Canadian copyright bill opens up debate on digital locks

Comments

Hart Snider is carefully watching the debate around Bill C-32, the Stephen Harper government’s latest attempt at copyright reform. The Vancouver-based filmmaker and remix artist is worried about provisions in the proposed Copyright Modernization Act that would protect digital locks. He says these provisions would criminalize the way many Canadians use digital media, such as music, movies, and e-books.

During an interview at a Downtown Eastside café, Snider scrolled through his video résumé on his laptop. Over the years, he has made dozens of video mashups using footage of iconic moments in popular culture and obscure audio samples. A lot of copyrighted material has passed through Snider’s hard drive. He knows that without access to that content his remixes wouldn’t exist.

“This digital-lock thing is really complicated,” Snider told the Georgia Straight. “If you are not allowed to pull from it [digital media], you are limiting our potential as artists.”

Changes to bring Canada’s copyright laws into the digital age have been in the works since 2005. Previous bills introduced in 2005 and 2008, by the Paul Martin and Harper governments, respectively, died on the floor of the House of Commons when Parliament was dissolved.

Industry Minister Tony Clement and Heritage Minister James Moore announced the introduction of Bill C-32 on June 2. In addition to offering legal protection to companies that use digital locks—also known as technological protection measures—to restrict access to their content, the bill would bring in stronger protections for copyrighted materials and legalize some things many Canadians do every day, like recording television programs for later viewing.

“Digital lock” is a catchall term for the means by which copyright owners control how a piece of content, software, or hardware can be used by others. For example, it’s possible to encrypt files to prevent copying, limit the number of times a music file can be burned onto a CD, and specify which region of the world a DVD can be played in.

Under Bill C-32, cracking the lock placed on a device, disc, or file would be illegal. So if a DVD contains a digital lock, making a backup copy of it, or even moving music from a CD with a lock to an iPod would become a crime with a penalty of between $100 and $5,000.

Snider says he’s struggling to understand where his brand of video art fits in. He knows digital locks can protect copyright owners from piracy but argues that they also create barriers that will deter future video artists.

“They give the guise of trying to be hip,” Snider said of the federal government. “They put in all the buzzwords. But I feel all the power lies with the industry. Artists never see it.”

Michael Geist, a law professor and the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, agrees with Snider. While Geist believes the government needs to craft copyright laws that better protect artists, consumers, and industry, he maintains that the bill doesn’t accomplish these goals.

“There is virtually no upside from a consumer perspective at all,” Geist told the Straight by phone. “There are a lot of areas where the government has to try and strike a balance, but the fact is there is no balance on the digital locks.”

According to Geist, Bill C-32’s digital-lock measures don’t take into account how average Canadians use digital media. He pointed out that the federal government could fix this problem by adding a line to the legislation saying that it’s legal to circumvent digital locks for purposes that don’t infringe on copyright. This compromise would allow companies to benefit from digital-lock-based business models and consumers to control their media, according to Geist.

“What is so disappointing is that the government could have struck a compromise that would satisfy U.S. pressure about Canada living up to U.S. treaties and would have allowed those businesses to use digital-rights management or use digital locks and would have preserved the balance,” Geist said. “But unfortunately that is not what we got.”

Moore, who besides being heritage minister is also the Conservative MP for Port Moody–Westwood–Port Coquitlam, refused to comment on Bill C-32.

Meanwhile, the bill and its digital-lock provisions are getting rave reviews from the video-game industry.

“We are a little different than a lot of other industries in that our only means of revenue is the sale of our intellectual property,” Danielle Parr, executive director of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, told the Straight by phone from Toronto. “We don’t go on tour, we don’t sell T-shirts. It’s the sale of the actual intellectual property of the video game. So, being able to adequately protect our content is really important.”

According to Parr, legal protection for games with digital locks will stop piracy. She asserted that this will help the industry develop more games.

“A big-named title, now you are looking at $10 to $20 million at least, two years of development, with 100- to 200-person development teams,” Parr said. “There is actually only a small number of games that are actually profitable, and companies need to be able to make money in order to be able to reinvest.”

Snider hopes the digital-lock provisions will be amended as the bill makes its way through Parliament. He has a simpler way of looking at copyrighted materials.

“If you buy something, you should be allowed to use it any way you want,” Snider said.

Comments (55) Add New Comment
Michelle D
Remember that digital locks are not always put in place by copyright owners but often by other companies that distribute their work. Companies like Apple and Amazon do not give creators the choice whether or not these locks are applied. Not only would this prevent artists from deriving from these works but this could mean a copyright owner could be blocked by a digital lock from accessing their own work or giving access to others. That's just not right.

So many artists, writers, MPs and trade associations have weighed in against this digital lock provision, why won't the government listen to us? Why are they only taking large corporate interests into account?

Add your voice, write to your MP & the PM here: http://www.ccer.ca/send-a-letter-to-ottawa-to-stop-the-canadian-dmca/.
Michelle D
0
1
Rating: -1
Eo Nomine
Michelle, the Bill only prohibits circumvention of TPMs (aka digital locks) that have been authorized by the copyright owner. So if a creator wants to circumvent a TPM protecting theirnown work or authorize another to do so, the Bill would not prohibit them from from doing that. That said, the creators's contract with he distributor may prevent this, but that is not a matter of copyright and is between then creator and distributor to work out between them. Moreover, if the creator wants to distribute their work TPM free, there are plenty of other options, such as distributing over the web.
0
1
Rating: -1
Alexey
Note, that none of the listed members of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada are Canadian-owned.
2
1
Rating: +1
DJM
Eo, suppose I publish a book under an open license, and Amazon decides to sell a copy on the Kindle. Yes, I am legally allowed to bypass their TPM because I'm the copyright holder, but how am I going to get software to do it? It's illegal to develop software to do backups of TPM protected works; it's illegal to develop software to do format-shifting. The software won't be developed, so in practice, the copyright owner *will* be blocked from accessing their own work or giving access to others.
1
0
Rating: +1
Victoria Shepherd
Ms. Parr accurately notes that video game developers only profit from sale of their intellectual property. Absent DRM, how are they to monetize their creations so that they can invest in new and exciting consumer offerings? If a company chooses to employ DRM, it's essential that this choice be protected by law. If creators don't wish to utilize DRM, they aren't obligated to do so under the bill. What this Bill achieves is to finally provide some protection for creators and clarity for consumers. Protection for creaters leads to profitability and jobs.

1
2
Rating: -1
David L
Eo, the bill does not only prohibit circumvention of TPMs that have been authorized by the copyright owner except for TPMs that restrict access to the work. TPMs that restrict other actions (such as copying, broadcasting, etc) cannot be circumvented even if they are not authorized by the copyright holder.
0
1
Rating: -1
K D
Eo Nomine ignores the moral issue and is focusing on the bills language.

To ignore the fact that Charter 2(b) rights of programmers is being infringed is dangerous. C-32 makes distribution of TPM breakers illegal, thus for your customers to remove the TPM on your content with your consent they will have to get illegal TPM breakers from a source. That source will be breaking the law. Thus they can only recieve the TPM breakers illegally. Eo how is that just or fair? Essentially by limiting the distribution of TPM breakers you are limiting the expression of programmers, programmers express their idea in a kind of formalized mathetmatics: source code. To limit TPM breaker distribution is to further infringe on section 2(b) of our charter.

So this bill violates our charter and ignores all of the input from programmers we gave during the consultation.

Eo I respect you want to dig into the technical details of the bill, but you have to step back and see the implications of the bill as well. Just because there are corner cases that allow some TPM breaking doesn't mean we should allow this bill to pass and it doesn't make the bill just.

There is little excuse for the govt to restrict our rights further.
0
0
Rating: 0
Brendon J. Wilson
Eo, you are clearly misinformed.

First: the term TPM refers to a Trusted Platform Module, a specific type of cryptographic technology embedded in modern computers. While TPMs can be used to help implement a Digital Rights Management (DRM) scheme to protect content, it is not actually necessary to achieve such protection. DRM can be achieved in software alone; in the US, far flimsier mechanisms have been considered "protection schemes" in the eyes of the law.

Second: The issue is not that there are some measures in the bill to allow circumvention (as you point out, with the creator's permission), but rather than fair dealing has never relied upon obtaining permission in the past. Effectively, this bill allows creators to eliminate consumers' right to fair dealing use of copyrighted works, and could result in the stifling of political, artistic, journalistic, or academic expression, simply by virtue of the application of protection scheme.
1
1
Rating: 0
Simon James
The digital locks provision, as it stands, must not be allowed to become law. It would make a mockery of the law, as millions of people will just ignore it, given how easily the vast majority of DRM measures are easily passably. There is no way I am going to tell my kids they shouldn't transfer their (legally owned) DVD's to their iPod Touches etc., which puts me in a tough position as a parent trying to explain that "some laws are OK to break".
0
0
Rating: 0
Karl Stevens
Eo Nomine, you are absolutely wrong.

Bill C-32 prohibits circumvention of technological restrictions by the copyright holder, because it bans the tools necessary for circumvention.

It's like saying "oh, you're allowed to drive, you're just not allowed to own, buy, lease, rent, make or import a motor vehicle". If you are denied the tools to do something, then you have been banned from doing it.
1
2
Rating: -1
justanexer
Eo Nomine

"... the Bill only prohibits circumvention of TPMs (aka digital locks) that have been authorized by the copyright owner. So if a creator wants to circumvent a TPM protecting theirnown work or authorize another to do so, the Bill would not prohibit them from from doing that."

Your statement is wrong.
C-32 expressly makes even having (let alone using) the technology to circumvent a TPM illegal. When a lock is in place there is no legal way to remove it, regardless of the reasons.
The only legal way to access the content is via the DRM system. When the content is locked it's locked... even if the DRM system no longer works the content will be indefinitely locked and illegal to use if a lock 'must' be broken to access it.
0
0
Rating: 0
Gary G
Eo, your comment ignores the reality that companies like Amazon and Apple control the distribution channel. In order for a copyright owner to publish a work they are required to allow the distributor to lock the content down. Your comment implies that creators have a real choice - they do not. Not when large companies own the lion's share of the access to a market. DRM protects them by keeping users from switching platforms without loosing their investment. It does not do the same for content authors.

It seems to me that the law places the interests of the channel above that of the content creator. This is the opposite of how this should work.
1
1
Rating: 0
Andrew
@Eo Nomine
C32 equates the circumvention of digital locks with copyright infringement. I could break a digital lock on a DVD and not distribute it to anyone at all, and I would still be liable for "copyright infringement," simply because the DVD was "protected" by a digital lock.

I want Canada's copyright legislation to address actual copyright infringement, not some industry's dream legislation that would give them an excuse to prosecute anyone and everyone should they step out of line. If I break a lock on a DVD and sell it to thousands of people, I should be punished. If I break a lock on a DVD just to watch it on my iPod, I should be allowed to do that without any repercussions.
1
0
Rating: +1
Yvan
@Eo
While you are correct that section 41.1(a) does grant copyright owners permission to authorize the removal of digital locks on their content, your comment is meaningless since it addresses one small part of Michelles comment. There has been an overwhelming response from Canadian citizens, artists, and trade organizations that this bill is bad for Canadians.

While it is important to protect copyright, you should look to Brazil for a shining example of how to comply with WIPO obligations without restricting the rights of purchasers of content.
1
0
Rating: +1
Quentin Burgess
I really don't think this bill is about cracking down on people converting CDs to Ipods, as much as Prof. Geist and some alarmists would like to frame it as such. This bill is about giving creators the opportunity to protect their work and their investment.

There are examples of where protecting TPMs is essential to innovation. For instance, Nintendo's new DSi features increased controls to combat piracy. As THQ's Ian Curran said in a recent interview, "Therefore the opportunity for people to invest more in product development [on the system] and bring more 3DS products to market comes out of that. It's going to probably cost us more to do it all in 3D - so we want to make sure we get a return on our investment when we do it."
This is exactly what Ms. Parr is talking about. We need protection for TPMs to encourage employment and investment in Canada. The entertainment industry in BC contributes approx. $1.6Billion and over 39,500 jobs to the economy. Let's pass Bill 32 and keep these jobs in Canada.
0
1
Rating: -1
Marcus
Eo, but yet C-32 makes it illegal to distribute or produce tools to break DRM, so you are basically screwed as a consumer because you can't get the tools you need to break the DRM. Even if the copyright holder allows you to break the DRM and you're doing it for a fair dealing purpose, you are still breaking the law.

Also, please stop using "TPM" to hide the fact that it's DRM.
2
0
Rating: +2
Ron B
Eo Nomine:
Yes, that's what the proposed law says. What you fail to recogize is that the deck is stacked entirely in the distributor's favour. They dictate (not negotiate) entirely the arrangement so your point is nicely theoretical but doesn't hold water or apply to the way things really are in the real world.

If I didn't know better, this comment sounds an awful like one that you get when talking to a lawyer who represents the businesses side of the issue? Any interests to declare here?

Businesses that do not create anything but just take advantage of creators....and make the real money. In fact make enough money to be able to pay high priced lawyers to: 1) defend their greedy money-grabbing practices, and: 2) negotiate creators into the ground by offering them pittances for their work.
1
1
Rating: 0
Gord
If one enjoys the art that is created, they should respect the digital lock that is used.

A digital lock does not stop you from enjoying the art. It does however protect the artist, and allow them to make a living from their art.
1
0
Rating: +1
Kirby Gehman
It makes me so angry the last few paragraphs of this article make it look like the people who are arguing for fair use provisions are pirates or are going to kill "the industry" if they get what they want. It's not true, and it's the pack of lies that the music and film industries are selling to take your rights away. If you buy a movie or a song you should be able to watch it on whatever device you want, and make a backup of it in case you break it, and reference it in a scholarly or artistic work. That's all anyone is arguing for. Adding in the part about game studios stopping piracy is totally irrelevant and intentionally deceptive.

No one (credible) thinks that allowing people to pirate games is okay. If we were allowed to break digital locks for proper uses (like backups and format shifting) that wouldn't affect game makers AT ALL. It's already illegal to copy a game and give it away or sell it, this new breaking locks provision doesn't change that one bit.

Mixing comments about piracy (the game company) in with comments about fair dealing (the film maker) totally destroys any discussion of this issue.

For shame. I expect more from a respectable source.
0
1
Rating: -1
S. Wolf
Harper hypocrisy. Yes, we can make back-ups for personal use. See how kind and generous he is? Oh, but, that's only if there's no 'lock' on the material. Which there is, more often than not, thus making his generosity moot. Typical Conservative mind set where the big copmpanies get it all and the average citizen is left holding the [empty] bag.
0
0
Rating: 0

Pages

Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.