Canadian Lawyers on C-32: Fix the Digital Lock Rules
8 Comments
Recent Posts
The Wrong Ban: The Heritage Committee Backed a Targeted Ad Ban for Kids and Stopped Short of a Social Media Ban, Yet the Government Chose the Reverse 
Regulator First, Rules Later: Bill C-34 Debate Shows the Government Wants a Digital Safety Commission Before It Figures Out What It Will Do 
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban 
“Position Has Not Changed”: The Canadian Government Reaffirms That Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 279: My Keynote on Digital Sovereignty: Control, Choice, and Connection
…
“Digital locks” are BS. Either they are effective and thus don’t need a law to “protect” them. Or they aren’t effective at which point we should question what they really are. (Hint: an useless but patented mechanism that all the device manufacturers need to license and incorporate in their products).
Nap.
Canadians are too nice. We should be arguing that it should be illegal to lock content in such a way that it impedes fair dealing. And then the publishers would be begging for the “right to break locks” as a compromise.
…
@Jesse: “it should be illegal to lock content in such a way that it impedes fair dealing.”
That’s exactly what Brazil thought and their copyright law reflects that.
Nap.
National Post article
I am one of the lawyers referenced in this article. I regret to say that at least from my end, the reporter misunderstood my comments. I do not think that most lawyers oppose digital locks. I have no idea what most lawyers think on the matter. What I did say to her was that this was an issue which was contentious for some people. I personally do not oppose digital locks, which I believe are necessary to protect content.
Unfortunately that clearly did not come out in the article.
Brian Gray
…
@Brian: “I personally do not oppose digital locks, which I believe are necessary to protect content. ”
The debate was about protecting the locks within the law, not about the existence of the locks.
If your car’s anti-theft system is ineffective, would a law protecting said system prevent your car from getting stolen?
If the car system is effective, would said law make any difference?
Nap.
…
…And, if we bring into discussion the “fair uses” provisions, what would be your opinion on a “law protected” ineffective anti-theft system that cannot prevent your car from being stolen, but would make it illegal for the mechanics to service your car?
Nap.
@Brian, thanks for participating. It’s good to hear from the originator’s of comments we see in these articles.
I think the quote attributed to LuAnne Morrow encapsulates the controversy:
“The way it is set out in the Act, the rights are given then essentially taken away,” … “So you have all these rights but you can’t exercise them”.
Leaving aside Napalm’s comment about technical viability, would you agree with LuAnne? Is the law, as it is phrased, internally consistent?
nice
Such posts should be updated and shared frequently on the web, unlike the pictures and videos which are only marketing material, these posts are really valuable to a reader.