Post Tagged with: "61 reforms"

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 31: TPMs – Restrictions for Canadians with Perceptual Disabilities

Bill C-61 has the potential to impede access for all Canadians; however, one group may be particularly hard hit by widespread DRM use and the bill's anti-circumvention provisions. Those with print disabilities (called perceptual disabilities in the Copyright Act) rely on new voice technologies to gain access to works that they are physically unable to view. DRM can be used to limit or eliminate the use of technologies to read text aloud, thereby rendering it inaccessible for a segment of the population. Indeed, for those that think this is a mere fairy tale, one of the better known instances of "read aloud" restrictions involved the Adobe eReader, which restricted the reading aloud function for Alice in Wonderland.

The Copyright Act contains a specific provision to address access for the print disabled. Section 32(1) provides that:

August 4, 2008 — 3 comments — News

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 30: TPMs – Anti-circumvention and Privacy

The inclusion of a privacy exception within Bill C-61's anti-circumvention provisions was not particularly surprising given that the U.S. DMCA includes one and there has been mounting concern about the privacy implications of DRM. The issue has captured the attention of the Canadian privacy community for the past few years. In 2006, a group of privacy and civil liberties organizations and experts sent a public letter to the responsible ministers calling for assurances that:

any proposed copyright reforms will prioritize privacy protection by including a full privacy consultation and a full privacy impact assessment with the introduction of any copyright reform bill;
any proposed anti-circumvention provisions will create no negative privacy impact; and
any proposed copyright reforms will include pro-active privacy protections that, for example, enshrine the rights of Canadians to access and enjoy copyright works anonymously and in private.

The group (of which I am a member) sent a follow-up letter earlier this year as did Privacy Commissioner of Canada Jennifer Stoddart, who posted a public letter expressing concern that copyright reform could have a negative impact on privacy. Given those concerns, an exception to protect personal information is not unexpected. However, Section 41.14 fails to provide Canadians with full privacy protection and Bill C-61 unquestionably makes it more difficult for Canadians to effectively protect their privacy.

August 1, 2008 — 10 comments — News

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 29: TPMs – Interoperability Exception Restricts Third Parties

The problems with the interoperability exception in Bill C-61 extend beyond its impact on open source software. The U.S. DMCA restricts the ability for a person to disclose information obtained through circumvention for the purposes of interoperability by stating that the information may be made available to others on the condition that the person "provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section."

Bill C-61 regulates not only the initial circumventer but anyone else that comes into possession of the information. Section 41.12 (1) includes an interoperability of computer programs provision that is very similar to the U.S. DMCA. Subsection (4) allows the same person to "communicate the information obtained under that subsection to another person for the purposes of allowing that person to make the computer program and any other computer program interoperable." That also covers similar terrain as the U.S. DMCA.

July 31, 2008 — 16 comments — News

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 28: TPMs – Interoperability Exception, Linux and DVDs

The emergence of open source software as a powerful alternative to proprietary software models has been an important business and societal development. Open source software is today widely used by consumers (e.g., Firefox browser) and businesses (e.g., Linux operating system, Apache web server). From a policy perspective, the Canadian government's professed goal is to create a level playing field so that the marketplace rather than laws will determine marketplace winners. It has opposed attempts to create policy preferences for open source (over the objection of some advocates and countries) instead favouring a more neutral approach.

Notwithstanding the claims of neutrality, Bill C-61 creates significant marketplace impediments for open source software. Achieving a level playing field requires interoperability so that differing computer systems can freely exchange data. The bill includes an interoperability provision at Section 41.12 which states that the anti-circumvention provisions do not apply to:

a person who owns a computer program or a copy of it, or has a licence to use the program or copy, and who circumvents a technological measure that protects that program or copy for the sole purpose of obtaining information that would allow the person to make the program and any other computer program interoperable.

The problem with this provision is that it does not extend far enough to maintain a level playing field.

July 30, 2008 — 4 comments — News

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 27: TPMs – Encryption Research Exception Restricts Peer Review

Bill C-61's encryption research exception also potentially creates a restriction on peer review, an essential part of the scientific process. The current exception at Section 41.13(3) provides that circumvention devices (ie. software programs) may be distributed if for the purpose of encryption research and the researcher:

(a) uses that technology, device or component only for that purpose; or
(b) provides that technology, device or component only for that purpose to another person who is collaborating with the person

In other words, a circumvention device distributor can provide it to an encryption researcher and the researcher can provide it to other researchers with whom they are collaborating. While this covers access to circumvention devices for encryption researchers and their research team, it would not appear to cover non-affiliated researchers who might be asked to conduct peer review on the encryption research.

July 28, 2008 — 5 comments — News