Canadian Lawyers on C-32: Fix the Digital Lock Rules
8 Comments
Recent Posts
From CCH to ChatGPT: How Canadian Copyright Law Played the Key Role in Deciding a Leading AI Training Data Case in India 
Starting Over: Court Filing Confirms the CRTC’s Streamer Contribution Decisions Are Dead With a Full Online Streaming Act Reset to Come 
The Name on the Window Was Enough: The Attacks on Kiva’s and the Normalization of Antisemitic Violence in Canada 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 277: Kate Robertson on the Risks That Lie Behind Canada’s Unexpected Signing of the UN Cybercrime Convention 
A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: The Trouble With Canada’s Quiet Decision to Sign the UN Cybercrime Convention
…
“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.