Archive for June 15th, 2010

Moore Says Chamber of Commerce Support Evidence Consumers Like C-32

In one of the strangest responses to C-32 yet, Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore told the House of Commons yesterday that consumers are supportive of C-32 and cites as evidence the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.  The Chamber describes itself as Canada's largest and most influential business association and makes no pretense of representing consumer interests.  The exchange:

Read more ›

June 15, 2010 32 comments News

Clement Interview on TVO’s Search Engine

TVO's Search Engine features a detailed interview with Industry Minister Tony Clement on Bill C-32.  Clement is clearly sensitive to the concerns associated with digital locks in the bill, though his suggestion that the new provision on ephemeral recordings would allow broadcasters to circumvent locks for news reporting does not […]

Read more ›

June 15, 2010 4 comments Must Reads

Magic Seals Are Made to be Broken

Ivor Tossell's column in the Globe and Mail focuses on Bill C-32 and the problems with the digital lock provisions found in the bill.

Read more ›

June 15, 2010 Comments are Disabled Must Reads

Fixing Bill C-32: Proposed Amendments to the Digital Lock Provisions

My five-part series on the problems associated with the digital lock provisions in Bill C-32 identified many potential changes to strike a more balanced compromise (Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five or single PDF).  Several people have asked for specific legislative language for what I have in mind.  Together with my research assistant Keith Rose, we've drafted language that builds on the recommendations contained in the series on 32 Questions and Answers on C-32's Digital Lock Provisions.  The legislative language is available as a PDF download.

The primary solution that many have discussed involves permitting circumvention for lawful purposes. As I've discussed, this approach is compliant with the WIPO Internet Treaties, provides legal protection for digital locks, and maintains the copyright balance. There are at least two possible approaches.  The first would involve amending the definition for circumvent to account for only infringing purposes:

Read more ›

June 15, 2010 18 comments News