No related posts.
Although I suppose that writing your MP is about all that anyone can do right now, it seems to me that the Conservatives don’t want to, and don’t need to listen to anybody else’s opinions or suggestions on how the bill could be improved because they have a majority government right now, and could, by my understanding, pass this thing almost at the drop of a hat. They appear to perceive any recommendations that this bill’s TPM circumvention prohibition exclude any situations where copyright is not being infringed upon (copying within a purpose permitted by fair dealing being a prime example) as a suggestion that would make the bill’s digital lock provisions totally ineffective, since people could theoretically circumvent locks within alleged fair dealing purposes, and once those locks are broken, there would be nothing left to stop people from committing actual copyright infringement on a private scale (since enforcement of that is problematic without undue privacy violations, and the RCMP has even actually stated that they do not wish to enforce it), which collectively could even be more problematic than any commercial copyright infringement might be.
Here’s some action across the border http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/judge-suggests-dmca-allows-dvd-ripping-if-you-own-the-dvd.ars
Who actually wants absolute TPM protection?With all of the talk and examples of who isn’t in favour of bill C11’s proposed TPM legal protection, which group or groups have come out in complete favour with them? Maybe they are the ones that need to be lobbied to change their position to show the government how *unbalanced* their proposed plan is.
@GPO: Large media companies. The actual artist or original copyright holder only benefits from it to the extent that he or she might have a contract with such companies… although in all probability, it will make no difference for the original creators of the work, because I imagine that most, if not all of the benefits that such large conglomerates might get out of it will probably be utilized to cover the extra expenses involved in actually implementing those measures.
…@Mark: Are there any on the record quotes from any of them supporting this bill? Has any group come out and said “Strong TPM enforcement is the best thing for Canadians”. I know that the large media companies are the most likely benefit, but if they haven’t stood up to take responsibility then why should legislation that most benefits them be enacted?
If telling the government isn’t working (we are really only hearing talking points being repeated) then maybe we should look to influence other groups.
Analogy usedI like the video, but the analogy is flawed since my library *is* locked after hours and it would (and should!) be illegal for me to break in and borrow (with or without double quotes) books. It would be better to say that the library’s doors are wide-open, ‘welcome’ mat and all, but the publishers posted a security guard at the door, preventing me from actually entering. And it doesn’t matter if the guard is as big as a pro football player or as small as a jockey: try to get past and you will be arrested and fined.
What is missing from the video is that DRM protection apparently does not end with the end of the copyright term. This means that current literature that is/will be available only as DRM-ridden e-book, will never enter the public domain, effectively creating a perpetual “copy right”.
@GPO: Broadcasters have been outspoken in their support of the protections offered by bill C-32, which is identical to this bill.
More legible version of Bill C-11A much more legible version of Bill C-11 ( http://canadacopyrightlaw.com/doc/bill_c-11 ) and the version of the Copyright Act with the proposed amendments consolidated (http://canadacopyrightlaw.com/doc/canadacopyrightact_consolidated_with_bill_c-11 ).
Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era (University of Ottawa Press, 2015)
The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (University of Ottawa Press, 2013)
From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”: Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda (Irwin Law, 2010)
In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Irwin Law, 2005) .
This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed.