Post Tagged with: "digital locks"

U.S. Move to Pick Digital Locks Leaves Canadians Locked Out

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) picks up on last week’s DMCA exemption decision with a contrast to Bill C-32. I note that since its introduction two months ago, the government’s copyright reform package has generated widespread debate over whether it strikes the right balance. The digital lock provisions have been the most contentious aspect of the bill, with critics fearing that anytime a digital lock is used, it would trump virtually all other rights.

Supporters of the C-32 digital lock approach have sought to counter the criticism by arguing that the Canadian provisions simply mirror those found in other countries such as the United States. Yet last week, the U.S. introduced changes to its digital lock rules that leave Canada with one of the most restrictive approaches in the world.

August 3, 2010 — 58 comments — Columns

Copyright Bill Disturbs Rights Balance Between Creators and Users

Jenna Wilson and Sangeetha Punniyamoorthy, IP lawyers with Dimock Stratton LLP in Toronto, argue in the Lawyers Weekly that “Anti-circumvention provisions could be implemented in the Copyright Act without significantly disturbing the balance between users and creators in the way Bill C-32 does.”

August 3, 2010 — 1 comment — News

U.S. Move to Pick Digital Locks Leaves Canadians Locked Out

Appeared in the Toronto Star on August 2, 2010 as U.S. Move to Pick Digital Locks Leaves Canadians Locked Out Since its introduction two months ago, the government’s copyright reform package has generated widespread debate over whether it strikes the right balance. The digital lock provisions have been the most […]

August 2, 2010 — Comments are Disabled — Columns Archive

The U.S. DMCA vs. Bill C-32: Comparing the Digital Lock Exceptions

Yesterday’s U.S. DMCA Rulemaking decision, which established a series of new anti-circumvention exceptions, attracted considerable attention on both sides of the border. In the U.S., critics of the DMCA noted the progress in addressing some of the DMCA’s most troubling consequences by creating exceptions for unlocking and jailbreaking cellphones and circumventing DVD locks in several circumstances (though the decision is hardly a panacea given the restrictions on distributing circumvention tools, contractual restrictions, and the absence of a general right to circumvent for lawful purposes).

From a Canadian perspective, the U.S. decision – combined with the recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling linking circumvention to copyright and the USTR decision to cave on the digital lock rules in ACTA – provides a timely reminder of the mistake that is the digital lock rules in C-32.

Looking back, Industry Minister Tony Clement said he wanted forward-looking legislation designed to last ten years, yet the scope of Bill C-32’s anti-circumvention exceptions became outdated in less than ten weeks. Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, when not calling critics “radical extremists,” emphasized that Bill C-32 was not identical to the DMCA. While he had the notice-and-notice system in mind, weeks later his comments became accurate since it turns out the DMCA is far less restrictive than C-32.

Just how badly does the Canadian bill stack up? On the two key issues in the bill – digital locks and fair dealing – Canada is far more restrictive than the U.S. Consider:

July 27, 2010 — 17 comments — News

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