common illegal activities

Here is a list of all the common and socially acceptable activities which will become illegal under this legislations

Definitely Illegal

Television Recording (when 'NO COPY' broadcast flag is set)

The Bill pretends to give fair use rights to time shift tv viewing 29.23(1), however the TPM clauses take precedence 29.23(1)(b). Therefore all the broadcasters need to do to take this right away is to set the 'NO COPY' flag in the digital broadcasts. They have absolutely no motivation not to do this, any plenty of motivation to do it. So expect it.

Ripping DVD to computer, juke box, ipod or anything really.

DVD, BlueRay, and what ever formats supersede these in the future will be illegal to format shift. 29.21(1) The only video content you will be allowed to format shift is videocassette, so you can expect the format shifting provisions of this bill to become less ans less relevant as time goes by.

Unlocking a service provider locked cell phone

Don't even think of taking your phone out of the country, and don't think of changing service providers. Supporters of this provision say this is necessary because the service providers subsidize the cost of the phone. While this is true, financial compensation to the provider is already provided for in the long term locked in contract you sighed up for. Locking you into their service is unnecessary and anti-competitive. (section 41)

Ripping CDs (which will increasing be sold with digital locks)

Just as with TV broadcasts and time shifting, your right to format shift 29.22(1) that the government grants through this bill is easily revoked by the content industry by placing a digital lock on the disc. 29.22(1)(c) You can certainly expect more and more CDs to be encumbered with TPM in the future. Get ready to purchase and then perpetually repurchase content every time you change your music playing hardware.

Keeping a library of recorded TV shows

Throw out your VHS collection of old TV shows. This Bill explicitely makes it illegal to keep any home recorded TV show beyond the first viewing of the recording. Don't lend out the tapes to friends or family either. 29.23(1)(d)

Posting family vacation photo on flickr (taken by kind stranger)

Have you gone on vacation before and asked a stranger to take a group photo of you and your group? Well, with this Bill, the stranger who took that photo will now be the copyright owner of it. To be completely within the law you will have to get him to sign a photo release or be content to keep the photo locked away in a photoalbum. Don't share it over the Internet. (repeal of section 10)

Possibly Illegal

Hacking game machines (XBOXs) to install Linux or other software

This may be illegal. The bill does say that it is OK to hack TPMs for the purpose of software compatibility, but the same hack would make it easy to play those pirated games too. You would likely have to convince the judge what your primary purpose was. You could certainly expect the game industry to provide you with the opportunity to do so in court.

watching out-of-region-coded DVDs

This would probably be legal if you had purchased two or more DVD players with different region codes. But setting up your DVD player to be region free, or playing the DVD under linux would likely be illegal.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

unlocking cellphones

Is there a specific part of section 41? I'm reading it now... and while I see it being interpreted to apply to cell phones, it mostly seems to apply to TCMs on content...

I think that this blog is

I think that this blog is wrong that the legislation would prevent someone from unlocking their cell phone. I read through the bill and as far as I can the anticircumvention measures only apply to content that can be copied. If the DRM on a cell phone prevented copying the OS, say, then this legislation would apply, but as the DRM just limits what you can do with the phone this legislation won't apply and thus what prevents you from breaking that would the terms of your contract with your cell phone company, not the copyright act.

Sounds familiar

There is nothing in the Conservative Bill C-61 that ties the anti-circumvention components to copyrightable content. Is it possible you are reading Bill C-60 that the Liberal party tabled in 2005 that did make that critically important distinction?

Technical people in the United States said the same thing you are more than a decade ago. They said that given it was called the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" that it would not ever apply to anything that didn't relate to an activity that related to copyright. Unlocking both locks on cell phones (the one that ties you to a carrier, and the other to the software imposed by the manufacturer) and other devices, or unlocking legally acquired content to make it compatable with your given devices, was thought to not be covered.

Most of the tech community ignored the NII bill in 1995 which failed, the WIPO treaty negotiations in 1996, and even the passage of the USA's DMCA in 1998.

Then starting after 2000 came the lawsuits against 2600 magazine for simply linking to documentation that allowed people to watch legally purchased DVD movies on an unlocked computer, as well as the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov for providing software to convert files from Adobe eBook format to Adobe PDF format (again, the primary purpose of which was device interoperability, and which didn't greatly help infringement at all).

Do a search for 09F9 and you can learn about a large prime number that is considered illegal.

Recently the US Copyright Office and Library of Congress create DMCA exemptions which have recently clearly included unlocking cell phones. If the DMCA had not made unlocking cell phones illegal they would have simply offered that legal opinion, and not have created a temporary exemption.

Part of the problem with this law is translating from what technical people know is possible and real in technology from the science fiction that most of the policy makers and legal community are working from. If technical measures worked the way that the lawyers believed they did (IE: the locked content could make decisions on its own, and didn't break interoperability or imposed lockec hardware) then I wouldn't be opposed to the legal protection of these technical measures at all.

I've learned to ignore my scientific knowledge, and try to figure out what the lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats mean when they say something. It turns out to be far easier for the technical community to turn off their scientific knowledge and try to think like a non-technical person than it is to educate lawyers, judges, politicians and bureaucrats about science.

Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.