Slashdot Mirror
Canadian DMCA Proposal About To Die
An anonymous reader writes "Like the previous Bill C-60 before it, the proposed Bill C-61 that would bring DMCA-like laws to Canada is poised to die on the order table, never to receive a vote, as the current minority government falls. An election call is expected in days. Everybody expects that some form of these laws will be back yet again (third time's a charm?). There are too many interests pushing for change to let it go. But here's a chance for Canadians to influence politicians about it in an election campaign, and hopefully strike a better balance. And for those of you in the rest of the world who are laboring under a DMCA-like copyright law, let's hear your stories about why such laws are a good or bad idea, and if bad, how you would amend the law to make it tolerable. With the polls probably on Oct. 14th, Canadians will be looking for a few good ideas."
PRAISE CANADA!
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
You sir, have obviously never created anything of value. Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee? What is this assinine belief people have that everything should be open and free. You know what, if you don't like copyright, don't purchase copyrighted material. Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.
Do I think the DMCA is broken? Yes. Do I think we should revert copyright law back 200 years? Hell no. I think that if an artist creates a brilliant work of art, and wants to live off the royalties of that work for the rest of their life, they should have that right. They shouldn't be denied the benefits of their hard work and creativety just cause some talentless moron doesn't like the fact that they can't download music for free or because that old video game they liked to play was abandoned. Unlike patents, copyright covers ephemeral works that don't sway the course of human evolution directly (yes, powerful art can impress, but not alter). Therefore, a company should only get to keep a life-saving drug to themselves for so long, before it's in the best interest of mankind that the drug be distributed en-masse. However, I don't think the world is hurting any just cause you can't download your favorite episode of The Office off YouTube.
Besides, the 200 year old law you quote was mainly used to protect the massive investments made by charting companies in the creation of maps and other charts. Remember, that original copyright law was enacted in the face of no copyright law, and only extended to books, maps, and charts. How good is a 15 year old map anyway? It will have none of the modern roads or provincial bodies, thus even the companies creating them acknowledged no need to protect them after a certain point. 15-year old movies, though, can still generate revenue. Revenue off protected works surely reduces with time, but it's not your money so why should you get to decide when it's no longer worth it to the original creator? I'm sure lots of washed-up celebs still live off royalties from shows they did decades ago, even if they get a whopping 15 cents every time it airs. Who are you to tell that person that they don't deserve that money just cause you feel like downloading an episode off of YouTube?
Revert the DMCA. Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies. Restrict copyright to actual works (Mickey Mouse is trademarked and protected, but Walt Disney is dead, and "Steamboat Willy" should be open domain). I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.
Eggs
Milk
Bread
Cat Litter
Soda
*sigh*
It doesn't want to make you a criminal. No-one wants to make you a criminal. They want to make piracy a criminal activity, and they hope you won't become a criminal.
Piracy robs artists of their legally granted rights. Why shouldn't it be a (white collar) crime? The worst that'll happen is the burden of finding and prosecuting offenders, which the record/movie industry has devastatingly mishandled, will fall to the government, who at least you can elect.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
And this is not a new law; it's been that way for over a hundred years. Canadians are so used to looking down their noses at "ignorant" Americans, but at least every American I've met has some idea of how their system of government works, unlike you snot-nosed clowns who clearly don't know a goddam thing.
What was once true, is no longer so