Blayne Haggart, a PhD student at Carleton, has a great post explaining why the attempted linkage between Buy American policies (largely state and municipal) and copyright policies (federal) are false.
Why Buy American Has Nothing to do With Canadian Copyright Reform
2 Comments
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 280: A Fall Update on Where Things Stand on Canadian Digital Policy Reforms 
The Wrong Ban: The Heritage Committee Backed a Targeted Ad Ban for Kids and Stopped Short of a Social Media Ban, Yet the Government Chose the Reverse 
Regulator First, Rules Later: Bill C-34 Debate Shows the Government Wants a Digital Safety Commission Before It Figures Out What It Will Do 
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban 
“Position Has Not Changed”: The Canadian Government Reaffirms That Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism
Copyright – And when I was a little boy…
The distribution of copyright material appears to be the issue.
In the late 40’s and early 50’s, I could buy a comic book and than lend or trade it to a friend. In the 50’s and the 60’s, I could go into a “used book” store and trade these comics for others or receive money for them. In the year 2009, I can go into used book stores and other stores and buy used books, magazines, 8 tracks, cassette tapes, VHS tapes and CD’s. With a photo copier, I could/can make duplicates.
I would argue, that by allowing this practice to continue (unmolested) since the printing press (and other media)was developed, that any law focused on prosecution of individuals concerning copy right protection and it’s application to individuals could be challenged.
If there needs to be a change to copyright law, than the change should be directed at the commercial side of the law – Focus on those who make and distribute copy right material for profit. If material is distributed via p2p and it is for personal use, than I expect that any copyright law enforcement would not apply (just as it has not applied since Guttenburg).
Robert. I am not disagreeing with you; however, let’s make sure that we are all talking about the same thing. In the examples that you cite (save for the photocopier case), there is only one copy available; when you sell or loan the item, you lose access to it.
One of the concerns now is about online file sharing. This is more like the photocopier case, since even though you’ve provided it to someone else, you still retain access to the work. The theory, whether you agree or not, is that this is a lost sale (I don’t personally agree; certainly for me I am unlikely to buy, for instance, an album from an artist I am not too familiar with unless I know what the overall quality is like).
I remember that there was a proposal to make the resale that you speak of illegal; I’ve not heard much on this front in some time, let’s hope that it has died.