[ga] Re: [Politech] Michael Geist critiques Canadian copyright law proposal [ip]

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is good as far as it goes.  The problem is that it does not go far enough. A step back in time and we see the pre-industrial revolution reasoning for trademark, copyright and patent laws.  It was to give enough security to provide economic motivation for creators in order to foster ingenuity. I do not see that as occuring today.  While large Pharmeceuticals and IT firms should be sowewhat protected in order to get stockholders to invest in r&r this race to the land office mentality and process should stop.
A full revamping of the system must come about for the benefit of the consumer and to reinvigorate creativity and invention on an individual basis.
With war chests for lawyers and lobbying campaigns creativity for profit is futile for the individual against the megacorps. It is an average of $50,000USD to defend a cybersquatting suit.
Ingenuity is lost in favor of balance sheet certainty for those that file first.
With regards educational copyright infringment, that is laughable. What Idiot would defend his rights to his detriment. Teach from a writers' text to a generation of students and that writer becomes popular and prospers. I was introduced to Edward Abby in college and later bought and read all his books. I don't recall excerpts from Hemmingway being objected to in English classes. And yet I bought and read all his writings.
 
As for trademarks and Patent quality, the only group harmed by this are makers of superior products and mankind is not so stupid. While visiting a market in a heretofor notorious pirating country one sales boy in a market place had fake "Ralph Lauren" shirts for sale but was so proud to show me his real one. We all know the difference in quality and immitation should be considered flattery.

Trying as courts may to fit a dinosaur into a hybred cattle ranch just does not work. The Intellectual property laws are antiquated and feeble to todays market place. A far superior document called our constitutions should take precedence.
 
Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Declan, Michael and all,

Well done here Michael! I could not agree more.

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Canadian copyright reform proposal threatens educational Internet
> Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 07:32:12 -0400
> From: Michael Geist 
> To: Declan McCullagh 
> References: <40B74A9B.7010305@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Declan,
>
> Of possible interest to you and your subscribers -- my latest Toronto
> Star Law Bytes column assesses the consequences of a recent Canadian
> parliamentary committee report on copyright reform. The report
> recommends swift ratification of the WIPO treaties, increased
> potential liability for ISPs, and the prospect for a new extended
> license to cover Internet-based materials in education.
>
> The column argues that the report largely neglects the user side of
> the copyright balance equation by focusing chiefly on the
> compensation and protection afforded to creators. Further, it laments
> the recommendation of a highly restrictive definition of publicly
> available work on the Internet, which if adopted will prove costly
> for Canada's education system. The latter development is
> particularly unfortunate given the Supreme Court of Canada's recent
> decision on the need for a broad and liberal interpretation to
> exceptions that lie at the heart of education such as research and
> private study.
>
> Column at [Toronto Star]
>
> Report at
> 
>
> Best,
>
> MG
>
> Will copyright reform chill use of Web?
> Copyright proposal upsets the balance
>
> MICHAEL GEIST
> LAW BYTES
>
> In hindsight, the fall of 1998 may be remembered as the shining hour
> of Canadian Internet policy development. Led by then-Industry
> Minister John Manley, Canada played host to an OECD ministerial
> meeting on e-commerce, tabled new privacy legislation, unveiled
> several e-commerce policy initiatives, and committed to providing
> every Canadian school with Internet access.
>
> Unfortunately, our low point may have occurred earlier this month
> when a Canadian Heritage parliamentary committee chaired by
> Toronto-area MP Sarmite Bulte presented a vision of copyright that
> would transform the Internet from the incredible open source of
> information that it is into a predominantly commercial medium
> available primarily to those willing to open up their cheque books.
>
> It foresees, among other things, schools being required to pay for
> using, as course materials, Web-based information that is made
> publicly available - often with the poster's intention of reaching as
> wide an audience as possible and with no expectation of payment.
>
> Few technology law issues have proven as divisive in recent years as
> copyright reform. Proponents of stronger protections fear that the
> Internet and digital technologies will eviscerate traditional
> copyright protections. They have therefore actively lobbied for new
> powers to block unauthorized access to copyrighted material as well
> as for new compensation schemes to pay for new technological uses of
> old work.
>
> Opponents of stronger protection, pointing to the recent Supreme
> Court of Canada decision involving legal publications, argue that
> Canadian copyright law must adopt a balanced approach in which the
> interests of creators are considered in parallel with the needs of
> users and the larger public interest.
>
> The unexpected consequences of copyright reform in other
> jurisdictions - such things as jailed software developers and
> copyright litigation over technologies such as garage door openers -
> have led opponents to argue that Canada must navigate a balanced
> approach that avoids the mistakes made elsewhere.
>
> While the notion of balance in copyright law has proven contentious
> in some quarters, it is in fact a well-established principle under
> Canadian intellectual property law. For example, under Canadian
> patent law, inventors receive a limited monopoly over their invention
> that grants them exclusive authority over how that invention is used.
>
> In return, the patent expires after a prescribed period at which time
> anyone may use the invention without prior authorization. Moreover,
> obtaining patent protection also requires inventors to fully disclose
> and describe their invention so that the public obtains the immediate
> benefit of that knowledge.
>
> The Canadian Supreme Court has affirmed a similar balance in
> copyright. Creators enjoy a basket of exclusive rights such as the
> sole right to reproduce or perform the work. In return, the term of
> copyright protection is limited so that expired work becomes part of
> the public domain and may be used by anyone without permission or
> payment. Furthermore, the Copyright Act establishes a series of
> "user rights," known as exceptions, that allow users to freely use
> portions of copyrighted work for such things as research, private
> study, news reporting, and criticism. While Bulte recently expressed
> concern that these exceptions lead to "freebies," in fact it is these
> exceptions that ensure that the Copyright Act retains the balance
> needed to give creators their exclusive rights.
>
> Bulte's committee held hearings for several weeks in March and April,
> quickly generating nine key copyright reform recommendations, made in
> a pre-election interim report. The plan, whose status may be affected
> by the election, largely neglects the user side of the balance
> equation by focusing chiefly on the compensation and protection
> afforded to creators.
>
> The committee's recommendation for swift ratification of the
> controversial World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet
> treaties and increased liability for Internet service providers will
> rightly garner much attention. It is its approach to educational uses
> of the Internet, however, that are a particular cause for concern
> given the current financial strain on our schools.
>
> Canada's Copyright Act already provides educators and students with a
> user right in copyrighted work for research and study purposes. The
> Supreme Court has ruled that this right is to be interpreted in a
> liberal fashion such that copying full articles may be lawful in
> certain circumstances. The use of those works in the classroom is not
> covered, however, forcing teachers to sort through the rights
> attached to materials before using them in courses.
>
> The Canadian educational community has proposed what would appear to
> be a balanced solution in the form of establishing a limited
> educational user right to publicly available work on the Internet. In
> keeping with longstanding and widely accepted practices on the
> Internet, publicly available work would include materials that are
> not technologically or password protected - that is, information the
> author would appear to want to make widely available.
>
> Bulte's committee surprisingly rejected the education community's
> proposal, opting instead for a new license to cover Internet based
> works. This new license would require schools to pay yet another fee
> (the education community already hands over millions in license fees
> each year for content) for works found on the Internet. How the
> payments are calculated, collected and forwarded to those entitled to
> receive them presents another set of problems that would have to be
> resolved in a manner that assures all stakeholders that payments are
> not made for work that the Supreme Court has already declared subject
> to a user right and therefore available without compensation.
>
> Although it acknowledges that some work on the Internet is intended
> to be freely available, the committee recommends the adoption of the
> narrowest possible definition of publicly available. Its vision of
> publicly-available includes only those works that are not
> technologically or password protected and contain an explicit notice
> that the material can be used without prior payment or permission.
>
> Rather than adopting an approach that facilitates the use of the
> Internet, Bulte's committee has called for the creation of a
> restrictive regime in which nothing is allowed unless expressly
> permitted. The result will be an Internet in which schools will be
> required to pay to use Internet materials contrary to the
> expectations of many creators.
>
> A far more balanced approach, and one that would be more in line with
> Canadian values, would be to permit all uses unless specifically
> prohibited. This could be easily achieved in a manner that respects
> copyright by establishing a publicly available definition that
> includes works not technologically or password protected and for
> which the copyright holder has not expressly asserted limitations on
> the use of the work.
>
> Canada displayed foresight in the late 1990s in identifying the
> potential for the Internet and new digital technologies to benefit
> all Canadians. In order to fulfill that vision, we need to reconsider
> the Bulte committee's recent recommendation so that the balance that
> is so critical to creators, users, and the broader public interest is
> preserved.
>
> --
> **********************************************************************
> Professor Michael A. Geist
> Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law
> University of Ottawa Law School, Common Law Section
> Technology Counsel, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
> 57 Louis Pasteur St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5
> Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319 Fax: 613-562-5124
> mgeist@xxxxxxxxx http://www.michaelgeist.ca
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politech mailing list
> Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827






		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger