Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Government Says DRM Circumvention Not Related To Copyright

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-don't-have-to-copy-to-violate-copyright dept.

Canada 119

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist has followed up a recent release of internal government talking points on copyright with the full, internal clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-32. A new copyright bill is expected as soon as this week and the government document confirms there is no defense to violations of the digital lock rules, noting 'a contravention of this prohibition is not an infringement of copyright and the defenses to infringement of copyright are not defenses to these prohibitions.' The government's own words on the digital lock provisions confirm that they may be unconstitutional since they fall outside the boundaries of copyright." Basically, if you break DRM even without violating copyright in the process you can still be held liable, and from this any defense based on copyright law (fair use, etc.) is not valid in such cases. On the flipside, several legal experts think that makes those provisions of the law less likely to stand up in court.

cancel ×

119 comments

What is this, minority report (2)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37532768)

You are under violation of thinking about breaking copyright law!

Re:What is this, minority report (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37532866)

> Punish illegal act.
Error: fair use clause makes act legal.
>sudo Punish illegal act.
Punished.

Re:What is this, minority report (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37532904)

who gave sudo access to the mp/riaa?

Re:What is this, minority report (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533038)

We all did by consent...

Re:What is this, minority report (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533160)

Except that 60% of us voted for someone else!

Re:What is this, minority report (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533578)

if(voteForRIAA) vote++;
else dev>null;

Re:What is this, minority report (1)

Rik Rohl (1399705) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533260)

$$$ -> gov't

Re:What is this, minority report (1)

DeeEff (2370332) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534096)

You think this is sudo?

This is su, and that means they can do what they want for as long as they want, until we nuke the system.

So then what this is saying... (5, Insightful)

JordanL (886154) | more than 2 years ago | (#37532816)

...is that DRM represents an in perpetuum algorithmic representation of law that supercedes all haebeus corpus, or the belief of reasonable doubt. In order for DRM to be treated this way, DRM has to be a computer algorithm that is more correct about how to assess law than the justice system itself. Or at least, that's the consequence of this law.

Re:So then what this is saying... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533120)

Learn to like it, cunt. Pay up or keep the fuck out of the game. Is that so hard for your ass to understand?

Re:So then what this is saying... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533342)

Learn to like it, cunt. Pay up or keep the fuck out of the game. Is that so hard for your ass to understand?

But paying up does not exempt you from the law. Circumvention of "anti-piracy" measures on your own legally purchased items would still be in contravention.

Re:So then what this is saying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533562)

Embrace vinyl! Or, cassette tapes. I have and I'm never looking back--er forward again. I don't want your crappy Black Eyed Peas songs and X Factor TV shows anyway. They suck, you suck; the future can blow me.

Re:So then what this is saying... (2)

click2005 (921437) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534198)

So instead of ripping your own DVDs you have to download a copy ripped by someone else?

Re:So then what this is saying... (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#37537028)

Well, I guess the only option here is to just use DRM free torrents. Right?

Re:So then what this is saying... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533308)

Um it's Canada so the sentence has to end in that questioning eyh sound but other than that, yes.

This just in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37532818)

Reading this comment is breaking my DRM I have on this comment. Though no harm was done and I shan't be pressing charges, you will be going to jail.

This is all about (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37532862)

Protecting revenues from sale of SCTV episodes, eh!

Re:This is all about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533048)

Take off, you CBC Hoser!

Re:This is all about (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533350)

Well at least SCTV is worth protecting.

Ok. Fine. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37532870)

t..h.i.s...i..,.s..an..en..cr.y.p..t....e,d._m..e__ss;ag..e....De..cr.,y.pt..it.an...d..yo...u..ow..e...me.,bi...ll.i...on...s.

DMCA (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 2 years ago | (#37532900)

How have the constitutionally invalid provisions of the US DMCA not been ripped to shreds in the US courts? Specifically, the violation of free speech (can't talk about digital-lock circumvention), the violation of due process (conviction and punishment without the courts), and the elimination of fair use as a reason to break locks.

Re:DMCA (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533346)

How have the constitutionally invalid provisions of the US DMCA not been ripped to shreds in the US courts?

For one thing, justice is expensive. Members of the public and charities acting in the public interest don't necessarily have the cash to hire competent attorneys with experience before the Supreme Court. For another, federal courts are slow.

Re:DMCA (2)

Imrik (148191) | more than 2 years ago | (#37536206)

For another, you have to actually be tried under those provisions to challenge them in court.

Re:DMCA (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533436)

Some have, some are too new. The 'talking about digital lock circumvention' part is a mixed bag - if they can make a case that you've done so in an actual contributory manner, then they have a case. But that sort of thing is case-by-case, to my knowledge. I'm not aware of conviction without courts. Also, there have been victories in terms of fair use vs. DRM.

The process tends to be slow and piecemeal, but bear in mind the DMCA isn't that old on the scale of the legal system. I think the track record of challenges to the DMCA in the courts has been pretty fair, I think.

Re:DMCA (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534642)

The 'talking about digital lock circumvention' part is a mixed bag - if they can make a case that you've done so in an actual contributory manner, then they have a case.

I propose: use science. There, I just crossed the line; they can come get me.

Re:DMCA (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534144)

There is a provision for exceptions, but it's handled in the most ass backwards possible. Judges are a more likely route for getting exceptions, but the legal system is expensive.

However, the real constitutional question should lie with the fact that DRM really has nothing to do with copyright. The constitution allows Congress to pass laws granting legal monopolies to authors on the work they authored. It doesn't allow for anything else, and applying restrictions to DRM breaking technology falls with anything else.

Re:DMCA (2)

Trogre (513942) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534256)

Unfortunately, this is not unconstitutional at all, precisely because the Supreme Court has not yet declared it as such.

If you don't like it, please think carefully about the system you voted in.

It makes sense now (3, Insightful)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37532964)

Law protecting DRM proposed in canada. What company, based in Montreal, has the worst DRM of any other developer? Ubisoft. The always online DRM is so bad people who bought their games are breaking it. This is a law to protect the Ubisoft DRM, plain and simple.

Re:It makes sense now (4, Funny)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534650)

There were several unsolved murders committed in Montreal last year. I always wondered who commits all these murders, but now I think I have my answer! The world is made so simple with foregone conclusions!

Re:It makes sense now (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#37535362)

Except Ubisoft is actually based in France, while Ubisoft Montreal just happens to be their largest and most successful studio. The executive decisions still happen in Montreuil, France.

Re:It makes sense now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37537790)

The law is more stupid than that. All a copyright holder would have to do is rot13 the data and they've trumped any rights that a user had to use the copyrighted material. As currently written, un-rot13ing the data (breaking the encryption) would be breaking the law.

I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533016)

As has been pointed out numerous times, "Encryption is about A sending information to B while ensuring that C cannot read it. In DRM, B and C are the same person." If you 'break' something that was supplied to you in an already- (and, in fact, irretrievably and inherently-) broken state, have you actually broken anything? And if you haven't broken anything, have you actually violated this stupid law?

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533144)

As has been pointed out numerous times, "Encryption is about A sending information to B while ensuring that C cannot read it. In DRM, B and C are the same person."

In DRM, B and C are NOT the same person. B is the approved* media player equipment. C is the consumer.

* Approved by A: the content provider.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533238)

I don't think that can be right, because that 'B' is not a person. And things that are not people cannot own things, can't break laws etc. You've got to have a person in position 'B'. If there is no person in position 'B', then the media, whatever it is, is worthless, and the person who actually paid for it - I repeat, the /person/ - can get their money back under consumer protection laws. After all, they've paid for something and not received it. And they can't legally recieve it /unless/ they're in position 'B'. But under DRM, everyone in position 'B' is /also/ in position 'C'.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (2)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533310)

that's a very good point, almost entirely invalidated by the EULA of "you don't own the software, you've purchased access to it" if that didn't stand up in court then modifying the DRM wouldn't be illegal (hell, modifying the software wouldn't be illegal).

Don't get me wrong, i don't think it should be this way, but that's the way it is.

EULAs aren't valid contracts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37537556)

Sorry to burst your bubble. And even for USians ("The Freedomest Country In The World(tm)"), UCITA doesn't apply in all states.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#37539778)

I don't think that can be right, because that 'B' is not a person. And things that are not people cannot own things, can't break laws etc. You've got to have a person in position 'B'. If there is no person in position 'B', then the media, whatever it is, is worthless, and the person who actually paid for it - I repeat, the /person/ - can get their money back under consumer protection laws. After all, they've paid for something and not received it. And they can't legally recieve it /unless/ they're in position 'B'. But under DRM, everyone in position 'B' is /also/ in position 'C'.

Nonsense. Plenty of merchandise is sold under the assumption that the buyer has the proper equipment to make use of the item. Light bulbs for example. You have to have electricity and a light fixture in order to make use of a light bulb. Should you get your money back if you buy a light bulb, but don't have electricity, or don't have a lamp to put it in? Of course not!

DRM is the same way. You have to have an approved media player to enjoy the content of the media. Attempting to extract the content outside of that context is a violation of the rights of the distributor - and that's what the DRM is protecting.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (4, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533378)

In DRM, B and C are NOT the same person. B is the approved* media player equipment. C is the consumer.

The problem is that B is not a person, but rather a device that is the legal property of C. It makes no sense to grant rights to an inanimate object that are not also granted to the legal owner of that inanimate object. B and C should be, legally speaking, one and the same.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533872)

But patents can restrict the use of an invention as well as its construction and sale.

So all they have to do is say "we grant you the use of device B to play back recording A, but no other use" and voilà, B has the right to play it back but you don't. A is still yours, but if you use an "unapproved" method to play it back, you're circumventing.

Note: I don't agree with this bullshit, but it seems to be the way things work.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#37535220)

I don't know where you got your brief on patent law, but that's nothing to do with it.

Licences (EULAs etc) can try to make these sorts of restrictions, and enforce them using DRM. DRM that is backed by law (retarded).

A patent is simply a monopoly on production/sale of a thing.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37535884)

A patent is simply a monopoly on production/sale of a thing.

It may not be the basis of DRM in law, but it is an enabler. You can't use a patented device or method in the US without permission of the patent holder:

US Code Title 35, Part III, Chapter 28, Section 271(a) [cornell.edu]
"Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 2 years ago | (#37537088)

Software isn't properly patentable subject matter, as it is symoblic data that's fed into a universal calculating machine. (the machine instruction cycle)

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37543228)

Software isn't properly patentable subject matter, as it is symoblic data that's fed into a universal calculating machine. (the machine instruction cycle)

SCOTUS disagrees.

"Congress intended statutory subject matter to 'include anything under the sun that is made by man.'"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=447&invol=303 [findlaw.com]

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37536622)

The problem is that B is not a person, but rather a device that is the legal property of C. It makes no sense to grant rights to an inanimate object that are not also granted to the legal owner of that inanimate object. B and C should be, legally speaking, one and the same.

But that is simply not true. Just because you buy and own an gun doesn't mean you have the right to use it to kill somebody. Owning a piece of equipment doesn't grant you the legal right to do whatever you want with it.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37537044)

He is saying that the gun is allowed to kill people by the munition factory sending you the bullets. However you are not allowed to kill people, you the owner of the gun.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37538918)

That's not the GP's point. The GP's point is that you don't grant legal rights to an inanimate object

I (the person) don't have the legal right to kill people. But nobody gave the gun (inanimate object) any "rights" to kill anybody, nor does it make sense to do so.

If guns had rights, then there would be situations where it's OK to shoot and kill somebody using that gun, because the gun had the "right" to do so

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37538992)

Just because you buy and own a movie on DVD doesn't mean you have the right to use it to watch the movie on an unlicensed DVD player or other movie-playing device for your own enjoyment. Owning a piece of media doesn't grant you the legal right to do whatever you want with it.

Made that relevant for you. (MTRFY?)

In other words, you're wrong. If what you're doing doesn't violate the law (and space-shifting doesn't, even if the *AA's want it to), then you shouldn't be punished for using your legal property in any way you deem acceptable. The content industry is fighting a battle it can't win, and it's ensuring its own demise. We've seen it for over a decade now, and they're going to continue until they're gone. The faster that happens, the sooner we're done with this crap. Hurry them along in every possible way whenever you can. It's the only "right" thing to do.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37539536)

No, but if I wanted to take it apart and figure out exactly how it works, I could legally do that.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543606)

But that is simply not true. Just because you buy and own an gun doesn't mean you have the right to use it to kill somebody. Owning a piece of equipment doesn't grant you the legal right to do whatever you want with it.

I didn't say that the owner of an object has the legal right to do anything they want with that object. I said that, if a legal right is explicitly granted to an object, then that right logically extends to the owner of that object.

I'm not aware of any legal right having been granted to guns allowing them to kill people. There is a practical reality that they're capable of killing people, but no legal right allowing them to do so.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#37539636)

In DRM, B and C are NOT the same person. B is the approved* media player equipment. C is the consumer.

The problem is that B is not a person, but rather a device that is the legal property of C. It makes no sense to grant rights to an inanimate object that are not also granted to the legal owner of that inanimate object. B and C should be, legally speaking, one and the same.

DRM, despite the name, isn't about granting rights. It is an encryption protocol. In encryption circles, A is the sender, B is the intended recipient, and C is the one trying to intercept the message. A, B, and C do not have to be people.

I'll give you an example: the range safety system used whenever NASA launches a rocket. There are radio controlled explosive charges on board the rocket, so that the range safety officer can destroy the rocket if it veers off course and heads towards populated areas. Not only does that system have its own special frequency, but there is a secret sequence of audio tones that are locked into the destruct system before launch. In this case, A is the Range Safety Officer, B is the destruct system, and C would be the psychotic eco-terrorist trying to spoof the shuttle into blowing up.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken? (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543520)

In encryption circles, A is the sender, B is the intended recipient, and C is the one trying to intercept the message. A, B, and C do not have to be people.

I agree that, when discussing encryption, A, B, and C do not have to be people. However, I wasn't discussing encryption. I was discussing legal rights. The issue isn't just that C is prevented from reading what B can read by virtue of the encryption mechanism, but that the law also makes it illegal for C to even attempt to read what B can read.

So, again, from a legal perspective, how can the law grant a legal right to an inanimate object, while denying that right to the legal owner of that inanimate object?

Wankers (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533164)

Ubisoft is still alive?

Re:Wankers (1)

slackbheep (1420367) | more than 2 years ago | (#37537584)

What did you think the fit of pissing and moaning over DRM was really going to affect their bottom line? It's a bit of bad PR they can hand wave as propaganda on the part of baby eaters, pirates and terrorists.
This may shock you, but Sony hasn't crumbled under the weight of the rants about boycotting them yet, either.
Punishing shitty companies is actually quite difficult, unfortunately.

It would be nice... (2)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533200)

if our politicians could at least write law so that it looks like it would stand up in court. I understand that there is a fair bit of stuff that isn't clear cut with the whole body of law considered that needs court time. But in instances like this it feels like the politicians are just giving into the lobbyists without even giving a second thought about the values the country that gave them their job was built on. It is rather sickening.

Re:It would be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533510)

"if our politicians could at least write law so that it looks like it would stand up in court."

This is where you are wrong. The politicians don't write the laws. Nor do the recommendations of public servant policy makers, who have expertise in their fields have any contribution.

Lobbyists do everything. They are either in the form of "consultants", employees of a "think tanks" organization or someone who actually! identifies themselves as a lobbyist.

My theory is that the lobbyists write completely insane, assinine laws which probably contain things that would never pass. Its their "dream" bill. They know must of it will be gutted. But whatever is left kinda leave them happy - and employed. Since they'll be more rounds of lobbying in the future to get the rest of the crap approved.

I've given up on voting. Whatever BS politicans say is worth nothing. Until they change I've no interest in listening to them, meeting with them or even acknowleging their existence.

I'll vote for the SOB with the balls to run and keep up with their promise to cancel all meetings with lobbyists, deletes their emails and voicemails, actually meets with his/her constituents and will never sign a bill that any lobbyist has had anything to do with writing a bill.

Re:It would be nice... (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534648)

Lobbyists do everything.

Do you live in Canada, you Anonymous Coward? While there are certainly lobbyists here in Canada, their power is considerably less than their American counterparts. The lobby laws are stricter, and the very strict campaign finance laws in Canada mean the lobbyists are unable to wield the same degree of influence as they do in the USA as they have very little cash to throw around.

Canada isn't a bastion of freedom and democracy (1)

Jadeus (58441) | more than 2 years ago | (#37535080)

Our government doesn't need to be prodded to work for the interests that lobbyists represent - by default the government sides with them.

Lobbyists can meet with officials, which is more than enough access if you're reaching a friendly ear.

FYI:

Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada: http://www.ocl-cal.gc.ca/ [ocl-cal.gc.ca]

Database: https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs [ocl-cal.gc.ca]

Re:It would be nice... (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37535142)

That sure ain't how it seems from here. Do you really think that your MPs went to their ridings and got the considered opinion of their constituents before they cobbled together this bill ? Or, rather, that when the lobbyists said jump, the Canadian House of Commons said, "How high?"

Re:It would be nice... (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543858)

While there are certainly lobbyists here in Canada, their power is considerably less than their American counterparts. The lobby laws are stricter, and the very strict campaign finance laws in Canada mean the lobbyists are unable to wield the same degree of influence as they do in the USA as they have very little cash to throw around.

The Conference Board of Canada bills itself as "the foremost, independent, not-for-profit applied research organization in Canada. Objective and non-partisan. We do not lobby for specific interests." These claims should take a major hit based on [may 2009]'s release of a deceptive, plagiarized report on the digital economy that copied text from the International Intellectual Property Alliance (the primary movie, music, and software lobby in the U.S.) [michaelgeist.ca]

There are ways to pay off corrupt politicians that aren't campaign contributions. You can promise them a high-paying job after they leave public office, you can pay for their vacation expenses, you can let them borrow your luxury car, you can spend the evening with them in a fancy restaurant, eating delicious meals and drinking expensive wines, and you pay their bill, etc.

This bill is written to please a specific lobby, they have shown in the past that they break rules and laws in complicity with those lobbies, it's a logical deduction that this law was written under the moneyed influence of that same lobby/cartel/oligarchy.

Ties to the 'occupy wall street story' (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533256)

How, you ask ... simple ; wealth is power. If you allow people and groups to amass more wealth than others, it is inevitable that they will use that power to make things in the aspect of life that you dont allow people to gain unlimited power - politics.

In this case, its particular private interests in music/movie industry, representing a very, very small group of population in respect to the ownership of the wealth contained in that interest, directly subverting and influencing politics, which they were supposed to be limited in power just like any other citizen.

this travesty of a law was totally passed solely with their pushing and their shaping. in lieu of what majority wanted.

you directly can see this issue rooting from what propels wall street protests - a very tiny minority of the nation holds a great majority of the wealth, and therefore exercising their power at will - 5% of population held 72% of wealth and income (including income generation tools).

and, as we know by evidence that canadian copyright law was pushed by u.s. private interests, we can say that that kind of imbalance of wealth (power) transcends borders.

Re:Ties to the 'occupy wall street story' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37537342)

Fuck off and die ya socialist dipshit. I hope your "protestor" buddies all get the pepper spray.. and if that does work, bullets.

Your idiot president finally grew up, why don't you?

Re:Ties to the 'occupy wall street story' (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37537436)

why not post it with your account, instead of anonymous coward.

Re:Ties to the 'occupy wall street story' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37537786)

Because you're of the breed of twat who makes sock puppets to point whore.

so (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37543186)

its not about you lack balls then.

Perpetual Copyr... DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533354)

Hurray!!! The RIAA and MPAA are Victorious! The Public Domain is dead!!! While Copyright might expire some day, emphasis on might, the almighty DRM will NEVER expire.

I wish I'd be able to put myself in cryo statis for 10-20 years and not have to wait for all this silliness to end.

Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (2)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533584)

Hey what this says is circumventing DRM is a violation of a civil contract with the rights holder and not a violation of the copyright itself. That would mean you can only be held responsible FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES. It would be very hard if not impossible for anyone to establish any damage from an individual breaking DRM for fair use. It's the copyright laws that have the outrageous statutory damages.

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533914)

The MPAA, RIAA and fair use don't exist in Canada. Please don't assume your laws apply here.

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534010)

Awww... poor Canadian has a sore spot... cute!

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534306)

The MPAA, RIAA and fair use don't exist in Canada

CMPDA (Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association) ~= MPAA
CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) ~= RIAA
Fair Dealing ~= Fair Use

Not the same, but not exactly different either.

Fair Dealing in Canada I'd argue is actually superior to fair use in the States.

The Canadian Supreme court clarified in one of its rulings:

Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37536980)

Except that fair dealing covers almost nothing. It covers only what is specified in the act itself (for example research). If you read the act you will notice that these are well specified and very limiting. For example with research you must be associated with a university. It is useful that it is not an infringement of copyright, but these clauses are useless for most every day Canadians (i.e., you very likely won't fall under any of the categories even if what you are doing would be considered fair use in the US).

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533934)

While that's all very well and good, it still makes you a criminal if you format-shift an encrypted movie for personal use when the copyright holder didn't expressly say you could.

I'd rather have the extreme penalties for infringing on copyright than be labelled a criminal for doing something that any consumer is going to conclude is perfectly fair and reasonable.

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534864)

Dunno about .CA, but in .US, there is a little difference between violating a civil contract and being a criminal.

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37536580)

I wasn't trying to suggest that there was a difference. I was only saying I have less of a problem with extreme penalties for actually infringing on copyright than I do with people who aren't infringing on copyright being rendered as criminals anyways for doing something that is actually a perfectly reasonable expectation from the consumer (such as format shifting a digitally protected work for their own personal use, using a technology that had not been anticipated by the publisher).

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (1)

cbeaudry (706335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37537776)

What he's saying is loosing in court /= being criminal.

Violation of civil contracts is not a criminal act. You can do it all day every day for as long as your wiish.

When you dont pay your bills, thats violation of civil contract.

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37540018)

In Canada, if you violate a civil contract (let's say you decide that you want to stop paying for TV service, so you have it cancelled, but are on a contract) the penalty assessed is, at maximum, the amount remaining on the contract. No criminal charges appear on your record. At worst you may or may not get a stain for a few years on your credit rating.

I was under the strong impression in the US you had also eliminated debtors prisons for civil contracts, and that your judges generally awarded restitution to make the other party whole, and not much more. Or am I in fact incorrect about that assumption? I sure hope not, or else Judge Wapner seriously mislead me!

Size Matters. (1)

iiiears (987462) | more than 2 years ago | (#37533926)

Multi-Terabyte disks X 24 disk RAID controller. + $1,000 Computer = Entertainment execs. are terrified.
Next up."Renting a movie or game is PIRACY!."

Regulation is their last best hope.

Re:Size Matters. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534720)

Multi-Terabyte disks X 24 disk RAID controller. + $1,000 Computer = Entertainment execs. are terrified.

Probably no more so than if you had a rig with a half terabyte hard disk. They don't admit it, but the entertainment execs know that there comes a point where you don't need to buy any entertainment whatsoever, and that point comes pretty quickly. Pretty much anybody nowadays has the capacity to hurt them as much as is possible through piracy. All they need is the will to actually use their power in this way.

Of course, everyone with or without a computer has the power to hurt them even more through boycotting. It does the same financial damage (i.e. you never buy entertainment for them), plus you give them no free advertising, nor do you give them political capital to strengthen copyrights. Just saying...

Re:Size Matters. (1)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#37535138)

Boycotting does indeed give them political capital to strengthen copyrights (though not monetary capital). Haven't you ever heard them say "our sales are down because of pirates so we need this copyright crackdown and these DRM laws"? If the sales are actually down because of boycotts and not piracy, they'll still claim the lost sales are caused by "piracy: and use that as an excuse.

Re:Size Matters. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#37535248)

Not if the only things available to download on the limewire or the pirate bay were tumble-weeds. Tumble-weeds and linux distros.

If people actually gave boycotting a try, rather than just go straight for the download, then we have them making a verifiably false claim, and it allows us to publicly oppose them without fear of lawsuit.

Re:Size Matters. (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37535536)

They (the *aa's) would just put content on the pirate bay or/and limewire etc. These authoritarian types have no problem with breaking the law, just a problem with you breaking the law, or rather their moral code.

DMCA / Encryption extends Copyright to Infinity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37533994)

Since there's no public trust, no lockbox with all the keys for every DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray ever released, the provisions of the DMCA and it's Canadian equivelent, illegally extend copyright to Infinity.

Since you can never place it into public domain, without first breaking the law by decrypting it, it is a direct violation of copyright law.

ie - Encrypting content is illegal.

This would be fine but.... (1)

DeeEff (2370332) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534142)

They're forgetting you can't use any DRM protected materials in an igloo anyways.

.
..
...

Just so you all know, I am Canadian, and I mean every word I said.

Broken DRM on my copy of windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534442)

When I bought a copy of windows vista, it wouldn't authenticate. I tried for 3 days and even called microsoft support. finally just got fed up and broke the drm. (which took 10 minutes tops)

It's simple (2)

coalrestall (973453) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534742)

Give artists/distributors the choice – their works can either be protected by copyright, or by DRM, but not both. If the DRM is effective then they won't need copyright protection. Plus it's illegal to break the lock. That said, if the lock is broken, the content is no longer protected and the public can do what they like with it (except the person that broke the lock – they're going to prison, if we can establish who they are...)

Re:It's simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37534958)

This is exactly how trade secrets work.

Rename the file (1)

number17 (952777) | more than 2 years ago | (#37534796)

So I rename "song.mp3" to "song.mp3.DRM" and share it. This is my crappy solution for DRM. Rename that file and I can sue for damages?!?

Re:Rename the file (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37539720)

No, but if you bit-shift right 2 then XOR those bits and required your "approved" player to reverse the resultant mess to an actual MP3 stream and call it DRM and someone does the reversal outside of your "approved" player, then yes.

Not Made in Canada (1)

Livius (318358) | more than 2 years ago | (#37535310)

This doesn't even make sense in Canadian law, but it is the kind of wording used in authoritarian laws in the US, like some draft versions of the legislation for the bailout scam or the terror laws eliminating human rights. I would suggest this is a big clue as to the true origins of the proposal.

Huh (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#37535388)

So, assuming I create my own DRM-protected file using my own algorithm and then proceed to crack it, I've violated a law?

What if I trick politicians into cracking my DRM? Do they go to jail? That'd be lovely.

The law (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#37536118)

By law I have fair use rights, DRM takes those away without my consent. I want compensation.

DRM? Then no copyright (2)

kanweg (771128) | more than 2 years ago | (#37536378)

While unpopular with the /. crowd, IP laws are a "contract" between society and creator. The creator gets rewarded with a temporary right to prohibit others from copying etc. After that period, the creative work enters the public domain. It should be blindingly obvious that of the IP laws, it is the copyright law that has become completely out of whack, given the insane duration of copyright.

With DRM it gets even worse: The creator (or usually the person who obtained the rights from the creator) doesn't intend to fulfill his end of the contract. DRM prevents a work from entering the public domain.

Bert
(patent attorney)

Re:DRM? Then no copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37537072)

its not clear, I did not sign anything when i bought dvd/cd player. how is it contract?

As Alan Cox put it on /. when US made same mistake (2)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 2 years ago | (#37536810)

Digital Restrictions Management and copyright are so obviously "unrelated" as in:

Anti-circumvention provisions being "bad law and bad policy" as Lawrence Lessig called them in his 2001 op-ed piece Jail Time in the Digital Age [nytimes.com] must be the reason why they get adopted the world over (Ayn Rand comes to mind [slashdot.org] ). :-( It's a logical next step for him to have focused on corruption research.

car analogy (1)

someoneOtherThanMe (1387847) | more than 2 years ago | (#37536870)

This is comparable to me loosing my car keys, breaking into it, and then being jailed for circumventing anti-theft protection.

of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37537210)

because we all know that DRM'ed works can not be copyrighted

You can be sued for breaking your own locks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37537896)

"The Bill introduces new causes of action (such as those relating to TPMs and RMIs) that could be used in civil lawsuits regardless of whether or not there has been an infringement of copyright."

That's idiotic, but at least they are being honest about what they are actually doing. I wish the ministers at the time had the guts to actually say it instead of hiding it in an official document that we didn't see until years later. I always wondered if the ministers involved were too stupid to realize how contradictory the proposed law was, or if they did know that, but were trying to pull the wool over our eyes and hoping nobody noticed. It's the latter. I am appalled but not terribly surprised.

What they are proposing is like introducing a law that makes it illegal to break the locks to get into your own car. Yes, it isn't the same because in the car/locks case you actually own the car, whereas in the case of copyright you may own a licensed copy of the material but not the copyright itself, but it is still analogous because you have the *right* to use that copyrighted material in certain ways when you buy it (e.g., under fair dealing or in order to format shift). If the locks get in the way of you lawfully using the material you should have the right to break them in order to use it, and I strongly believe that it shouldn't be illegal to merely make or use the tools to do so. Otherwise you don't really have any of those rights that are also spelled out in copyright law. All a copyright holder has to do is rot13 the data and your rights vanish. They can lock up their stuff behind those locks forever, and should the day come when copyright finally expires into the public domain, you're still technically breaking the law to get the material out. DUMB.

Playing breaks DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37538008)

So if I play a DVD, do I get thrown in jail? Or sued?

Example... (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37538690)

Basically, if you break DRM even without violating copyright in the process you can still be held liable, and from this any defense based on copyright law (fair use, etc.) is not valid in such cases.

I break the lock on someone's door, I'm guilty of breaking a lock AND whatever I did on their property.

I break the lock into my own house, I'm guilty of.... nothing.

Simple analogy.

Defense May Only Apply in Canada (1)

mosquitobite (2444592) | more than 2 years ago | (#37541206)

My take on what this means after reading his blog is that the copyrighted material is viewed as [intelectual] property. Breaking this lock would violate property protection, which is part of provincial law, and not federal law. So it would be unconstitutional to enforce a federal law that would control something that is within the provincial duristiction.

A simple and effective solution (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37541576)

Provincial elections are about a week away.
If you really want to ensure that politicians listen to the electorate, send a clear message to the PC party by voting AGAINST them.

Otherwise, stop complaining.

(Yes, I know the difference between the provincial and federal governments, but it's still the same parties with the same people effectively calling the shots.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...