News

Canadian Library Association on C-32: Digital Lock Rules “Fundamentally Flawed”

The Canadian Library Association has released detailed comments on Bill C-32.  At the risk of being labeled “radical extremists” by Canadian Heritage James Moore, the CLA adopts positions that are very similar to those found on this blog and by those arguing for balanced copyright.  The bottom line from the CLA:

CLA applauds the addition of education, parody and satire in the fair dealing section of the Act. However the Government’s insistence on reintroducing unnecessarily proscriptive protections for digital locks undermines this improvement along with other new and existing user rights to the extent that they are seriously undermined. Legislation which does not include the right to bypass digital locks for non-infringing purposes is fundamentally flawed.

The CLA comments include analysis of C-32’s fair dealing reforms, the digital lock provisions, and many other elements in the bill.

Tags: / /

16 Comments

  1. Radical Extremists
    Look, you’re either with us, or your with the librarians.

  2. “Legislation which does not include the right to bypass digital locks for non-infringing purposes is fundamentally flawed”

    Very concise and to the point. I could not agree more.

  3. 41.1 (1) No person shall

    (a) circumvent a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition “technological protection measure” in section 41;

    (b) offer services to the public or provide services if

    (i) the services are offered or provided primarily for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure,

    (ii) the uses or purposes of those services are not commercially significant other than when they are offered or provided for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure, or

    (iii) the person markets those services as being for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure or acts in concert with another person in order to market those services as being for those purposes; or

    (c) manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale or rental or provide — including by selling or renting — any technology, device or component if

    (i) the technology, device or component is designed or produced primarily for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure,

    (ii) the uses or purposes of the technology, device or component are not commercially significant other than when it is used for the purposes of circumventing a technolog- ical protection measure, or

    (iii) the person markets the technology, device or component as being for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure or acts in concert with another person in order to market the technology, device or component as being for those purposes.

    “technological protection measure”
    « mesure technique de protection »

    “technological protection measure” means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation,

    (a) controls access to a work, to a perform- er’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; or

    (b) restricts the doing — with respect to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording — of any act referred to in section 3, 15 or 18 and any act for which remuneration is payable under section 19.
    —————————————————

    In my opinion this would be prohibiting the distribution and creation of tools widely used in the linux community. I completely agree with the CLA. Section 41.1 and Section 29.24(c) need to be changed to better reflect reality.

  4. Does anyone like this legislation EXCEPT the content distributors? **

    ** Rhetorical question

  5. I think that the assumption is that if people don’t speak up in protest of the legislation, then they like it or at least are content with it.

    But if one has the gumption to speak up and protest, well then…. they’re just some “radical extremist”… 🙂


  6. The point of Moore’s “radical extremist” comment was to try and undermine the opposition. Fortunately it seems to have had the opposite effect, calling almost every major education and consumer group (Including opposition parties) in to a position to fight back, or look week. This gives the impression that Moore is desperately attacking those whom would oppose the legislation: legislation by now, even he must know is “fundamentally flawed”.

  7. strunk&white says:

    one small element of style
    The CLA’s detailed comments on C-32 contain much of the same criticisms, and often the exact same sentences, as their detailed comments on C-61 two years ago.

    I’m not sure the CLA is getting work of the highest quality from Dr. Trosow and associates. Right now, it looks like they’re just phoning it in.

  8. So what happens if you break the lock and it turns out NOT to be a non-infringing purpose?

  9. @Bob
    …”So what happens if you break the lock and it turns out NOT to be a non-infringing purpose?”

    I would assume standard copyright law would apply. Or are you under a different understanding? If so, please explain.

  10. end user
    @Bob

    Like stated you’d be breaking copyright laws and if found guilty presumably loose your house, lives savings and if they had it their way computer access and your first born.

    Would probably be cheaper to run a ponzie scheme, sell drugs or rob a bank.

  11. @Bob “So what happens if you break the lock and it turns out NOT to be a non-infringing purpose?”

    Guess we’ll never know as bill c-32 prevents either 0_o

  12. @strunk&white
    …”The CLA’s detailed comments on C-32 contain much of the same criticisms, and often the exact same sentences, as their detailed comments on C-61 two years ago.”

    Once you find the right way to express something about a particular situation or point, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to express it many different ways.

    Can you find any complaints about their comments, *other* that it is the same comments, about the same points? You are also free to recycle your wording, if it still applies, same as they have done with C-61 points…

  13. YES I gree : …
    I think that the assumption is that if people don’t speak up in protest of the legislation, then they like it or at least are content with it.

    But if one has the gumption to speak up and protest
    http://www.storeingame.com

  14. Punish fair dealing obstructions
    Bill C-32 contain much of the same wording, and often the exact same sentences, as C-61 two years ago.

    There you go. Somehow strunk&white thinks others need to recreate the style wheel, while strunk&white’s laughable style is reuseable since 50 years ago.

    http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497

    > Legislation which does not include the right to bypass digital locks for non-infringing purposes is fundamentally flawed.

    While I agree with the Canadian Library Association, I think we all could go many steps further according to Brazil’s proposals:

    “§1º. The same sanction applies, without prejudice to other sanctions set forth by law, to whom, through whatever means:

    a) hinders or prevents the uses allowed by arts. 46, 47 and 48 of this Act [which addresses limitations to copyright including fair dealing]; or

    b) hinders or prevents the free use of works, broadcast transmissions and phonograms which have fallen into the public domain.”

    http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5180/125/

  15. Something fundamental needed?
    Maybe we need something in the constitution to protect us from crazy stuff like this in the future?
    Or maybe the laws have grown too complex and cumbersome, creating artificial rules of exchange between people that are unnecessary at best, or at worst, skewed in one direction or another…