NDP MP and party leadership candidate Romeo Saganash posts a piece in the Huffington Post that expresses concern with the digital lock rules in Bill C-11.
Post Tagged with: "c-11"
DÃ¨s lors, le Gouvernement se doit de se poser la question d’intÃ©grer spÃ©cifiquement de telles dispositions au sein de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur, alors que l’Ã©chec des mesures techniques de protection est Ã©vident, et que celles-ci seraient dÃ©jÃ protÃ©gÃ©es dans notre arsenal lÃ©gislatif. Nous avons aujourd’hui le recul nÃ©cessaire pour affirmer que la protection lÃ©gale des mesures techniques de protection est dangereuse pour la vie privÃ©e des consommateurs, que bien souvent elle porte atteinte Ã la libertÃ© d’expression, et qu’elles limitent les utilisations lÃ©gitimes des oeuvres.
Legislation must ensure that individuals and the not-for-profit library, archive, museum, and education institutions which serve them can circumvent TPMs for non-infringing purposes. Increasingly content providers are recognizing that TPMs which restrict using legally acquired content on different devices are not acceptable to consumers. TPMs which restrict legal copying or format shifting should not be protected in legislation. Canada’s public libraries place a high priority on service to multicultural communities including recent immigrants. Of necessity this requires the provision of audio-visual collections which may have regional coding. TPM legislation as formulated in other countries and the last copyright legislation tabled in the House of Commons could be used to make illegal the ownership of DVD players which bypass regional coding. Such an outcome is especially unacceptable in a multicultural country such as Canada and certainly has the potential to impede public library service.
Protection of digital locks must not impede users’ rights.
Quoting from a book or a newspaper is established fair dealing, and it ought to follow that quoting from a digital file would constitute fair dealing too. If such fair dealing is prevented by digital locks, and those are given an extra level of legal protection, scholars and students will only be able to engage with an increasingly limited portion of the world around us. Courses will become removed from the cultural context of the times; critique and creativity will be stymied. Teachers, students, and researchers need to be permitted to show and recontextualize clips from digital media, or sequences of software code, just as they were in the analog age permitted to copy “fairly” for purposes of criticism, review, research, or private study. The Supreme Court stated in CCH v. LSUC (2004) that “the fair dealing exception isâ€¦ an integral part of the Copyright Actâ€¦ Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user’s right.” The prevention of fair dealing with digital locks would thus be not only a major threat to innovation and teaching, but a a major distortion of the Copyright Act as understood by our highest Court.
The addition of one simple principle to C-32 would make the bill acceptable:
That the circumvention of Technical Protection Measures be permitted for non-infringing uses. This would meet the requirements of the WIPO treaties, and it would properly permit consumers to use their Fair Dealing rights and exemptions. It would still afford protection to content creators and publishers, especially against the “large scale” infringement that Ministers Moore and Clement say are the targets of Copyright Reform.