Canadian DMCA Introduced; Digital Lock Provision Trumps Any And All User Rights

from the with-this-lock,-i-control-all dept

As was widely expected, Canadian politicians have introduced their version of the DMCA, dubbed the "Copyright Modernization Act" (or Bill C-32 if you want to get technical). Michael Geist runs down the good and the bad at the link above, but it appears there's a lot more that's bad than good. While the plan tries to add "balance" by extending fair dealing provisions just slightly wider than before (though, still pretty limited), it undermines that very concept with a heavy anti-circumvention clause. This is the worst aspect of the DMCA exported north to Canada. Basically, as long as a rights holder puts some form of DRM/copy protection on their work, all those exceptions go out the window. You can't circumvent, even for non-infringing reasons.

What this does is change the basic contours of copyright law. It gives the rights holders the ability to define the exceptions, and take away the right of users. It's this very aspect of the DMCA that needs to be fixed, not expanded to other countries. It goes against the core principles of copyright law, which include exceptions for the sake of important modes of expression. By letting the rights holder determine what is and what is not allowed as an exception, simply by letting the rights holder put any kind of digital lock (no matter how weak) is a travesty of copyright law. It's not copyright law at all, at that point. It's really a law to lockdown content away from the public, and to have the government declare a particular business model as supreme and protected by the government.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    James Carmichael, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 4:50pm

    It's still a free market

    I think people will slowly start to hate DRM, and demand their products come without it. Companies will notice, and adapt.

    Well... in theory.

    I live in Ontario, and I'm not too happy about this one. It's worse how they make it sound like it's for everyone's best interest, while it's really not.

    Can we at least stop paying 'levies' on blank CDs? I mean if they sell something which they assume will be used to do something illegal... why sell them at all?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jay (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 8:53pm

      Re: It's still a free market

      Huh? People in the gaming world already hate DRM. It limits what people can do arbitrarily and makes money for businesses artificially. For example, Microsoft puts a limit on their CDs of one use for students. It's not the fact that they can't make the CD run on more laptops or desktops. It's a limit to control where their money is coming from

      Regarding levies, no one can stop a free market. There's still a demand for CDs even as hard drives become cheaper to make with larger loads of space. Why sell them? Demand continues. Even as the industry of music falsely decries that every last download hurts them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TW Burger (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 9:00pm

      Re: It's still a free market

      If C-32 passes the CD levy will remain. It's simply to much free money to give up. I suggest contacting your member of Parliament and making it clear that if C-32 goes through he/she will be voted out of office. It is a free market for political office too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      crade (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 11:06am

      Re: It's still a free market

      Might work for entertainment media, although I think companies will just try their best to hide the fact that they are using DRM until they want to sue.

      Trouble is the way they want to set it up, DRM won't be limited to products that are part of the free market or that people have a choice about in any way. It can be used by employers, govt, hackers, terrorist groups, you name it! It would be illegal to check to see what they are hiding behind the lock or even create the tools that can do it, so entertainment media is really the least of your worries.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:05pm

    And that is why I don't take those people(industry people) seriously anymore, and I'm finding increasingly difficult to respect the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    william (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:12pm

    as a Canadian, please allow me to say...

    Damn, damn, damn, damn, DAMN.

    Now I have to join the effort to kill yet another damn bill proposal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:24pm

    another reason to support open source and creative commons.

    Frankly i blame the consumers for being idiots, but that is just me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Adam Bell (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:28pm

    Basically, this would make criminals of us all. Who doesn't make copies of kid's games to preserve the original, rip a CD for viewing on an alternative device or even for viewing from a laptop HD instead of a spinning plastic disk running their battery down?

    If we come to a red light that doesn't change, eventually we go through it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TW Burger (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 8:46pm

      Re: Copying

      C-32 allows you to copy what you bought onto other or duplicate media for personal use or backup. However, it seems it also makes breaking a copy protection (no matter how lame) punishable by 5 years in prison whether or not you bought the right to use the content and even if you do not sell it illegally or even if you break it accidentally as a result of a flaw in the CP. This is sounding like the long arms registration all over again. It cost 2 billion dollars, never worked, and made a large percentage of Canadians instant criminals.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      MadderMak (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 11:33pm

      Re:

      "If we come to a red light that doesn't change, eventually we go through it."

      What he said!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:32pm

    "You can't circumvent, even for non-infringing reasons."

    This is probably the worst part of the DMCA. Too bad if Canada adopts it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:32pm

    Since they're Canadian, there's only one thing I can say.......

    Take off, you hosers! Eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BigKeithO (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 7:50am

      Re: Since they're Canadian, there's only one thing I can say.......

      I'm Canadian and I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Is that some weak, vague 80's stereotype of Canadian's or something? Hosers?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 9:19am

        Re: Re: Since they're Canadian, there's only one thing I can say.......

        Dude, that was a Canadian stereotype developed by Canadians for Canadians! SCTV? Rick Moranis? Who went on to act in Ghostbusters? Ya need ta review your pop culture heritage...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:38pm

    drm is just a way of saying "dont go here". unlike the us, the canadian constitution doesnt suggest absolutely unlimited free speech rights, and as such, limiting "fair dealing" does not violate any rights. mike, you would learn a lot by not applying a us mentality to the laws of other countries.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:44pm

      Re:

      TAM fails to read the post yet again. How shocking.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:51pm

      Re:

      FYI, fair use in the U.S. is not based on the First Amendment.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:55pm

        Re: Re:

        o'rly? do tell.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 6:44pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Fair use in the U.S. is based on the purpose of the patents & copyrights clause of the U.S. Constitutions, which states that the purpose of authorizing Congress to grant patents & copyrights is to promote the development of science and the useful arts.

          So, when preventing uses of copyright-protected material could contravene that purpose, such use is considered "fair" and deemed an exception to the copyright monopoly.

          It's a judge-made doctrine.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            btr1701 (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 10:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use

            > Fair use in the U.S. is a judge-made doctrine.

            Really? Then how come it's in the Copyright Statute? Seems like it's a Congress-made doctrine to me.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      senshikaze (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 6:22pm

      Re:

      yes, shame on us for believing that all people should have inalienable rights like speech, etc. i guess we are too stupid to realize how bad free speech is.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 6:28pm

      Re:

      TAM talks out of his ass again.

      Last time DRM laws were in parlament, Canadians created a massive uproar that got it shot down.

      Guess what TAM: Canadians don't like DRM. Time to take your lack of understanding to a country that doesn't think you're full of BS.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 8:07pm

        Re: Re:

        i am not this tam person please stop mike. the last time anything like this hit parliment in canada, there was no uproar. please, point to a news story (not from smug mr fiest) that actually tells the story. i suspect you will see it was attached to a bunch of legislation lost at the end of a minority government or similar.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 8:44pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ok kaboose.

          Well Canada tried to pass those laws 2 times in the past and never got it to the end, maybe the third is a charm who knows.

          The first 2 were met with protests from the public and that is why they even called for opinions that the industry tried to stack the deck in various occasions.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 8:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Hi TAM.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 9:45pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Are you Canadian? Were you in Canada during the last bill about copyright? No? Then why are you commenting?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      tuna, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 6:53pm

      Re:

      us mentality? must be the late shift at the RIAA, TAMSTERS.

      Mike is applying common sense, not a U.S. mentality.

      Get some.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Blaise Alleyne (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 11:47am

      Re:

      "unlike the us, the canadian constitution doesnt suggest absolutely unlimited free speech rights, and as such, limiting "fair dealing" does not violate any rights."


      Man, do your research.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCH_Canadian_Ltd._v._Law_Society_of_Upper_Canada#Fair_deal ing

      The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that: "The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively."

      The digital lock provisions in Bill C-32 would undo any fair dealing exceptions. Mike's not imposing a U.S. mentality, he's just point out what's common sense, and what current Canadian law and the Canadian Supreme Court have affirmed.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Peter, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 5:52pm

    Worse thing will be the extortion lawsuits.

    The worse thing is it opens Canadians to US style extortion lawsuits to sweep the land.

    Currently Canadians aren't facing this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BigKeithO (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 7:56am

      Re: Worse thing will be the extortion lawsuits.

      True. One of the good points of C-32 is they have separated out commercial and non-commercial infringement. Non-commercial infringement damages go from $100 to $5000 which is a very nice change from the $20,000 for commercial damages. I believe its a step up from the US damages as well, correct me if I am wrong, I believe damages in the US go up to $120,000 per infringement?

      The cap on damages makes those extortion style lawsuits a lot less attractive in Canada I'd think. It would be hard to recoup the lawyers fees from a maximum $5000 per infringement award.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 6:21pm

    Of course it needs to be expanded into other countries ...

    "It's this very aspect of the DMCA that needs to be fixed, not expanded to other countries."

    They also need to expand the financial judgements available to the copyrights holders for infringement in Canada to 1 million dollars per infringement. Criminalize infringement with the following penalties, 3 months per song shared on a p2p network, 1 year per movie or TV episode shared, 2 years per OS shared. Allow for the court to liquidate all personal assets of infringers to pay for the judgements. Make all private residents with access to an internet connections liable in both civil and crimal cases.

    Yeah thats the ticket ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 6:41pm

    I am so going to get slammed for my Kanook comment on MGs blog ...

    ... to bad though its a good idea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Craig (profile), Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 6:56pm

    Raise the Jolly Roger, eh?

    I guess I'm now officially a criminal in the Great White North now. Beauty.

    Fuck it, gimme a beer, turn on the Stanley Cup playoffs and let's watch Don Cherry pontificate about the best sport in the world.

    Go Chicago!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Vincent Clement, Jun 2nd, 2010 @ 7:49pm

    Wonderful. This Act will make me a criminal for using software to crack DVD decryption in order to make up backup copies of DVDs and to transcode DVDs into xvid format for my kid's DVD players. Guess I'll be buying less DVDs or just borrow them from the library.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    statismwatch.ca, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 2:14am

    About that notice-and-notice provision...

    One aspect that I think might get overlooked as we go about analyzing this thing (new exemptions good, digital locks still very bad) is notice-and-notice. We need to see a lot more info on this provision, which requires ISPs to keep personal info. How broadly is personal info defined? Does this tie into Van Loan's requirements for ISP surveillance which Prof. Geist covered so thoroughly in Sept 2009? http://www.thestar.com/news/article/701824 It would be unsurprising if this enables certain police state 'cybersecurity' aspects that are being chased internationally.

    And speaking of international issues, what happens when we sit down at the CETA negotiating table with this? It could all be superceded. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4914/125/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BigKeithO (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 8:00am

      Re: About that notice-and-notice provision...

      I was under the impression that notice-and-notice was an improvement over the US style notice-and-takedown. Could you elaborate why you are concerned with this? ISP's keep your personal info anyway I don't really see the big deal with this one. We still have privacy laws in Canada that the ISP's are subject to, they aren't just handing out your info if someone complains about something you put on YouTube, it would take a subpoena to release that info.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jorvay, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 3:42am

    So it would be illegal for me to buy a DVD or other form of protected video, then rip it for use on one of my other media players?
    Well as long as I'm breaking the law anyway, I might as well download an unauthorized copy and avoid the hassle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Adam (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 6:40am

      Re: Jorvay's comment

      I know someone who buys video DVD, watches them, and if he thinks he might like to watch them again, downloads a copy. He does this so he can go straight to the main content without grinding through all the unstoppable bumph at the beginning of a commercial DVD.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 3:55am

    Section 12 of the Charter of rights and freedoms

    Section 12 of the Charter of rights and freedoms
    CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT......
    LORD HERE COME THE LAWSUITS


    38.1 (1) Subject to this section, a copyright
    owner may elect, at any time before final judg-
    ment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages
    and profits referred to in subsection 35(1),
    an award of statutory damages for which any
    one infringer is liable individually, or for which
    any two or more infringers are liable jointly
    and severally,


    (a) in a sum of not less than $500 and not
    more than $20,000 that the court considers
    just, with respect to all infringements in-
    volved in the proceedings for each work or
    other subject-matter, if the infringements are
    for commercial purposes; and
    (b) in a sum of not less than $100 and not
    more than $5,000 that the court considers
    just, with respect to all infringements in-
    volved in the proceedings for all works or
    other subject-matter, if the infringements are
    for non-commercial purposes.


    WHY a non commercial infringement can be more then a
    commercial infringement is beyond me and might even be
    equated to the charter of rights and freedoms under
    section 12 CHARTER of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS as a definite form of
    CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 4:07am

    @TW Burger

    actually you get that 5 years , (AND/OR)a 5000 or 10000$ fine for breaking the locks then it depends on what you were doing with it.

    SO way law works you gt the 5 years
    then a 10000$ fine per instance say 14 songs thats 140,000$
    /10 = max time when you cant pay that fine either to be done concurrently ( take which ever i s longer in this case the fine time at 38 years ) or consecutively adding both times ot gther to get a possible whooping 43 years in prison as a maximum for 14 songs YOU infringed by breaking the locks...
    NOT DONE YET THOUGH

    non commercial 100-5000 more bucks for all infringements
    thats up to a maximum of another 1.36 years in prison at ten dollars = one day in jail
    totals max time so far now is 44.36 years

    So i started to tell people take a single levied cdr with copyrighted music when the law passes and say 5-7 million of us turn ourselves in in one day.

    THIS CANNOT BE ENFORCED

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 4:12am

    and what happens when i sell for cost the levid cdr?

    so 26.7 cents to the levy per cdr
    and aobut 25 cents a cd
    so if i sell it to my bud for 51 cents
    and take a .7cents loss

    the law will then call that commerical sale and that 100-5000$ fine becomes up to 20,000$ thats a nice added max jail time when yu cant pay of when someone commits manslaughter

    THIS again raises the issue of CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS in the form of the scales of the punishments compared to the crime and as compared to other crimes

    ya think its ok to have on the books a law that could give your 18 year old kid effectively life in prison for a single music album?

    YOU ARTISTS better start speaking up or some baseball bats are gonna start swinging.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS ONE, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 4:31am

    @ 8 have you read Canada's charter of freedoms and rights?

    doesn't sound like it cause free speech is in there as is right to be presumed innocent. and to be treated without CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

    this extremist copyright law, is not only a tax on culture and knowledge but a form of economic terrorism the USA is waging on the world and it needs to lose and lose NOW.

    Section 2
    Fundamental freedoms (section 2), namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.

    Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
    Secondly, there is the right to liberty, which protects an individual's freedom to act without physical restraint (i.e., imprisonment would be inconsistent with liberty unless it is consistent with fundamental justice). However, the right has been extended to include the power to make important personal choices. The court described it as "[touching] the core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal."

    DRM to me is a constraint on my person as is a TPM.
    ASLO in that section it refers back to section two and yuo can read it further....

    Various liberties not covered by the section 7 right to liberty include religious liberty and liberty of speech, because these are more specifically guaranteed under section 2,

    ALSO of section 7 it might even be argued that such a law thats sooo broad reaching and encompassing of previous activites that were legal may Breach this section of the charter, regarding the mental integrity form the govt putting such a law on the populace that is clearly not wanted or needed and they keep doing it over and over and over again= stress:

    Thirdly, there is the right to security of the person, which consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health[9] and of the right protecting the "psychological integrity" of an individual. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm (stress) to the mental state of the individual.

    Vagueness
    The "Principles of Fundamental Justice" require laws to have a clear and understandable interpretation so as to properly define the rule or offence.
    A law is unconstitutionally vague if it does not have clarity enough to create "legal debate". There must be clarity of purpose, subject matter, nature, prior judicial interpretation, societal values, and related provisions. This does not prevent the use of broadly defined terms so long as societal objectives can be gleaned from it. (Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 1995)
    [edit]Overbreadth
    The "Principles of Fundamental Justice" require that means used to achieve a societal purpose or objective must be reasonably necessary.
    This principle is violated when the government, in pursuing a "legitimate objective", uses "means" that unnecessarily and disproportionately interfere with an individual's rights.


    ----
    Section 12
    12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

    Cruel and unusual punishment was thus defined as punishment "so excessive as to outrage standards of decency" or "grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 4:48am

    How will they know when I rip a movie? Record a TV show?

    Will Linux call them and tell them?

    They may as well say "No sex when your children are in the house." Real enforceable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 6:16am

    It's just another form of lock or safe.

    If you have problems, or even perceived problems with loss of product, it is their responsibility to take measures to protect against that loss.

    Banks employ guards, camera's, safes, locks and so on.

    People have keys for their car, their house and so on, giving access to only the rights holder of that product or item.

    If no one ever broke into houses or banks, or went places that belonged to someone else, then there would be no requirement of safes, locks, guards, keys, or DRM.

    It's only to address a problem, and I know you deny there is even a problem, but there is certainly a perceived problem, and potential for more problems, and a way to legally protect from that.

    Sure, it's very annoying for anyone who wants to make copies or to file share, just as it annoying that we cannot just go into any bank and find all the money there for the taking.

    So once again, this is a response to file sharing, file sharing is real, and the damage it causes is real as well.

    Just as bank robbery is damaging to the bank, the bank still makes a profit, but it has a loss from being robbed.

    So saying the music industry is 'making a profit' so a bit of theft is ecceptable in well, not really accecptable at all.

    So basically if people did not file share, as opposed to purchasing a legal version, which is against the existing laws, then those who are the victims of that loss are abliged to take measures to protect the investment of the stakeholders.

    What they are saying is, if you cant be trusted to not be responsible with filesharing copyrighted material, (others peoples property), then we'll take that ability away from you.

    If you cant be trusted not to take money from an unlocked bank, then we will put locks on 'just the keep you honest'.

    So now, everyone is disadvantaged because a few took things way to far. we all suffer from the greed of a few.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 7:28am

      Re: It's just another form of lock or safe.

      You miss the point here. It is illegal to enter someone else's house to steal stuff - but not fro a bunch of kids to retrieve their own ball. This law makes otherwise legal acts illegal simply because you got past a security mechanism in order to do it.

      There are laws against stealing, and there are locks that stop you getting in - but there is no law in the physical world against picking a lock unless you do some damage in the process.

      This law does two things that the ordinary "physical world laws" you compare it with don't do.

      1. It enables rights holders to enforce rights that they don't legally hold.

      2.It makes it an offence to infringe these illegal rights if you pick a lock to do so.

      Let's give a proper physical analogy.

      A farmer owns a piece of land with a right of way across it.

      Legally he has no right to block the path but physically he might do so. Let's say he puts a gate across the path and secures it with a combination padlock.

      A hiker trying to walk the path encounters the gate and

      a. Climbs over it

      or

      b. Idly fiddles with the lock and accidentally finds the combination.

      In the physical world the farmer is guilty of an offence (legally he cannot block the path). In this new digital world the hiker is guilty - even though he has done nothing that he was not entitled to do. in law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 1:19pm

      Re: It's just another form of lock or safe.

      Look, up there, in the sky...

      ...it's the point you missed. I suppose your view may have been blocked by your horribly flawed analogies.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      david allsebrook (profile), Sep 17th, 2010 @ 10:28am

      Re: It's just another form of lock or safe.

      The flaw in your analogy is that the bank security system also prevents you from getting your money when you are entitled to it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 6:41am

    A bank vault of files instead of money.

    "It gives the rights holders the ability to define the exceptions, and take away the right of users."

    So replace 'rights holders' with bank sharholders, and the 'file' being 'shared' is money. Then the bank has the right and ability (via locks and guards) to define the exceptions and take away the right of the users. (people who want money).

    Again, if no one tried (alot) to take the rights (copyright) as a personal right of users there would be no requirement for DRM, or guards and locks in banks.

    And the only person who owns the right to copy or share the work is the person who owns the copyright of that work.
    It's his right, he can do what he likes with it, if he only wants to make his work available to only one person, or no people that is his right.

    If he wanted to make it available for free to everyone, he would release it under public domain. If he does not want everyone to copy it, and they do, he would put locks in place to protect his work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 7:35am

      Re: A bank vault of files instead of money.

      And the only person who owns the right to copy or share the work is the person who owns the copyright of that work.
      It's his right, he can do what he likes with it, if he only wants to make his work available to only one person, or no people that is his right.


      Wrong.

      He has , in law, specified set of exclusive rights. They do not extend anywhere near to what you claim. In particular once a copy is sold to one person he cannot prevent that person selling the copy on to a third party, and at any time the current owner of the copy is entitled to various fair dealing/fair use rights (exact details depending on the country in question).

      The only time he has true exclusive rights is before distribution of the first copy. After that point his rights are limited by the law.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Adam Bell (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 7:09am

    Bank analogy

    I see DRM as more like the bank agreeing to give me money from my account provided that I spend it as they specify.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      MadderMak (profile), Jun 3rd, 2010 @ 11:49pm

      Re: Bank analogy

      Agreed.

      Also the whole analogy of locks and so forth is flawed...

      1 - lock my car, house etc... no law says I must have locks.. I can choose.

      2 - banks - banks hold other peoples property and those people ask/expect locks.. again a choice not a law.

      3 - I legally purchase a movie DVD and legally try to make the backuop copy (I have kids... DVDs have very short lives) and If the publisher *chooses* to put DRM/Encrypt on it then I will have broken the law... in following the law.

      point - the first 2 are my choice regarding my property. The 3rd is someone else's choice regarding my property.

      I beg to disagree such a law should be passed unless it contains clear and explicit protections for legal uses.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Darryl, Jun 4th, 2010 @ 7:18am

    @Richard

    "There are laws against stealing, and there are locks that stop you getting in - but there is no law in the physical world against picking a lock unless you do some damage in the process."

    That is absurd !, sure there is no law stopping you from purchasing a lock, and breaking it.

    But there certainly are very well defined laws and definitions agaist gaining access by ANY means where you are not supposed to be.

    Look up the laws on "Break and enter" for example, You say there is no law agaist opening locks, there certainly is if that lock belongs to someone else, and you do no have permission to open it.

    canadian law:

    "321.... break means ... to break any part, internal or external, or ... to open any thing that is used or intended to be used to close or to cover an internal or external opening."

    That means to gain access to any mechanism (door, lock etc) that is intended to KEEP YOU OUT.

    Once you have gain you're illegal access, the law assumes you're there for illegal purposes (probably to steal). It is up to you to prove you were not there "for no reason".

    These days, "a lock or "opening" would also be considered as a security mechanism to stop you entering a computer, or network, or accessing files or data that you dont have the right to access, as clearly shown by the producer of that work placing his own locks on this works.

    So to "break" a lock on a warehouse to 'enter' the building, it will be assumed you're there to take stuff, is just the same as if you break the lock of DRM and go agaist the wishes of the owner of that property, who has locked his product, just like the guy who owns the warehouse.

    The same laws apply, and there is no reason why the person who owns the warehouse should be able to lock up his building and protect his product, but the producter of copyright works, is not allowed to apply the same level of physical security as banks, warehouses, houses, cars, well just about everything else is allowed to be protected from theft, so why not books, music, movies, software and other products.

    And for that person who says, you have the right to copy a work after that work has been published, that is wrong, you do not own the COPYRIGHT, therefore you do not have the right to copy that work, funny, that is what COPYRIGHT means, the right to copy, a right you do not have, but a right the producer of the work has. And like the warehouse owner, he has every right to put locks on his doors, employ security staff, and prosecute those that steal from him.

    Thats a right everyone has, to protect you're own works, and to have a say in how it's used.

    Just as it's you're right to own things, and to lock them up, it's an illegal act to breach those locks and gain access to the contents, and it does not matter a squat if you damage anything or not.

    If fact you just have to be there, that is enough, and guilt is assumed, and onus is on you to prove you're intensions were not criminal, and if you cant, it is assumed it was criminal.

    Life in prison in canada for break and enter of a home, that would easy apply to break and enter of a part of you're home, (any opening), and that would include you're home computer.

    Therefore, if you broke into a home computer in canada, you are "break and entering" into a residential premises, and that is a manditory life in prison.. Enjoy

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Aaron, Jun 7th, 2010 @ 4:32am

      Re: @Richard

      I normally just enjoy reading the comments here and abstain from joining in, but that was just, I mean... I don't think I have ever read anything that stupid in my life. I'm incredulous.

      The producer of a work has absolute rights on it from first sale to infinity and beyond. Um, you're insane or trolling (at the end of a thread, good plan)

      Mandatory life in prison... wha? who? Oh god my head....

      Either you just drove the crazy bus over satire gorge and I missed it, or your understanding of, well, reality is broken. I award you no points, etc.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), Jun 7th, 2010 @ 8:40am

        Re: Re: @Richard

        Um, you're insane or trolling... Either you just drove the crazy bus over satire gorge and I missed it, or your understanding of, well, reality is broken.

        It's always hard to tell with Darryl, but I have a sinking suspicion he actually believes that stuff.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Brendan (profile), Jun 20th, 2010 @ 9:59pm

      Re: @Richard

      What if somebody came by and put a padlock on the front door of my house?

      I bought the house, I own, I am allowed into it. Sadly, I cannot get into my house because somebody (without asking me or giving me the key) has put a lock on it.

      Can I break that lock legally?


      (SPOILER: The answer is: "Of course!". And from there we make extension to other items we have paid for, ie music.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This