Comments on: Canadian copyright bill: Good and bad

By: mathewi

mathewi — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:34:07 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Maya — and the compliment :-)

I think you're right about the privacy aspect — it will be
interesting to see what happens when this and/or the ACTA agreement
meet our privacy laws.

By: Maya

Maya — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:43:15 +0000

Great post! It is more balanced than most.

I've read the Bill a few times, and I still don't know what to make of a lot of the provisions.

I think that reform is in need, but I don't think this solves the problems.

It will be interesting to see how this (and ACTA) intersect with privacy legislation/CL....the TMs seems to hint that this may allow for some balance. What I have/do on my personal computer should be only my (reasonable) interest.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:18:32 +0000

The way this bill was covered today by the news is lamentable. Anyone with access to a social news site can see what the people think of this law. If the government was representing its people this bill would never have been introduced. Everyone involved in the media that gave this bill two thumbs up should be ashamed of themselves.

By: Mark Demeny

Mark Demeny — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:32:02 +0000

This bill will make the breaking of any DRM punishable by a fine of up to $1,000,000
and 5 years in jail (C-61 Section 42). Among other things, this makes
using an iPhone illegal in Canada, despite the fact that both the
phone and service have been purchased legally. The US DMCA (upon which
this act is surely based in large part, and in many respects even more
restrictive) has had a number of cases where it has been used in fact
to restrict commerce. Cases abound where the DMCA is used for
anti-competitive means; manufacturers of printer ink and garage door
openers have been sued under the DMCA simply because the communication
method was encrypted. This is overly restrictive and anti-competitive
for both consumer choice as well as competing manufacturers. Another example was Apple restricting companies from developing apps for the iPhone
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/05/sap_iph... ). Anti-circumvention legislation of this draconian nature does not encourage innovation in any respect.

If RIM wants to make their email handling software available for the
iPhone - who is Apple to use the DMCA to say they can't? Consumers
should be able to use their hardware however they like, and companies
should be able to provide their hardware, software and services to
competitors devices - this is what the free market is about and this bill
specifically outlaws that.

Of course, that is merely one of the effects C-61 has on innovators -
for consumers it is even worse. Quite simply it means I no longer do
the following things with my *legally purchased* media.

1) I can no longer watch my legally purchased UK DVDs
2) I can no longer copy my legally purchased DVDs to my iPod for
viewing while travelling
3) I cannot copy an ebook to a format to which it was not intended
(i.e. from encrypted PDF to my iPod or Blackberry)
4) I cannot use my old obsolete XBOX as a media center, as I would
have had to bypass the security on the machine to install my own
choice of software.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:05:11 +0000

One example would be cellphones. I've paid for my cellphone through my contract. I want to unlock it and take it to Europe.

As far as I know my carrier isn't forced to give me the unlock code. So, I break it myself - but thats a $20,000 fine?

If you dumped the anti circumventing DRM provisions this wouldn't be too bad of a first attempt. Canadians still need to be consulted to reach the proper balance of course (the lack of transparency was disgusting) but it would be a start.