The removal of the provisions that target the legality of circumvention devices is one way to help ensure that the law does not eliminate basic copyright user rights. There are other approaches, however, that can be introduced in tandem with that change. New Zealand's new copyright law introduces the concept […]
Post Tagged with: "61 reforms"
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 35: TPMs – Unnecessary Coverage of Circumvention Devices
I have spent much of the past month identifying problems with Bill C-61's anti-circumvention provisions. While the bill misses many necessary exceptions and includes exceptions that do not withstand careful analysis, even the current list of exceptions pre-suppose that a person has the technical ability to circumvent. There may be a group of Canadians with sufficient technical expertise to do so, but my sense is that the overwhelming majority would not even know where to begin.
There are several mechanisms that could be used to address this issue (and note that it must be addressed or else even the meagre exceptions within C-61 will be illusory). The first would be to ensure that the bill does not touch the legality of circumvention devices themselves.
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 34: TPMs – LAM and Educational Institution Limitations, Part Two
Yesterday's posting referenced the damages limitation for libraries, archives, museums, and educational institutions that limits their liability for "innocent circumvention" to an injunction only. It is worth asking why this principle does not extend to all Canadians. If the circumvention occurs for innocent purposes (ie. where the individual did not […]
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 33: TPMs – LAM and Educational Institution Limitations, Part One
As noted earlier in the series, unlike some other countries, there is no anti-circumvention exception for teaching in Bill C-61. The one nod to the special considerations for libraries, archives, museums, and educational institutions in the anti-circumvention rules comes in Section 41.19 with regard to potential damages. That provision states […]
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 32: TPMs – Perceptual Disability Provisions May Violate AODA
In light of yesterday's posting on the perceptual disabilities exception, which I argue creates a huge barrier for Canadians with disabilities since they will be unable to legally access devices that can be used to circumvent, it is worth considering whether Bill C-61 violates the spirit and letter of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (or will at a minimum necessitate a DRM accessibility standard). The AODA was enacted in 2005 with the goal of "developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025." The Act will set out policy, practices, and other requirements that remove barriers with respect to goods and services. It defines barriers as:
"anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice"
That definition would likely capture DRM and it definitely captures the combination of DRM and Bill C-61's anti-circumvention provisions.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 201: Robert Diab on the Billion Dollar Lawsuits Launched By Ontario School Boards Against Social Media Giants 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law 
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions
