C-11 on The Matt Holmes Show (CHML Hamilton)

On the Matt Holmes Show at around 20:00 EST an interview I did with Mr. Holmes will air. We were speaking about the Bill C-11 committee, and some of the fun I've been watching for the past few weeks (and will be in the next few weeks).

I of course spoke about the most controversial thing in the bill (TPMs) and the most controversial thing that some of the more extreme witnesses want added to the bill (ISP liability + secondary liability/"enabler").

We spoke more generally than using the Copyright geek language. We chatted about who gets to decide who drives your car, and about violence in music, movies and video games. Listen to the show to see what that has to do with TPMs and SOPA.

Audio archives of the show are available (Look for March 8 Hour 2). I'm looking for feedback on one of the analogies used.



When discussing TPMs I spoke about thinking content can make decisions being a magic incantation, and that when we move from science fiction to science we have rules in the form of software running on a computer. The question of whose computer it is is critical, and that TPMs applied to someone elses computer is an infringement of their property rights.

There is no such thing as "copy control", only "computer control". Technology ownership can't be blamed for copyright infringement.

Also referenced the long gun registry.

Spoke about those lawyers whose clients have business models built on top of infringing other peoples property rights that are largely behind the non-copyright part of the bill, and the worst amendments being proposed. You know who they are... (Hi Jason, Barry, and James)

On the policy of making technology provers liability for the conduct of their users/customers, I made the analogy to violence in music, movies and video games and how some think that the entertainment industry should be held liable for the harm (suicides, violent behavior, etc) that some believe is induced by the entertainment industry. Making the entertainment industry liable for the conduct of their audiences makes about as much sense as making technology providers liable for the conduct of their customers/users, but that is just how silly the arguments were in front of committee.