Kirsanov (En anglais seulement)

Information archivée dans le Web

Information identifiée comme étant archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’a pas été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis la date de son archivage. Les pages Web qui sont archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes applicables au Web du gouvernement du Canada.

Kirsanov (En anglais seulement)

PROCESSUS DE RÉFORME DU DROIT D'AUTEUR

SUGGESTIONS REÇUES RELATIVEMENT AUX DOCUMENTS DE CONSULTATION


Les documents reçus seront affichés dans la langue officielle dans laquelle ils auront été soumis. Toutes les suggestions sont affichées comme elles ont été reçues par les ministères; toutefois, toutes les informations sur les adresses ont été enlevées.

Suggestion de Dmitry Kirsanov, reçue le 25 juillet 2001 15h38 par courriel

Objet : Comment on the copyright plans

Dear Sir:

I can only hope that Canada will not follow the US in some of its worst pro-big-corporations legislation. I'm very much afraid that the greed of American "content providers" will reach our shores so soon. Please try to learn from the fallacies of the DMCA, instead of copying it obediently! I'm not a lawyer but you'll find a lot of in-depth legal analysis of DMCA on the Net, for example at: http://www.anti-dmca.org.

Now let me share my simple and common-sense opinions on the issues listed on your web site:

whether the Act should be
amended to:

set out a new exclusive right in favour of copyright owners, including performers and record producers, to make their works available on-line to the public;

Don't they have this right already?!! I think regular copyright applies to the Internet by default, why do we need to "grant an exclusive right"? If a work is copyrighted, I cannot distribute it in any way, including over the net (unless it's Fair Use), and I don't think we need to over-legislate this simple issue.

prevent the circumvention of technologies used to protect copyright material; and,

That's a BIG error. Instead of "preventing the circumvention of technologies", you should seek and prosecute only those who use whatever technology (or no technology at all) to infringe on copyright. Fighting against "technologies" instead of criminals is like fighting ideas, which is called censorship. This is very damaging to public interest. Any "circumventing technology" may have legal uses (such as academic research, fair use, etc) so making it illegal is a very bad idea. It's like outlawing photocopying machines which, speaking your terms, is a prime example of a "circumvention technology" that facilitates copyright infringement.

prohibit tampering with rights management information.

Again, why do we need anything special here? Currently, if a work states its copyright status, then this notice is itself protected by copyright, so I can't change it for the same reasons for which I can't sell this work infringing the copyright.


Thanks,

Dmitry Kirsanov
(Adresse enlevée)

Partagez cette page

Pour faire connaître cette page, cliquez sur le réseau social de votre choix :

Aucun appui n'est accordé, soit de façon expresse ou tacite, à aucun produit ou service.