Brad Fox of Strada Films posts on why progressive copyright reform should include reducing the term of copyright.
Brad Fox on Reducing the Term of Copyright
August 19, 2009
Share this post
4 Comments
![Law Bytes](https://www.michaelgeist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Project.png)
Law Bytes
Episode 210: Meredith Lilly on the Trade Risks Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax and Mandated Streaming Payments
byMichael Geist
![Episode 210: Meredith Lilly on the Trade Risks Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax and Mandated Streaming Payments](https://www.michaelgeist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Project.png)
July 15, 2024
Michael Geist
June 24, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 210: Meredith Lilly on the Trade Risks Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax and Mandated Streaming Payments
Abandoning Institutional Neutrality: Why the University of Windsor Encampment Agreements Constrain Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 209: Peter Menzies on Why the Canadian News Sector is Broken and How to Fix It
Why the University of Windsor Encampment Agreement Violates Antisemitism and Academic Freedom Standards
Know When to Fold Em: The Big Risk Behind Canada’s Digital Services Tax Bet
To be fair…
While his is advocating a reduction of the term of automatic copyright, he is also advocating the ability to optionally extend the copyright in 5 year increments. Not a bad idea. Copyright is extended if the holder wants it to be, and is willing to pay for the privilege.
However, I can’t see the major content owners (as opposed to producers) going along with this for the simple reason that it requires them to be active… everything that I’ve seen to date on the issue leads me to believe that a very vocal group wants it to be completely passive on their part (hand off the responsibility for finding violations to others, hand over cheques to them). I am not making the claim that the vocal group represents a majority of the copyright holders, they simply represent the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.
Anon-K: Not only do these ‘interests’ want it to be automatic and passive, they want the government to police infringement.
@Vincent
That is why I referred to it as passive 🙂 Normally they would need to actively find violators and register a complaint.
@Vincent
Further… you are correct that they want the government to police enforcement. Now, it wouldn’t be such a big deal if the government were to do this, so long as it was on a cost recovery basis (they are charged for the government’s actual costs, rather than a per-violation basis). In that situation, they are effectively contracting the government to do the job… however, in that case I’d argue that the government agency that does the job not be able to get a warrant, nor require any agency that can get warrants (RCMP, CSIS last time I looked, there may be more now) to assist them.