re: [d@DCC] Bill C-60 test case: unauthorized players viewing DVD CSS encoded movies

From: "Darwin O'Connor" <doconnor _-at-_ reamined.on.ca>
To: "General Copyright Discussions " <discuss (at) list.digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:14:00 -0400

Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca> wrote:
__________
>    Many  people  have  read  "for  the  purpose  of  an  act  that  is an
>    infringement  of the copyright in it or the moral rights in respect of
>    it"   to  mean  that  circumventing  a  technological  measure  for  a
>    non-infringing  act  is not covered. What I need to ask is this: if we
>    are  to  assume that 34.02 has meaning and isn't a "null operation" it
>    needs to change or clarify the law in some way. If infringing acts are
>    still  infringing,  and  non-infringing acts are still non-infringing,
>    then what purpose does 34.02 serve?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised for there be sections in this law that have no pratical purpose. In fact, I'd expect our laws are filled with them.

I believe the real purpose of the section is keep the music and movie industry happy by doing the bare minimum to say we've radified the WIPO treaty while avoiding the problems of the DCMA by not making anything illegal that wasn't illegal before.

With respect to the TPM parts of this bill, I'd say it is a 90% victory for "our" side. Our govenment my not be as corrupt as many people believe.

Darwin O'Connor
Toronto

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss