Fair Dealing by Giulia Forsythe (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dRkXwP

Copyright

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

The first three posts on the 32 Questions and Answers on Bill C-32's digital lock provisions focused first on general issues in the bill, second on C-32's circumvention exceptions, and third on the missing exceptions. Today's post discusses the consumer-focused provisions in the bill. For those that want it all in a single package, I've posted the full series as PDF download.

The Consumer Provisions

This section features answers to the following questions:

Bill C-32 purports to allow consumer to legally shift music from CDs to their iPods or other devices. Do they lose that right if there are digital locks on their CD?
Does Bill C-32 allow consumers to make legal backup copies of most commercial DVDs?
Does Bill C-32 allow consumers to shift content from a DVD to a portable video player such as an iPad?
C-32 purports to allow consumer to legally record television shows, yet cable companies are increasingly inserting anti-copying technologies into some broadcasts? Does C-32 allow for those programs to be recorded?
C-32 includes an exception for unlocking cellphones. Isn't that a positive new development?
Does C-32 require businesses to notify consumers about the presence of digital locks?
Isn't there an "analog hole" that would allow someone to record a DVD without circumventing the digital lock?

June 11, 2010 — 22 comments — News

The Government’s Standard Form Response to C-32 Letters

Government MPs have begun responding to constituent letters on Bill C-32. The current letter is very detailed with a lengthy discussion on the merits of the bill. A sample is posted below:

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding Bill C-32, our government’s proposal to update the Copyright Act.

June 11, 2010 — 25 comments — News

Reynolds on the C-32 Balance

Dalhousie law professor Graham Reynolds published an op-ed in the Mark News, in which he argues that the claims of balance are more marketing than reality owing to the digital lock provisions.

June 11, 2010 — 1 comment — News

India Comes Out Swinging Against ACTA at WTO

The Government of India came out forcefully against ACTA this week in an intervention at the World Trade Organization. The India position, which may well reflect the views of other ACTA-excluded countries, demonstrates that ACTA is emerging as a contentious political issue that extends well beyond civil society and business groups concerned with the agreement. Countries excluded from the ACTA process have to come to recognize the serious threat it represents both substantively as well as for the future of multilateral organizations.

This growing concern from countries such as India represents a major new pressure point on the ACTA discussions. The notion that ACTA countries could negotiate an agreement that would ultimately be used to pressure non-ACTA countries to conform without attracting opposition from those very countries was always unrealistic. If the April ACTA round of talks was marked by the mounting pressure for greater transparency, the late June ACTA round of talks will undoubtedly have developing country opposition as its core concern.

India's intervention includes the following comments:

June 10, 2010 — 4 comments — News

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

The first two posts on the 32 Questions and Answers on Bill C-32's digital lock provisions focused first on general issues in the bill and second on C-32's circumvention exceptions. Today's post discusses the missing exceptions – circumvention exceptions found in other countries but missing from the Canadian bill. For those that want it all in a single package, I've posted the full series as PDF download.

The Missing Exceptions

This section features answers to the following questions:

Does C-32 include "authorized circumventers" as is used in New Zealand to facilitate legal circumventions?
Are companies required to unlock locked content for legal purposes under C-32?
Does C-32 include an exception for non-infringing access, such as accessing DVDs from other regions?
Does C-32 include a circumvention exception for personal uses?
Does C-32 include a circumvention exception for digital archiving?
Does C-32 include a circumvention exception to protect minors?
Does C-32 include a circumvention exception for filtering software programs?
Does C-32 include an exception for circumventing digital locks that become obsolete or broken?
Does C-32 include an exception for court cases, laws, and government documents?
Bill C-32's digital lock provisions apply to copyrighted works. Does that mean that public domain (ie. out-of-copyright) works are not affected?