The Economist on Canadian Copyright Law
2 Comments
Recent Posts
The Lawful Access Two-Headed Surveillance Monster: How Bill C-22 Went Off the Rails 
How Much Further Will Lawful Access Go?: Police Chief Tells Bill C-22 Hearing That Three Years of Metadata Retention Would Be “Ideal” 
Bill C-22’s Groundhog Day: Why the Government’s Dismissal of Signal, Apple and the U.S. Congress Concerns Runs Back the Disastrous Online News Act Playbook 
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
Unsurprised that The Economist would gloss that part of things over.
Digital lock rules generally misunderstood…
It is sad, but the impact of the digital lock rules remain widely misunderstood. While Use Controls can be said to have some link to copyright, allowing the copyright monopoly to be abused to transfer control of devices from their owners to manufacturers, Access Controls are a replacement of copyright. While those are the facts, a majority in the debate still falsely believe both types of TPMs give more control to copyright holders, rather than the reality that they also transfer control from copyright holders to technology providers.
It is like the talk of the USA including Fair Use in future trade agreements. Hard to get excited about that given Access Controls replace copyright, wiping out any limits and exceptions such as Fair Use. I believe the US lobby understands this, and has recognized from the Canadian C-11 experience that people are easily distracted by fiddling with fair use/dealing while replacing copyright.