Comments for Copyright Debate Hits the House of Commons: Opposition Won't Support C-11 Due to Digital Locks at http://www.michaelgeist.ca , comment 1 to 45 out of 20 comments http://www.michaelgeist.ca Sat, 25 May 2013 08:28:04 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41473 You seem to forget several issues: 1) The PC have a majority. They don't care about the opposition, about the citizens, about their constituents, about the country... They will pass whatever laws they damn please, thanks to you. 2) Even after screwing you over six ways from Sunday, they will still win the next election. - Alex Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:00:30 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41435 See also this comic http://www.stallman.org/images/cartoon-canada-3.jpg - Richard M Stallman Mon, 24 Oct 2011 03:45:00 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41429 I'm glad people are picking up on the lie that DVDs do not contain digital locks. I am sure that telling a blatant lie to get a bill passed is illegal. And if he didn't know about CSS, he is not informed enough to be writing this kind of legislation. - Connor Behan Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:36:38 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41427 "the NDP's Charlie Angus stated..." from the grave? - Alex Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:40:02 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41424 Just to avoid possible confusion, I was referring to the poster "Michael" above, not to Dr. Geist. - Byte Sun, 23 Oct 2011 11:31:35 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41421 @Byte: "Earlier Michael (Oct. 20) suggested laws be put it place that would outlaw DRM protection where this would prevent legal use of content" Makes a lot of sense. Without such rule you open the "consumer" to a lot of abuse. - Napalm Sun, 23 Oct 2011 08:51:21 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41416 Earlier Michael (Oct. 20) suggested laws be put it place that would outlaw DRM protection where this would prevent legal use of content; this is one of the items that the Green Party in European Parliament is in favour of. This is the same document where they suggest a commercial copyright of 20 years. I've e-mailed the Green Party of Canada to see if they would be able to live with 20 instead of 12 years, we might see some trans-atlantic cooperation on this issue if successful. - Byte Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:44:09 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41415 @Mark: Let me sum it up: we don't have proper computer crime or privacy / personal information protection laws in place, yet we rush to pass TPM laws first. Sounds risky to me. - Napalm Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:21:55 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41411 Well, I'm no fan of this TPM legislation by any means, but be assured that your aforementioned situation of a company creating potentially malicious software that is illegal for anyone to remove cannot actually occur under C-11... there are sections in the bill that make that much quite clear. - Mark Sat, 22 Oct 2011 02:02:16 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41407 @Mark: So how comes we are passing a law about TPMs without having first a robust computer crime law in place? - Napalm Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:19:07 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41406 Yes, of course I know that software is copyrightable. Virus software, however, is not eligible for a lawfully recognizable copyright in Canada because it violates computer crime laws. Current computer crime laws are not robust enough to make what Sony did with their rootkit an actual violation of law, although one could make a fair case that it should have been. The software itself, however, definitely compromised peoples' home computer security without their authorization, and so would be considered to have be in violation of the intent of Canadian computer crime law, at the very least (since the law does prohibit utilizing a computer or its resources without authorization). - Mark Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:43:32 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41399 @Mark: 1. Software is copyrightable. Ask BSA. 2. "Since it is unlawful to compromise another person's computer system (without their consent)," Can you name the law(s) that Sony was breaking when installing their rootkit? And think about malware in general. Some "utility" like a "browser search bar". Of course it might have an "uninstall" button. Or not. - Napalm Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:10:44 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41397 Napalm: That won't happen. For one thing, the bill contains explicit exemptions pertaining to correcting security flaws or assessing security vulnerabilities (section 30.63 exempts copyright infringement, and 41.11 exempts the prohibition against circumvention). For another, viruses can't enjoy any TPM protection anyways, because the TPM protection of C-11 only applies to works that have a lawfully recognized copyright. Since it is unlawful to compromise another person's computer system (without their consent), such software would not have a lawfully recognized copyright, and the prohibitions against circumvention in C-11 only apply to works whose copyright is lawful. One might artificially contrive a hypothetical case wherein a work outwardly appears to be lawfully copyrighted, but is actually not, and utilizes the TPM protections to prevent being identified as an unlawful work in the first place, but this is a wholly unlikely situation that would probably be best handled on a case-by-case basis if the need actually ever arise. Given that judges are given the liberty, after all, to interpret the intent of the law, it's my own personal belief that (especially with all of the other problems that C-11 has) this sort of thing would not become even slightly problematic. - Mark Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:21:33 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41396 "I'm looking forward to TPM protected viruses that would be illegal to remove. Muhahahaha." What was that about the Sony root-kit? - IamME Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:13:48 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41395 Simon Says: It's incredulous that we could pass a law that turns kids into criminals and one of the sponsoring ministers clearly doesn't understand what he's passing. The "Reeeeformed Regressive" Conservatives have that one in the bag too, with their omnibus crime bill...more kids treated like adults in their new 'Merican-Like prison system...at what point do we start calling Steve, Governor Harper of the 51st State... or Rick or Mitt? Is part of filling their new prison system the abandonment of the Long Gun Registry too? Gotta encourage Crime...Fill Cells as opposed to Fuel Cells...protect the Ethanol Farmers out west... Not only is the financial disparity widening in Canada between the 1 Percent and the 99 percent faster than in the USA, so it appears is the Intelligence Quotient...if you want to see where we are going watch the next Republican Debate... The USA has more people incarcerated (in jail for our Conservative readers) per capita (I don't know how to explain that to a Conservative) and our current Federal Government is Hell Bent to be Number 1? - Ramblin' Rose Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:07:26 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41394 I'm looking forward to TPM protected viruses that would be illegal to remove. Muhahahaha. - Napalm Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:00:38 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41393 "To avoid this, obviously, publishers who don't want other people to be able to decrypt their works will have to invest in unique encryption mechanisms." Makes me wish my background with in cryptography software. It could become a very lucrative business in the coming years. So enough we're going to have to carry around RSS key-fobs to access everything. Enter the correct key or your device/content won't work...and you'll have to enter the key every time you want to use it. This would have sounded laughable just a few short years ago, but now I don't think it sounds too far fetched given the circumstances. - IamME Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:30:29 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41392 IanMe: If somebody wishes to utilize an encryption scheme that DVD-X-Copy can handle, and wishes to give permission for people to use it, the fact that other people may be utilizing the same encryption system and can be defeated by the availability of the tool is the other publishers' problem, not the one who wants to permit decryption of their own work. One might question the legality of the former company granting any decryption permission under C11, but why should one company that uses a particular encryption mechanism that they do not own or control be able to dictate whether or not another company (who might also wish to use that exact same mechanism) may grant permission to decrypt *THEIR OWN* works? To suggest so means that larger companies would effectively control copyrights on works that they actually do *NOT* have any lawfully recognized copyright control over. To avoid this, obviously, publishers who don't want other people to be able to decrypt their works will have to invest in unique encryption mechanisms. Of course, the end result is utterly standardless, where interoperability is non-existent. That is the future that the conservatives are paving the way for in Canada. Fun, huh? - Mark Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:10:52 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41390 "The use of "likely" will mean that you won't see DVD-X-Copy and tools like that at Staples, Wal-Mart or Best Buy/Futureshop as they don't want to risk litigation." The point is moot though. One will still easily be able to buy such software on-line or select from one of several free options...such as DVD Decrypter or Handbrake. As much as big companies, like Macrovision, might try, these won't suddenly disappear from the Internet and they're not universally illegal in the entire world...in fact, they're generally legal in most of the world including the US, where only the distribution of such software is illegal. - IamME Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:19:57 +0100 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6071/125/#comment-41384 D'oh! I reread what I wrote above... I meant insane levels of hardware and software *IN*compatibility. Not sure if my intent was clear... but hopefully my meaning is understood now. What I don't understand is why it matters that the opposition won't support this bill when the conservatives have a majority in parliament. Couldn't they pass the bill even if the other parties unanimously disagreed? - Mark Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:08:08 +0100