|
Tuesday September 09, 2008 |
Reforms to the statutory damages provisions formed a big part of the government's communication strategy for Bill C-61. Although scooped by the National Post, Industry Minister Jim Prentice emphasized the introduction of amendments to the statutory damages provisions that purportedly create limits for damages that arise from "private purposes" infringement. The provision has proven unpopular for both sides of the copyright debate with rights holders concerned that it will not create a disincentive to infringing activities, while user groups fear that it won't apply to liability for everyday activities. The provision states:
If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1), a defendant who is an individual is liable for statutory damages of $500 in respect of all the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s
private purposes and that are involved in the proceedings.
Moreover, a follow-up provision states:
If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) in respect of a defendant referred to in subsection (1.1), no other copyright owner may elect statutory damages in respect of that defendant for the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made.
Tomorrow I will discuss why these provisions are not good enough. For now, it is worth noting how much uncertainty they generate. What is the meaning of "private purpose" (it surprisingly is not defined in the bill)? Does the bill really mean that the first copyright owner to sue has the shot at $500, while all other copyright owners are blocked from filing suit? Alternatively, do "all the defendant's infringements" refer only to the infringements for a particular work (ie. there are frequently multiple copyright holders for a single song) and file sharers can be still be sued for each individual download? The uncertainty associated with the statutory damages reforms leave the sense of a hastily included provision at Prentice's request. All sides in the copyright debate require greater clarification to judge the changes. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareTuesday September 09, 2008 |
|
|
Monday September 08, 2008 |
Bill C-61's library provisions are not confined to e-reserves. The bill adds a new Section 30.2(5.01) to the Copyright Act that is designed to facilitate digital distribution of materials for interlibrary loans. The section states:
A library, archive or museum, or a person acting under the authority of one, may, under subsection (5), make a copy of printed matter in digital form and provide it to a person who has requested it through another library,
archive or museum if the providing library, archive or museum or person takes measures to prevent the person who has requested it from
(a) making any reproduction of the digital copy, including any paper copies, other than printing one copy of it;
(b) communicating the digital copy to any other person; and
(c) using the digital copy for more than five business days
While moving toward digital interlibrary loans has obvious advantages (speed and cost being at the top of the list), this provision once again forces libraries to implement DRM-based solutions. The requirements that limit further copying and distribution go far beyond what is necessary (they are presumably a response to the unlikely scenario that only a single Canadian library will purchase the copy of a work and use digital distribution to cover the rest of the country). Even worse is the requirement to destroy the digital copy within five days (this is actually a reduction from seven days in the Liberal's C-60). There are no similar requirements for paper-based copies of works and it makes no sense to force libraries to install DRM protections on digital copies to create time-limited uses. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareMonday September 08, 2008 |
|
|
Friday September 05, 2008 |
The problems with the e-reserve provisions in C-61 extend beyond just the fair dealing concerns. In order to qualify for the exception, librarians are required to implement DRM-based solutions on the distribution of electronic materials. Yesterday I pointed to the provision that expressly permits digital reproduction. Section 30.02(3) adds two crucial requirements that must be met in order to qualify. First, sub (b) requires libraries to:
take measures to prevent the digital reproduction from being communicated by telecommunication to any persons who are not acting under the authority of the institution;
Second, sub (c) requires libraries to:
take measures to prevent a person to whom the work has been communicated under paragraph (1)(b) from printing more than one copy, and to prevent any other reproduction or communication of the digital reproduction;
In other words, to qualify for the exemption libraries must ensure that the digital copy cannot be further reproduced, communicated or copied. The obvious way to meet this requirement is for librarians to implement DRM solutions that lock down the digital copies. For most librarians, this is expensive and objectionable, ensuring that the new rights to distribute digital copies will be largely ignored. Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareFriday September 05, 2008 |
|
|
Thursday September 04, 2008 |
The Canadian library community has been one of the most outspoken critics of Bill C-61, expressing concern about (among other things) its impact on electronic delivery of materials. The Canadian Library Association press release on C-61 notes that:
Bill C-61 ignores the fact that the 2004 CCH Supreme Court Judgment already allows Canadian libraries to do desktop delivery of interlibrary loan. Bill C-61 requires libraries to lock up interlibrary loans with DRM tools, something that most libraries would not have the resources to accomplish. Bill C-61 alone would force many libraries back to delivering interlibrary loan via paper copies.
The CLA raises two important issues - the use of fair dealing for e-reserve policies as well as the effective requirement on librarians to use DRM for electronic delivery of materials. Today I will focus on fair dealing and e-reserve policies and save the DRM concerns for tomorrow.
Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShareThursday September 04, 2008 |
|
View
|
|
|
