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.
In addition to the cost associated with implementing DRM solutions, usability would also suffer. DRM systems are often restricted to certain operating systems and require proprietary reader software, severely limiting user choice and raising security concerns. Privacy of users could be invaded while accessing content. Operations like copy/paste or print would likely be disabled, making quoting from text very difficult.
Read [ link ] for an example of this.
Does this necessarily imply DRM?
What exactly is a “[measure] to prevent a person … from printing more than one copy”? If I get the person in question to sign a sheet of paper that says “I will not print more than one copy,” is that sufficient? I’ve taken “measures”.
DRM wouldn’t be effective here anyways; the person in question could print their one copy, and then photocopy their printed copy as many times as they like, effectively printing an unlimited number of copies. Or, they could print it using a “virtual printer” to a PDF file, and then print the PDF file. And, let’s not even go into the fact that DRM is useless anyway; if I lock something, and then give you the locked thing and the key, there’s not much I can do to stop you from breaking the DRM – aside from passing silly laws, of course.
DRM is pathetic
the same instance as with photocopying @above, any drm protected materials on any computer any student anywhere around the world can simply just record their computers output screen video/audio using 1 of thousands of different types of screen recording software some are even free. if that doesn’t work, a user may simply adjust the video acceleration settings and tweak their video players preferences until an image is successfully recorded. DRM cannot stop you from viewing a product once, whose to say you cant simply record it upon viewing the same as a person records the information in their brain or makes a photocopy. Similairly some video players allow you to record whats playing or take screenshots. This technique should be protected and considered fair dealing under all non-commercial circumstances.
This is such self-indulgent whining! Libraries do this ALL THE TIME. It is not difficult or expensive. And it is perfectly reasonable. Exemptions as we call them are specific, not a universal free-for-all, and taking some steps to confine them in fair. Many and maybe most US universities use a simple DRM. Probably it can be broken, and sure you can set out to break the law. But large-scale distribution of copyright material in digital formats is hardly a “non-commercial” circumstance and if you get a break in the copyright act that allows it, at least have the decency to accept that there should be limits.
GREED = DRM = CENSORSHIP = CONTROL
DRM of any kind is NOT needed nor should it be, it is a form of censorship and control brought about by big media to lessen education and dumb up the masses.
If they can’t get knowledge they can’t enjoy ANYTHING.
ALL DRM that has to this date been made HAS BEEN BROKEN.
YOU ARE WASTING TAXPAYERS DOLLARS FOR WHAT?
Pleasing some noob that you already paid for the material to be in your library?
The END MUST COME TO THIS GREED.
BTW note the above posters name “stateside student”
YOU american? Or canuck that is there?
They can only get knowledge if they are paying huge fees to be at school or college in the first place
And now C-61 is dead. We can make a difference by electing MPs who support fair copyright.
NON liberal NON conservative voting
Not just fair copyright, but HONEST non lobbied copyright,
and mostly that would mean if the candidate in your riding that is green had more support then the NDP vote green, if it is NDP then vote NDP , the liberals seem to be trying the line as they say as i am betting when they get in its a pretend consultation then screw canada deal.
> This is such self-indulgent whining! Libraries do this ALL THE TIME.
Who’s self-indulging and who’s whining, really?
Let’s see, a copyright term is now the life of the author plus 50 years in Canada. In the US, it’s 50 years plus a 20 years extension, with plans to increase to 100 years in total.
What can a dead copyright do with his or her person anyway? How much time does a copyright need a dead term person? Why is there a need to perpetualy extend the copyright’s term dead? Wasn’t dead copyright’s purpose to grant “there should be limits” rights to an author in compensation for his or her work in improving society?
> It is not difficult or expensive. And it is perfectly reasonable.
So say you. A long lasting copyright dead term of a century will improve society, how?
> Exemptions as we call them are specific, not a universal free-for-all, and taking some steps to confine them in fair.
Fair for you to rape a copyright term dead for a century? (one hundred  years)
> Many and maybe most US universities use a simple DRM. Probably it can be broken, and sure you can set out to break the law.
And sure lame laws are meant to be broken and people to be made examples of… What else, instill fear and intimidation to control the public, just because you’re superior to the rest of us.
> But large-scale distribution of copyright material in digital formats is hardly a “non-commercial” circumstance and if you get a break in the copyright act that allows it, at least have the decency to accept that there should be limits.
But long terms of copyright material in digital formats is hardly a “non-commercial” circumstance and if you get periodically predictable breaks in the copyright act that allows perpetual extensions, at least have the decency to accept that there should be limits.