The Economist on Canadian Copyright Law
2 Comments
Recent Posts
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban 
“Position Has Not Changed”: The Canadian Government Reaffirms That Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 279: My Keynote on Digital Sovereignty: Control, Choice, and Connection 
The What, Me Worry? Consultation: Media Quietly Tells Government It Wants Even More Funding With Little Concern for Independence Risks 
Years of Uncertainty: Bill C-22’s Missing Regulations and Secret Ministerial Orders
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.