[d@DCC] Bill C-32 discussion?

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: "General Copyright Discussions (questions, organizing, etc)" <discuss (at) list.digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:07:00 -0400

   I've been surprised how quiet it has been in this list.  Everyone off 
in regional lists, or sucked into facebook?


   I'm curious what people think about the FAQ on the bill that I've 
been drafting.   http://BillC32.ca/faq

   Is it the right questions?  Anyone have different answers that they 
wish to offer, or corrections/comments on what I've written?

   I will likely add more later, covering each of the areas that are 
discussed in the summary of the bill.


   * Q:At 66 pages, there must be more to this bill than WIPO treaty 
ratification and WIPO rejected US DMCA style TPMs?
     A: Offer list from summary

   * Q: Shouldn't ISPs be held partly responsible for the activities of 
their customers?
     A: ISPs should be "dumb pipes" and not responsible for anything 
other than communication (electronic or otherwise) with their clients, 
and responding to court orders for information.

(No question yet on "(c) permit businesses, educators and libraries to 
make greater use of copyright material in digital form;" .  Will need to 
dig more into the bill to see which clauses drafters were thinking of. 
Thoughts?  Is this 30.1(1)(c), or maybe the new 30.2 possible inducement 
for librarians to authorise technical measures that may circumvent 
copyright holders rights? )

   * Q: Aren't all the new education institutional exceptions to 
copyright great for students?
     A: Government program paid for on the backs of copyright holders, 
masquerading as copyright.

   * Q: Isn't the legalisation of time and format shifting awesome?
     A: Yawn.  Legalising activities people already thought were legal, 
and were going to do anyway regardless of what the copyright law said.

   * Q: What is wrong with photographers having the same rights as other 
copyright holders?
     A: Professional photographers represent a tiny fraction

   * Q: Is this bill "technologically neutral" as desired by the government?
     A: Hey, I thought you asked me to stop talking about access control 
TPMs?  At least the comical reference to the videocassette from Bill 
C-61 is gone.

   * Q: Since there is a mandatory review every 5 years, does it matter 
if we make a few minor mistakes now?
     A: This is not a review by an external body such as the copyright 
board or the departments, but a review by a committee of the Senate, 
House, or both.  Copyright is a lose-lose topic for politicians, and 
they will try to minimise any conversations.  This is why we have seen 
massive omnibus bills every decade rather than reasonable sized smaller 
bills that deal with individual topics.


   * Q: What about the new exceptions for Interoperability of computer 
programs, Encryption research and security?
     A: The replacements to the existing 30.6 are largely only needed 
because of the addition of legal protection for TPMs, especially access 
controls.  The activities that people would need to do for 
interoperability, security and encryption research were not greatly 
hampered in the past.  If standalone this clause would have been an 
improvement.  (Add reference to EU 1991 directive on computer software)






-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://fix.billc32.ca/petition/ict/

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss