One of the ongoing concerns with anti-circumvention provisions is the prospect that the legal rules create incentives to use – and possibly misuse – DRM. France, which many people hold up as an example of a country that prioritizes copyright and creator protection, has many of the same concerns about DRM misuse and the lack of interoperability. Its copyright law establishes a DRM authority which is charged with ensuring interoperability. The authority is an independent administrative body focused on DRM. It submits an annual report to the government and may appear before parliamentary committees on future copyright law reforms. The creation of a specific body to address these issues is an acknowledgement of the need for regular review of concerns arising from the use of DRM supported by anti-circumvention legislation. Bill C-61 contains no such acknowledgement or awareness of the prospect of unintended consequences from this legislation.
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 38: TPMs – No DRM Regulatory Authority
Tags: 61 reforms / c-61 / copyright / Copyright Canada / copyright for canadians / dmca / france / interoperability / prentice
8 Comments
Recent Posts
Canadian Government Caves on Digital Services Tax After Years of Dismissing the Risks of Trade Retaliation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 238: David Fraser on Why Bill C-2’s Lawful Access Powers May Put Canadians’ Digital Security At Risk 
Ignoring the Warning Signs: Why Did the Canadian Government Dismiss the Trade Risks of a Digital Services Tax? 
Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 237: A Conversation with Jason Woywada of BCFIPA on Political Party Privacy and Bill C-4
Unintentional?
This legislation is so full of “unintended” roadblocks and loopholes that one might think it was intentionally made bad so it would not pass. I am a life long conservative supporter but if they make this a matter of confidence in the commons then I will never vote for them again. I know many people who will not either.
excellent point, how can they give legal support to digital locks with no oversight?
61 ways to KILL BILL
HEY I GOT THE WAY:
61 ways TO FRAKING KILL THE BILL:
ONE: NEVER VOTE for a politician that supports this.
TWO: NEVER VOTE FOR PARTIES that SUPPORT this.
continue:
SONY DRM
SEE TPM = DRM
what did i tell you all, michael argues no it isn’t yet he uses that DRM ,
REMEMBER SONY PEOPLE…..
Leads to a deeper point
It’s a good point but leads me to a question pertaining to a more overarching point: are there any controls on DRM in the legislation?
Penalties for compromising a user’s computer, à la Sony rootkit debacle?
Boundaries of what DRM can and cannot do to a user’s computer?
In short, what protections are there for my property (computer, devices, etc…) in the legislation, or is DRM given free reign.
Analogies
I am a programmer and designer. When I think of the “interface” that DRM affords end-users in knowing what they can and cannot do, it feels sort of like a self-enforcing unreadable contract.
If I buy a DVD with DRM, is it up to me to inform myself of what I can and cannot do with it? If so: who can I take to “read” my DRM to? I can take a contract to a lawyer, but I know my lawyer can’t read code like me. Are we going to create an “innovative market place” by creating a new profession for DRM interpretation?
Is it wrong to suggest that the anti-circumvention provision creates new federal-level contract law whose artifacts that represent the contract are only able to be fully read by the creator (of the DRM) ?
So, what are people doing besides discussing how terribly WRONG bill c-61 is?
Where’s the action? On September 15th, when debate on the bill starts again, what do we plan to do to stop it? Nothing?
I hate to admit, there is a positive side to this… no DRM regulatory authority = no dedicated enforcement.
Ask any cop if he feels like adding a bunch (as in tens to hundreds of thousands of people per city) of MP3 downloaders to his “bad guy” workload.
The more bad stuff you point out Professor, the more and more obvious that if it passes as-is, it will be completely unenforceable.