Bill C-32 and digtal locks: more grist for the mill
Michael Geist has an opinion piece on Bill C-32 in the September 27, 2010 issue of The Hill Times. While Professor Geist likes the new consumer exceptions in the Bill that permit time shifting, format shifting, back up copies and UGC, he continues to be troubled by the Bill’s digital lock provisions (known as the anti circumvention rules in Bill C-32). Geist strikes a somewhat alarmist tone on digital locks, arguing that these provisions: “effectively trump all other copyright (particularly fair dealing and the new consumer exceptions)”; are a “huge flaw that undermines many of the positive steps forward”; and that a “compromise” needs to be found.
However, a closer look at the new fair dealing exceptions and the digital lock provisions underscores why rights holders are so intent on seeking amendments to the Bill going in the other direction. Several commentators (Sookman, Gannon) have pointed out that on closer examination the prohibition against circumventing digital locks does not extend to circumventing copy-control protection measures. Therefore, in no way do the digital lock provisions “trump” any existing fair dealing exceptions or the new parody and satire fair dealing exceptions found in Section 21 of Bill C-32. Once you have legal access to a work, there is no provision in the new Bill that would prevent anyone from making use of the fair dealing copyright exceptions, digital lock or not. So one might reasonably take issue with Geist’s assertion that creators will not face significant financial losses under the Bill’s list of new fair dealing categories and consumer exceptions, suggesting that the need to fine tune these loopholes is clearly a matter of perspective. Rights holders continue to be adamant that the current exceptions in the Bill are too broad and potentially undermine other protections in the Bill against digital piracy.
Bill C-32 is not just about digital locks. We need updated copyright laws to bring us into the digital age and in line with our international trading partners.
Thanks for the link to my blog post on this topic, Stephen. I find it's often easy to call something a "compromise" when it's the position you agree with, and when you don't to state "more compromise is needed". The condition found in Bill C-32's user exceptions that a TPM is not circumvented to make these copies is absolutely necessary for the viability of the new kind of digital distribution models that have been gaining popularity (everywhere but Canada). I also wrote about this in a blog post here: http://jamesgannon.ca/2010/06/17/bill-c-32-user-exceptions-and-digital-locks/
Thanks for adding another voice of reason to the debate. This blatant fear mongering will only serve to blind people to the the true intent and importance of the bill - creators' work MUST be protected. Unfettered theft cannot continue or Canada will be a cultural wasteland, and thousands of people will lose their jobs. As you've rightly pointed out: "Once you have legal access to a work, there is no provision in the new Bill that would prevent anyone from making use of the fair dealing copyright exceptions, digital lock or not."
This is a well thought out and explanatory posting. The idea that this bill which is needed is only being discussed as it pertains to digital locks seems a bit silly.
There is no "have to" about it. If someone wants to put digital locks on they are going to have to fit the consumers needs. Companies like record companies, film companies and software companies are here to serve the consumer. They are not here to serve the non-consumer. Digital locks introduced in the future with be consumer friendly or the consumer won't buy it. Please support the idea of copyright reform and let the market work it out. Digital locks like file sharing are just another technological advent. If they help the consumer they will work. Overall sales are down due to a number of market factors. One of those factors is the easy availability of product intended to be sold to consumers is now available for free in our own country. Let's update copyright and move on to the next debate. We the people who invest our time and money into creating copyright for the purposes of moving the culture forward and the potential to make money doing so are not going to ever let this debate go. We need support from the consumer, we too are consumers and we above all else love music, film and what ever each of us is involved in to create and bring to market. A world without that type of risk and investment is a world where only teen pop rules the market. I personally have had enough of that and I am ready for more innovation using all online tools to spread the word about cool stuff and to find the cool stuff. Overall we need to do something now. There is lively debate about this subject and this is very encouraging that we have a passionate community on both sides but in the end Canada is a capitalist country and we should behave as one. We need a little anarchy too but just not total anarchy.
_jeff
The artistic community waits for their moment to shine in the shadows of a chaotic digital age.
The online community taunts us with the prospects of reaching global markets. Self promotion is the name of the game and this can be done for free. How empowering!
The only pitfall is the lack of control over rampant file sharing we deal with. Our prehistoric system holds nothing of benefit for the creators and until we change this we cannot take progressive steps into the new age.
Until then...
Would somebody care to explain the difference between "copy-control
protection measures" and "Technological Protection Measures" and
how exactly the bill splits the difference?
Does not TPM already include all the definitions no matter how they
are interpreted? Was the term not coined for exactly that purpose?
Are you sure the politicians think that one doesn't mean the other?
If one of the two is not in the bill, how do you explain that?
Are you hoping to reinterpret the bill after passage so that it
does something other than intended?