Mediacheck

Sneak Peek at Canada's New Copyright Bill

Digital locks will make it hard to copy your CDs and DVDs. And what about snooping Internet providers?

By Michael Geist, 25 May 2010, TheTyee.ca

Blue copyright symbol

An unofficial user's guide to what's coming.

Related

Media reports last week indicated that the government plans to introduce its long-awaited copyright reform bill within the next few days. The bill is sure to spark widespread debate since all Canadians -- whether consumers, creators, businesses, or educators -- have a significant stake in the outcome.

The internal dynamics that led to the bill are by now fairly well known. Industry Minister Tony Clement, emboldened by last summer's copyright consultation that generated unprecedented public participation, argued for a forward-looking, technology neutral bill with flexibility as a core principle. Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore advocated for a U.S.-style protectionist approach, with priority given to digital locks that can be used to limit copying, access, and marketplace competition.

With the active support of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Moore won the fight over digital locks and the new bill will feature provisions certain to please the U.S. government and lobby groups. Yet the bill will include far more than just tough legal protection for digital locks.

The big issues

Here is an unofficial user's guide to the new legislation that focuses on three key issues -- fair dealing, Internet provider liability, and digital locks (Internet downloading is unlikely to figure prominently in the bill).

Fair dealing. First, the bill is certain to include a handful of changes to the current fair dealing provision. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Canada's fair dealing provision -- which is similar though not identical to fair use in the U.S. -- must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner. Yet the law currently includes a limited number of categories (research, private study, criticism, news reporting, and review) that renders many everyday activities illegal.

During the copyright consultation, many Canadians called for the introduction of a flexible fair dealing provision that would legalize many common activities. This is an issue that touches everyone. Creators would benefit from a parody and satire exception. Consumers would benefit from exceptions for recording television shows or changing the format of content they have purchased. Educators would benefit from exceptions to cover teaching activities and distance education.

Sources say the government has rejected the flexible fair dealing approach, but that new exceptions will make their way into the bill. The scope of the exceptions -- the last bill contained 12 conditions in order to legally record a television show -- will go a long way to determining whether the bill tries to strike a balance between competing copyright interests.

Internet provider liability. Second, the bill will address the responsibility of Internet intermediaries such as Internet providers and search engines for the activities of their users and subscribers. The past two copyright bills both struck a reasonable compromise by adopting an approach that gave copyright holders the ability to warn users about alleged infringements, but protected the privacy and free speech rights of the public. The bill will likely adopt the same system once again, which should garner support from across the spectrum.

Digital locks. Third, the bill will include digital lock provisions, known as anti-circumvention rules. These rules, which will allow Canada to implement international copyright treaties it signed over 10 years ago, was the most-discussed issue during the consultation. Thousands of Canadians argued that Canada should adopt a flexible implementation that renders it illegal to "pick a digital lock" for the purposes of copyright infringement, but preserves the right to do so for legal purposes.

Sources say the government has rejected the flexible approach in favour of the U.S.-style ban on circumvention (subject to a handful of limited exceptions). If true, the problem with the approach is that it undermines both the new and existing exceptions. For millions of Canadians, that means that their user rights will be lost whenever a digital lock is present including for CDs, DVDs, electronic books, and many other devices. In the process, the balance will tilt strongly away from consumers and their property rights over their own purchases.  [Tyee]

8  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Labour vs property rights

    If we have a system in place that allows the unlimited copying of creative works then we need to address how artists are to actually make a living. Digital locks may not be the answer, but unless we want artists to live lives even more marginal than they already do, we need to come up with a way to pay them for their labour. If Geist is using the "property rights" argument I think he is treading on dangerous ground. Artists and other creators have the basic human right to be compensated for their work.Or maybe that's so 20th century, and now moving into the brave new world of digital serfdom. I'm sorry -- the "property rights" angle has a bit of a reactionary smell to it.

  • snert

    2 years ago

    This goes over the head of most Canadians

    And most will probably ignore the issue after the fact.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Don't hold your breath

    Creators would benefit from a parody and satire exception...says Geist.

    So would the public - as it is, were not likely to get a Canadian version of the Colbert Report or the Daily Show anytime soon.

    Pompous characters like Minister of (I haven't got a clue what Heritage is?) Moore would sooner defend and promote the operators of Mixed Martial Arts 'spectaculars' than put his fellow politicians in a position where their absurd antics could be lampooned on cable television the way they are in the USA.

    Sad. Until it's okay to call Harper something a little more biting than Pee Wee the Sweater Boy or Jack Layton a CD salesman or Ignatieff something more cutting than a Harvard academic then there aren't many signs that Canadians are being encouraged to grow up and think for themselves.

  • Amelia Bellamy-Royds

    2 years ago

    Copyright and satire

    G West:
    You're confusing a couple issues. First, of course, just as the right to make satire free of legal repercussions is no guarantee of quality product, neither should laws be blamed for lack-lustre jokes or a lack of biting insight. Second, there are actually two areas of Canadian law that restrict satirists, and the examples you cite have more to do with defamation law than with copyright.

    A copyright exemption for satire and parody would support people who make satirical works of art that heavily borrow from other existing works -- songs, images, movies, whatever -- but wouldn't have anything to do with insulting politicians. For "fake news" TV shows, it would mean a clearer right to use clips from other stations' newscasts with critical commentary, something that is a regular part of the Daily Show and Colbert Report on U.S. TV. Currently in Canada, however, news reporters may rebroadcast other people's work (with attribution) but entertainers may not, leaving satirical news shows in a questionable spot legally.

    The current law:
    http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-42/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III-gb:s_29

    And to Snert: I hope you're wrong.

  • mikev

    2 years ago

    "Digital locks will make it hard to copy your CDs and DVDs."

    No they won't. The "content owners" won't need to put any effort into creating effective locks, since they will be able to rely on the courts instead. The lock won't be hard to break, they will just be illegal to break. So it will be about as hard to copy your CDs and DVDs as it is to find yourself a bag of marijuana. The only hassle will be the risk of getting caught.

    Booker - there were music makers and story tellers for millenia before anyone ever came up with the brilliant idea of copyright. Copyright actually made a kind of sense when it cost money to make copies, but those days are over. Now that almost everyone has the tools available to make all the copies they want, there's no money in making copies anymore. The "Recording Industry Ass. of America" and the "Motion Picture Ass. of America" are fighting tooth and nail to hang on to their buggy whip factories, but they will fail.

    Real artists will have to fall back to what real artists have always done - creating art. You can't do a job once and expect to get paid for it in perpetuity anymore. If you want to make a living, you have to keep working. People who download recordings of music don't expect to get into live shows for free. People who download TV shows don't expect to get into a theatre to see a play for free. People who download copies of pictures don't expect to have their portrait painted for free. There you go.

    I think you're at least partly right snert - the vast majority of people will just ignore the issue. Kind of like they do with most attempts at prohibition and/or censorship. It doesn't go over my head though.

    Vive la revolution! ;-)

  • Gabe

    2 years ago

    Common sense is dead.

    In the States right now (and soon Canada, apparently), it is illegal for me to watch DVDs I have purchased using the computer I own. Crazy, right?

    Why? Bear with me.

    The movie data on commercial DVDs is encoded using a weak form of encryption called "CSS", or the "Content Scramble System". The algorithm is considered a secret by the powers that be in the movie industry.

    Every commercial DVD player knows how to decode this data so that you can watch your movie. So do Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X.

    My problem is, I run Linux as the operating system on my computer - and the DVD consortium never bothered to create DVD decryption drivers for Linux.

    Fortunately, the CSS algorithm is so simple that a programmer named Jon Johansen managed to reverse engineer it. Because of his efforts ten years ago, I can watch my movies on my Linux laptop just fine.

    So here's the thing. What Jon did by figuring out how to make his movies play on his Linux computer is illegal in the US (he "circumvented a digital lock"). Even simply installing software based on his work is illegal there (damn, I'm in trouble!)

    This is insane. I own the computer. I own the movie. I should NOT have to use an "approved" device or piece of software to USE MY POSSESSIONS.

    The sick thing about all this? One doesn't need to "decode" DVDs to duplicate them. Just copy the DVD, encryption and all. The "digital lock" does exactly NOTHING to prevent illegal copying.

    Our political caste either doesn't understand what they are doing, or have accepted a lot of money from the CRIA and other lobby groups. It's hugely depressing and very, very sad.

    Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS

    And for the hell of it, the C source code needed to decrypt a DVD:


    #define m(i)(x[i]^s[i+84])<<
    unsigned char x[5],y,s[2048];main(n){for(read(0,x,5);read(0,s,n=2048);write(1,s
    ,n))if(s[y=s[13]%8+20]/16%4==1){int i=m(1)17^256+m(0)8,k=m(2)0,j=m(4)17^m(3)9^k
    *2-k%8^8,a=0,c=26;for(s[y]-=16;--c;j*=2)a=a*2^i&1,i=i/2^j&1<<24;for(j=127;++jy)c+=y=i^i/8^i>>4^i>>12,i=i>>8^y<<17,a^=a>>14,y=a^a*8^a<<6,a=a>>8^y<<9,k=s
    [j],k="7Wo~'G_\216"[k&7]+2^"cr3sfw6v;*k+>/n."[k>>4]*2^k*257/8,s[j]=k^(k&k*2&34)
    *6^c+~y;}}

  • thetscherman

    2 years ago

    DeCSS is a good example

    Like Gabe described. You legally bougth DVDs in the past, and now you are not allowed to play this on a machine of your choice. For instance on a PC eguipped with Linux as the content is encrypted.

    I agree that productions need to have some protection and artists need to get money for their doings.

    Especially artists are usually not in the position to get what they should getting for their work. The big sharks namely the major labels and collecting societies usually claim biggest piece of cake.

    As it seems, later ones did not arrive in the 21st century. Digital material that is published anyhow, will find its way into the world. Protected by strong encryption or not will not solve the problem itself, as any encrypted material must be decryptable to be of value for customers.

    If the producer side don't want to publish things, they should show productions in cinemas or live acts only. But as they finally want to spread their material to the masses and maximize their win (of course artists, too), they do produce CDs, DVDs, do streaming on radio, iTunes etc.

    Reduced to the minimum you can see things like this: If there is no data, there will be no sharing. If there is - well... They simply cannot have it all. Total protection _and_ maximized spreading together is technical impossible. The copyright society should accept this.

  • bilgladstone

    1 year ago

    Producers are hard at work

    Producers are hard at work trying to lock the door on a barn from which the technological horse escaped into the wild decades ago.

    Data access cannot be effectively locked. I think the trade associations have been on the right track with hard media surcharges to support the artists, though one suspects a smallish portion of what is collected actually gets to the artists' pockets.

    Fundamentally the question is: how do artists get fair compensation for published work which can be reproduced "for free" by anyone?

    In other words, if no longer the Church, Royalty or the Aristocracy, who are the "patrons of the arts" in a democratic society?

    Together, snooping ISPs, Recording Arts Associations, and now the IT Police and the Courts can find (some of) you and fine or jail you, I suppose. But as stated above, you can still do it.

    To use the Stick of Law to support a "buggy whip" industry is just wrong.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.