[d@DCC] Re: More research on Bill C-2: DVD players interfer with military

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr (at) sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 14:15:38 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Michael Richardson wrote:

> What is an AVR card?

  This is a microcontroller or "Smart Card".  There are specific
manufacturers of these, and they are general purpose cards.

> How is it installed? Who did the installation?

  I had a long conversation with Jim Thiessen from Industry Canada after
the intervention.  He is quite open to conversation, and as I included in
another email is willing to send us the details of their studies.

  What Industry Canada is talking about are user-installed devices which
would not pass any testing for commercial distribution of consumer
electronics.  There are now pictures up on the website of these specific
devices they are targeting, and they are unshielded types of things we
could put together in our basements.

  The bill talks generically about the "import any radio apparatus or
other device designed to be used in the decoding of an encrypted
subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed unless they do
so in accordance with an import certificate".  This is extremely broad and
clearly includes far more multi-purposes than just the single-purpose
infringing devices in question.

  Mr. Thiessen seemed to be looking for a simple answer to a complex
problem.  His belief is that if they got rid of infringing devices that
they would get rid of the interference.  I do not agree and see this bill
as having considerable unintended consequences.  The import, sale and/or
use of devices which interfere with other signals is already against the
law and I do not see how this bill can possibly help that situation.

  I believe I opened up dialog with Mr. Thiessen and that considerable
opportunity for us to all work together is there.  I focused my
presentation of unintended consequences of existing bill, of focusing on
technological rather than legislative solutions, and how legislative
solutions will tend to stifle advancement of technological solutions.


  I did get to say for the record that "Legal protection for TPM is not a
protection of copyright, but a replacement of copyright....".  The links
between this bill and LpfTPM outside of radiocommunications and satellite
signals seemed to be understood.

  Other people who were speaking were Paul Attallah and Phil Rogers.

  I believe Paul is from Carleton University, although I got this from a
web search where there were no photos online to confirm.

http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/mass/faculty/
Associate Director, Mass Communication
Paul Attallah

Mr. Phil Rogers (Again, web search with no pictures) is likely with
Gowling, Lafleur & Henderson LLP

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Open letters with Susan Crean http://www.flora.ca/creators/
 Petition for Users' Rights http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/
           All citizens are "rights holders"!

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca