|
Friday July 25, 2008 |
|
Bill C-61 includes two exceptions relevant for researchers: an exception at Section 41.13 limited to encryption research (unlike the U.S. DMCA, encryption research is not defined) and security testing at Section 41.15, which could be construed to include security research on computer or network vulnerabilities. The impact of the anti-circumvention provisions will be felt by a research community far broader than just those involved in these two areas. This past week, I met with several University of Ottawa researchers engaged in fields as diverse as biblical scholarship and engineering. Their common thread is that their research plans will be stymied by Bill C-61. Researchers that need to circumvent in order to access content for media criticism, search technologies, network content distribution, etc. will all find themselves unable to conduct their research. Those that argue that Bill C-61 is unenforceable have never had their work subjected to an ethics review that invariably includes an examination of the legality of the methodology. If the work fails the review, there will be no grant funding and the research simply stops. The exceptions for encryption and security testing are needed (though as drafted they too have shortcomings to be discussed shortly), however, the Canadian approach to exceptions has been to simply mirror the U.S. DMCA list. A general research exception is essential if Canadian researchers are to be able to continue their work. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday July 25, 2008 |
|
|
Wednesday July 23, 2008 |
The inclusion of a right to circumvent in the event that the TPM breaks or becomes obsolete should be relatively uncontroversial. The U.S. Registrar of Copyrights has included a specific exception that addresses this situation since 2000. The exception reflects the recognition that the continual evolution of technology places the investment that consumers make in entertainment and software products or that libraries make in materials at risk in the event that a TPM ceases to function or becomes obsolete. While products do not come with a guarantee to function forever, the law should not impair consumers and libraries that seek to circumvent techologies that are no longer supported and thus create a significant barrier to access to their property.
Despite the obvious, recognized need for such an exception, Bill C-61 does not address the issue. There is an limited exception for software interoperability, but that provision does not come close address the concerns associated with obsolete or broken TPMs. Given the frequent changes in technology, it is a question of when, not if, technologies become obsolete. The Canadian DMCA must anticipate these technological changes by providing a right of circumvention due to obsolete or malfunctioning TPMs. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareWednesday July 23, 2008 |
|
|
Tuesday July 22, 2008 |
As part of the U.S. Copyright Office's DMCA rulemaking procedure (under which it identifies non-infringing uses that are hampered by the DMCA), the Office has twice issued an exemption for circumvention of filtering software programs in order to identify the list of sites included within the program. Filtering programs can be used to filter or block inappropriate material, yet the same programs have been subject to considerable criticism over concerns that they may be overbroad and block perfectly legitimate material. The only way for a party to ascertain whether their site is included on the block list is to access the lists contained in the software program, a process that typically requires circumvention.
In 2000, the Copyright Office found that an exception for filtering programs was needed. It reaffirmed the decision in 2003. In 2006, Seth Finklestein, the primary supporter of the "censorware" exception abandoned the fight for another renewal and the exception was dropped. The same concerns remain, however, which is why a clear exception for the circumvention of filtering programs is needed within Bill C-61.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday July 22, 2008 |
|
|
Monday July 21, 2008 |
An exception that surprisingly is not included in Bill C-61's anti-circumvention provisions is an exception to protect minors. How does this arise in the context of copyright? One obvious example are parents who wish to stop their children from watching certain scenes in a movie. There are services such as ClearPlay that purport to edit out sex, violence, and profanity from regular DVD movies. Regardless of one's view of such practices, surely it ought to be the right of a parent who has purchased the DVD edit a scene for their family's personal viewing purposes. Yet under Bill C-61, a parent who wants to shield their children from such content risks violating the law in order to do so.
Creating an explicit exception for the protection of minors is fairly common in other countries. Taiwan's anti-circumvention provisions include a blanket exception to protect minors (Article 80ter), while Singapore's Copyright Act features an exception to the anti-circumvention provision where the circumvention is "to prevent access by minors to any material on the Internet." There may well be other instances where a parent or school wishes to protect minors but faces the prospect of violating the law by circumventing a digital lock. Canadians should not be placed in that position - the law needs an amendment to address this issue. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday July 21, 2008 |
|
|
