A Postgame On Canada's Copyright Reform
from the mixed-bag dept
On Monday, after multiple attempts over several years, Canada's House of Commons passed Bill C-11 (previously known by other names), a sweeping copyright reform bill. Senate approval is all but assured, and the bill is essentially certain to become law in the near future. Luckily, unlike SOPA/PIPA in the States, C-11 is not a ridiculous, draconian internet lockdown bill. In fact, there's a lot to celebrate in the bill, though that celebration is marred by one significant problem: the digital locks portion, which is similar to the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules.
But first, the good stuff. Michael Geist has an excellent summary of C-11 with a comparison to previous phases of copyright law in Canada. The victories for smarter copyright law in C-11 sound almost like fantasy when compared to the American copyright debate. They include:
- New fair dealing provisions (our version of fair use) to cover educational uses, plus parody and satire
- New backup, format-shifting and time-shifting allowances that remove previous restrictions on networked DVRs and internet TV services (similar to those that have suffered in American courts)
- Explicit copyright exceptions for "user-generated content", aimed at protecting non-commercial fan-art and remixes
- A bunch of explicit exceptions for schools, such as the right to stage public performances
- A notice-and-notice system, not a notice-and-takedown system
- A $5,000 cap on statutory damages for all non-commercial infringement
Many of these are, as Geist calls them, "user-focused reforms"—something conspicuously absent from most proposed copyright legislation these days. But the digital locks issue remains a black mark on C-11, as the concerns of groups representing consumers, the blind and visually impaired (who will have a tougher time accessing digital content now), and Canadians in general were all brushed aside in favor of a DMCA-style approach that makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection systems even if it's for the purposes of making a legal copy. This, unfortunately, weakens the impact of all the positive reforms in the bill, because it creates a glaring loophole whereby rightsholders can attempt to block copying even if it's for one of the newly defined legal reasons. It's a real shame, and it also represents a foot-in-the-door for those who want more DMCA-style laws in Canada.
Still, it hardly erases the fact that there's a lot to like in C-11. User rights got more attention and more serious consideration in this bill than they ever did in SOPA/PIPA. Given that American diplomats were (and still are) actively pushing for Canadian versions of the DMCA and SOPA (or even more draconian laws that they can then import back to the U.S.), we came out of this one pretty well.
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: bill c-11, canada, copyright reform, digital locks, fair dealing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I have done some serious research in the last few days, including trying to wade through the hideous official government copy of the bill (It is formatted as a list of changes and additions to the existing legislation, because, you know, we all have the old one memorized.)
As an Internet citizen and free-thinker, I assumed I should hate the legislation, thus my research to figure out why.
Everything else is very positive, but the way the bill treats DRM is ridiculous. Although I can understand that they were trying to pander to innovators by allowing them absolute control over how their content is used, a bill with such extensive and well thought-out fair use exceptions needs to integrate them with the DRM.
Breaking DRM to make media accessible to the visually-impaired is an obvious case, but this legislation says it is illegal.
I think we fared better than most countries, and I was actually surprised that C11 included intelligent acknowledgements of fair use. Fix the DRM and we will be world leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All they have to do is put DRM on everything to make the exemptions moot.
The fair use concessions are meaningless with the DRM clause, and they know it. That's why 'allowing' the exemptions to go through was no skin off their backs. A good laugh at the public's expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, the consensus seems to be that you can be ACTA-compliant with a law that says something like "you can't break DRM in order to infringe". That's the approach taken in New Zealand, Switzerland, and India, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Precisely.
The 'Fair use' exemptions are there, but ONLY if a digital lock has not been broken to get the content. Basically, you can use any material for a stated fair use exemption ONLY if you did not have to break a digital lock to use it.
All they have to do is put the most basic 'digital lock' in place on everything and nothing can be used, even for the claimed exemptions. There is NO language in the DRM provision that allows for the breaking of a digital lock for fair use purposes.
Clear language for 'Fair use exemptions' .. but NO exemptions for the breaking of DRM.
That's a great big problem. Who has the money to challenge these laws once in place ? Not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dang it, my shilling efforts aren't working. maybe I need to try harder. i hope my Hollywood masters don't fire me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This.
This. We need this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
loopholes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: loopholes
Seems to me I read about this suggestion already. It would be considered a method of getting around the DRM and thus not legal. NO method of circumvention would be legal.
The bill is a masterwork of deception. It's being praised by copyright minimalist because of what could have been beneficial language pertaining to fair uses, but each and every one of those uses is negated by the DRM Clause. CSS on DVD's is considered a 'Digital Lock'. Digital protections encoded into digital broadcasts are considered 'locks' . Even the most basic protection now becomes illegal to circumvent.
How does one use video clips when all sources are 'locked' by even the most minimal of protection ? As long as the DRM clause is in place this bill changes nothing, but carries the 'appearance' of being fair.
Appearance is everything apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: loopholes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
International obligations
Somehow, though, I doubt that Congress will feel the need to include them in order to "harmonize" our laws with "international obligations."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: International obligations
[USA pouts in the corner.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wake up!
Bill C11 will become obsolete overnight. You're missing the hidden agenda of the CPC and Hollywood, and its right up your noses! It wasn't even a day after C11 passed the HoC that Obama announced Canada could join the TPP negotiations. Its a well known fact that C11 was a prerequisite to join TPP! There is many leaks and such that acknowledge this, and a wonderful applauding from the US Chamber Of Commerce welcoming Canada to TPP. (Gee I wonder why, apparently Canada still has unresolved "issues" with IP law according to them even after C11 was passed!)
Wake up people!
http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2012/june/us-chamber-applauds-canada%E2%80%99s-en try-trans-pacific-partnership-negotiations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wake up!
Bill C11 will become obsolete overnight. You're missing the hidden agenda
Yeah. We only wrote about it three days ago hours after it happened.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120618/15271219371/us-invites-mexico-canada-to-join- tpp-negotiations-with-less-power.shtml
Before accusing us of missing something, maybe look to see if we'd already covered it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wake up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wake up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's why they were happy to add those concessions. The DRM clause makes them meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Still, I'm a bit annoyed by some of the pessimism over this bill. Politicians listened to users, and put sensible stuff in the bill. Will politicians and industry groups also find a way to ruin it? Quite possibly.
But if we don't acknowledge that they have gotten certain things right, at least in principle, then what reason do they have to listen to us in the future? What sort of smarter-copyright proponents would we be if we absolutely refused to acknowledge anything moving in the right direction, and focused only on the problems, dismissing all improvements as we go?
Unless of course you believe that it's all rigged and pointless, and citizen input is meaningless, and none of us should bother trying to effect anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because in principle is just not good enough. I mean, it's totally illogical to give someone the rights to do something and then forbid it in the next paragraph (which of course did not stop German politicians to do just that as well).
By applying this crazy thinking you'll only make people respect these laws less. Cause who in their right mind would be stopped from format shifting the media they paid for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Same reason they pretended to listen to us in the first place. Because we vote them in and pay their salaries. They aren't children and they don't need (nor do they respond to) pats on the back to do well. They will only respond to continued pressure until they realise that their attempts to fool us and have it both ways will never fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infact, its the equivalent of placing a pile of dog shit in icing sugar and calling it edible!
Digital locks simply do not work in this day and age, all they do is add huge administrative overhead in basically every other industry that doesn't even use them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry about that, but I really don't see it differently. Yes, they put sensible stuff in the bill which gives the APPEARANCE of listening to constituents and users. They are aware of the close scrutiny this issue is getting. However, as I pointed out, creating that appearance costs them nothing since the DRM rule makes the concessions useless. They create apparent cooperation without giving up anything .. classic politics. Yes, it's a very cynical view, but since they can't count on secrecy, chicanery is the next logical step. If they were really sincere then the DRM provision wouldn't be there. You know, I know AND they know .. DRM doesn't stop copying and never will.
" Unless of course you believe that it's all rigged and pointless, and citizen input is meaningless, and none of us should bother trying to effect anything... "
Seriously ?
I am one of the least confrontational guys on the planet. I am not a troll and don't deserve the strawman treatment Leigh. I've been posting on this issue since Boycott-RIAA existed as a site, was a member of P2Pnet while Thumbtack still ran it and remained through Jon Newtons run. If I seem cynical, It's because of what we've all SEEN THEM DO. Repeatedly, consistently.
" But if we don't acknowledge that they have gotten certain things right, at least in principle, then what reason do they have to listen to us in the future? "
Yes, right .. in principle. Right in appearance. But that little DRM clause is a big. glaring, deliberate hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The digital locks aspect is bad, but I don't agree that it completely cripples everything else. The Supreme Court has been quite friendly to users and fair dealing lately, and all the good stuff in C-11 opens the door for even more good rulings from them, like the one in December that referred to fair dealing as a "user's right". I can even see the digital locks laws being challenged before the court on the basis that they conflict with fair dealing.
It's not ideal, but I see no reason not to celebrate the progress that was made. We're going to have things like education exceptions, networked DVRs and user-generated content protection codified in legislation. That's pretty awesome, and an encouraging contrast from copyright law in the U.S.
Seriously ?
I am one of the least confrontational guys on the planet. I am not a troll and don't deserve the strawman treatment Leigh. I've been posting on this issue since Boycott-RIAA existed as a site, was a member of P2Pnet while Thumbtack still ran it and remained through Jon Newtons run
I apologize. My intent is not to build a strawman or to attack. But I really do see that as the ultimate conclusion of taking such a pessimistic view on stuff like this. I don't think you're a troll :) I just disagree...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some, not all, you tube videos are st up so they can't be directly downloaded for offline viewing. To do so circumvents that protection. That clip can't be used, even for fair use purposes such as rebuttal or commentary. Even that marginal protection is enough to deny legal uses.
Right clicking on some web sites is disallowed on some image sites, since right clicking is the usual method used in browsers to download an image to the computer. Yes, some browsers ( like Firefox) eliminate this problem. but that is a form of a digital lock, bypassing it would be illegal, no matter what the purpose.
Digital devices can receive a 'do not copy' command which would prevent a DVR or other digital receiver from copying it. This is also easily circumvented, but, again, this is a digital lock. Circumventing it, even for fair use ( time shifting ) would be codified as illegal.
The DRM clause does much more than weaken the supposed concessions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I certainly hope so. I only wish that those who put those laws in place had enough foresight to know that the challenge is inevitable. Without the DRM law the challenge would still happen, but with the DRM law it will only be harder ( and more expensive ) to make that challenge.
" It's not ideal, but I see no reason not to celebrate the progress that was made. "
That is true. Celebrate the progress. That's a good thing. But also don't fail to call them on their bullshit. Here's a rose, now turn around so I can kick you in the pants ;)
It needs to be pointed out alongside the 'good'.
" I apologize. My intent is not to build a strawman or to attack. But I really do see that as the ultimate conclusion of taking such a pessimistic view on stuff like this. I don't think you're a troll :) I just disagree... "
Respectfully accepted, though we probably don't disagree as much as it may appear. It IS the 'ultimate conclusion' but that is the extreme. there IS a middle ground, I sit in it. It can be dirty, but it's the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]