Copyright discussion

I was deeply concerned to read the copyright discussion in the Breeding Forum. I found some of the interpretations of the law to be offensive to my senses as a Canadian. As far as I'm concerned, the approach taken in the discussion amounts to nothing short of book burning, which I feel is inconsistent with Canadian values. These Canadian values I am talking about are in fact protected by our Copyright law. All one needs to do to find them is actually read the exceptions contained within the act. And I quote (legally):

from: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Exceptions

Fair Dealing

Research, private study, etc.

29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright.
R.S., 1985, c. C-42, s. 29; R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 7; 1994, c. 47, s. 61; 1997, c. 24, s. 18; 2012, c. 20, s. 21.
Previous Version

Marginal note:Criticism or review

29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
1997, c. 24, s. 18.


News reporting

29.2 Fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.

Non-commercial User-generated Content

Non-commercial user-generated content

29.21 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to use an existing work or other subject-matter or copy of one, which has been published or otherwise made available to the public, in the creation of a new work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists and for the individual — or, with the individual’s authorization, a member of their household — to use the new work or other subject-matter or to authorize an intermediary to disseminate it, if
(a) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter is done solely for non-commercial purposes;
(b) the source — and, if given in the source, the name of the author, performer, maker or broadcaster — of the existing work or other subject-matter or copy of it are mentioned, if it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so;
(c) the individual had reasonable grounds to believe that the existing work or other subject-matter or copy of it, as the case may be, was not infringing copyright; and
(d) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or other subject-matter — or copy of it — or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one.

In short, our copyright laws protect an individual's financial interests in their works, but it does not allow the owner of published works to deny the rest of Canadians the opportunity to learn from the knowledge contained within the works.

Furthermore, this forum is about education and as such, follows copyright law in much the same way a library does. Libraries, in certain circumstances, have the legal right to make digital copies of copyrighted material.

This isn't just my personal opinion. I've tested this first hand about 15 years ago when I scanned and made available on a website, an out of print book. The book's author lived in California and sicked his big shot American lawyers on me AND my internet service provider. The lawyers spun their wheels, sent lots of nasty letters, but in the end had to back off. Since the book was out of print, and offered educational value, it was perfectly legal under Canadian law.

People don't own knowledge, just the right to profit from it.

Never allow anyone to bully you from sharing knowledge!

For the record, I would be honoured if I learned that people were making copies of the things I write on here just in case it became unavailable in future!

I post on this forum in the hopes that sharing my meagre knowledge will contribute to the effort to keep our heritage breeds relevant and abundant in Canada, and would hope for the same from all of us.

I'm glad to see the copyright law is sensible in that it allows for reasonable sharing of information, while still protecting the original writer/artist etc. Forums are often referred to as chat groups...a friendly way to connect with others that share your interests and goals. Just as I would happily lend a book to a friend, its only natural to try to help others if you have the means to do so. Its not uncommon to see quotes on here from such experts in the field as Dr. Clive Carefoot or Gail Damerow - completely protected and copywrited material. But credit is given to the author, and people benefit. A win-win situation, I think!

I'm no expert on copyright laws. I believe the issue is the actual reproduction of the work and then making said reproduction available online.

My understanding is just because a book is out-of-print does not mean it is still copy right protected. I would need to check as I haven't had the need to look up copy right laws for a LONG time. I believe when the law was changed, only written works over 100 years old can be reproduced legally without permission.

Again, I'm no expert so please don't flay me if I have it wrong. Thanks =)