Danielle Parr on Anti-Circumvention Legislation

Danielle Parr, executive director of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, posts an op-ed in the Georgia Straight calling for strong anti-circumvention legislation.


  1. Jason Rhinelander says:

    “Dictating the business model”
    In general, and in rough theory, this op-ed isn’t bad, though it ignores a crucial point: whether making TPM circumvention legal will effectively stop TPM (after all, copying and disseminating works is already an infringement of copyright, yet it happens: i.e. behaviour is not derived from law).

    This point, however, struck me as particularly disingenuous:

    “Failing to protect TPMs under the law effectively means that the government is dictating the business model, which is bad news for business and for consumers.”

    It is one thing to argue that TPM can be effective, but the argument here is PRECISELY about “dictating the business model”: industry wants government to step in and make TPMs effective because that is the business model industry has decided upon. If “the government … dictating the business model … is bad news for business and for consumers,” why is it that business is seeking to have government dictate the business model?

  2. Highly predictable.
    Of course they are calling for anti-circumvention legislation. Duh. They want to be able to sell something multiple times to the same person. In a sense they already do, since most places won’t take back an opened software package (and of course in general licensing requirements, etc, aren’t available to you until after you open the package since it is on the disk)… so, if you don’t agree too bad, they’ve still got your money.

    A blanket prohibition of TPM circumvention will be as effective as the prohibition on alcohol was in the ’30s, or the current prohibition on cannabis. Where I could see a TPM circumvention case being put forward is in the case of performing the circumvention in the act of another non-permitted activity. This would allow an end user to circumvent for their own purposes, for instance, to make a backup disk, while adding a punishment for folks that circumvent for commercial purposes like selling bootleg copies.

  3. Sev Prince says:

    Do. Not. Want.
    It is exactly this sort of attitude that has turned me off totally from the gaming scene. The more they push for heavier TPMs and DRMs and scream for protection from “all of those evil nasty pirates” — excuse me, their *paying customers*, ‘cuz pirates don’t give a damn when it comes to that kinda crap — the more honest people they will alienate. No kidding, not only will I never buy any of their stuff, I wouldn’t take it if they were (a) giving it away and (b) paying me for the “privilege” of having it.

    And yes, I have a Bit Torrent client and know how to use it — plenty of legal stuff like indie films and other free/shareware out there for the taking — but Danielle Me Darlin’, you have nothing to worry about from “pirates” like me. I wouldn’t be bothered to waste the bandwidth.

  4. ServerInit says:

    it seems Ms Parr isn’t quite… up to par.

    /too easy.

    Seriously. Preaching lies must be hard work. Is anybody else left wondering if she even believes this? or how anyone could believe this? 300% really? I am truly sorry for your lots. Maybe ms Parr if these companies weren’t paying you to to spit statistical misinformation and lobby, their profit margins would have been higher. Maybe part of that 300% of people, were mistakenly identified, maybe .. just maybe.. the people who you kindly added to your “shocking” (/s) statistics were downloading a game to which they already owned a license for. Does ms Parr have evidence to show that this is not in fact the case?

  5. Dangerous
    In my opinion this is one of the most dangerous (in terms of damage to society) laws the lobbyists are pushing for. This would nullify any fair dealing provisions, encourage software companies to control and trap rather than entice their customers, and hinder technological development.