Canadian Government: Copyright bill to clamp down on digital lock-pickers

[nogle]

Originally Posted by KevinH

Hi,

I think you missed the point. The digitial lock provisions trump all other uses.

Without changes to the digital lock provisions, all of the other good things in the bill "ie. fair dealing" become worthless. All anyone need add is some minor obfuscation or encryption, call it a DRM system, and now you no longer have any fair dealing uses. Sad really. Since we know DRM does not stop actual pirates, then all Harper's government is doing is kowtowing to big business interests that want to lock you in to their platform and effectively abolish all fair dealing uses.

-1

No, it doesn't trump all. When tested in court, a judge can strike down portions of a law without negating the entire law.

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by rkomar

In this case, the vested interests are probably getting the US government to apply the screws.

Given what happened in Sweden, there is no reason to doubt it's happening here in Canada (and most other countries) as well.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by nogle

No, it doesn't trump all. When tested in court, a judge can strike down portions of a law without negating the entire law.

It also doesn't trump it as their is no statutory damages for violating the provision for personal use. In fact, there are no consequences in bill for personal use at all. It could be that a revision of this bill causes harm, but this one doesn't.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

It also doesn't trump it as their is no statutory damages for violating the provision for personal use. In fact, there are no consequences in bill for personal use at all. It could be that a revision of this bill causes harm, but this one doesn't.

So exactly what is the digital lock-breaking part of the law for if not to stop personal use?

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by rkomar

So exactly what is the digital lock-breaking part of the law for if not to stop personal use?

My best guess is that its main purpose is to make it easier to fine companies that sell copyrighted software, games and DVDs. Previously you had to prove they had actually sold stuff, which was difficult as they rarely had merchandise on hand; they produced it as they had requests from customers. This would make it so that if you found a shop built around circumvention (such as a mod chip sales company or an illegal DVD copier), they can easily be charged and fined. As Canadian law, unlike American law, requires damages to be proven, it's very difficult to charge these people otherwise.

Also, it does prevent Canadians from from creating or providing instruction on DRM removal tools, but not much else.

However, if you're not breaking the law in order to break another law, it shouldn't have much impact. I'm guessing that the only reason it's in there is to placate the media companies a bit.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

However, if you're not breaking the law in order to break another law, it shouldn't have much impact. I'm guessing that the only reason it's in there is to placate the media companies a bit.

Are you quite sure there is no penalty? Not to be a doubting Thomas - I'm just not legally minded, and not sure if I'm completely following the discussion.

Would there be a retroactive component, or would it still be legal to own books one bought and liberated before the law was passed?

[anamardoll]

I find these discussions distressing because invariably people pop up to say, essentially, "Whatever, I'm still going to do it."

OK, still do it, but don't say whatever. Unless you, personally, are Apprentice Alf or someone similar, you are relying on tools to liberate your books. You think that Amazon and B&N and Adobe couldn't break those tools easily enough with an update to their systems?

To me, these laws are not designed to get John Q. Public; they're designed to intimidate unlockers and the people who download their tools. (Remember the Sony grab attempt in court to get the IP addresses of everyone who had downloaded the PS3 jailbreaking code? I do.)

I just find the short-sightedness distressing when people dismiss these laws because they can't be implemented against them personally.

/soapbox.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Are you quite sure there is no penalty? Not to be a doubting Thomas - I'm just not legally minded, and not sure if I'm completely following the discussion.

For this type of situation, there are usually three possible types of damages: compensatory, statutory and punitive.

In Canada, compensatory damages requires a plaintiff to show an actual loss. In the case of removing the DRM for a file you own, there is no such loss as you already paid for the file. They could argue that it caused you to not purchase comparable files in other formats, but it wouldn't be a strong argument, and even if the court agreed with that argument, it wouldn't be worth enough in damages to sue.

Also, according to Bill C-11, they specify no statutory damages for circumvention for person use. That eliminates that category.

Finally, in Canada, punitive damages require you to have shown blatant disregard causing harm. In this case, the court is incredibly unlikely to award any, as there is no harm that can be proven.

All of this is an over-simplification, but should cover the basics for this specific situation.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I find these discussions distressing because invariably people pop up to say, essentially, "Whatever, I'm still going to do it."

For me it isn't a 'whatever' situation, but it is a case where other than supporting groups which are lobbying for different legislation, there isn't much I can do besides continue to remove the DRM.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

For this type of situation, there are usually three possible types of damages: compensatory, statutory and punitive.
......All of this is an over-simplification, but should cover the basics for this specific situation.

Thank you Wasgo! That's really helpful.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I just find the short-sightedness distressing when people dismiss these laws because they can't be implemented against them personally.

/soapbox.

Not a soapbox - you are absolutely correct. It is natural to assess personal impact. But to knowingly break a law is a very serious matter, and always carries risk. If the law passes, I'm not sure what I'll decide.

And to your larger point - a poorly conceived law should be a concern to all Canadians.

I agree with the gov that piracy is wrong and that authors, publishers, sellers, etc need some form of protection. But I buy alot of books - what happens if my device seller goes out of business - where is my protection with DRM crippled books?

Greed is a factor - not just fear of piracy. I have 3 tvs - I don't have to buy the same movie 3 times - one for each room.

There must be a better tech solution that protects authors and still allows fair personal use. You shouldn't be forced into a compromising situation just by taking steps to protect one's purchase. End of my soapbox

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

It's not unenforceable, it just won't be enforced against people using it for personal use. If a company gets caught with pirated DVDs that they manufacturer, they can be hit with statutory damages. So can people that make or import tools that can remove DRM.

Of course, there's no need to remove the DRM from DVDs to duplicate them. Just a bit-copy will duplicate without doing anything to the DRM.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Of course, there's no need to remove the DRM from DVDs to duplicate them. Just a bit-copy will duplicate without doing anything to the DRM.

A bit-copy could reasonably be considered to be circumvention though. That's the problem with Bill C-11. It's really broad.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Of course, there's no need to remove the DRM from DVDs to duplicate them. Just a bit-copy will duplicate without doing anything to the DRM.

Such a copy would be useless if done by most people, because home grade dvd burners don't give you access to the keys on the original disc, and don't write into the keys area on the copy. You wouldn't be able to play such a copy on any device. You have to break the DRM to remove the need for keys before you can make a playable copy.

My desktop runs Linux, and to watch my DVDs on it, the software needs to break the DRM on each disk. With the passing of this law, I become a criminal just by watching my legally purchased DVDs on my computer. Whether they choose to pursue me or not for this crime, I have zero respect for this law. And it's a little late for Harper's "buy something without DRM" advice. I have hundreds of purchased DVDs, and I'm feeling pissed off that I paid for stuff that turns me into a criminal if I use it.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Such a copy would be useless if done by most people, because home grade dvd burners don't give you access to the keys on the original disc, and don't write into the keys area on the copy. You wouldn't be able to play such a copy on any device. You have to break the DRM to remove the need for keys before you can make a playable copy.

My desktop runs Linux, and to watch my DVDs on it, the software needs to break the DRM on each disk. With the passing of this law, I become a criminal just by watching my legally purchased DVDs on my computer. Whether they choose to pursue me or not for this crime, I have zero respect for this law. And it's a little late for Harper's "buy something without DRM" advice. I have hundreds of purchased DVDs, and I'm feeling pissed off that I paid for stuff that turns me into a criminal if I use it.

Not disputing your point, but are you actually saying you cannot play your DVDs? Or you bought them to play on your linux computer and they don't?

I am not a linux user obviously as I would have assumed that most DVDs would play on it. Copies maybe not, but probably.

I cannot see that the software actually playing a purchased DVD is circumventing DRM by playing it even on linux. DVD players have software to decode the DRM or no-one could play them. Where is the illegality of watching your legally purchased DVDs on any device that will play them?