Oh Canada
Will the sanity ever stop?
| Permalink | technorati
« audio II | Main | ping? »
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1237
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oh Canada:
» Go north young man from My World Line (Relatively Speaking)
I think our neighbors to the north actually have a few public officials that aren't in the pockets of big corporations: CBC - Anne heirs fail in copyright bid. With this and other recent events, I think Canada may be... [Read More]
» More Canadian Goodness from joegratz.net
Canada's house of commons has rejected the Lucy Maud Montgomery Copyright Term Extension Act, which would have extended the copyright term for unpublished works of certain deceased authors . . . like Lucy Maud Montgomery, author of Anne of Green Gab... [Read More]
» Poor Anne Shirley from Foreword
You know, Anne of Green Gables. The story is here. The full text of the LM Montgomery classic can be found here. via Lessig.... [Read More]
Comments (36)
This happened in the UK a long time ago, see the CDPA 1988 which extends copyring for Peter Pan, justified on social grounds: see CDPA 1988, s301 (schedule 6)
Provisions for the Benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children ... "the work" means the play "Peter Pan" by Sir James Matthew Barrie. ... The trustees are entitled, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, to a royalty in respect of any public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the whole or any substantial part of the work or an adaptation of it. ... The right of the trustees under this Schedule may not be assigned and shall cease if the trustees purport to assign or charge it. ...
Talk about wanting something for nothing.....The greed of people everywhere just never ceases to amaze me.
Not quite the same situation - in the Canadian case, all unpublished works in the specified time span would have been subject to this rather arbitrary deadline change. The LMM works were just the most visible part.
The link given (cbc.ca) is an article so terse as to be almost cryptic. A more thorough explanation is here:
Globe and Mail: Lucy Maud provision fades out
Buried in the committee minutes from last June are some copyright horror items. As this was being debated in committee (not in the House) the first time, at least one MP described entering the public domain as 'the death' of works. Another misleading chestnut was the occasional reference to ensuring benefits for authors, which is silly when you realize that authors had to be dead for at least 50 years before any of this debate was relevant.
Also missing from the debate was the whole question of what has been happening to any such works up to now. How did works go for more than 50 years without being published? If the rights holders haven't been able to find a publisher in the last 50 years, maybe these works just aren't all that valuable.
Terse!? The word "terse" is itself too terse!
I particularly like this line:
"The L.M. Montgomery estate and others were lobbying the federal government to extend the protection for unpublished works. "
This is rubbish. I wanted to use the word "bullshit" but I don't know if I'm allowed. Oh, too late!
The ONLY literary estate that were so lobbying were Heirs of Lucy Maud Montgomery, Inc.
They (LMM Inc, etc.) cited other examples, including Stephen Leacock. Not only was his estate (if it exists, he died in 1944) NOT involved, he had strong opinions on copyright (see my blog).
They also cited John Macrae ("In Flanders Fields", for those who know their famous WWI poetry)... which was especially sick, given that the ORIGINAL bill wouldn't have affected his unpublished works (if any still exist). It was only the open-ended amended version, which would have abolished the public domain IN ALL UNPUBLISHED WORKS -- going back to the cuneiform tablets still in the ground in Iraq -- that put Macrae in play.
Now, we've gotten rid of half the mess in Canada when it comes to unpublished works. However, those who died from 1949 to 1998 inclusive get an excessively long copyright duration, until 2048, rather than a time-clock ticking from their death. That means that Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King (died 1950) gets almost 100 years, while Trudeau (died 2000) gets the same for his published or unpublished works. Bizarre. But that's what happens when Parliament tries to ram through a copyright amendment at the last minute (which is how it has usually worked here.)
Bye-bye to s. 21 of Bill C-8. Hello to the Library and Archives of Canada, which is what the rest of the Bill is aimed at establishing.
BTW, it also removes certain onerous red tape for archives in respect of "unpublished works", i.e., everything that archives hold...
AND it also expressly provides that it is NOT an infringement for the National Library/National Archives of Canada to copy and maintain copies of Canadian internet material, which means that ephemeral digital Canadiana can now be saved for posterity without the risk of copyright lawsuits!
Now, why can't regional or local libraries and archives gain this same right?
Further on and further in.
Just you watch.
They will try ti slime this through under NAFTA, or get another tradeal signed to gut this decision.
http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2004/04/02/101.html
As a Canadian, I always have trouble following these cases. Usually I only hear of them after the fact in the mainstream news, and I suspect I'm missing a lot. I know all the lawbloggers in the US; who's covering things in Canada? Anyone have any suggestions?
Now if we could only get some rulings like that inside the United States.
For Canadian news, try:
www.lexinformatica.org
hello.. hum.. bye.. i don´t understood your post.. i don´t speak english very well.. >:-(
Oh for crying out loud. We've (the U.S.) have gone from the constitution's original benchmark of 17 years to (now going on) 200 years. Please. Do we really need "I've Got You Babe" to be copyrighted until we've colonized Mars?
I hope you don't see this a personal attack. We do have hate speech laws in my country. I mean to tell you why after reading Lessig's Code critically for my Information Society law course last year, I find the material by Lessig, less useful now. Code was well written and easy to read but.... I have been reading Rob Kitchin's Cyberspace the past few months. He seems as a geographer to have some of the same legal dispute examples from the net(lambda moo) used by Lessig in Code. Yet his solutions to this new area of problems and changes is not legal in the sense the Lessig's are.
This is where I no longer need Lessig. His solutions all seem to be about the US consitution. Fine if your an American and most Internet users are I suppose. But most of the Internet legal commenators are saying we need international solutions. US free speech is not Canadian freedom of expression. Nor is it Indian press law nor is it Russian press law. Lessig in my mind is a cultural imperialist.
Our Supreme court in Canada has taken different stances on patenting life, and just yesterday it seems, P2P file sharing. Also Canadian protection of personal information is more strict than American.
But wait then there is Rob Kitchin who is in Ireland. I don't know the details of the law there in Ireland. I do know the laws there are not American or Canadian. So why would we need a made in America solution to an international problem or set of problems brought on by the Internet?
Now to the present issue copyright. I have been a creative artist for many years making almost nothing in income from this art. Just this past year I have started to collect royalties and now my wife is about to start to collect royalties. We are creative writers. We are extremely poor, disabled and struggle with our health. That we should as we start to become paid artists suddenly subscribe to giving our art away for free instead of profiting is I think advising us to commit suicide. I don't mind my essays being given away and I usual post my school papers on my web sites. We both have lots of our poems also self web published. But I don't post my songs for download. We should freely choose our copyright regime. I will not subscribe to the creative commons licence under pressure.
I feel many academics are just another jumping on the band wagon. Reading about the Internet in school is getting to be difficult.
In response to Peter T.'s comment, "I will not subscribe to the creative commons licence under pressure." I agree one shouldn't be coerced one way or the other. That is why I put a CC Attribution license on all my writing. I want to have the freedom to choose, and I want to give others the freedom to choose.
"Our Supreme court in Canada"
The P2P case wasn't Supreme Court, or even an appelate court for that matter. It was the trial division. There are two levels of appeal to go.
"We are extremely poor"
That is unfortunate. I know the feeling. Been there, done it. However, it does't logically follow that broader copyright rights, on a wider range of uses, and for a longer period of time, will make anyone unpoor, at least in the latter instance, not them, not during their lifetime.
No more so than stronger criminal penalties for bank fraud, theft, or any other economic crime will put more money in anyone's bank account.
in the Canadian case, all unpublished works in the specified time span would have been subject to this rather arbitrary deadline change
While technically true, this is an example of a "tall blonde man with one brown shoe" bill--that is, one which ostensibly benefits a group of people who meet the bill's rather bizarre and exact criteria, but which in reality ends up helping the one (or few) lobbying for the bill.
Perpetual Protection of Unpublished Works: Canada v Australia
Canada was wise to revise the Copyright Act in 1997-98. Until then, unpublished documents enjoyed perpetual copyright protection. With the 1997-98 changes, works written by individuals who had died before 1949 were given a five-year grace period, to the end of 2003, before copyright expired and the works could enter the public domain.
By contrast, Australia has not reformed the copyright term of unpublished works. The National Library of Australia expressed its chagrin over this state of affairs several years ago:
"In the case of unpublished works such as manuscripts there is a need to reduce the duration of copyright. Section 33(3) of the Copyright Act, 1968 states that copyright in unpublished works continues to subsist until 50 years after the works are first published. Most manuscripts are never published, and remain in perpetual copyright. When the British Copyright Act was amended in 1988, no distinction was made between published and unpublished works as far as the duration of copyright was concerned. Section 12 of the British act states that copyright in literary works expires 50 years after the death of the author. The New Zealand Copyright Act, 1994 adopts this approach. Unless Section 33(3) is amended and the duration of copyright made finite, it will be very difficult for libraries and archives to undertake any large-scale digitisation projects involving manuscripts."
With the advent of the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, it looks like unpublished works will receive 70 years of protection after publication. It seems that unpublished works - which are never released - will receive perpetual protection.
Matthew Rimmer
In the U.S. prior to the 1976 act, most unpublished works were subject to a common-law right of first publication which was indefinite. In theory it could be perpetual, but it could also in theory be lost. And it was a right of first publication only, not a "copyright". Was not the Canadian situation similar ?
It seems that copyright has ex-ter-mi-nat-ed some episodes of Dr. Who:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/13/1081838720006.html
"That we should as we start to become paid artists suddenly subscribe to giving our art away for free instead of profiting is I think advising us to commit suicide."
Fine, that's great; many of us create copyrighted works for a living. Nobody here wants to force you to give away your work during your lifetime. I hope you don't care about having longer copyright terms for your works during the period after you're already dead!
These copyright extension laws give no meaningful benefit to the authors, since they're extending copyright from one point after the author's death to an even *later* point after the author's death. The economic analysis indicates that such an extension is probably going to be worth absolutely nothing to you. :-P
"In the U.S. prior to the 1976 act, most unpublished works were subject to a common-law right of first publication which was indefinite. In theory it could be perpetual, but it could also in theory be lost."
Wasn't it lost upon the death of the author?
"Wasn’t it lost upon the death of the author?"
In Canada, it was not. This was considered to be a large problem just waiting to happen. This the topic around which the whole LMM issue revolves.
Imagine sifting through the ash of Pompeii, and finding a clay tablet with most of a private letter written, yet never sent or released. You, as an archaeological researcher, publish this clay tablet as part of your research findings. (It's historically significant, because clay tablets likely weren't used much by that time.)
However, a particularly litigious distant relative of the person who wrote the letter sues you for copyright infringement! They argue that since copyright is extant in an unpublished work forever, they as the rightful heirs hold the exclusive right to publish that work. They might even have a good case, since 1925 years is significantly less than forever.
But - "common sense revolts at the idea" that this is in any way how things should work out. But it was what the letter of the law stated, so the law was revised to limit the term of unpublished works, bringing the law into sync with common sense. Making the term the same as published works also made sense, since we had long since stopped requiring explicit registration of works for copyright purposes. In Canada, copyright in all works is now extant from the moment of their creation through 50 years following the author's death.
This whole case of LMM and any similarly situated works is just working through the temporary concessions the new act granted to those with old, unpublished works. It seemed unfair to instantly take a work that was currently under infinite copyright and suddenly give it just a few years, when the same author's other works had only just entered the public domain. With the final pre-1949 concessions behind us, the only remaining timed item is the 2048 date for unpublished works of authors who died between 1949 and 1998. Any rights holders with unpublished works, who of course will not be the original authors, have another 44 years to publish within the granted monopoly.
The new Act is consistent in treatment of works, easy to understand for all, easy to apply for librarians and archivists, and in general fair to all parties. Although death+50 will in some cases make for long terms, there are cases - such as the death of a just-published author - in which it makes a lot of sense. So, rather than create a byzantine legal structure, we've moved a little in the direction of the author, but gained a consistent treatment for all works. I think we can live (and die) with this.
This is all great--Canadians don't make enough noise about copyright by half. I was especially glad tho to read the comments of Peter T. I agree that "user rights" people have to take creators' rights seriously. I love the idea of creativecommons, but agree that it is a lot easier for a salaried university professor, say, to be magnanimous than an independent creator: there are a lot of problems creativecommons can't solve. The "cultural industries" are notorious for using creators' rights as an alibi for their own often opposing interests--everybody feels sorry for poor artists so this strategy really works on MPs, congresspeople etc. This blatant fakery should be an opportunity: user rights people should be coming forward with education, dialogue opportunities, policy alternatives--they/we don't want to be guilty of the same move, saying we speak for "starving artists." Although I have various differences with the Creators' Rights Association's objectives (see www.cra-adc.ca), I admire their international scope, and also their recognition that the interests of rights-holders (including heirs, corporations etc.) are not the same as the interests of creators. (The Writers' Union of Canada for example does not seem to recognize this.) Perhaps part of what needs to be done is a broadening of the scope so that copyright is not the only hope held out to artists. More copyright all the time is not going to help most creators--or, equally important, potential creators--those who are just amateurs, apprentices, or babies! The government promotes copyright as a solution partly because copyright costs it nothing--meanwhile I hear Canada is considering scrapping the FACTOR grants, that is, grants to musicians for making recordings--a support directly aimed at creators. This is pathetic. I'd love to network with Canadian artists/performers etc. to build some bridges, argue, get visionary, get realistic. Check out my website or email me if that's a discussion you'd want to be part of.
"The new Act is consistent in treatment of works, easy to understand for all"
Except for those unpublished works by the people who died in between 1949 and 1998. Instead of keying-to-death, the term is keyed to 2048, with the absurd result that -- for example, Mackenzie King's published works are now in the public domain, but his private papers will be under copyright for almost 100 posthumous years!
This was the real problem that needed fixing in the copyright act, not poor old Lucy Maud's works finally making the inevitable transition to the public domain.
"easy to apply for librarians and archivists"
You would think that it would have been a strong selling point, but the silence of the librarians and archivists in Canada on these issues has been absolutely deafening. I don't get it. I know they like it quiet, but this is ridiculous.
The National Archives and the Bureau of Canadian Archivists actually caved in, and, behind closed doors, gave the LMM estate exactly what they had lobbied for in the form of C-36.
In honour of this, I have put together my Canadian remix of Free Culture, with the appropriate spelling changes made. :)
I am probably in the wrong forum, and if so i would appreciate direction to the proper one. This being said, reading the most recent lessig book, i find myself with conflicting moral beliefs of pirating music from the internet. As much as I agree with lessig that this form of piracy is immoral, it is poosible to link piracy A and D as long as the motivation for piracy A is in service of piracy D, and sometimes/possibley C. In any case, they all seem to feed one another, i haven't finished the book, but i hope that your blunt, lessig, opinion of piracy is so black and white. I believe in black and white, and probably finsih the book before i finsih this posting, so i will
jason tar
ps, i think. If my life becomes more enjoyable and "substantial" due to the download of pirated music, without having intentions of duplicating said music, isn't that worh breaking the law so to speak? I love music, cds are expensive, i have no dsl, just a ghetto stolen wireless signal. Granted, the recent p2p sharing is in the architecture which makes it tedious and slightly long to download albums in their enirity, yet as stated with in chapter 1 or 5, or somewhere in there, piracy as a preview of what you may economically purchase is productive for everyone. This is the end of this rambling which I have forgotten the topic of.
pss. what are lawrence's view on the intellectual property of aesthetic objects and the plastic arts? Are there standard laws in existence or none whatsoever. This seems the least economical sector of copywrigt infrigement, yet curious as to how these types of physical/mental property are protected by "copiers". Just curious
jtar
I must note that arcitectural designs do have protection of their designs, yet who is to say that an architectural treasure may be mimiced with slight changes. This seems to fit the mickey mouse analogy, but these are structures of cultural signifigance. Structure mind you, not a drawing of a mouse dancing on a boat. In an industry such as architecture, with a tradition of drawing from, and in many cases directly copying from, the styles and decorative effects of past architecture as a justification for creating such a design. There are progressive architects which are very much so looking into, it is just upsetting that the mainstream public is rarely aware of these architectural advances until decades after their 'style' has been defined by culture. wrong newsgroup or what?
LOL yeah, you should be in my world, it makes dr zeus look plain.
mark
hi all,
I have an extremely stupid and simple question re the Canadian Copyright Act, perhaps someone could help me out: What is the current duration of the protection term for "works made for hire", that is corporate "authors" ?
I dunno why I didn´t find skimming through?
thanks a lot.
L.
In Canada, a copyright owned by a corporation has a duration that lasts the remainder of the calendar year in which that work is created, plus 50 years. For an individual, the copyright lasts until 50 years after the author's death.
I just finished reading Free Culture and I intend on emailing a pdf of the book, along with a long letter, to my member of parliment, to the minister of heritage and culture, and to the opposition critics for the minister of heritage and culture.
Right now Canada's gov't is under tremendous pressure from American corporate interests to wage copyright war. If we have a chance to avoid such a path, I think now's the time to step forward and speak up.
yay!
and i'm sure anne would've been against this extension of copyright, she was a poet after all....
:D
I wish it could happen in the US !
TragicLad: I thought the same as you, but I couldn't find a solid reference. Can you provide a reference into either the Copyright Act or to a judicial decision on this?
The only thing I found the Act when I went looking was your description - but it only applied to photographs.
EU calls for new copyright law
Stephanie Bodoni, London - 25 April 2004
Copyright holders may soon benefit from a harmonized law on EU-wide licensing deals if a European Commission proposal gets the go-ahead.
In a report published last Monday, which wraps up a seven-year consultation on the issue, the Commission concluded that the management of rights has so far been only marginally addressed by Community law. Member states, says the report, have largely been left to deal with the issue under their national laws.
To ensure a proper functioning of the internal market, especially in the face of increasing demands for EU-wide licences, Community legislation on the collective management of rights has become “highly desirable”.
“Rights holders and commercial users deserve a sound and modern management of these rights,” said internal market commissioner Frits Bolkestein. “That is why it is no longer possible not to address rights management at European level.”
Rights management, which relates to the process of marketing copyright and related rights, can be carried out individually by the rights holder or by a collecting society acting as a trustee.
In a 19-page communication, which concludes a consultation which lasted from 1995 to 2002 on both issues, the Commission found that collective rights management is well established in all member states.
But with rights management becoming an increasing economic, cultural and social necessity in the expanding EU, the Commission asks whether existing methods are hindering the functioning of the internal market.
It has launched an additional consultation to find out if a Community-wide legislation on the collective management of rights would benefit the internal market and what it should look like.
To find out more and see the Commission’s communication,
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/intprop/docs/com-2004-261_en.pdf
Gijs Wirtz of Philips said recently at the Dutch Symposium for Author's Rights that Europe does not want Digital Rights Management, but a better system of levies (what you call collective rights management). He claims that the two systems of rights management oppose each other.
I could not understand much of the minutes of the symposium; it seemed to be about the economic consequences of copyright, and about whether copyright should be changed depending on its economic value. That would seem to me to be a nonsensical question: if copyright is a natural right, then the economic value is irrelevant. And if copyright is there to ensure innovation, then each change to copyright should ultimately be weighed against how good it is for innovation, regardless of whether it has positive or negative economic consequences.
would you like to go for something which would enhance the beauty of your homes and gardens ?? if yes goto www.constructionworkshop.com ., the site providing complete solutions to all the accessories and equipments related to your house...
visit today......
alpa
Hi there
Help needed – for a project – to answer a question
http://www.livejournal.com/users/optimuse/
With kind regards. Love your work.
Isn't this wonderful? How I'd like to live in a country where large corporations understand that giving something away (or so cheap, it's almost free) can actually be *good* for business. Or haven't they twigged that lots of people won't need to steal if the value proposition is right?