[kwlug-disc] Yesterday in C-32 news
cdfrey at foursquare.net
Thu Nov 4 17:35:24 EDT 2010
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 05:21:50PM -0400, Paul Nijjar wrote:
> Having said that: Sections (3) and (4) may be the protections I was
> hoping for. provided that the relevant libraries count as either
> information or a technology. So maybe you will still be allowed to
> interface your iPod to Linux, which is an important step. (You may
> even be allowed to write and distribute a Netflix client for Linux if
> one does not exist already.)
> What am I missing here?
According to Russell McOrmond's FAQ (http://billc32.ca/faq) he says:
Q: Did you just say DMCA style TPMs is more fair than C-32 style TPMs?
A: by Russell McOrmond
The most obvious feature of Bill C-32 style TPMs, beyond the fact
that it incorporates both WIPO use technical measures and US "access
control", is that many of the new limited fair dealings rules are
very explicitly made subservient to the use of technological measures.
* 29.22 (1)(c) Reproduction for private purposes
* 29.23 (1)(b) Reproduction for later listening or viewing
* 29.24 (1)(c) Backup copies
* 30.04 (3) and 30.04(4)(a) Educational use of Work available
Contrast this with the US DMCA which, after defining access control
technical measures in Title 17, Â§ 1201, includes the following:
(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. (1) Nothing in this
section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses
to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish
vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement
in connection with any technology, product, service, device,
component, or part thereof.
(3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design
of, or design and selection of parts and components for,
a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing
product provide for a response to any particular technological
measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in
which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise
fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any
rights of free speech or the press for activities using
consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing
In other words, under the USA DMCA, access control technical measures
are subservient to their flexible Fair Use regime. Under C-32 not
only is our Fair Dealings regime not flexible and is far weaker
than the US regime, many of the few provisions we are offered are
subservient to technological measures.
The USA DMCA doesn't protect fairness in the way that the Brazilian
proposal does which establishes equivalent penalties for hindering
or preventing the users from exercising their fair dealing rights,
but the US DMCA is far more balanced than Bill C-32.
So even if we are allowed to create compatible software to access locked
media, the locks themselves limit us in other very basic ways.
I'd rather see the locks gone from the copyright law... they have nothing
to do with copyright.
More information about the kwlug-disc