ARCHIVÉE — Hadikin (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. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez la demander sous d’autres formes. Ses coordonnées figurent à la page « Contactez-nous »
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 Kris Hadikin reçue le 28 juillet 2001 17h32 par courriel
Objet : Copyright Act
Audio-visual Works and Photographs
(a) Ownership of audio-visual and multimedia works
In my opinion the person who produces a multimedia work, should have recieved permission to use any material that is not their own. So the producer of the multimedia work is therefor the owner.
Non-original databases that contain material obtained from the public domain should NOT be given copyright protection.
Rights Management in an Online Environment
Because it is possible to make perfect digital copies, in order to provide copyright protection on digital media, the owner of the copyrighted work must encrypt their work, but also have the ability to give others decryption permission.
The USA made a grave error with their DMCA, The MPAA used the DMCA to prevent DVD users from using their DVD's on their machine of choice (that being a Linux OS based machine, the choice of computer experts or computer users that do not windows.) the subsequent reaction was the total ignorance of the DMCA by those who wanted to watch their DVD's on their Linux based system. At the time, there were no software DVD players for Linux, and the "Linux Community" thrives on open source or "sharing" their discoveries. This is the opposite way corperations work, Corperations work by attempting to monopolize on a discovery and prevent competition by legal threats and patents.
Had the DMCA been around back when Compaq reverse engineered IBM's computer BIOS, there would be no computer competition today.
There must be a provision for reverse engineering in the copyright act. Without it, companies will continue to release propietary software and hardware that prevents freedom of choice, and monopolistic practices for the companies.
There should be a "open" standard that company owns any part of, unpatentable that should be used for copyright protection encryption. This will prevent consumer backlash for being required to purchase something put out by a company so they can use their copyrighted materials.
Adobe's ebook software is a propietary product, the encryption is weak. Adobe used the DMCA to protect their weak encryption instead of being forced to provide adequte protection.
Current public-key encryption combined a high-bit count encryption will prevent things like this. Currently public-key encryption is used successfully for things like secure communications.
How it works is that the person who makes the copyrighted work, encrypts their work with a private key, and then gives the copyrighted work, plus the public key to the person that wants the copyrighted work. This also prevents identity fraud, since the person with the public key can not reproduce the private key.
Term of Protection
Because digital media has the possiblity of being destroyed without opportunity to be backed up for historical purposes or put in a digital museum, there should be some provision for allowing a copyrighted work to be copied if the copyright holder can not be contacted or the copyright holder is deceased.
Canada, lead or follow?
In my opinion if Canada is to lead the world in protecting digital copyrights, it should NOT follow the USA's DMCA. The USA's DMCA is a tool by American businesses to attack each other and take away residents freedoms.
What usually happens is that Company A hires Company B to scour the web looking for anything even remotely infringing, then the second they see something that even slightly infringes, they notify the ISP that they are hosting copyrighted material and must take it down immediately. What's wrong with this picture is that 1. The person responsible is the person who put the content on the ISP. 2. The person responsible for the material may not know that they have done anything wrong. 3. Company B is being nothing more than an attack dog for Company A.
In some cases Company A just sends a mass-mailing to all sites that contain any word that they have trademarked telling them to remove all their content for face legal consequences.
Canadian ISP's should not be held responsible for what content they are not aware that they are hosting, however should be held accountable if they knowingly host "undesireable content" like hate literature. ISP's can usually track when copyrighted material is being distributed through their services, due to the rapid increase in bandwidth use.
From a legal perspective, the act of caching or mirroring (either through internet load balancing, proxy caching or the client-side cache) would violate copyrights since it creates a copy. From a technical perspective, all these copies are the exact same copy.
A copy of a website on two different ISP's (for the purpose of mirroring or load balancing) should not require additional licenses.
In my opinion, the "Notice and Takedown" system can be abused by malicious people who wish to sabotauge websites. This is why the client of the ISP should be notified first, not the ISP, since the ISP may take it down to comply, even if they were given false information.
The ISP's liability should be limitited to content produced by the ISP. If the ISP's client does not respond in a timely matter, the ISP should halt or disable the clients content from being distributed. If the client still doesn't respond, the content should be removed.
Professional Computer User
- Date de modification :