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

From: Sydney Weidman <weidmans _-at-_ mts.net>
To: General Copyright Discussions <discuss (at) list.digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:37:38 -0500
References: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0507021534330.31505@bangalore.flora.ca>

On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 14:38, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> Looking for feedback!
> http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/c60-tpm-dvd.html

>     Accessing   legally   purchased  media  with  any  tool  is  currently
>     considered  lawful  as  there  is  no  "access  right"  or right for a
>     copyright holder to otherwise tie the access of a work to specifically
>     authorized tools. I believe it is uncertain if 34.02 changes this, and
>     we  need  to  ask  what  the  intention of the government is with this
>     section.
> 
>     Does  34.02 make illegal viewing a DVD CSS encoded movie with a player
>     that  is not licensed by the DVD CCA? I believe this is uncertain, but
>     my  gut  feeling  from  talking to policy makers is that they intended
>     this  to  not be legal since they incorrectly believe the DVD CCA when
>     they say that they license "copy control" technologies.
> 

I think your point about the uncertainty created outweighing the
positive concessions is well taken. It is tremendously difficult to
understand the interrelated portions of the bill.

One thought that bothers me is this: The "exemption" sentence in 34.02
currently reads:

"for the purpose of an act that is an infringement of the copyright in
[the work]"

but it could have been written as:

"for the purpose of an act that would otherwise be an infringement of
the copyright in [the work]"

Couldn't that be interpreted to mean that an infringement of 34.02
itself constitutes an infringement and is therefore subject to the
restrictions of 34.02? I know that an honest lawmaker wouldn't make a
law like that but who knows. If they wanted to make it clear that
circumventing wasn't included in what, according to 34.02, counts as
infringement, they could have done so. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

The other thing that I find confusing is 34.02(3) which says:

"If a technological measure protecting a material form of a work, a
performer’s performance or a sound recording referred to in subsection
(1) is removed or rendered ineffective in a manner that does not give
rise to the remedies under that subsection"

then you can't rent or sell it, distribute it in any way etc. What I
don't understand is what the phrase "in a manner that does not give rise
to the remedies under [subsection 1]" means. What types of circumvention
*do not* give rise to remedies? Circumvention for the purpose of
non-infringing acts? If that is so, is this section making it illegal
for video stores to remove region codes and that sort of thing? That
would render 34.02 more than a NOP.

Regards,
Syd

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