Post Tagged with: "clement"

U.S. Developments Demonstrate Canada’s C-32 Digital Lock Rules More Restrictive Than DMCA

Since the introduction of Bill C-32, I have consistently argued that the digital lock provisions are far more restrictive than what is required under the WIPO Internet treaties. Now two recent developments in the U.S. demonstrate that the Canadian proposal is also considerably more restrictive than what is found in the U.S.

First, a significant new appellate court case from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that the restrictions on circumventing an “access control” (ie. a digital lock that restricts access to a work rather than a copy control which restricts copying of a work) are far more limited than previously thought. With language that bears a striking similarity to those arguing circumvention should be permitted for lawful purposes, the U.S. appeals court states:

Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.

In other words, the U.S. court has found that DMCA is limited to guarding access controls only to the extent that circumvention would violate the copyright rights of the copyright owner. This is very similar to what many groups have been arguing for in the context of Canadian legal reform.

July 26, 2010 — 20 comments — News

Potter on the Link Between the Census and Copyright

Maclean’s Andrew Potter has a must-read opinion piece that links Industry Minister Tony Clement’s response to the census issue with the Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore’s copyright bill response. While Potter makes the political link, Howard Knopf connects the policy dots in this post.

July 19, 2010 — Comments are Disabled — News

Opening Up Canada’s Digital Economy Strategy

The federal government’s national consultation on a digital economy strategy is now past the half-way mark having generated a somewhat tepid response so far. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues the consultation document itself may bear some of the blame for lack of buzz since the government asks many of the right questions, but lacks a clear vision of the principles that would define a Canadian digital strategy.

One missed opportunity was to shine the spotlight on the principle of "openness" as a guiding principle. In recent years, an open approach has found increasing favour for a broad range of technology policy issues and has been incorporated into many strategy documents. For example, New Zealand identified "openness is a central principle of [its] Digital Strategy 2.0."

The consultation document includes a brief reference to open access for government-funded research, but it seemingly ignores the broader potential for a strategy with openness policies as a key foundational principle.

Where might an openness principle make sense?

June 16, 2010 — 9 comments — Columns

Clement Interview on TVO’s Search Engine

TVO's Search Engine features a detailed interview with Industry Minister Tony Clement on Bill C-32. Clement is clearly sensitive to the concerns associated with digital locks in the bill, though his suggestion that the new provision on ephemeral recordings would allow broadcasters to circumvent locks for news reporting does not […]

June 15, 2010 — 4 comments — News

Setting the Record Straight: 32 Questions and Answers on C-32’s Digital Lock Provisions, Part One

The digital lock provisions have quickly emerged as the most contentious part of Bill C-32, the new copyright bill. This comes as little surprise, given the decision to bring back the digital lock approach from C-61 virtually unchanged. The mounting public concern with the digital lock provisions (many supporters of the bill have expressed serious misgivings about the digital lock component) has led to many questions as well as attempts to characterize public concerns as myths. In effort to set the record straight, I have compiled 32 questions and answers about the digital lock provisions found in C-32. The result is quite lengthy, so I will divide the issues into five separate posts over the next five days: (1) general questions about the C-32 approach; (2) the exceptions in C-32; (3) the missing exceptions; (4) the consumer provisions; and (5) the business provisions. For those that want it all in a single package, I've posted the full series as PDF download.

Before getting into the 32 questions, it is worth answering the most basic question – what are anti-circumvention or digital lock provisions? The short answer is that they are provisions that grant legal protection to technological protection measures (TPMs). In plainer English, traditional copyright law grants creators a basket of exclusive rights in their work. TPMs or digital locks (such as copy-controls on CDs, DVDs, or e-books) effectively provide a second layer of protection by making it difficult for most people to copy or sometimes access works in digital format. Anti-circumvention legislation creates a third layer of protection by making it an infringement to simply pick or break the digital lock (in fact, it even goes further by making it an infringement to make available tools or devices that can be used to pick the digital lock). Under the Bill C-32, it would be an infringement to circumvent a TPM even if the intended use of the underlying work would not constitute traditional copyright infringement.

The C-32 Approach

This section features answers to the following questions:

Isn't the C-32 digital lock approach simply the required implementation to comply with the WIPO Internet treaties?
Penalties are reduced for individuals who circumvent for personal purposes. Doesn't this solve the problem?
The digital lock provisions in C-32 appear to distinguish between copy controls and access controls. Isn't that enough to address concerns about the bill's impact on fair dealing?
Are the digital lock provisions in C-32 constitutional?
Is it true that C-32 requires teachers and students to destroy some digital lessons 30 days after the course concludes?
Is it true that C-32 requires librarians to ensure that inter-library digital loans self-destruct within five days of first use?
The U.S. has a regular review of new exceptions every three years. Does Canada plan the same?

June 7, 2010 — 41 comments — News