Canadian Government Says DRM Circumvention Not Related To Copyright

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist has followed up a recent release of internal government talking points on copyright with the full, internal clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-32. A new copyright bill is expected as soon as this week and the government document confirms there is no defense to violations of the digital lock rules, noting 'a contravention of this prohibition is not an infringement of copyright and the defenses to infringement of copyright are not defenses to these prohibitions.' The government's own words on the digital lock provisions confirm that they may be unconstitutional since they fall outside the boundaries of copyright." Basically, if you break DRM even without violating copyright in the process you can still be held liable, and from this any defense based on copyright law (fair use, etc.) is not valid in such cases. On the flipside, several legal experts think that makes those provisions of the law less likely to stand up in court.

Comments

So then what this is saying...

[JordanL]

...is that DRM represents an in perpetuum algorithmic representation of law that supercedes all haebeus corpus, or the belief of reasonable doubt. In order for DRM to be treated this way, DRM has to be a computer algorithm that is more correct about how to assess law than the justice system itself. Or at least, that's the consequence of this law.

This is all about

[ackthpt]

Protecting revenues from sale of SCTV episodes, eh!

Re:What is this, minority report

[Anonymous Coward]

> Punish illegal act.
Error: fair use clause makes act legal.
>sudo Punish illegal act.
Punished.

It makes sense now

[Moheeheeko]

Law protecting DRM proposed in canada. What company, based in Montreal, has the worst DRM of any other developer? Ubisoft. The always online DRM is so bad people who bought their games are breaking it. This is a law to protect the Ubisoft DRM, plain and simple.

Re:It makes sense now

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

There were several unsolved murders committed in Montreal last year. I always wondered who commits all these murders, but now I think I have my answer! The world is made so simple with foregone conclusions!

Re:DMCA

[tepples]

How have the constitutionally invalid provisions of the US DMCA not been ripped to shreds in the US courts?

For one thing, justice is expensive. Members of the public and charities acting in the public interest don't necessarily have the cash to hire competent attorneys with experience before the Supreme Court. For another, federal courts are slow.

Re:I thought DRM was inherently broken?

[Rary]

In DRM, B and C are NOT the same person. B is the approved* media player equipment. C is the consumer.

The problem is that B is not a person, but rather a device that is the legal property of C. It makes no sense to grant rights to an inanimate object that are not also granted to the legal owner of that inanimate object. B and C should be, legally speaking, one and the same.

Re:Victory against the MPAA and RIAA

[vux984]

The MPAA, RIAA and fair use don't exist in Canada

CMPDA (Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association) ~= MPAA
CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) ~= RIAA
Fair Dealing ~= Fair Use

Not the same, but not exactly different either.

Fair Dealing in Canada I'd argue is actually superior to fair use in the States.

The Canadian Supreme court clarified in one of its rulings:

Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.