The removal of the provisions that target the legality of circumvention devices is one way to help ensure that the law does not eliminate basic copyright user rights. There are other approaches, however, that can be introduced in tandem with that change. New Zealand's new copyright law introduces the concept of "qualified circumventers." The law grants special rights to trusted third parties who are permitted to circumvent on behalf of other users who are entitled to circumvent but technically unable to do so. The current list of qualified circumventers includes librarians, archivists, and educational institutions. Section 226E(2) of the New Zealand law provides that
The user of a TPM work who wishes to exercise a permitted act under Part 3 but cannot practically do so because of a TPM may do either or both of the following:
(a) apply to the copyright owner or the exclusive licensee for assistance enabling the user to exercise the permitted act:
(b) engage a qualified person to exercise the permitted act on the user ’s behalf using a TPM circumvention device, but only if the copyright owner or the exclusive licensee has refused the user's request for assistance or has failed to respond to it within a reasonable time.
This approach rightly recognizes that many people will be unable to effectively use the exceptions inserted into the law. By creating a class of trusted circumventers, the law creates at least one mechanism to ensure that users retain their existing copyright rights.
Qualifications?
You seem to be arguing in favour of creating exemptions for one class of users while ignoring others, and I’m not sure it’s even necessary.
If actor A is granted authority to act on behalf of actor B, and B is entitled to fair dealing rights under copyright provisions, why does A need to be granted any “special rights” at all?
The only way this scheme seems consistent is if one presumes that circumvention of a TPM is automatically an infringement on the rights of the copyright holder. I personally don’t agree with such a premise.
Disagree
~sigh~ Why do we keep giving this whole TPM business more time and effort than it’s worth. The practicality of this kind of measure I think is next to none. Let’s take Linux playing DVDs for example. I think just about anyone will agree that Linux users not being able to (legally) play a DVD on their computer is simply unfair and anti-competitive (the real reason for CSS, not piracy, IMHO).
How does this kind of measure (authorized circumventers) solve that? Would every Linux user essentially be an authorized circumventer? Would all Linux users then be given the tools (which means openly publishing them and how they work for all to see — which makes the entire point of TPM moot doesn’t it?) necessary to circumvent the TPM?
This all goes back to the supposition that at TPM will be circumventable which as we saw with CSS only happened years after the TPM was introduced to the market and it was done under questionable legal circumstances — the kind of circumstances which in the US would have been illegal with the DMCA.
I think what Michael is showing that there are many more preferred “answers” than what the USA, oh, I mean Canadian, solution is.
I think the only sensible solution is to specifically make the DRM / TPM removal legal. There is no need to qualify that by saying “only legal for non infringing purposes” because those infringing purposes are already illegal.
We actually should not be buying DRM items in the first place. I’ve argued with a Blu-Ray forum moderator that DRM on Blu-Ray is not required and he always counters that it is. Regardless, a non-DRM version appears online and only the legal purchasers suffer the effects of DRM. I just bought the new album by Minotaur Shock on Juno, a cool (and legal) download site. It offered the whole album in non-DRM lossless WAV format. THAT’S what I’ll support. Not DRM-infested files or discs.
consumers, educators, and artists need protection from DRM if anything.
I cant count the number of times ive lost/scratched a cd and been unable to play/install it. What does a customer do in that situation mail it in to the manufacturer and hope for a new disc in 6-10 weeks? No. Most tech folk wouldn’t even hesitate to download a bootleg in order to get their purchased product back. If you lost a cd key most ppl will download a keygen or search for one online.
All of these activies will be illegal under c61 making your vote with your wallet isn’t enough!
taking it apart
a) apply to the copyright owner or the exclusive licensee for assistance enabling the user to exercise the permitted act:
———————–
the above effectively removes any form of public domain in canada and thus the 50 year span of copyright is now
UNLIMITED
thus as i stated the films i have that are pre 1958 ( aka no copyright are an offense under the new law punishable by a 20,000 fine.
———————–
(b) engage a qualified person to exercise the permitted act on the user ’s behalf using a TPM circumvention device, but only if the copyright owner or the exclusive licensee has refused the user’s request for assistance or has failed to respond to it within a reasonable time.
———————–
OK you think the movie company will do that considering the law says 50 years = copyrightable yet the anti circumvention says UNLIMITED?
This means that I will also have to countersue the movie company as well as the gov’t for being CRUEL AND UNUSUAL , as SECTION 12 suggests.