Quote:
Originally Posted by CRussel
Nothing. Victoria is in error as I understand the new law. The new law will, arguably, make it illegal to create DRM removal software for commercial use. But it will still allow us to format shift and backup for archival purposes, for personal use. For the best blog I know of on Canadian IP issues, I suggest Michael Geist's. |
I'm not a tech person, but I think I'm correct. Michael Geist has been very outspoken about digital locks. I'm not sure what you are reading on the blog you link provided - if you go to the end of the page, you'll note that he says that the lobby to allow the breaking of digital locks lost:
"The only loss was the least surprising - digital locks. Despite widespread support for compromise legislation and sensible amendments from both the NDP and Liberals, the government rejected any changes. Given the government's consistent support for digital locks, the ongoing pressure from the U.S., and Prime Minister Harper's direct intervention on the issue in 2010, amending the digital lock rules presented a major challenge. Government MPs yesterday emphasized the possibility of future new exceptions via regulation but that will be cold comfort in the short term to those with perceptual disabilities, researchers, documentary film makers, consumers, and the many others adversely affected by the restrictive approach. In fact, one NDP MP raised the possibility of constitutional challenges to the bill."
For a debate between Michael Geist and Barry Sookman, see:
kman.com/2010/12/14/an-faq-on-tpms-copyright-and-bill-c-32/
Sookman argues against Geist, and defend making breaking DRM illegal:
Should circumvention of TPMs for private copying be permitted?
I now want to address whether circumvention of TPMs should be permitted for private copying. Bill C-32 has exceptions for format shifting, time shifting and making backup copies. These exceptions only apply where TPMs are not hacked to do these acts.
In my view, the conditions against hacking TPMs in the new private copying exceptions are important. TPMs support new business models that would be undermined if people could hack TPMs to make private copies. The conditions are also important because Bill C-32 permits private copying without any compensation to rights holders. Removing these conditions would undermine legitimate markets for the legal sale of copyright content and further increase uncompensated copying.
Michael says we should drop these conditions. He says we should permit people to hack TPMs to copy for format shifting, time shifting and back-up copying purposes. But, doing so could undermine many current and future service offerings which depend on protecting copy and access control TPMs."
Again, I'm not a tech person, but everything I read seems to confirm it will only be legal to make personal back ups and shift formats, if they do not have DRM. Under the law, it will be illegal to break a digital lock.