Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP

Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP

Copyright

30 Days of DRM – Day 09: Reverse Engineering (Circumvention Rights)

The inclusion of a reverse engineering circumvention right is another obvious necessary provision.  Reverse engineering is described by the Chilling Effects site as follows:

Reverse engineering is the scientific method of taking something apart in order to figure out how it works. Reverse engineering has been used by innovators to determine a product's structure in order to develop competing or interoperable products. Reverse engineering is also an invaluable teaching tool used by researchers, academics and students in many disciplines, who reverse engineer technology to discover, and learn from, its structure and design.

The need for a reverse engineering provision therefore follows from some of the discussion last week – it is pro-competitive as it facilitates the creation of compatible devices as well as greater competition in the marketplace. 
While there may be general agreement on the need for a reverse engineering provision, it is essential that Canada avoid the U.S. DMCA approach which has been widely criticized for being too limited in scope and thus woefully ineffective.

Read more ›

August 27, 2006 6 comments News

30 Days of DRM – Day 08: Privacy (Circumvention Rights)

Today's post kicks off the heart of the 30 Days of DRM series – circumvention rights.  Circumvention rights are necessary since everyone agrees that an absolute anti-circumvention provision (ie. circumvention prohibited in all circumstances) is unworkable.  There are instances where such a prohibition would result in significant costs by precluding beneficial activities, creating "unintended consequences", and lead to significant harm to the public.  Indeed, the DMCA itself includes several narrow exceptions to the general anti-circumvention rule.

The approach in Bill C-60 was to limit (the government believed eliminate) the need for circumvention rights by creating a direct link between circumvention and copyright.  Bill C-60 only made it an offence to circumvent a technological measure for the purposes of copyright infringement.  In other words, if you had another purpose – for example, protecting your personal privacy – the anti-circumvention provision would not be triggered. 

If the new copyright bill adopts a U.S. style approach, then a crucial part of the discussion will be whether the government has identified all the necessary rights to limit the harms associated with anti-circumvention legislation.  While these rights might be characterized by some as exceptions, I think they are more appropriately viewed as circumvention rights, analogous to the Supreme Court of Canada's emphasis on user rights.

Privacy protection is an obvious example of a circumvention right.

Read more ›

August 26, 2006 1 comment News

LibriVox

The NY Times features an article on LibriVox, a project that brings together volunteers to create audiobook versions of books in the public domain.  The project is the brainchild of Hugh McGuire from Montreal.

Read more ›

August 25, 2006 1 comment News

The Swiss Take on DRM

Canada is not alone in dealing with DRM.  Urs Gasser has an interesting post on a current Swiss anti-circumvention legislative proposal which covers some of the same issues I'm tackling with 30 Days of DRM.

Read more ›

August 25, 2006 Comments are Disabled News

30 Days of DRM – Day 06: Interoperability (Public Protection and Markets)

The interoperability problems associated with DRM have emerged over the past year as a focal point for debate with legislators and regulators in Europe beginning to intervene to address the issue.  The interoperability concerns arise from the fact that DRM'd content is frequently linked to specific hardware, leaving consumers unable to transfer the content from device to device.  For example, Apple iTunes uses a technology known as FairPlay to limit consumers ability to transfer songs that they have purchased to devices other than the iPod (as well as limit the number of copies and uses of the download), while services such as Napster and Puretracks use a Microsoft-supported DRM system that will not play on an iPod.  The end result is lock-in (literally) as consumers find themselves tied to a specific hardware device with the cost of switching now including the loss of their investment in new content.

Even the industry has begun to acknowledge the problem.  It was much discussed at an OECD conference in Rome earlier this year and Yahoo! has expressed its frustration with DRM.  Of course, those rejecting the DRM-based approach are finding great success – witness the Canadian music industry, where the large independent labels have left CRIA and largely avoid DRM, as well as eMusic, which offers "clean" MP3s, and has grown into the world's second biggest music download service.

Regulators have also become involved as concern over consumer fairness and marketplace competition mounts.  France toyed with legislation earlier this year that would have mandated that Apple reveal technological specifications to its competitors so that they could design compatible devices.  As a result, songs bought on iTunes would theoretically play on any digital music device.  Officials in several Scandanavian countries are now examining similar concerns.

It is important to understand that this interoperability problem is not solely a product of DRM.  Rather, it is the result of combining DRM with anti-circumvention legislation.

Read more ›

August 24, 2006 6 comments News