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.

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

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

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?

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

Canada Plans To Re-Introduce Bad Copyright Plan, With Damaging Digital Locks Provisions, With No Additional Consultation

from the try-try-again dept

The US entertainment industry is nothing if not persistent in trying to pressure foreign countries into implementing ever more draconian copyright law. And in Canada, it appears that the US firms have a willing partner in the form of Heritage Minister James Moore, who has announced that, despite massive and widespread criticism of last year's (US-driven) attempt at putting in place bad changes to copyright law, the current government plans to introduce the exact same bill with no changes and no further consultation.

Mr. Moore told The Canadian Press in an interview that the Conservative government will re-introduce its copyright bill this fall, in exactly the same form as legislation that died with the last Parliament.

The measures will go back to a legislative committee for study, and Mr. Moore said groups who testified before MPs won't be asked back to comment again.

“We've taken a couple runs at it before in minority Parliaments, but we think that we have a very good formula with the old Bill C-32 and when we come forward with our legislative agenda this fall we want to pick up where we left off, which is to continue the study of the legislation,” Mr. Moore said.

I guess that's what you would think when you brush off widespread and sustained criticism as merely being from "radical extremists."

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, canada, copyright, digital locks, drm

Canada More Or Less Admits Its Copyright Reform Plan Is Driven By US, Following DMCA Exemption Rulings

from the why-wait-until-now? dept

With the Librarian of Congress issuing the latest round of DMCA anti-circumvention exemptions, many Canadians who were battling over the proposed anti-circumvention provisions in C-32, the proposed copyright reform bill, noted how the new exceptions were not found in the Canadian proposal. The key issue was the idea, as Canadian politicians (and the entertainment industry) had suggested, that such exceptions might not bring it into compliance with various treaties. However, with the US showing that such exemptions are allowed, apparently Canadian politicians are "reviewing" the rulemaking to see what "implications" there may be for C-32.

While I'm glad that Canadian politicians may be reconsidering their awful digital locks provision, it seems odd that it would take a US rulemaking for them to do so. After all, one of the key talking points by Canadian politicians is that this is a "made in Canada" approach to copyright, rather than being driven by the US. So, why would a US rulemaking matter? While it's good that this rulemaking is in a good direction, the fact that Canada didn't think to include similar exemptions in its copyright law until this rulemaking is more or less a confession that the copyright law was based on US rules and US interests, rather than Canadian interests.

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

Massachusetts May Be The First To Get A Right To Repair Law

from the about-time dept

For quite some time now there have been reports about how carmakers have been forcing car owners to take cars to the dealers for (expensive) repairs, by using special software to diagnose problems in the computer system, and only giving the necessary software to dealers. This is actually one of many nasty consequences of the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules (pay attention Canada), whereby it should be perfectly legal for anyone you ask to work on your car -- but thanks to digital locks placed on your car's computer by automakers, other mechanics would be breaking the law just to figure out how to get around the locks. Every year for the past decade, there are attempts to pass a national "right to repair" act at the federal level to take care of this, but it never goes anywhere.

However, it looks like at least some states are trying to take matters into their own hands. jjmsan points us to the news that Massachusetts is apparently close to creating just such a statewide law, and many are hoping it will drive other states to follow suit. The automakers, of course, are fighting it, but their logic doesn't make much sense:

A spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an association of 11 vehicle manufacturers including Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co., said aftermarket parts companies are seeking information that would enable them to make inexpensive parts in foreign countries without incurring research and development costs.

"This is a thinly veiled attempt by parts manufacturers to lower the cost of remanufacturing original equipment of manufacturer parts," alliance spokesman Charles Territo said. "Once this information is released, that intellectual property will be in China by the end of the month."

So? If you can't compete with other aftermarket companies, that's your problem. You shouldn't be able to unfairly lock them out of the market and jack up prices just through some software code.

Filed Under: automobile, digital locks, dmca, freedom to tinker, massachusetts, right to repair

Canadian DMCA Introduced; Digital Lock Provision Trumps Any And All User Rights

from the with-this-lock,-i-control-all dept

As was widely expected, Canadian politicians have introduced their version of the DMCA, dubbed the "Copyright Modernization Act" (or Bill C-32 if you want to get technical). Michael Geist runs down the good and the bad at the link above, but it appears there's a lot more that's bad than good. While the plan tries to add "balance" by extending fair dealing provisions just slightly wider than before (though, still pretty limited), it undermines that very concept with a heavy anti-circumvention clause. This is the worst aspect of the DMCA exported north to Canada. Basically, as long as a rights holder puts some form of DRM/copy protection on their work, all those exceptions go out the window. You can't circumvent, even for non-infringing reasons.

What this does is change the basic contours of copyright law. It gives the rights holders the ability to define the exceptions, and take away the right of users. It's this very aspect of the DMCA that needs to be fixed, not expanded to other countries. It goes against the core principles of copyright law, which include exceptions for the sake of important modes of expression. By letting the rights holder determine what is and what is not allowed as an exception, simply by letting the rights holder put any kind of digital lock (no matter how weak) is a travesty of copyright law. It's not copyright law at all, at that point. It's really a law to lockdown content away from the public, and to have the government declare a particular business model as supreme and protected by the government.

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

Nokia Exec To Developers: Embrace DRM & Digital Locks Because I Say So

from the very-convincing dept

In recent years, we've seen the entertainment industry suddenly embrace mobile as a platform, incorrectly believing that its more locked-down nature would mean that it wouldn't face the same "threats" (which they should see as opportunities) of file sharing and open networks and services. However, as is always the way, more open systems are catching on and getting more usage, and more closed systems are having trouble getting traction. Rather than embracing that, however, it appears Nokia is pushing to hold back the tide.

Ben S writes in to highlight a rather unconvincing talk given by a Nokia VP trying to explain to open source developers why they need to embrace DRM, intellectual property, digital locks and subsidies in the mobile world. However, his reasoning basically amounts to "because I say so."

"Why do we need closed vehicles? We do. Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]."

In other words, there's no actual reason to use these things, other than that Nokia says you must -- even though it knows such things harm the industry. Way to show leadership in the mobile industry. No wonder it seems like most innovation in the mobile space is coming from folks other than Nokia.

Filed Under: digital locks, drm, intellectual property, mobile, open source
Companies: nokia