3 ms·

The only thing wrong with C-11 as it stands currently are the digital lock provisions. Everything else in the bill is rather liberal, and, frankly, some of the

by sha90 15y ago

The only thing wrong with C-11 as it stands currently are the digital lock provisions. Everything else in the bill is rather liberal, and, frankly, some of the provisions are outright good for Canadians (limits on fines, ISP liability exemptions, educational use exemptions, "mashup" exemptions). Calling for protests against the bill in its entirety is ignorant and blaming "the majority government" for passing draconian laws is outright sensationalist and false. That's not really how we do things here in Canada. There's a better way to get things done, and it doesn't involve hyperbole. Yes, the digital locks portions of the bill could use some reworking-- but as mentioned, the enforceability of the law as its codified now is questionable, so I wonder how big of a deal it would actually be for the law to be passed as is. Remember, as pointed out, use of VCRs is also technically illegal, but you don't see any enforcement of that. The issue surrounding digital locks may very well have the same practical effect. We should certainly try to get these provisions changed before they are codified, but IMO it's not really the end of the world. Yes, there is going to be a lot of push from powerful lobbyists to get "SOPA-like" provisions into the bill. However that is a reason to remain vigilant, not a reason to pre-emptively black out the internet again. As it stands, those additions have yet to be added to the bill, so right now, the lobbying power hasn't done very much. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not the type to start blaming people for things that haven't happened yet. I'm going to watch and wait until there is something reminiscent of SOPA in this bill, which may or may not happen. FYI for those who are just jumping on the bus because SOPA is in the title of this article, please read a bit on the issue before injecting your opinion or outrage. Michael Geist is a good and well respected source on this issue. He's come out (more or less) in favour of the bill, minus his open objections to the digital locks portions, which I pointed out above. However, his general approval should say something about the bill-- Geist probably knows a lot more about copyright law in Canada than anyone here does. His comments regarding C-32 (now C-11) can be found in this rather old posting: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5316/125/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5316/125/

sunir 15y ago
I'm working on a letter to my MP and Senator to fix the digital lock issue. This is the argument I'm fleshing out. Feedback is appreciated: Regarding digital locks, in an earlier version of the bill called C-60, they had the completely reasonable position that circumventing digital locks would only infringe if the circumvention was done to further an infringing act. If you broke the lock to exercise your fair dealing rights, that would not be infringement. The WIPO lawyers argued that wasn't the intention of the Internet treaties we signed, but I think that's bullshit. A marketing campaign after the fact about the possible intention of the law doesn't matter; only what's written and how it would be reasonably interpreted to achieve its stated aims. The WIPO treaties explicitly allow for fair dealing and fair use restrictions on the rights granted to copyright holders. Further, they only demand that digital locks are protected to enforce rights of the copyright holders. However, clearly the rights of the copyright holders are limited by the fair dealing provisions (1), and therefore the digital locks don't need to be enforced where they prevent non-infringing uses. (1) If you don't get this, it's important to remember that rights and freedoms are never unlimited. We have freedom of expression in Canada, but that is reasonably limited when that expression causes harm to society, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or hate speech or even reporting election results early. The full right isn't the one paragraph that grants "freedom of expression" in the Charter, but that paragraph limited by the reasonable restrictions around it. Similarly, copyrights are not the simple paragraph descriptions like "right to control copies", but the full right as limited by fair dealing. Therefore, when WIPO only asks for enforcement of digital locks that protect the rights of copyright holders, that requirement is limited by fair dealing.

by sha90 15y ago

sunir 15y ago

I'm working on a letter to my MP and Senator to fix the digital lock issue. This is the argument I'm fleshing out. Feedback is appreciated: Regarding digital locks, in an earlier version of the bill called C-60, they had the completely reasonable position that circumventing digital locks would only infringe if the circumvention was done to further an infringing act. If you broke the lock to exercise your fair dealing rights, that would not be infringement. The WIPO lawyers argued that wasn't the intention of the Internet treaties we signed, but I think that's bullshit. A marketing campaign after the fact about the possible intention of the law doesn't matter; only what's written and how it would be reasonably interpreted to achieve its stated aims. The WIPO treaties explicitly allow for fair dealing and fair use restrictions on the rights granted to copyright holders. Further, they only demand that digital locks are protected to enforce rights of the copyright holders. However, clearly the rights of the copyright holders are limited by the fair dealing provisions (1), and therefore the digital locks don't need to be enforced where they prevent non-infringing uses. (1) If you don't get this, it's important to remember that rights and freedoms are never unlimited. We have freedom of expression in Canada, but that is reasonably limited when that expression causes harm to society, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or hate speech or even reporting election results early. The full right isn't the one paragraph that grants "freedom of expression" in the Charter, but that paragraph limited by the reasonable restrictions around it. Similarly, copyrights are not the simple paragraph descriptions like "right to control copies", but the full right as limited by fair dealing. Therefore, when WIPO only asks for enforcement of digital locks that protect the rights of copyright holders, that requirement is limited by fair dealing.