The Economist on Canadian Copyright Law
2 Comments
Recent Posts
Lawful Access Heads to Committee: The Opposition Found Its Voice, the Government Never Found Its Defence 
Is Data De-Identification Dead?: Why the AI Privacy Risk Isn’t What It Learns, But What It Figures Out 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 265: Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI 
A Standard That Doesn’t Exist: Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Offers Misleading Defence of Bill C-22’s Lower Threshold for Subscriber Information 
More Surveillance Demands to Come?: Government Admits Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Provisions Could Be Expanded
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.