Review Of Canada's Copyright Bill Concludes, Digital Locks Survive
from the not-all-bad-but-not-all-good-either dept
The clause-by-clause review of Bill C-11, Canada's new copyright legislation, has concluded. Michael Geist tirelessly live-Tweeted the committee discussion, and as it progressed one thing became clear: Canada is almost certainly going to be saddled with a DMCA-style anti-circumvention law (more commonly referred to here as the "digital locks" law) that would make it illegal to bypass copy protections, even for the purposes of making a completely legal, non-infringing copy such as a personal backup of a DVD. Both the Liberals and the NDP brought forth amendments that would have fixed this by clarifying that bypassing copy protection is only illegal if it is for the purposes of making an illegal copy, but the ruling Conservative government was unwilling to budge. They also defeated an amendment that would have fixed the digital locks exception for people with disabilities—an exception which exists, but is largely toothless as currently written.
The news isn't all bad—none of the more extreme changes lobbied for by the entertainment industry were accepted, and most were not even seriously considered:
The government's decision to leave the digital lock rules untouched is unsurprising but still a disappointment, since both opposition parties were clearly persuaded that such a change was needed. On the other hand, given the heavy lobbying by many groups demanding changes to fair dealing (all parties rejected calls for a new fair dealing test or limitations on education), user generated content (there were multiple calls for its removal), statutory damages (there were calls for unlimited damages), and Internet liability (there were calls for notice-and-takedown and subscriber disclosure requirements), the government's proposed amendments [were] relatively modest.
The bill is now on its way to the House of Commons for its third reading, with some of its best elements—expanded fair dealing, no notice-and-takedown—intact, along with its worst element: the digital locks provision. Though C-11 is not law yet, it's passage is all-but-guaranteed at this point, which means we may one day see a situation in this country like that in the US, where people have faced jail time for modding an Xbox (yes, that charge was later dropped, but a citizen never should have been dragged before a judge for modifying hardware they legally own in the first place). It's still important to make your voice heard: if you want to let the government know that you don't support the indirect criminalization of legal copying accomplished by the digital locks provision, today is the day to contact your Member of Parliament. Although the Conservative majority is putting its weight behind the bill, we learned with SOPA/PIPA that copyright and internet freedoms are not a partisan issue. It may be too late to stop the digital locks provision, but it would be good to see some serious debate in the House, and send a message that Canadians recognize what has happened: the Conservative government has used its majority to foist a bad law upon us at the behest of industry powers and U.S. diplomats, over the objections and best interests of the citizens it is supposed to serve.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sigh....
While the Tories will be blasted for going as far as they did over digital locks and the possibility that someone may face jail time down the road as a result.
I'd like to remind Leah that the Liberals, in the past, when in a majority have rolled over and played dead to the demands of the "content" industry and U.S. diplomats and asking how high to demands of "jump" in every other issue outside of Canadian content. The NDP have done the same "for the artist" which is why we have a tax on blank media now as if we're all pirates.
Yes, it's bad law. It will probably sail through the Senate so we'll have to see what the courts say down the road when the inevitable happens.
Of course, the reality is that digital locks will continue to be broken with tiring regularity for the simple fact that consumers don't like them. Exactly the same situation as currently exists in the States.
I'd be curious to find out if the committee votes were whipped which may mean that buried in the background there IS some partisanship if for no other reason that the "content" industry for all its complaining goes nowhere without bags full of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speak your piece of suffer for a very long time the consequences of being silent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The nice thing about these laws is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The nice thing about these laws is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The nice thing about these laws is...
You end up with a society where everyone is breaking the law and 'could' be charged. Wouldn't it be better to have a society where you can say 'I haven't done anything wrong, so you can't charge me with anything'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The nice thing about these laws is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The nice thing about these laws is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The nice thing about these laws is...
So why have them? A politician's kowtow to the industry to get them of their backs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've always considered that a strength, not a weakness. The less gov't can do, the less they can !@#$ things up more than they are. I'd rather pay for more elections than the results of a majority win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like modifying a semi-automatic rifle to fire full auto?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only reason that a citizen should be in court for any of that if that weapon was used in the commission of a crime and if you are already dead, what difference does it make?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 13th, 2012 @ 7:44pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're not serious with this shit are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus, this is why you are such an idiot.
Simply, modifying the hardware wasn't the issue - modifying and bypassing protections in software was. You are free to do whatever you want on the hardware side to your Xbox, there is no issue - what is an issue is using modchips to get around security or to otherwise modify the copyrighted code on the machine, which is only LICENSED to you, not sold to you.
I know it's a difficult concept, like walking and chewing gum. With lots of work, perhaps you will master both of them in your lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or are you just an idiot talking out of your ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My point is that modifying the hardware istself isn't against the law - it's modifying the function of the software on board, the bypassing of security that is the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Show of hands, who believes what he said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The laws contradict one another, one says it's legal to do this that or the other and another says it's illegal to make that possible. We know what the letter of the law is, Marcus knows what the letter of the law is, and that's what's being pointed out is wrong. I know it's a difficult concept that someone could understand what is legal and what isn't and argue that something should be made legal but, with lots of work, perhaps you will master it in your lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This deserves a huge helping of WTF ?!?!???
Sarcasm aside, of course laws are meant to change. Hell, it would be nice if they did change instead of lagging behind the tech. Your sarcasm implies there are not enough copyright laws to keep up with technology. Have you ever considered that its time to change the laws so that the normal behaviors of customers (enabled by technology) are not criminalized?
Please spare us the rant about how everything will be free and no one will get paid and creation will disappear from the planet. TV didn't kill movies and video didn't kill the radio star.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Laws MUST change or rather adapt to times. Many of the new laws are not needed and their purpose could be fulfilled with a review of an existing one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flood the police stations
It would be nice to see 100 million people all pick the same day to turn themselves in to the police for breaking DRM to make legal backups of stuff they own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flood the police stations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Concept of Sale Being Eliminated
Do something the selling entity does not like. Go directly to jail, no due-process or appeal rights. Besides the concept of sale being eliminated, the legal process is being gutted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have bigger problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We have bigger problems.
While the PC's are making some pretty horrible moves that I don't agree with, and I'm from Alberta, they aren't quite as bad as you easterners make out.
Who would replace them? The Liberals? The NDP? Come on, get a clue. Illegitimate? Pretty sure they were voted into power in an election, this isn't Russia and Harper isn't Putin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We have bigger problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We have bigger problems.
There was an election, the people voted, the Conservatives won. People then start saying but he only got 40% of the vote, so 60% didn't want him so someone else should run the country. Sure, only 40% voted for the Conservatives but only 30% voted for the NDP. That means 70% of Canadians didn't want them to run the country. Same goes with the Liberals with their 19%, 81% didn't want them. "First past the post" is not the best system out there, but it's the system that we are using and have been using for a long time, it's not like the Conservatives suddenly changed how elections are run to work better in their favor.
Yes, I voted for the Conservatives.
No, I do not support the digital locks.
Yes, I support some of their other decisions.
Yes, I do think Towes is a moron and should not be a MP and if you do not agree with me, you must be a child pornographer.
But you are a lair or at least a misguided idiot, if you are trying to tell me there is a political party that does everything that you want, while doing nothing you don't want. Also that that a party would not have a few bad apples that do stupid things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We have bigger problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Restrictions Management) has been undermined by the metaphor of
"digital locks". That metaphor is weak because it fails to show
what's nasty about these malfeatures.
You probably have quite a few locks, perhaps on a dwelling place, a
locker, a car, a bicycle, a suitcase. They don't oppress you, they
serve you -- since you have the keys for them. Comparing DRM with
these locks makes it sound ok.
DRM is like a lock placed on you or your property by someone else.
You can't remove it because you don't have the key. In other words,
DRM is like a clamp on your car, or handcuffs on your hands.
That's why we call DRM features "digital handcuffs". If you want to
teach your MP why this provision is unjust, use that term. And don't
hesitate to say that Canada should defend its citizens from the
aggressor to the south.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]