Although there is no stated "purpose" of copyright law in Canada, in the United States power is given "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) There is no "balance" between the "rights" of producers and consumers that everyone always gets hung up on. Copyright is not there to say that Alice should be compensated by Bob because Bob is playing a video game that Alice worked hard to make, or to say that Bob shouldn't be allowed to modify her game in any way. Copyright is there to give Alice incentive to create a video game, and to promote further progress of the Arts.
This might not seem relevant, because it is U.S. law, not Canadian. However, what I'm trying to say is that we need to get people to know the true purpose of copyright. Copyright should promote the creation and spread of culture, not hinder it. As soon as you talk about "balanced" copyright you are saying there is something to be balanced.
I'll give another example. Let's say Alice has made a game, and is selling it for $50 per copy. Bob works a minimum wage job, and barely has enough money to pay for food and internet, never mind a video game. There is no way he would buy the game. If you're talking about "balanced" copyright, the story ends there - Bob has no right that "balances out" with Alice's supposed right to be compensated for her work. Perhaps you could argue a "right to culture", but it would be nigh impossible to convince most people that this balances with a "right to compensation". However, if you look at copyright as it is meant to be, law should not stop Bob from pirating Alice's game, as that law does not promote progress.
It would probably be a big move to rename
http://www.balancedcopyright.com/, so it might not be worth it. But am I the only one who feels like it's not a question of balance?
