The Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS) has issued a Call for Action on the current copyright consultation. The CFHSS, which made up of 69 scholarly associations, 75 universities and colleges and 7 affiliates, as well as more than 50,000 scholars, students and practitioners across Canada, focuses […]
Post Tagged with: "anti-circumvention"
Apple Claims Unlocking iPhone Violates the DMCA
Apple has filed a response to the U.S. Copyright Office's review of the DMCA exceptions that argues that unlocking the iPhone infringes copyright and violates the DMCA. The applicability of anti-circumvention legislation to cellphone unlocking was a major issue under Bill C-61.
Singapore Enacts New Anti-Circumvention Exceptions
Singapore has enacted new copyright reforms that include the right for teachers to circumvent digital locks on movies for classroom use and for the visually-disabled to circumvent to allow the read-aloud function to work.
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 37: TPMs – No Requirement to Unlock for Exceptions
Many countries have recognized the danger that combination of DRM and anti-circumvention legislation may effectively eliminate user rights or copyright exceptions in the digital environment. Creating exceptions is one way to address the issue, but another is to adopt an approach of "with rights comes responsibilities." In this case, if companies are going to obtain new legal rights for DRM, they must also shoulder the responsibility of unlocking their content when requested to do so by users for legal purposes. This is a common theme in copyright laws around the world which often identify courts, tribunals or mediators as the source to ensure that rightsholders do not use DRM to eliminate user rights. Three examples of many:
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 […]
