MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - On the table: DRM trumps fair dealing (Canada)

grumbles · 06-12-2010, 02:45 PM

The only thing wrong with this bill is that the DRM restrictions make all other provisions of the bill pointless.

If a publisher encrypts his file with rot13, the user has *NO* rights at all and furthermore *MUST* use the publisher's rot13 decryption program and *NO* other.

All that is required to fix this bill is to allow DRM circumvention in pursuit of fair use. Uploading and handing out copies would still be illegal, as they are now.

The issue of whether copyrights are good or bad has nothing to do with this bill. One thing that does not seem to be in the bill is an extension of copyright and for that we should be thankful.

In my opinion, the current life plus 50 is reasonable although I would prefer a simple life term. Corporate or commercial copyrights, I would curtail to 25 years with no extension or renewal. To use everyone's favourite bad example, Disney has made their fortune by plundering the public domain and spending even more on lawyers and politicians to make sure that nothing of theirs ever goes back. It's not that Disney's work should have a period of copyright protection, Fantasia is a work of art, a masterpiece but protected for 90 years? Really...

There is an Italian film done sometime in the '70s (I think) that was a gentle send-up of Fantasia. Different music, different animation and different presentation (I seem to recall a cleaning lady in the live sequence.)
Disney sued of course and there are very few that can stand up to American Corporate attack lawyers.

But I digress... With a few small changes this bill could be fixed so that all are protected.

cheers
Grumbles

06-12-2010, 02:45 PM	#91
grumbles Addict Posts: 238 Karma: 1500000 Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Toronto Device: Pandigital Novel (Black), T-2 and 3, Nexus 7	Meanwhile back in the House-- The only thing wrong with this bill is that the DRM restrictions make all other provisions of the bill pointless. If a publisher encrypts his file with rot13, the user has NO rights at all and furthermore MUST use the publisher's rot13 decryption program and NO other. All that is required to fix this bill is to allow DRM circumvention in pursuit of fair use. Uploading and handing out copies would still be illegal, as they are now. The issue of whether copyrights are good or bad has nothing to do with this bill. One thing that does not seem to be in the bill is an extension of copyright and for that we should be thankful. In my opinion, the current life plus 50 is reasonable although I would prefer a simple life term. Corporate or commercial copyrights, I would curtail to 25 years with no extension or renewal. To use everyone's favourite bad example, Disney has made their fortune by plundering the public domain and spending even more on lawyers and politicians to make sure that nothing of theirs ever goes back. It's not that Disney's work should have a period of copyright protection, Fantasia is a work of art, a masterpiece but protected for 90 years? Really... There is an Italian film done sometime in the '70s (I think) that was a gentle send-up of Fantasia. Different music, different animation and different presentation (I seem to recall a cleaning lady in the live sequence.) Disney sued of course and there are very few that can stand up to American Corporate attack lawyers. But I digress... With a few small changes this bill could be fixed so that all are protected. cheers Grumbles