[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [fsfc-discuss] Canadian Free Software community taking on Bill C-11
From: |
Russell McOrmond |
Subject: |
Re: [fsfc-discuss] Canadian Free Software community taking on Bill C-11 |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:41:42 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 |
On 12-03-14 05:04 PM, Kyle Spaans wrote:
Is this even true? And if so, how can I convince him that these
provisions aren't enough? I'm thinking of trying the "government
controls over private property" angle.
While Mr Del Mastro and Mike Lake were quite well briefed on the
legislation, I never had the impression that Mr Braid understood the
details of the specific legislation or the general policy area being
discussed. He generally kept his questions during committee to a very
superficial level.
He has the talking point correct, which is that there are limits to
the non-copyright TPM portions of the legislation which have those titles.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5144516&File=72#16
See 41.12 and 41.13
Notice the language talking about the person who owns the copy of the
program, etc. In other words, an extremely technical person is
"allowed" to modify their own technology to interoperate, and they can
conduct security *research* (no clarity on implementing security policy,
which appears prohibited). It appears to disallow you from sharing that
knowledge with others, including in the form of computer programs -- and
obviously it would disallow FLOSS which is inherently transparent and
accountable.
Outside of TPMs you also have these sections:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5144516&File=57#11
These provisions were, however, amended on Monday/Tuesday to include the
following additional restrictions on those existing litigation magnets.
---cut-and-paste---
G-4
COMMITTEE STAGE
March 9, 2012
Mr. Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry)
That Bill C-11, in Clause 31, be amended by
(a) replacing line 16 on page 33 with the following:
30.61 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright
(b) replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 33 with the following:
reproduce the copy if
(a)they reproduce the copy for the sole purpose of obtaining
information that would allow the person to make the program and
another computer program interoperable; and
(b) they do not use or disclose that information, except as necessary
to make the program and another computer program interoperable or to
assess that interoperability.
(2) In the case where that information is used or disclosed as
necessary to make another computer program interoperable with the
program, subsection (1) applies even if the other computer program
incorporates the information and is then sold, rented or otherwise
distributed.
(c) replacing line 25 on page 33 with the following:
30.62(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), it is not an infringement
of copyright
(d) adding after line 34 on page 33 the following:
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person uses or discloses
information obtained through the research to commit an act that is an
offence under the Criminal Code.
(3) Subsection (1) applies with respect to a computer program only
if, in the event that the research reveals a vulnerability or a security
flaw in the program and the person intends to make the vulnerability or
security flaw public, the person gives adequate notice of the
vulnerability or security flaw and of their intention to the owner of
copyright in the program. However, the person need not give that
adequate notice if, in the circumstances, the public interest in
having the vulnerability or security flaw made public without adequate
notice outweighs the owner’s interest in receiving that notice.
(e) replacing line 35 on page 33 with the following:
30.63(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), it is not an infringement
of copyright
(f) adding after line 3 on page 34 the following:
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person uses or discloses
information obtained through the assessment or correction to commit an
act that is an offence under the Criminal Code.
(3) Subsection (1) applies with respect to a computer program only
if, in the event that the assessment or correction reveals a
vulnerability or a security flaw in the program and the person intends
to make the vulnerability or security flaw public, the person gives
adequate notice of the vulnerability or security flaw and of their
intention to the owner of copyright in the program. However, the person
need not give that adequate notice if, in the circumstances,
the public interest in having the vulnerability or security flaw made
public without adequate notice outweighs the owner’s interest in
receiving that notice.
---cut---
The longer paragraphs should look familiar as an often debated industry
practise. Regardless of what you might think of it, this level of
minutia has absolutely no place in what is by its title a "Copyright
Act". The same with the silliness about criminal offences: if someone
is committing a criminal offence, should we really be being petty and
worrying about deminimus copyright infringement?
It is a demonstration of one of the fundamental flaws of this
legislation, which is to take an already excessively complex and widely
misunderstood (and not reasonably understandable by a vast majority of
people it regulates) and make it even worse. And that is what I think
of the *good* parts of this bill :-)
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
http://l.c11.ca/ict
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own