Copyright Reform - All Comments

re: Don’t criminalize security research! Change Bill C-61

Eo Nomine — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:22:10 GMT

"As it stands, Bill C-61 would make it illegal to possess these technological measures - regardless of whether you are actually using them to violate copyrights - except in very specific circumstances."

Actually, this isn't correct.

First, I assume that when you said "illegal to possess these technological measures", you meant "illegal to possess these circumvention devices".

Second, Bill C-61 does not make it illegal to possess these devices. Bill C-61 prohibits manufacturing, importing, selling, renting or distributing circumvention devices, but does not purport to prohibit possession of such devices.

re: Don’t criminalize security research! Change Bill C-61

Rusell McOrmond — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:22:55 GMT

I don't see the actual petition, just a link back to this BLOG.

As well as your petition, there are two petitions we have been running.

Petition for Users' Rights

www.digital-copyright.ca/petition

Petition to protect Information Technology property rights

www.digital-copyright.ca/petitionict/

They are paper petitions which are tabled in the house of commons, using all the formal processes. The problem with online petitions is that they are more like surveys and not treated seriously by parliament.

The Liberal Bill C-60 tied anti-circumvention to infringing activities, and this distinction is critical. I bring this up in the updated CLUE policy summary at cluecan.ca/.../copyright

Direct link to PDF: www.flora.ca/.../clue-copyright-200807.pdf

re: Don’t criminalize security research! Change Bill C-61

Christian Weeks — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:44:22 GMT

Absolutely necessary as a bare minimum.

re: Red Hat founder concerned over Bill C-61

sbungay — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:35:07 GMT

“It (bill C-61) errs on the side of making technology illegal as opposed to making behaviour (theft of copywritten works) illegal.”

“It’s the equivalent to making screwdrivers and pliers illegal because they can be used to break and enter instead of making the act of breaking and entering illegal,” Young said.

Wise words, and IMHO the copyright owners would do themselves and society a great service if their lobbying energies were focused more on the punishment of those profiting from stolen works than trying to outlaw the tools with which works ccan be both created and duplicated.

Hopefully our elected officials will demonstrate that they are as wise as this man.

re: Industry Canada responds to Bill C-61 concerns

Jason White — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:39:53 GMT

'no one has raised specific problems with the way the proposed exceptions would operate'???

When people try to talk about the specifics, Prentice claims they are being 'too specific'. Now Cloutier claims no-one has raised any specific concerns. Which one is it guys?? How about you listen to the 10s of thousands of people getting upset over this?

re: Industry Canada responds to Bill C-61 concerns

Rusell McOrmond — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:13:53 GMT

I've been covering Copyright and Bill C-61 extensively over at the <a HREF="blogs.itworldcanada.com/.../" rel="nofollow">Enterprise Insights blog</A>.

I find it interesting that Albert Cloutier claimed the extremely limited exceptions are “very favourable to the high tech sector”. What is not mentioned is that different parts of the high tech sector have been asking for different things: some have been asking for legal protection for locks which they (as manufacturers) have been adding to devices which lock their owners out of what they have legally purchased. Other companies are concerned about the anti-competitive, anti-property and other aspects of this harmful technique.

All this suggests to me is that Industry Canada is only bothering to consult with that tiny subset of monopolists in the high-tech sector which would benefit from these anti-competitive practises. While I'm the <a HREF="http://cluecan.ca/policy" rel="nofollow">policy coordinator for CLUE: Canada's association for Open Source</A>, I believe that disallowing foreign locks on hardware benefits the vast majority of the high tech sector and not just Open Source developers and hardware owners.