Slashdot Mirror
IBM Canada's Position On DMCA
iplayfast writes: "In regards to Canadian "DMCA" Public Comments Becoming Available Most comments look pretty level headed, but as you start moving up the corporate ladder they start looking scary. This is IBM Canada's response "IBM urges the Government to amend the Copyright Act to create a civil and criminal offence for tampering with copyright protection technology systems including a product, service, device, component, or technology - either hardware, software or both - and only part thereof.
This offence must have an intent component which should arise from evidence of any one of the following three criteria;
-the device has been primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing;
or
-it has only limited commercial purpose or use other than to circumvent;
or
-it is marketed by the person who manufactures it, imports it, offers it to the public, provides it or otherwise traffics in it with intent for use in circumventing.;
If the person above does this indirectly through another party, both should be culpable."
Hmm, Big Blue is showing his spots."
This IBM response is quite lengthy, and worth reading. Besides the statement excerpted here, it includes among other things an argument against mandating particular technological means to combat copyright violations, and acknowledgement that copy-capable equipment is widely available and useful in business and personal contexts. Well ... if you're copying floppies, anyway.
3. If the government were to adopt provisions relating to technological measures, in which respects should such provisions be subject to exceptions or other limitations?
Copyright Act provisions for exemptions should still be applicable (broadly the "fair dealing" or excusable exploitation exemptions). As mentioned above, the limitations imposed by the term of protection, and any authorized use of such 'technology' should not be caught in the definition of an offence.
In my view, this is one of the biggest legal problems facing the DMCA, and it looks like IBM is missing the boat. Here they are, stating pretty clearly that a user's fair use is still legitimate, yet the very acts they are trying to push through prevent the end user from exercising fair use at all.
Has anyone found a corporate stance that actually addresses fair use without glossing over it or saying "well, the user gets to make X copies?"