tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post6213327555818807198..comments2023-09-07T04:13:08.133-04:00Comments on johndegen.com: open letterUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-23073067854941629752008-08-10T07:26:00.000-04:002008-08-10T07:26:00.000-04:00John,I agree with you that this document could be ...John,<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that this document could be improved. <BR/><BR/>a) it speaks about TMs applied to content by a copyright holder. While this may have anti-competetive implications (adding a new exclusive right to interoperability is a bad idea), nearly all of the concerns the paper discusses are effects of TMs applied to devices.<BR/><BR/>b) from a purely technological point of view, copyright infringement and creativity are identical -- you record things, you edit things, you distribute things. Any TM which disallows or otherwise limits the device owner from doing these things will limit the interests of creators far more than it will limit pure audiences.<BR/><BR/><BR/>c) most "fair dealings" and other limitations and exceptions to copyright are in fact rights that protect us as creators, not as simple audiences. This fact is often lost by those who think that exceptions should be narrow, incorrectly believing that exceptions harm creators.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I think the conclusions are the right ones, although I would add more to protect property rights from third party locks (Your analogy to homes is flawed, as the problem is someone other than you putting a lock on your home).<BR/><BR/><BR/>My main critique is that it is written in a language that could (and did, in your case) confuse someone reading it into thinking this was entirely about 'audience' rights and not the reality that it is about everyone rights.Russell McOrmondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07186398284667525036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38495605.post-87243756667911178642008-08-08T12:46:00.000-04:002008-08-08T12:46:00.000-04:00You say: "I feel the paper is unbalanced and preju...You say: "I feel the paper is unbalanced and prejudiced against the rights of creators and copyright holders in the consideration of digital copyright matters."<BR/><BR/>Yet the only negative criticism you put forth is "originating as it does from a recognized consumer lobby group whose very public aim is to see Bill C-61 defeated, I feel your position contributes to a prejudging and interruption of these important democratic processes."<BR/><BR/>You appear to have no issue what so ever with the actual content. (The stuff most people will actually be looking at.) You only object to the footnote which declares it's origin.<BR/><BR/>Just what would you expect a "special review of its adopted position on Bill C-61" to achieve in this context? Should they find someone else to rewrite it, using slightly different language to say the same thing? Will this really achieve what you want John?Infringerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00027713772050821748noreply@blogger.com