Canadian Copyright Reform Authors Know The Law Outlaws Circumvention Even If No Infringement... But Don't Seem To Care

from the have-they-learned-nothing dept

Thu, Sep 29th 2011 2:05am — Mike Masnick

We've been expecting Canadian politicians to re-introduce last year's bad copyright reform bill without any changes. Despite widespread public complaints over the bill, the supporters of the bill (who are being pressured heavily by US lobbyists and diplomats), insist that there's no real issue and that those arguing against the bill are merely radical extremists.

Of course, as Michael Geist has discovered, by obtaining last year's clause-by-clause document that explains the bill to Canadian Ministers, that those behind the bill seem to recognize that it goes way beyond copyright law in the arena of digital locks. That is, it's against the law to circumvent digital locks even for non-infringing works and the common defenses against infringement are not allowed for the digital locks/anti-circumvention rules. This is not unlike the US, but it's still quite troubling. Remember, this is from the Canadian government itself:

The Bill introduces new causes of action (such as those relating to TPMs and RMIs) that could be used in civil lawsuits regardless of whether or not there has been an infringement of copyright.

[....]

Generally, an owner of copyright in a work or other subject matter for which this prohibition has been contrevened has the same remedies as if this were an infringement of copyright (proposed s.41(2)). However, a contravention of this prohibition is not an infringement of copyright and the efences to infringement of copyright are not defences to these prohibitions.

As Geist notes, this might make the bill unconstitutional:

The constitution grants jurisdiction over copyright to the federal government, but jurisdiction over property rights is a provincial matter. Digital lock legislation that is consistent with existing copyright law - ie. one that factors in existing exceptions - is more clearly a matter of copyright. The C-32 provisions are arguably far more about property rights since the provisions may be contained in the Copyright Act, but they are focused primarily on the rights associated with personal property and expressly exclude copyright defences.

What amazes me is that this remains such a big issue. I can't believe anyone can credibly claim that it makes sense to block all circumvention of digital locks even in the cases of non-infringement. I know we have some supporters of such laws who read this site, and I'd like to see an honest explanation for why an anti-circumvention provision cannot include a clear exception for cases of non-infringement, and why standard defenses to copyright infringement can't apply to breaking digital locks?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: canada, circumvention, copyright, digital locks, dmca, drm

78 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:12am

Wait a minute
Canada understands the difference between copyright an property?

Well EFF me sideways with a rusty spoon, there's still a thread of sanity in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris-Mouse (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 4:58am
  
  Re: Wait a minute
  Yes, the Canadian government understands the difference between copyright and property right. there's no grounds for celebration though, because while it knows the difference, it doesn't care.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:12am

Remember when the government used to represent the people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:13am
  
  Re:
  Pepperidge Farm remembers
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Grandpa doesn't remember much of anything anymore. :'(
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cgibinladen (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 8:29am
  
  Re:
  I can't remember that far back mate...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:42am

Given the propensity of copyright maximalists to claim that IP is indeed physical property, and their confusing of theft and infringement, my guess is they think that breaking these locks is equivalent to breaking and entering. That some people break the locks to commit infringement, they probably equate to burglary. Given that, I will now use this information to good effect in a strawman (can't you see I like to follow in their footsteps?) and I will now refer to Mike as the Burglar Mike. But in the interest of getting more IP confused, I'll infringe on McDonalds Hamburglar trademark and up the ante:

Why do you hate freedom so much, Mazburglar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:07am
  
  Re:
  I think it is more a practical matter, they want to criminalize the tools and for that there can be no legal reason for those to be created.
  
  Either way they are just dumb, because there is nothing to steal and they will never get rid of recording buttons everywhere.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Miff (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 5:02am
  
  Re:
  So should breaking the lock to your own house because you locked all the keys inside be illegal then?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 9:06am
  
  Re:
  Note to self: "broadbrush" is out, "Mazburglar" is in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:05am

"Hi! I'm Mike Masnick. I've never had an original idea in my life. I truly don't have the first clue what it means to innovate, create, or originate something new. Hell, I ripped off the idea for this blog from the Huffington Post, who also just use other peoples original work. Makes sense to a guy like me!!!!
Either way, it's quite obvious I'm a leech that will never contribute anything new to society. So I will just hope I can continue to be a boat rocker and that I'll make enough money to send my kid to school on that. Thanks a lot for being a sucker and clicking on my site."

"oh, and by the way, copyright is bad."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:11am
  
  Re:
  You're posting here, for free, anonymously. I think your argument is invalid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:15am
  
  Re:
  While it's got all the quality trolling components, the presentation and ...density of the trolling makes it far too obvious that it is a troll.
  
  It is unlikely to evoke any responses other than reactions to the fact that it is a troll rather than the contents of the troll, and as such can really not be considered successful.
  
  I give it a 4 out of 10.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sure no one ever notices that all dissenting opinions are met with the incredibly powerful reply of "troll".
    
    What an incredibly effective rebuttal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Really? That pathetic mockery was meant to be a valid dissenting opinion?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prisoner 201, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Calling it a "dissenting opinion" is an insult to dissenters worldwide. Call it what it is - a troll, and not a particular successful one at that.
      
      But you know what they say, dont think of it as a failure on your part, think of it as room for improvement!
      
      One day you can be a skilled troll.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 2:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And perhaps one day you and your buds can graduate from "**AA", "copyright length" and "buggy whips".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 3:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love the fact that the things you apparently object to are an abbreviation for the groups referred to, one of the major issues facing the industry and a general example of history.
        
        But no, we're all the same, right? Distortions, personal attacks and name calling are the same thing as stating facts and historical examples?
        
        If you get labelled as a troll a lot, you might want to rethink your logic there...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Prisoner 201, 30 Sep 2011 @ 5:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And perhaps one day you and your buds can graduate from "**AA", "copyright length" and "buggy whips"."
        
        See?
        
        This is a vast improvement!
        
        You are on to something good here, keep at it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dcee (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 6:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Hi! I'm an anonymous coward"
      
      No need to say more...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 8:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You don't know how the arts actually work, do you? Maybe you should take an art class, or an art history class? You might learn some things.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I'm sure no one ever notices that all dissenting opinions are met with the incredibly powerful reply of "troll"."
      
      Actually no one noticed your dissenting opinion. Was there one?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 3:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're right. We should more accurately label all 'dissenters' and 'non-Kool Aid drinkers' as "shill" or "industry sock puppet".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    Meh, I didn't see Freetard, Wild West, or The Party is Over. I did see some new personal attack material that I really enjoyed though.
    
    Agreed, 4/10.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:17am
  
  Re:
  Says the murderer!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:19am
  
  Re:
  "Hell, I ripped off the idea for this blog from the Huffington Post, who also just use other peoples original work"
  
  Techdirt: founded 1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techdirt)
  
  Huffington Post: founded May 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post)
  
  Christ, even when you admit you've got nothing and resort to childish comments like this, facts are your enemy!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Orly? Use the wayback site and show us what it looked like then.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The wayback site is a rouge site dedicated to infringement!
      
      YOU FUCKING FREETARD SCUMBAG
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chris Rhodes (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well played, sir. Well played.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Atkray (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        pwnned
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yep, the old idiot rebuttal "I won't provide evidence for my own assertion, YOU do it". How about, just once you provide a verifiable basis for your own assertions and present them without insults against any of the posters and commenters?
      
      It might be a learning exercise for you, and you could use the same technique in other threads where you're insulting people like a child (i.e. all of them).
      
      (FWIW, I did try myself just for the hell of it, but it's not working. Might be my 3G connection as I'm on the road...)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Miff (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 5:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Here.
      
      http://web.archive.org/web/19981205224124/http://www.techdirt.com/
      
      Was that so hard for either party?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChrisB (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why the hell would you go back to 1998? If the Huffington post was founded in May 2005, go to April 2005:
        
        http://web.archive.org/web/20050428082123/http://www.techdirt.com/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 6:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh my god, it's so 90's (>
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 6:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Damn it, I forgot the HTML tag support.
        
        I was going to say that it looks like a 1998 version of Techdirt, stories about what's happening in business, suggestions to make things better. No comment section, but who had them back then?
        
        Hell, the "10 Habits for IT Success" has something just like has been said here since I started reading; "New technology will not go away, so play now or pay later"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Was that so hard for either party?"
        
        Apparently so. I already stated it wasn't refreshing properly on 3G for me. The AC has a long history of not actually researching facts, so I assume he either hasn't bothered or has realised he can't back up his original assertion and has fled the thread. Yet again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow... Drive-by strikes again...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:27am
  
  Re:
  So you finally reveal that you have become Mike Masnick, eh?!
  
  How ironic, he's become the person he hates the most.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    (S)he's so obsessed with Mike that (s)he's developed Schizophrenia.
    
    It's sad, really.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prisoner 201, 29 Sep 2011 @ 4:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Runaway hormones is a dangerous thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Major, 29 Sep 2011 @ 4:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    "How ironic, he's become the person he's paid to hates the most." FTFY :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jesse (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 8:00am
  
  Re:
  T....,.h..i...s .........p...o.,,.s,...t ..,..i.,.s.,,.. e.,,..n.,.c...,r...y.,.p,..t,..e,..d...,.,., I.,f...,,. y,o.u b.,.r.,..e,.,.,a.,..,k.,.,.,., t.,,.h.,.i,..,s D.,,,.R.,.M.,,. y.,,.o.,,.u ,..,,.w,..,.i.,,.l,..,l .,..,,.b.,,.e s.,,.u,...,e...,d.,.,.,.,., f.,,.o,..r c..,.o.,..p,..,y..,,.r.,.i,..,g.,,.h.,,.t .,,.i,..,n..,,.f.,,.r.,.,i.,.,n.,.,g.,.e,.,m.,.e,.n,.,t a.,.,n.,.,d.,./,.o,.r,.,.,. ,.,c.,h.,.a,r.,g.e,d., .,wi.,t,.h .,t.h,e.f,.t..,
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 9:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Now there's a good point. If I use ROT-13 on a message, is that considered encryption enough to protect it under this law?
    
    Qrpelcgvat guvf fragrapr vf n srybal.
    
    Doesn't matter what the content is nor how pathetic the attempt to encrypt it, it's protected from decryption.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 9:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Note that I don't actually know the wording of the law. I'm just wonderin'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cgibinladen (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 8:33am
  
  Re:
  So is Roger Ebert a leech? What about Fox "news", CNN and every other news outlet in the world? They create no more or less than the author of this site. He's creating articles, based on his own opinions and observations which (as you must have noticed) are shared by thousands of other people. Your opinion is no more or less valid than Mike's and unless you're willing to provide proof of your creativity then your argument rings hollow and meaningless.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 4:47am

Legislative Capture
This proposal to outlaw circumvention is a fine example of legislative capture. How is it that the ruling Canadian pollies have not realized that this will come back to bite them, hard, come election time? The pollies just trash the property rights of all ordinary voters, then they expect to get voted for again? Any other party could run an intelligent campaign claiming to truly respect property rights, then make mincemeat of them. Ranting about the government selling out Canadians to abusive US companies, that will also go over well. Do they have no idea how vulnerable they are making themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 5:07am
  
  Re: Legislative Capture
  Do you realize we just re-elected the conservative party?
  
  They just got kicked out of office, that's the reason we needed another election, for being held in the highest contempt of parliament any party in Canada has ever been.
  
  They just pulled the most illegal bullshit a Canadian political party has ever pulled, and Canadians re-elected them with a higher % & # of seats than they had before.
  
  No wonder they feel invincible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dcee (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:12am
    
    Re: Re: Legislative Capture
    They repealed public funds for political parties, making them the only party rich enough to survive in the long term.
    
    Americanada, soon to your north.... :(
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - freak (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Legislative Capture
      That might be too pessimistic.
      
      The NDP never received that many funds, and currently has a grossly disproportionate % of voters compared to the money it spent.
      
      . . we'll have to see.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goyo, 29 Sep 2011 @ 5:21am

why an anti-circumvention provision cannot include a clear exception for cases of non-infringement, and why standard defenses to copyright infringement can't apply to breaking digital locks?

Because as you know it's not easy to tell which is infingment and which is not. IP maximalists know it too so they do not want to discuss actual infringment before a court. Hence the n-strikes laws in France and other countries, the Sinde law in Spain and this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 5:45am

The reasonable reason
The reasonable reason for these laws is that once you have broken the digital lock for non-infringing purposes you now have the knowledge required to break it for infringing ones. If you add to this the fact that such knowledge, once acquired, tends to get passed around, then you can probably see the logic behind it.

It sounds very plausible - and I'm sure it is the argument that was in the minds of the non- specialist politicians who agreed to the law. However it is a deeply flawed argument because it ignores Kerckhoff's principle - one of the cornerstones of modern cryptography.

In practice the effect of these anti-cirvcumvention laws is to make DRM technically ineffective. DRM is generally made just strong enough to enable lawsuits against those who attempt to sell equipment that might break the system. Thus DRM is generally inadequate to prevent piracy - but strong enough to protect the monopoly of the (consortia of) equipment manufacturers who define the standards.

The more you look at it the more you realise that the monopolists in the hardware sector have actually hoodwinked the monopolists in the content sector into support a system that benefits big hardware manufacturers and does nothing to prevent piracy of content!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 5:47am
  
  Re: The reasonable reason
  In short - you are deluded if you think the purpose of DRM is to protect content from copying. It isn't.
  
  The purpose of DRM is to make money for those who manufacture DRM.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 6:03am
    
    Re: Re: The reasonable reason
    so knowledge is dangerous? I had no idea we we're still in the medieval ages
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 12:00pm
  
  Re: The reasonable reason
  The reasonable reason for these laws is that once you have broken the digital lock for non-infringing purposes you now have the knowledge required to break it for infringing ones. If you add to this the fact that such knowledge, once acquired, tends to get passed around, then you can probably see the logic behind it.
  
  That's not reasonable, even if you can follow the thought process behind it.
  
  Having knowledge of something or how to do something is not illegal. How someone decides to make use of the knowledge (their action) is the factor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: Re: The reasonable reason
    I didn't say it was reasonable - only that the politicians who passed the laws thought it was reasonable.
    
    If you read further you'll see that I debunked it later in the comment - admittedly by a different route to yours. Having said that I'd have to agree with your reasons too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2011 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: The reasonable reason
  Richard, you are correct. It's the same reason why you can't buy slimjim style tools at your local NAPA store. If you do have them in your possession (even without actually being caught in the act) law enforcement has a whole lot of probably cause on you.
  
  The digital lock thing is very simple: You can't have the tools to break the digital lock, because nobody knows how they will be used, and while there are a few non-infringing uses possible, the reality is that the tools would be used almost exclusively to pirate stuff. So why make them legal?
  
  It's just inviting trouble.
  
  It would be on par in my view to make possessing heroin legal, making having all the drug paraphernalia legal, but make it illegal to actually be high on heroin. While it would be the theoretically correct place to charge someone, the reality is that with all that heroin legally available, plenty of people would be getting high where they can't be seen. That would just sort of defeat the purpose. So it's better to go after supply than it is to try to punish only the result.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 3:07pm
    
    Re: Re: The reasonable reason
    Read the rest of my comment and you will see that the point you embraced is in fact a strawman!
    
    0/10 for reading comprehension!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 1 Oct 2011 @ 3:59am
    
    Re: Re: The reasonable reason
    "It would be on par in my view to make possessing heroin legal"
    
    Why are you incapable of making analogies that don't make you look like a fool?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ben (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 6:06am

CONTRIBUTE TO THE EFF
For God's sake, I stead of wasting electrons responding to the inevitable trolls, drop a couple of bucks on the EFF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy7600 (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: CONTRIBUTE TO THE EFF
  I'm a monthly sustaining member :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re: CONTRIBUTE TO THE EFF
    Titanium member bitches!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 29 Sep 2011 @ 6:43am

Relevant
Is pressing the shift key prior to insertion of a CD considered breaking the SunnComm DRM or is it the Microsoft provided feature which breaks said DRM?

DRM Thwarted by Shift Key
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/03/10/08/1327228.shtml

https://jhalderm.com/pub/cd3/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 6:56am
  
  Re: Relevant
  From your first link
  
  ". Both companies said they had known about it before releasing the CD, and that they still believed the protection would deter most average listeners' copying. "
  
  They REALLY think the masses are stupid!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:22am
  
  Re: Relevant
  Well, with newer versions of Windows, autorun has changed. It doesn't just run the program any more, it asks what you want to do with it; run setup.exe, play in windows media player, open folder. Does that count as breaking the DRM? Does making the registry change that disables autorun entirely count (or that new check box in Windows 7)? How about MAC and Linux, I doubt that the DRM can run at all on those.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:26am

I don't think it's fair at all to say that they don't seem to care. They did a copyright consultation and they know this is the largest problem with the bill for nearly all of Canada. As we have seen from some leaked cables they know it's bad for us, but are doing it because the US won't budge on that issue and will cut off our hands and feet if we don't put it in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnny canada, 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:28am

We are tech geeks and law geeks here :)

Read this

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/28/technology-copyright-bill.html?cmp=rss

Tha t is the comment from the average Canadian in the main stream press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:36am

To try and understand why this approach to address the "picking" of digital locks, resort is necessary to the discussions of the provision in the various committees that have to date considered the provision.

Without this information one is left to simply engage in conjecture, an insufficient basis upon which to articulate a possible defense of the approach. For example, while Geist has suggested this is almost surely controlled by general principles of property law, it may very well be another principle that underlies the provision.

In other words, "More data, please."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:47am
  
  Re:
  It doesn't really matter, though since there is no possible defense. You really have all the data you need. They are trying to pass a law that outlaws doing things that are not wrong and harms Canadians. The only thing to conjecture is why they are doing it, which isn't a defense so much as an excuse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Maybe you do not need any data because you seem to have already determined their is not possible defense. Defense to what? Without knowing why the provision is on the table and the specific matter(s) that underlie it, it is simply not possible to arrive at an informed opinion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 12:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's pretty obvious that it's because of US pressure, but if they have an honest man's excuse to redeem them, they wouldn't be hiding it would they?
      
      Anyway, the actions matter, not excuses.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech42 (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:01am

How about a password on a laptop?
If Canada Border Services Agency (formerly Canada Customs) or the RCMP (formerly a respectable police force) wish to view the contents of my laptop and bypass the password to do so, will they be guilty of a criminal offense under this new act?
Will I be able to launch a civil suit for damages caused by this wanton act of DRM circumvention?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:24am

Geist is chasing ghosts here. The federal / provincial split on these things isn't a real issue, because clearly all of the laws pertain to copyright related activities, and as such fall under federal domain. The provinces do control property, but federal controls the contractual rights.

Basically, the provinces can control the shiny plastic discs themselves, but they do not have control over what is on them. You don't "own" the content, you own the disc (and for those pricks who will spout off about discs being old, you can replace disc with "digital file" or whatever it is you prefer, things don't change). The content is licensed by contract, and not sold outright, therefore is not specifically property when in the hands of the consumer.

It's sort of the trouble many people have. The original work is in fact property, the copies of it are not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:40pm
  
  Re:
  I am not a lawyer, but surely I must sign a contract for it to be legal? Or at least know it exists before I make the purchase?
  
  In the mind of most people, you buy a CD, including songs. You dont say "hey guys, I just leased Hammerfall's latest album!", you talk about how you bought it.
  
  At best it could be an EULA thing (by buying this CD, you agree to...).
  
  Or am I totally confused? I am fairly sure I did not sign a contract last time I bought a CD/DVD.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 1:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's a control thing. They've realised that a lot of their plans aren't really possible if you can be said to have bought something. You see, they can't actually *stop* you from reselling or altering goods you've bought, or making backups of legally obtained media for personal use. If they can pretend that a license has been agreed to, then they can try to stop things that aren't permitted under said license.
    
    So, they're trying to retroactively change things so you have to give them more money. After all, they can't force you not to rip a CD you own but they could enforce a licence that means that any MP3 have to be purchased from an approved outlet. It's doomed to failure, of course, and completely unworkable, but that's never stopped them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:37am

With this new bill I would expect the media levy (tax) will be removed. After all you are a criminal now if you break any digital locks. It should also now be much easier to prove tangible dollars in lost revenue to these new criminals that will be filling up the new prisons that are to build (really really, it is in another bill). I wonder who will welcome the new release of threatening to sue for copyright infringement, or settle, and/or NOW face federal prison time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard, 29 Sep 2011 @ 4:53pm

Anti-circumvention law versus fair use
From what one remembers, in the book "Digital Copyright" (Prometheus Books, 2001), law professor Jessica Litman mentioned a third-party argument that was raised in favor of anti-circumvention law not allowing for fair use, which was that fair use does not guarantee a right to access a work. In particular, in a paper on copyright, it was argued that fair use would not allow a person to break into an author's home to take or use the author's personal copy of a work. Ms. Litman mentioned that this example was problematic because it relied on physical property rights, i.e. a homeowner's right to restrict access to works within their home would not necessarily allow them to restrict access to works located in a different location such as a public gallery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 30 Sep 2011 @ 12:48am

This Law Will Not Prevent Anything Legal
All it's doing is delegalizing the breaking of the locks. You will still be allowed to do things that don't break the law, just as you always have. Why should you be allowed to do things that break the law? Only criminals ask for that. So if you're against this law, you must be a criminal.

Be grateful to be allowed to do things that don't break the law. Some wanted to go further, and criminalize those acts, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 3:43am
  
  Re: This Law Will Not Prevent Anything Legal
  Then they will want to criminialise learning the theory behind breaking that stuff... only the alphabet soup agencies will be able to teach cryptography or cryptographic theory...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]