Would Bill C-61 have protected copyright violators?
Friday, August 14, 2009 | 01:49 PM ET
By Paul Jay, CBCNews.ca. When the Conservative government attempted to introduce an update to copyright legislation last year - Bill C-61 - one of the chief complaints of the bill was the anti-circumvention provision, which essentially made it illegal to break digital locks placed on software or digital data such as music or movie files.
Critics said the provision essentially undermined whatever freedoms the bill might have granted consumers to use, copy, share or store files, since performing many of these actions often required breaking locks such as digital rights management (DRM) software, a much-loathed feature found on some media and music files.
Now, as the federal government takes a closer look at copyright in preparation for a new bill expected in the fall, yet another criticism has emerged of anti-circumvention laws. Evidently, they favour copyright violators.
In a submission to the government as part of its ongoing copyright consultations, economist Joseph Potvin outlined what he sees as the dangers of Bill C-61, which he said could be broadly applied to any computer program.
One of the consequences of applying C-61 to computer programs, he says, is that it would make it illegal to check if a program is compliant with the law if that program is itself encrypted.
"When any type of shield is implemented, even if it is trivial to circumvent, the Bill C-61 amendments would prevent legitimate copyright holders from legally examining source and binary computer program code distributed by suspected violators. Copyright and contract infringers can therefore use these protections to conceal violations. If violations cannot be discovered legally, then enforcement is impractical."
The only ones who would be able to check for violations would be companies with deep pockets, he said, since they might reasonably be able to afford the penalties of a "fishing expedition."
The whole submission is an interesting read and once again brings up the point that legislation too broad in scope can often have unforeseen ramifications.
« Previous Post |Main| Next Post »
This discussion is nowOpen. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post |Main| Next Post »
Post a Comment
Tech Bytes »
Recent Posts
- Wikipedia's puts suspect changes on orange alert
- Monday, August 31, 2009
- Snow Leopard brings subtle improvements to Mac
- Friday, August 28, 2009
- NFL's Ochocinco to use hand signals to tweet
- Thursday, August 27, 2009
- Microsoft in hot water over photoshopped ad
- Wednesday, August 26, 2009
- 2nd zombie paper rises from dead
- Wednesday, August 19, 2009
- Subscribe to Tech Bytes
Archives
- August 2009 (12)
- July 2009 (15)
- June 2009 (10)
- May 2009 (18)
- April 2009 (17)
- March 2009 (13)
- February 2009 (11)
- January 2009 (12)
- December 2008 (10)
- November 2008 (10)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (4)
- August 2008 (4)
- July 2008 (16)
- June 2008 (9)
- May 2008 (12)
- April 2008 (15)
- March 2008 (13)
- February 2008 (13)
- January 2008 (47)
- December 2007 (12)
- November 2007 (12)
- October 2007 (17)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (17)
- July 2007 (27)
- June 2007 (18)
- May 2007 (28)
- April 2007 (25)
- March 2007 (28)
- February 2007 (25)
- January 2007 (35)
- December 2006 (25)
Comments
Kevin
Ottawa
I view it as a case of "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it".
Posted August 20, 2009 12:27 PM