O O Ø O O O O
Opt-Out
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa K1A 0A2
cc: Hon. Jim Prentice, http://pintday.org/archive/20080715
Mr. Harper;
I had another run-in with Bill C-61 today. I was searching for a particular article in a well-respected journal, doing mathematical research for my PhD. Initially, I was pleased to find the article available online—interlibrary loans are error-prone and slow. When I clicked on the article, however, I was greeted with the following message:
Your use of the (censored) Archive indicates your acceptance of (censored)’s Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy, available at http://www.(censored).org/about/terms.html and http://www.(censored).org/about/privacy.html. (censored)’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the (censored) archive only for personal, non-commercial use.
It so happens that this particular journal was published in 1884—and hence had long since entered into the public domain. The archive site, however, makes no distinction between public domain works—works that can be freely used for any purpose—and articles that were written yesterday. Under current copyright law, this little disclaimer would have no meaning—public domain is public domain. Under Bill C-61, however, the story is considerably different.
Bill C-61—specifically, paragraph 29.21(2)—not only affirms that these licenses are binding contracts, but goes as far as to declare that these licenses supersede copyright law. In other words, journal publishers and archivers can opt-out of copyright law entirely, simply by placing a few words on a web page.
Consumers, of course, have no such option. There is no web site we can write on to eliminate an author’s rights.
This is not simply about the public domain, Mr. Harper. Allowing contracts to supersede the rights granted to consumers under the copyright act utterly destroys any balance present in the existing act. Publishers can and will opt out of Fair Dealing. This is not a hypothetical. This very license notice is proof of that. The notion of Fair Dealing is utterly essential for academics, critics, journalists, and others. It is one of the fundamental trade-offs in the granting of this limited monopoly on expression.
Mr. Harper, please don’t let Bill C-61 destroy the delicate balance of copyright. Fair Dealing and the public domain are essential components of the existing Act, and have been since the notion of copyright was first developed. Allowing contracts to trump these notions defeats the whole purpose. Consumers can’t opt-out of copyright. Producers shouldn’t be able to either.
Yours Truly,
kj
July 15, 2008
OOØOOOODCCCLXIX
July 24th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I got a letter in the mail yesterday from my MP after I wrote him an email. He basically says the new bill is good, required for ensuring artists copywrite is protected and reduces the possible fine for downloading. Sounds like a bunch of hogwash and a politician towing the line. Not sure on a follow-up strategy at this point.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
The next step is to vote your MP out of office for being an asshat.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:16 am
You should point out the fine reduction is nonexistent if DRM is involved;
i.e. ebooks, DVDs, Blu-Ray, iTunes…
And don’t write email. Write letters.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Hey =) Just check this out: Tila Tequila is naked uhhhh…. hot bitch: http://tilatequilanaked.0catch.com/