John Cavan (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.

John Cavan (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 John Cavan reçue le 9 septembre 2001 par courriel

Objet: Copyright Reform

Dear Sirs,

I'm writing in order to express my concern over the proposed changes to copyright in Canada.

Any attempt to forbid or criminalize the use or production of copyright circumvention measures is dangerous to the rights of law-abiding citizens. While the concerns of the copyright holders are very legitimate, their rights are no more important than others. The advances of computer related technology have NOT simplified the circumvention of copyright any more than the tape recorder or the photocopier. Shall we ban those as well? These laws do not halt criminals, they merely chill the rights of the average citizen.

The logic of the mechanism makes the tool the crime and not the use. Under most considerations, the law requires intent or actual criminal activity to take place. A crowbar can be used to prise open a door, should the maker of the crowbar be punished? A butcher knife can be used to kill another, shall we punish the knife maker? The list goes on. Any technological device used to circumvent protection schemes provides the means for the consumer to engage in their rights to use, the device itself is not responsible for how it is employed.

Finally, any law needs to be considered in the context of alternative technologies. The market for open source software, such as Linux, is increasing dramatically. The growth of this technology is often reliant on the ability of the developers to reverse engineer to determine how to implement a solution to the problem. Laws that prohibit that model place the entire open source development cycle into jeopardy. Witness the case of DeCSS, a software program for Linux that permitted the viewing of DVD movies. The industry FORCED the choice of platform to be Windows or Mac, which is far beyond any reasonable scope of copyright protection. It is not the choice of the producer of content to determine the nature of the light bulb I use to read their book, so why should they have the right to choose the nature of the operating system as well?

The United States of America has produced a bad law. It infringes on the rights of their people for the financial benefit of corporations who were unable to even provide PROOF that they suffered loss. It is not the history of Canada to enact laws against technology when life is not at stake. The laws already protect the rights of the producers, they are sufficient.

Thank you,

John Cavan
(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.