Klimas (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 Stan J. Klimas reçue le 5 août 2001 13h13 PM par courriel

Objet : Comments - Government of Canada Copyright Reform

I am an ordinary Canadian citizen expressing my concern about the proposed "reform" of the copyright law. I fail to see how the "reformed" law might possibly benefit me or my children. Hence, I feel strongly against the new law and call for our elective representative to abandon it.

In my view, copyright is a deal between the copyright holder and the rest of the people. The author receives something, and in exchange s/he gives up something.

There is no god-given "intellectual property". As a matter of fact, if something is intellectual, it is not a property: "if you think of something, may I be permitted to think of the same, please?". If somebody does not agree with this, he can always select to keep his work in a vault away from the public view and enjoy it in complete privacy--that's how much is god-given to him. Once he selects to interface the public with his "work", the public decides on the fate of the work. The new law seems to be written with the presumption of god-given "intelectual property" rights.

Unlike material goods, intellectual goods can multiply freely" "I can have it, you can have it too". Hence a strong argument can be made against intellectual property at all, at least for some items. Our laws should maximize the sum of benefits and losses to the general public.

The author royalties receive legal protection. This costs taxpayers money, and forces the public to pay for items that could otherwise be free. The holder gives up the "authors rights" in certain cases ("fair use") and completely after certain, reasonable period of time. This is a good balance.

The new law introduces items (e.g., "circumvention protection") that will force abandonment of the fair use. This is completely unacceptable. I am truly concern that this may throw us back into the dark ages. What does the public receive in exchange? Absolutely nothing. Hence it is a bad law.

The new law conflicts with the freedom of speech. Please, have a close look at the case of the Russian programmer who is in jail in the U.S. I came to this country to enjoy the freedom, not to watch it become like a communist regime. This aspect of your law makes me very angry at you, and willing to act.

We are lucky to already have a system of public libraries. In the spirit of the new law, they may become s illegal.

The new law may make it even possible for "copyright holders" to never release "their property" to the public domain. They can enjoy their royalties, and perhaps keep the work encrypted forever. What do we receive in exchange? Again, nothing.

I fail to see a single benefit of the new law. It may make some corporations richer, yet it surely reduces the collective wealth of all of Canadians. It looks to me like the lawmakers do not have the vision of economy as a "non-zero game", but instead opt to give some "owners" a licence to rip off the Joe.

Please reconsider the "reform" of the law. Best regards,

Stan J. Klimas
(Adresse enlevée)