Canadian Lawyers on C-32: Fix the Digital Lock Rules
8 Comments
Recent Posts
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots 
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests 
Make It Make Sense: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Plan 
Why Social Media and AI Chatbot Bans for Kids Are Bad Policy: Making the Case at the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Tech Committee
…
“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.