Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • Canadian Library Association Posts Its Technical Amendments to Bill C-11

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Canadian Library Association Posts Its Technical Amendments to Bill C-11

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Monday February 27, 2012

The Canadian Library Association has posted its proposed technical amendments to Bill C-11. The CLA suggests two changes: one on alternative formats (it argues the bill is more restrictive than a proposed international treaty at WIPO) and one on digital locks. The digital lock proposal is one that should enjoy broad support:

The following definitions apply in this section and in sections 41.1 to 41.21.
“circumvent” means,
(b) in respect of a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (b) of the
definition “technological protection measure”, to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair
the technological protection measure for the purpose of an act that is an infringement of the copyright in it or the moral rights in respect of it or for the purpose of making a copy referred to in subsection 80(1).

The technical change would ensure Canada is compliant with the WIPO Internet Treaties but retains the existing exceptions in the digital environment.

Comments (8)add comment

Anonyme said:

I would be fine with that...
This change would also make sure that the bill is not contested in court for constitutionnality reason since it actually link the property elemet of DRM(provincial jurisdiction) and IP law(federal jurisdiction).

am I right in that Mr. Geist?
February 27, 2012

Crockett said:

One of the best articles I have yet read, on the copyright issues we face today ...
Here is a snippet, be sure to read the rest ... http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...ection.ars

"The same piece [RIAA CEO editorial] calling for a "rational" approach shows how unlikely it is to happen. When the "Internet side" looks at online copyright and sees two decades of overreach, they will demand that any path forward bend back towards moderation. But when the rightsholder side looks at the same issue and can't even fathom the possibility of overreach, the gap between the two visions may be too great for respectful discourse to overcome. At some point, you understand the other side perfectly and simply disagree.

Maybe the best we can hope for in the near future is a public conversation leading not to legislation but to a modest amount of empathetic understanding. Rightsholders might spend time contemplating what it feels like to watch copyright used as a bludgeon against young people and against legitimate websites; the "fix copyright" crowd can ponder what it feels like to see every song you've ever financed available for instant unauthorized download, even after your industry has—kicking and screaming, to be sure—finally taken real steps to embrace the future.

But what next? Understanding and rationality can only take us so far; at some point you need to act. Without any sense that copyright and its enforcement have already burst the boundaries of good policy, rightsholders will probably find themselves furious with the unwashed Internet masses once it becomes clear that rational discussion hasn't produced any support for SOPA 2.0. One hopes that, eventually, they'll understand the reasons why."
February 27, 2012

Mark said:

...
All very well and good but what are the chances that the conservatives are actually going to be amenable to such a compromise on their bill?
February 27, 2012

Hope Springs said:

...
That's hardly just a "technical" amendment - but it's sure to be a lot more technical and reasonable than the SOPA like stuff we will see in the guise of "technical" amendments from the content industry lobbyists.

Anyway, why exclude private copying? If the file was bought and paid for, why not be able to move it onto an iPod or whatever?
February 27, 2012

Mark said:

...
Hope: the conservative's argument is that if the copyright holder didn't want that sort of copying happening, then why should the consumer expect any privilege to do so?

In general, I expect that a lot of labels will give explicit permission for format shifting to ipods or the like anyways ... but the core problem with this permission (other than the fact that they won't have any real obligation to offer it in the first place) is that it is very tightly bound to particular technologies that are current at the time, and the very least that the consumer will face with this sort of situation is vendor lock-in, and the worst case is that the consumer will be relegated to technological obsolescence if they wish to legally utilize such works, since the rate at which technology evolves suggests that the measures will be obsolete long before the copyright expires.
February 27, 2012

Doug Webb said:

It could be argued that rights holders steal more from artists than pirates do
Maybe we should make the rights non-transferable so artists will be protected in future!
February 27, 2012

Ki said:

...
This is the kind of change in language that I've personally been advocating that the government put in (despite certain other people's opinion to the contrary).
February 29, 2012

Outsourcing Governance Audits said:

Outsourcing Governance Audits
Thanks so much for this post. There is very good and helpful information in this post. Keep up the good work.
Regards:
Outsourcing Governance Audits
March 07, 2012

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: