5 comments

• 

  Andrew

  1 year ago

  One example would be cellphones. I've paid for my cellphone through my contract. I want to unlock it and take it to Europe.
  
  As far as I know my carrier isn't forced to give me the unlock code. So, I break it myself - but thats a $20,000 fine?
  
  If you dumped the anti circumventing DRM provisions this wouldn't be too bad of a first attempt. Canadians still need to be consulted to reach the proper balance of course (the lack of transparency was disgusting) but it would be a start.
  reply
• 

  Mark Demeny

  1 year ago

  This bill will make the breaking of any DRM punishable by a fine of up to $1,000,000
  and 5 years in jail (C-61 Section 42). Among other things, this makes
  using an iPhone illegal in Canada, despite the fact that both the
  phone and service have been purchased legally. The US DMCA (upon which
  this act is surely based in large part, and in many respects even more
  restrictive) has had a number of cases where it has been used in fact
  to restrict commerce. Cases abound where the DMCA is used for
  anti-competitive means; manufacturers of printer ink and garage door
  openers have been sued under the DMCA simply because the communication
  method was encrypted. This is overly restrictive and anti-competitive
  for both consumer choice as well as competing manufacturers. Another example was Apple restricting companies from developing apps for the iPhone
  (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/05/sap_iph... ). Anti-circumvention legislation of this draconian nature does not encourage innovation in any respect.
  
  If RIM wants to make their email handling software available for the
  iPhone - who is Apple to use the DMCA to say they can't? Consumers
  should be able to use their hardware however they like, and companies
  should be able to provide their hardware, software and services to
  competitors devices - this is what the free market is about and this bill
  specifically outlaws that.
  
  Of course, that is merely one of the effects C-61 has on innovators -
  for consumers it is even worse. Quite simply it means I no longer do
  the following things with my *legally purchased* media.
  
  1) I can no longer watch my legally purchased UK DVDs
  2) I can no longer copy my legally purchased DVDs to my iPod for
  viewing while travelling
  3) I cannot copy an ebook to a format to which it was not intended
  (i.e. from encrypted PDF to my iPod or Blackberry)
  4) I cannot use my old obsolete XBOX as a media center, as I would
  have had to bypass the security on the machine to install my own
  choice of software.
  reply
• 

  Mark

  1 year ago

  The way this bill was covered today by the news is lamentable. Anyone with access to a social news site can see what the people think of this law. If the government was representing its people this bill would never have been introduced. Everyone involved in the media that gave this bill two thumbs up should be ashamed of themselves.
  reply
• 

  Maya

  1 year ago

  Great post! It is more balanced than most.
  
  I've read the Bill a few times, and I still don't know what to make of a lot of the provisions.
  
  I think that reform is in need, but I don't think this solves the problems.
  
  It will be interesting to see how this (and ACTA) intersect with privacy legislation/CL....the TMs seems to hint that this may allow for some balance. What I have/do on my personal computer should be only my (reasonable) interest.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  1 year ago

  Thanks for the comment, Maya -- and the compliment :-)
  
  I think you're right about the privacy aspect -- it will be
  interesting to see what happens when this and/or the ACTA agreement
  meet our privacy laws.
  reply