Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Misleads On Canadian Copyright Reform
An anonymous reader writes "As the battle rages over a Canadian DMCA, Microsoft Canada has published an op-ed in a political newspaper that Michael Geist describes as astonishingly misleading and factually incorrect. Microsoft tries to argue that Canadian copyright law provides no legal protections, even after it received one of the largest copyright damage awards in Canadian history just one year ago."
The MS article is factually accurate - copyright law does not protect ideas expressed in works. Mr. Geist even updated the posting to reflect this.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Granted, it's one of those "free to read the whole article" ones, but a PITA that kept me from reading further nonetheless.
Copy paste from someone else maybe?
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
In years past, there was no way that Microsoft would have approved such a weak op-ed piece. Maybe some low-level manager approved this one, because it is simply an embarrassment to the company - with ridiculous examples that a high school student could rip apart regardless of the interpretation of their text.
Sadly, Microsoft is at the point where it needs to step up its game and change the way it does business if it wants to remain relevant. This piece, and the purchase of Yahoo, are all signs that Microsoft can no longer manage to design its own future - instead, it needs to look to the outside to fix its internal shortcomings.
To me, that means that Microsoft will be more apt to try to buy its way out of management failures - by buying companies such as Yahoo - which in turn will bring great new ideas and assets to Microsoft, but at the huge expense of making Microsoft substantially harder to manage.
It could work out, but it's a slippery, dangerous slope, similar to (but different than) going into massive debt. But instead of a direct financial debt, it will be a huge on-going management burden - one that could only be controlled with strong merger-centric leadership.
History is full of merger failures due to culture clashes. I doubt Ballmer is the guy that can pull it off. My prediction - Ballmer be put in the twilight in 2 years or less. You heard it from me.
Like this one:
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The claim against Linux is purely on patents, not on copyright. The SCO case was on copyright and that was very easy to disprove once some specific code claims were made. Microsoft can't accuse Linux developers of code theft based on patent violations. "Intellectual property" theft is a stretch even then, as patents can be infringed independently.
Sam ty sig.
TORONTO-In a world preoccupied with other pressing and sometimes dramatic concerns, complicated, seemingly arcane policy discussions about copyright may not appear particularly compelling. But as is often the case, such discussions can have a real significance for individual jobs and on our economy in a broader sense. So it is with Canadas anticipated new copyright legislation, which was expected to be tabled in recent weeks, but now appears to have been delayed at the eleventh hour by its opponents.
Our current copyright legislation is woefully out of step with the international community in general and our principal trading partners in particular, despite our repeated commitments to do better. In 1996, Canada became a signatory to two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties-the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Weve yet to implement either treaty and have now fallen behind in providing a reasonable intellectual property protection regime in this country.
For too many, the debate over copyright reform has been boiled down to a discussion around doing things like sharing music or movie files over the internet. Supporters of reform are painted as wanting to stifle the creative impulse or protect profits in "cultural" industries; industries, they argue, that should be driven by a commitment to other goals.
But the reality is something quite different. Rather than stifling creativity, copyright reform is desperately needed in Canada to protect and encourage creativity. Just look at it from the creators viewpoint. Imagine youre an aspiring author who decides to self-publish on the internet in hopes of supporting yourself and catching the eye of a publishing house. Now imagine someone hacks into your website and accesses your work and begins using the ideas expressed in your work for their own commercial benefit. You should be protected, right? In Canada, you are not.
Now think about what this reality means not just for authors but also musicians, film makers and artists. Would you be inclined to share your work digitally given this risk?
This is a simple example, but the importance of copyright reform goes much deeper, with economy-wide implications. Canadians are told over and over again that we are not as innovative as our closest competitors and that this innovation deficit is creating a drag on our ability to compete globally. Copyright reform that brings our legislation up to internationally agreed-upon standards would help create greater incentives to innovate.
If we take our self-publisher as an example-that person is looking for innovative distribution channels to share their work. If digital distribution methods are not protected, what incentive is there for that person to seek other, even more innovative ways to distribute and commercialize their creations? Its the same for Canadian companies. Without protection, there may in many cases be no incentive for companies large and small to seek out new ways of reaching untapped markets or of coming up with innovative ways of besting the competition. A lack of protection is damaging in two ways. First, it leaves Canada far behind other jurisdictions in the world by ignoring the potential of the digital age. Second, the narrower and more limited channels of distribution will actually limit the volume of work available to consumers as less will be created in Canada in the first place.
In short, it is the absence of copyright reform that hinders creativity and innovation, not the opposite.
Does this mean that the expression of every creative idea must be kept under lock and key? No. Critics of the proposed law often raise concerns about how to provide for fair dealing. The existing Copyright Act already provides exceptions for research, study, the disabled, and more. These exceptions were developed prior to the advent of the digital age following meaningful and thoughtful consideration for the benefit of Canadians. There is no question that in reforming the Copyrigh