Almost two years ago to the day, we talked about then Bill C-61. We had a wonderful conversation.
Last Wednesday, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages introduced Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.
You may say, here we go again. However, after looking at many of my previous objections and comparing them to the First Reading of C-32, my hesitations are much mollified.
C-32 as compared to the previous C-61 is much stronger on the traditional concept of ‘fair-use’. It has significant penalties for pirates who are the real targets.
I’m actually quite happy with the Bill and whole-heartedly give it support. It only took three tries by two different governing parties to come up with a reasonable compromise, but there you go. The system (helped by an election and a prorogation) worked.
And the bill killing the long gun registry went where?
My only wish was that they would allow personal copies of digital locked materials, or request companies make available personal use copies of locked materials, other then that, yea looks much better to me.
Eh. I still don’t see where it allows me to DeCSS a DVD for a short “fair use” clip. Maybe I missed that.
What do you mean by ‘clip’?
Lance – Doesn’t the digital lock clause still override any attempts at fair use?
clip: as in the plethora of “Hitler rants” in the movie Downfall, everytime some subject needs a scathing parody.
Maybe someone will do a Helen Thomas parody and the ‘Downfall’ of journalism.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the best cure for political stupidity is laughter.
Reportedly Thomas says she will make a career change and audition for “Sex and the City 3.”
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
This bill is far better then its predecessor but the digital lock provision needs to be amended. It overrides all the other fair use provisions of the bill. This means that if even a weak lock provision is on a cd/dvd … no backups no conversion to other media devices. At the very least all media with digital locks should come with a big warning to consumers.
IF YOU BUY THIS PRODUCT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT BUT PLAY IT ON THE DEVICES WE DEEM ARE ALLOWED.
Hans, you mean like this:
29. Fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright.
I mean ‘clip’ like the “Downfall” parodies all over Youtube, for instance, or a brief segment of a copyrighted work reproduced as part of a class lesson, etc.
Kevin, you said, “cd/dvd … no backups no conversion to other media devices.”
Firstly, 29.24 explicitly deals with backups and yes, it says you can’t defeat technological locks as defined in Section 41.
Section 41.1(3) The owner of the copyright in a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) has been contravened may not elect under section 38.1 to recover statutory damages from an individual who contravened that paragraph only for his or her own private purposes.
So, yes, it’s frowned upon, but private use has no punishment, distribute it however and you’re subject to damages.
Does this bill eliminate the blank media / difital music player taxes?
Dan, I couldn’t find anything in there that modifies of expunges Section 82 of the Copyright Act (Liability to pay levy).
Michael Geist actually summed up my concerns with the thought that it’s OK because there are no statutory damages for circumventing digital locks for private purposes rather well:
“First, claims that reduced penalties removes the impediment to Canadians circumventing digital locks for personal purposes assumes that concern for statutory damages is the primary motivator for a particular action. I disagree. In the education world, teachers and students will not break the lock because academic guidelines will make it clear that they can’t. Similarly, research will also be stifled in the same way since researchers sign ethics documents when they apply for grants that their research plan is compliant with all laws. They can’t sign the document in this situation, regardless of the likelihood of damages.”
Who am I to argue with Geist, but research has explicit and specific exemptions with regards to technological locks:
41.13 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply to a person who, for the purposes of encryption research, circumvents a technological protection measure by means of decryption if
(a) it would not be practical to carry out the research without circumventing the techno- logical protection measure;
(b) the person has lawfully obtained the work, the performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or the sound recording that is protected by the technological protection measure; and
(c) the person has informed the owner of the copyright in the work, the performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or the sound recording who has applied the technological protection measure.
“. . . for the purposes of encryption research . . .”
That’s a VERY specific exemption.
I use blank CDs to store digital images from my cameras. I don’t understand why I should be paying Shania Twain royalty every time I do that. When is that dumb tax going to be repealed?
I just skimmed over this quickly. There are provisions for workers in libraries, archives and museums to use material for educational purposes. Fine. I also don’t have too much of a problem with copyright holders having control over their product. It can go too far if personal use is extremely restricted.
Just my quick thoughts.
I found this curious:
28.2 (1) The author’s or performer’s right to the integrity of a work or performer’s perform- ance is infringed only if the work or the performance is, to the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation,
K Stricker, what other exemption would be necessary for _research_?
Integrating a corporate crypto system? Valid.
Building a better SSH? Valid.
Sociological study on Finnish teenagers who hate not watching Bones on DVD? Valid.
On the flip side, I can’t think of any research that happens where the data, meta-data, code, or anything else is encrypted. Protected from malicious users, access limited, sure. Encrypted by an outside source? I don’t think so.
lance – any research involving contemporary culture. As much as that idea may sound like BS. Many people have made a career out of overanalyzing the likes of Shakespeare, for instance. Why limit research publications/fair use to the printed word?
I see that one of the ways the government is pushing through this legislation is making it available online in a form that is very difficult to read. Gave up trying to read it and skimmed over it. I don’t like it and suspect I’ll find myself in violation of the act through my use of the latest literature in the practice of medicine.
My first encounter with copyright stupidity was when I got some medical textbooks 20+ years ago and noticed a statement “no part of this book may be stored in an information retrieval system”. I walk around with a wetware information retrieval system and I never got a reply back from the publisher to my letter asking if I was allowed to remember what was written in the textbook. I have memorized large chunks of medical textbooks and have passed this knowledge on to medical students who haven’t purchased the book that it came from. It was in medical school that I decided that copyright laws were idiotic and this bill is simply a continuation of the idiocy.
I have a legitimate copy of Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine on CD. One of the annoying things about this copy is that it requires a CD drive on the computer that one is reading the textbook on; doesn’t have to be the original CD as a copy of the CD works just as well as the original. My travel computers are all tablet PC’s without CD drives which means I can’t read a legal copy of the book on this machine; at least not until I bought a flash drive that appeared to the OS as a CD drive — a bit of simple hacking and I have a flash drive with Harrison’s that runs on a non-physical CD computer. Presumably this act would be considered circumvention of a protection measure which I can do on my own copy of Harrison’s under proposed C-32, but the act of my communicating how I did it is illegal which I consider to be an unreasonable restriction on my freedom of speech.
At least in the US the 1st Ammendment protects such communications but in Canada we have no such broad protections. This act is a piece of totalitarian legislation that should be scrapped. It’s not as bad as the DMCA but it will have the same chilling effect as the DMCA has had; there hasn’t been a single good low level reverse-engineering book like “Inside Windows” since the DMCA was passed in the US.
Who cares? (rhetorical) Even shooting a crop destroying gopher results in more real wealth created than all the Disneys and Shania Twains put together.
Only geeky metrosexuals get all het up over something like this.
K. Stricker, 50 years from the point of publication/performance of a original recording,
50 years after a modified recording,
Up to 99 years maximum for where the publication vs. performance is significantly different.
No changes to books that I can see.
ol’ hoss, what would happen if only people who, “shoot a crop destroying gopher” cared about the gun registry?
Uh, there wouldn’t have been a registry if it weren’t for disconnected from reality geeky metrosexuals whose only skill is recycling existing wealth.
When I read the contents of the bill, I was at first immensely overjoyed at the sensible legislation being tabled. Aaaand then I got to the digital locks part.
All DVD’s contain digital locks on them already. Just because your DVD ripping software doesn’t have any trouble copying videos from your legal owned DVD to your computer doesn’t mean that it isn’t breaking a digital lock.
All this bill will do is encourage more DRM in the form of trivial “locks” that really are just an extremely simple form of encryption. The purpose of this encryption is to merely make it illegal to break said lock and move content to different mediums.
We’re back at square one…more DRM is in our future if this law passes. Soon I’m going to be a criminal for owning an iPod that I unlocked so that I can run unix on it and ssh into devices at work instead of lugging around a heavy laptop with me for ssh purposes.
Criminal, but not prosecutable.
I think you’re also all missing what that DRM law will mean. It’s not going to affect just DVDs and electronic goods. It will have a broad impact on consumer goods of all kinds.
All printer cartridges, for example, contain a special chip with DRM code on it that prevents the use of anything but “authorized” cartridges. You can’t even re-ink those things in many cases unless you override the DRM and reset them so they register as full. So what does this mean? It means no more of those island stores in the malls that can reink your cartridges. Those stores will now be sued by the companies for defeating the DRM. Now you will have to buy those $70 ink cartridges instead of reinking them for $30.
Imagine extending this to other things now. Let’s stick DRM chips on car parts for instance. You can’t replace that burned out starter on your newer vehicle because it has a DRM chip that will prevent unauthorized parts from being used with your newer vehicle. Sure, small garages could override that chip but then be sued by the motor companies for defeating the DRM. Joe’s Auto Garage:0 Big motor company:Win!
Washing machines. Televisions. Heck, someone may find a way to stick them into light fixtures so you have to go back to the manufacturer to get light bulbs directly from them. A bill like this is a bill that will shut out competition and bring in high prices for everything. While I like what changes have been made to the other issues contained, the DRM portion within is still very bad for consumers.
” … the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages … ”
===================================
LOL.
Three ruffles and a flourish, perhaps?