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

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Copyright Discussions <discuss (at) list.digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 22:10:27 -0400 (EDT)
References: <20050703010259.NYA1223.to5email2.gprs.rogers.com@COM>

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Darwin O'Connor wrote:

> 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.

   Having read a few court decisions, where the intent of the government is 
not clear on a treaty issue the courts will look at other treaty countries 
for clarity.  The courts will not believe that there is text in the 
copyright act that are intended to be the equivalent of a "NOP" (No 
Operation) in programming.

> 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.

   As you can tell, I disagree on two counts:  The first is that I disagree 
that the current wording of C-60 is a NOP.
   More importantly we know that the software manufacturers, and the duped 
content industries, will be lobbying hard to have amendments to the bill 
to provide protection for access control TPMs.  If they get these 
amendments then it will be a 100% loss by our side as they will have 
gained a new "access right" for digital works.

-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  1800+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60 which protects antiquated Recording,
  Motion Picture and "software manufacturing" industries from change...
  Sign the Petition Users' Rights! http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss