe a 15 yr old with a small understanding of technology could do it. I hope nobody thinks too highly of Ms. Parr or her organizations laughable comments. Look at the most agreed comment on this CBC article containing a small interview with various lobbies on their DRM position. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/s...on.html @Bob Morris, fair dealing should remain vague as to not effect future technologies. The "reasonable limits" you speak of, are contained in the present copyright act itself. Maybe read it before criticizing? Just a thought. |
|
... laughingSoHard said: "fair dealing should remain vague as to not effect future technologies. The "reasonable limits" you speak of, are contained in the present copyright act itself. Maybe read it before criticizing? Just a thought." -------- Yes, but on the other hand couldn't we put a lot of lawyers out of work and make life a little easier for small creators who use a little bit of other peoples work, if we had some fairly clear guide lines on what fair use/dealings was? One should not have to worry about lawsuits for posting home videos or parodies on you tube. As things stand now, you do. |
|
Sounds of shackled feet fil the air This whole thing seems like a sham. I see C61 coming back. Not impressed. Shackle me now. |
|
... "there has been a steady stream of support for new levies and fees to compensate online copying" I can't help but this that taking the copyright act this direction is a terrible mistake. Permitting the downloading of copyrighted materials, even for otherwise legal use, that are not being distributed without authorization seems to me to run contrary to the actual intent behind copyright, which by my understanding is that for the duration of the copyright, both the creator and those who have been explicitly authorized by him or her have *EXCLUSIVE* rights to determine who may create any copies with the intention of distributing them. Deciding to explicitly subsidize unauthorized sharing of copyrighted works with levies quite clearly legalizes the activity (just as private copying levies legalize that action already), and I fear that a move in such a direction may spell the end of all forms of control that a smaller copyright holder could possibly have on his or her work, simply because somebody else could have a higher distribution capabilities and may be able to distribute their work without authorization, without limit, and without any fear of prosecution merely because no commercial intent is evident. |
|
... Perhaps LaughingSoLoud could indicate where exactly the current Act defines the reasonable limits to fair dealing? |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
