The Canadian DMCA Battle Concludes: How Thousands of Canadians Changed Copyright

An anonymous reader writes "Nearly 15 years of debate over digital copyright reform will come to an end today as Bill C-11, the fourth legislative attempt at Canadian copyright reform, passes in the House of Commons. Many participants in the copyright debate view the bill with great disappointment, pointing to the government's decision to adopt restrictive digital lock rules as a signal that their views were ignored. Despite the loss on digital locks, the "Canadian copyright" led to some dramatic changes to Canadian copyright with some important wins for Canadians who spoke out on copyright. The government expanded fair dealing and added provisions on time shifting, format shifting, backup copies, and user generated content in response to public pressure. It also included a cap on statutory damages, expanded education exceptions, and rejected SOPA-style amendments."

Comments

The digital lock provisions trump everything else

[crazyjj]

What good do all those "time shifting, format shifting, backup copies" exemptions do when the digital lock provisions make them all completely illegal anyway? Sure, you can backup and format shift your DVD's, just as long as you don't break the CSS encryption to do so. In other words, it's illegal to format shift or backup your DVD's/Blu-rays/etc.

I mean, let's face it. No one gives a shit about format-shifting or backing up their own home videos. The whole point of format shifting is to move COMMERCIAL material from my physical DVD/Blu-ray to my computer.

Canadians must have a very different definition of "important wins" than us Americans. This is nothing less than a complete and outright victory for Hollywood and the media powers.

Inevitable

[Anrego]

But still sucks.

This is largely the problem with law. You can just keep on trying, until the public runs out of energy fighting it or it succeeds by fluke. If this hadn’t passed we’d be reading stores about the 5’th attempt, then the 6’th. In a weird way I’m glad it’s finally over.

And the digital locks thing sucks big time. I mean practically speaking, I’d still feel safe ripping a DVD at home it’s the guys writing the software that enables me to do this that are going to be hit. Just in principle it annoys me that it is no longer legal in many cases for me to make backups (or realistically make copies and keep the original media as backup) of media I purchased.

It’s infuriating, because I buy media to rip it onto my computer where I ultimately watch/listen to it. I do this despite it being considerably _less_ convenient then downloading it for _free_ because despite my hatred of big media, I still don’t think it entitles me to just grab their stuff for free. I (figuratively) have money, sitting in my pocket, that I would happily spend on high quality DRM free downloads if anyone would offer them to me. They don’t. So I do it the hard way.. and now they are making that somewhat illegal, in some pretend effort to prevent me from going the absolute easiest and quickest route (just downloading the damn thing) .. which is exactly what it will drive me to! I still don't feel I am somehow entitled to media on my terms.. but I've just stopped caring.

Re:Inevitable

[sfhock]

another option: buy it and then download the free version. I will occasionally do this if I'm too lazy to rummage through my physical media and rip the original source. It assuages your guilt, and it's more convenient!

Re:Inevitable

[__aaeihw9960]

It’s infuriating, because I buy media to rip it onto my computer where I ultimately watch/listen to it. I do this despite it being considerably _less_ convenient then downloading it for _free_ because despite my hatred of big media, I still don’t think it entitles me to just grab their stuff for free. I (figuratively) have money, sitting in my pocket, that I would happily spend on high quality DRM free downloads if anyone would offer them to me. They don’t. So I do it the hard way.. and now they are making that somewhat illegal, in some pretend effort to prevent me from going the absolute easiest and quickest route (just downloading the damn thing) .. which is exactly what it will drive me to! I still don't feel I am somehow entitled to media on my terms.. but I've just stopped caring.

And this sentiment exactly is how these companies/countries can justify anti-piracy measures. It becomes, "Look, look, they're pirating this, we have to lock down our material more to make it stop."

I'm not sure if it's a vicious cycle, or just a circlejerk. But it's definitely one of the two.

I'm in the same boat as you - I buy it, and then either rip it or download it, just to appease my conscience. I purchased a DRM free game about a week ago - the download folder contained an .exe file. I was actually hesitant to move the file. Do you know how long it's been since I've seen a file that was easily portable, and contained every piece of the game? That's F***ed up.

Re:Inevitable

[crazyjj]

What makes you think it's over?

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a company who's primary software product is DVD/Bluray backup software and this is certainly worrying as its made what we do illegal here [in Canada]. I read the news on the way to work this morning and it certainly ruined my day. I suppose its time to start applying elsewhere for a development gig. I can always trust the conservatives to bend over for American corporations and endager Canadian jobs it seems.

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

The vicious cycle is not between big media and the pirates.

The cycle is between the big media and their customers suffering from battered wife syndrome, such as people like you and the GP/OP.

People like you and the GP keep paying them money, so they can keep on existing, doing what they want to do, and what they want is DRM

If you don't like DRM, simply don't buy it. Do not give them the privilege of your money. Whether you pirate it or not afterward is irrelevant. The bottom line is... the bottom line. Hit them where it hurts.

They're not going to magically turn around if you keep paying them money.

Re:Inevitable

[evorster]

Well, maybe not.
I recently read that Europe knocked down some sneaky lobbying, and made some laws to the opposite effect than what the lobby group wanted... I think it had something to do with the IP ratchet of trying to force SOPA on the European populace, or something.

So, if you push back hard enough, there might some enterprising politican that decides that staying in power longer will be more profitable than taking a quick bribe, you might get laws banning some of the more horrible abuses you are seeing these days.

However, just giving up and calling things inevitable is the only sure way for your opposition to succeed.

Re:Inevitable

[dgatwood]

No, it's more like a power-hungry politician's wife putting up with her husband's affairs. There are very real and tangible benefits to paying them money—you get to watch their stuff—and the level of abuse is relatively small compared to the benefit. The people who legitimately need to make copies of the content ignore the law, knowing full well that there is unlikely to be any attempt to prosecute them for doing so, and that it would be an ideal opportunity for the defense lawyer to mention jury nullification during his/her closing statement even if it ever made it to trial. The people who just want free stuff either buy legitimate copies or ignore the law and take their risks.

The big problem with your proposed solution is that you're speaking from the perspective of the one half of one percent who actually care about putting movies on a media server. Even if every single person with those needs stopped buying media today, it would not cause enough of a change in big media's profits for them to notice.

No, there is exactly one solution to the problem of DRM, and it is this: compete. Don't like DRM? Create your own movie studio and then don't do that. Tell people that you don't do it, and tell them why. Convince the general public that your DRM-free offering is better than the abusive alternatives. When the existing media houses notice that you're starting to cut into their bottom line significantly, then they'll be forced to adjust their behavior to match it, and content will become more user-friendly. Until there is a legal alternative, however, it doesn't matter whether you're right about DRM being harmful; most of the general public won't be willing to pirate content just to make a point.

Remember: voting with your dollars might make a small difference; voting with other people's dollars will make a big difference.

Re:Inevitable

[bzipitidoo]

Yes! Don't be downhearted. This is a fight the copyright extremists can't win.

They can pass laws that declare the value of pi is 3.0 and the world is flat, but that doesn't make it so. They can outlaw gravity all they like, but gravity won't obey. They can outlaw sex and procreation. After all, that is copying! Be a bit difficult to enforce that on bacteria. But beings capable of comprehending such a law should also understand its consequences. Anyone who doesn't, and mindlessly obeys a law like that deserves a Darwin Award.

These laws are all unconscionable. Don't feel guilty for breaking those kinds of laws! In fact, I regard it our duty to rebel against this. And good training to get us to be better citizens by questioning bad laws.

Re:Inevitable

[shoehornjob]

The vicious cycle is not between big media and the pirates. The cycle is between the big media and their customers suffering from battered wife syndrome, such as people like you and the GP/OP. People like you and the GP keep paying them money, so they can keep on existing, doing what they want to do, and what they want is DRM If you don't like DRM, simply don't buy it. Do not give them the privilege of your money. Whether you pirate it or not afterward is irrelevant. The bottom line is... the bottom line. Hit them where it hurts.

That pretty much says it all right there. What this really comes down to is a lifestyle change. I'm willing to give up on certain kinds of media if I can't get it on my terms. Plain and simple.

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

With all due respect, you are simply a fool to give these people money, which they will use to try to take over the internet.

All other issues are secondary to this.

Re:Inevitable

[thoromyr]

the problem with this is the same as with music: inherent monopoly. I can't create a movie to compete with the avengers that has Thor, Captain America, etc. Those characters are all "protected". If I don't like how does business I can't just buy from -- that's not how it works.

If you watch independent films you'll find that there are some real stinkers. There are also some diamonds in the rough ("Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" yeah!). But it basically doesn't matter how good one of those movies is, because it doesn't have the marketing and distribution of a large label. A good example of this is Robert Rodriguez. He got attention because -- with no money, no big name actors (no little name actors either) -- he made El Mariachi. He had so little money there were no second takes. He had to frame the shot, have the lighting, etc., correct and if an actor flubbed he had to find some way around it other than a retake. Just because he's such a damn good director he made it all work. But there aren't that many people who have that kind of talent.

Just saying "well, just create your own movie studio" is idiotic and ignores the skill required to work outside the system and succeed (in terms of trying to turn market forces against the wealthy, entrenched criminals) and the money required to stand up to them. If the terms to use AES, blowfish, etc., were onerous would you just create your own cryptosystem to get around it? Unless you happen to be a world class cryptologist it isn't likely to end well for you.

Re:Inevitable

[dgatwood]

That's still a battered wife. She's letting affairs and abuse that shouldn't have happened in the first place pass.

Not really. A battered wife is someone who is afraid to get out of the relationship. The people I'm talking about are making calculated decisions to "stay in the relationship" for appearance purposes, but are not actually still in the relationship in any meaningful sense of the word because no actual relationship still exists to remain in.

In much the same way, there is no actual relationship of consequence between media consumers and the big media conglomerates. They don't honestly care what a few individuals think, say, or do; it takes motion of millions of people to get them to notice. Similarly, the public mostly doesn't care how broken the movies are as long as they can still watch them on their DVD and Blu-Ray players. Thus, the relationship exists purely in appearance rather than in actual fact. It is a marriage of convenience and nothing more.

My solution is in fact an essential first step towards yours.

Not really. If anything, your solution will likely make the problem worse. All 12,000 people who care about the issue could take the step of severing their relationship with the industry, and the industry would not even notice. To put it in real-world terms, if the members of an ethnic group that is being persecuted by a repressive regime elect to leave a country, it is less likely that the people will later overthrow the regime, because A. there are fewer people in the country who care about the problem, and B. there are fewer people telling others about the problem. In much the same way, refusing to consume current media means that those media outlets will hear fewer complaints about their policies, as will hardware manufacturers that build hardware to support that media. And the average consumer won't know about subtle changes that make the DRM more draconian, because the people who would care most about those changes will have stopped paying attention.

Worse, to the extent that you do manage to get people to stop consuming the media, those media outlets will blame piracy for the drop in sales, and will use this as justification for even more draconian measures to protect their content. It's a no-win scenario.

Re:Inevitable

[dgatwood]

If the terms to use AES, blowfish, etc., were onerous would you just create your own cryptosystem to get around it? Unless you happen to be a world class cryptologist it isn't likely to end well for you.

Having done both movie production and a bit of light crypto work, I can definitively state that making movies is a hell of a lot easier than designing a robust encryption scheme. Making good movies takes creativity, a lot of work, a fair number of people, and enormous amounts of time and patience, but it isn't remotely on the same order of difficulty as something that involves hundreds of researchers with advanced academic degrees staring at complex mathematical proofs for years looking for flaws.

More to the point, the cost of failure is much, much lower. If you create a movie that sucks, you've wasted some time, some effort, and some money. If you create a crypto system that turns out to be flawed, you've put people's private data at risk, potentially put billions of dollars of financial transactions at risk, and created a problem that tens or hundreds of thousands of system administrators worldwide will have to fix at enormous cost to the companies involved. Hollywood math notwithstanding, moviemaking really isn't comparable to crypto.

Just saying "well, just create your own movie studio" is idiotic and ignores the skill required to work outside the system and succeed (in terms of trying to turn market forces against the wealthy, entrenched criminals) and the money required to stand up to them.

Twenty years ago, they said the same thing about books. Then e-book publishing happened, and the world changed. If you create the content, the distribution channels will take care of themselves in time. They always do.

Re:Inevitable

[cas2000]

i thought that car analogies were dumb.

but misogynstic battered-wife analogies are even worse.

Re:Inevitable

[J Story]

These laws are all unconscionable. Don't feel guilty for breaking those kinds of laws! In fact, I regard it our duty to rebel against this. And good training to get us to be better citizens by questioning bad laws.

Civil Disobedience is a time-honoured response to bad law. The other part of Civil Disobedience, of course, is accepting the penalty of contravening the law. Fortunately, it appears that the penalties for individual non-commercial infringers are not enough for the **IA vermin to pursue. Even in the US we are seeing pushback.

Re:Inevitable

[J Story]

Who will you vote for, and how would they have written the copyright bill?

Re:Inevitable

[Altrag]

Well no, there's a solution -- pass a law with compromises that both sides of the issue can agree on. Its only when you get an all-or-nothing approach that the people with the greater vested interests are able to win by simply wearing down their opponent.

In the case of this law, we (the public) got huge wins out of the deal. In particular, they removed or at least nerfed the worst of the presumed-guilty portions (notice-and-takedown, SOPA-style website DOS'ing, etc.) That's a pretty huge win in anybody's books (except the MPAA's of course.)

We also technically got huge new provisions in terms of fair use. These are less of a win, since they're rendered entirely useless thanks to the digital locks crap. But still, they're there. And if it ever comes to a court case with an influential/rich enough defendant (say a university or a large newspaper), they only have to convince the judge that fair use should trump DRM rather than the other way around. As opposed to having to convince the judge that their use IS fair -- a lot harder prospect.

So no, this isn't a win compared to not having the bill, but its definitely a win compared to what Harper's cronies have been trying to push through for more than half a decade now.

I don't doubt the issue will crop up again, especially if/when our neighbors to the south start ramping up their lobbying efforts again. Or if ACTA/TPP somehow make it through the pipeline (essentially nullifying our own laws.) Or just because the media lobby thinks enough time has passed and the public's focus has shifted elsewhere. But they'll have a much harder time convincing people that its necessary when they JUST got a bill through as opposed to the current situation where our copyright laws hadn't been significantly updated since pre-internet times. Or at least I hope they'll have a harder time of it :P.

Re:Inevitable

[Altrag]

When the existing media houses notice that you're starting to cut into their bottom line significantly

Except that you have an unbelievably small chance of this happening, and its got nothing to do with DRM or any other technical measure. Its got to do with the fact that you almost certainly don't have the money to produce and distribute an industry-quality movie.

You can start a studio, you can avoid DRM. You might even make a profit. But you've got a good few decades of business building before you've got any chance of impacting the big studios in any meaningful manner.

And if they think that's even a possibility, they'll do everything in their power to either run you out of business or convince you to engage in the same industry-wide practices that the rest of them do, long before the possibility is realized.

Of course, there's always the slim chance that you can be amazingly lucky and come out of nowhere with a wide sweep game changer. But I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

The fact of the matter is that we need the big studios if we want to continue seeing $100mill+ movies being made (or even $1mill+.) The money is just too big to be emulated by small studios or independent film makers. Not to say you can't make a great film for $50k (Clerks, for example) but you can't make the next Avatar (or whatever your favorite special-effects-driven film is) with that kind of budget.

And unless the general public suddenly loses their appetite for big-budget films, trying to fight them on that front is just silly. Hard as it is to mobilize the public, its still much more plausible to organize a successful political protest (ala SOPA) than it would be to try and out-compete the studios at their own game.

Re:Inevitable

[DarwinSurvivor]

Before anyone jumps in with the "x86 machines are required to have a method to turn it off" argument, remember that there is NO SUCH requirement for ARM systems, something Microsoft has been working on for a few years now.

Re:Inevitable

[cheekyjohnson]

I wouldn't be giving them money, then. In fact, I think it would be better if you would just download the material (if you feel you must have it), because between supporting them and not supporting them, I believe not supporting them is always the better option. It has nothing to do with entitlement, but the fact that it's simply there. You needn't hold a gun to their head.

Re:Inevitable

[AssholeMcGee]

I do not live in Canada but I want them to pass this, we will see what propaganda Big Media has to use when it is proven they are still losing money!!! I even question if the money they are losing is from buying off government, lawyers, and filing lawsuits. Instead of adopting the new and growing technology the insist on trying to destroy it.. I would not be surprised if the US government is behind this to begin with, using it as an experiment to see if this is an idea worth the time and effort.

Re:Inevitable

[P-niiice]

That's the real question, as American "Liberals" would have bent over as readily as our Conservatives.

We really have no choices at the ballot box in the USA, I hope Canadian choices are better.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[dyingtolive]

Yeah, but they ONLY lost that much. That's a victory in and of itself right? Right?

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[TheRaven64]

It depends on the enforcement and wording. For example, the DMCA only protects 'effective' countermeasures. One argument that has been made is that any countermeasure that has been compromised is no longer effective, which would mean that the act of breaking DRM would demonstrate that it was not effective and therefore not protected by the DMCA. If the Canadian version has similar wording and courts uphold this interpretation, then it's a win...

Summary is not anonymous

[BForrester]

At least give attribution to the summary, lifted in its entirety from Michael Geist's blog:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/

The original post also gives a great breakdown of the specific policies that will change under this new legislation.

any changes for me ?

[fluffythedestroyer]

About backups: for home use, I will continue to do backups of my original. If theres a copy protection, I will use a hack or a crack so I can use the copy. I use the copy I did just in case my original breaks. lets face it, physical media cost a bunch when they break...and yes they break

copy: if I copy some music from my original cd's or dvd's and theres a problem with DRM or copying issues, then I'll download a cracked version

Let's face it, for low end consumers like me and lots of others, it doesn't change anything..and even if they try it wont since the authorities wont go super sai on my ass. They rather target the big boys instead.

Re:any changes for me ?

[Altrag]

This is what I don't get about the constant DRM push. It doesn't prevent the people who want to copy things from copying things. The people running the MPAA and RIAA aren't stupid. They know this. So why do they continue pouring money into corrupting the legal system in a way that doesn't really benefit them in the end?

I mean sure they can claim $185zillion in damages from little Suzy and her grandmother.. but that's fictional money anyway -- the best they can get out of Suzy is every penny she ever earns, and for most people that adds up to maybe a couple of million over a lifetime even if you discount every single expense (food, clothing, housing, taxes, etc) that they ever pay. ($50k/yr at 45yr working life = $2.25mill.) Hardly a windfall, no matter what the paperwork says. It probably costs them half that just to prosecute the case in the first place.

So what's the goal here? DRM doesn't significantly benefit them in any direct way. It doesn't significantly reduce piracy. Attacking torrent sites for intentionally contributing to copyright infringement could be done with or without DRM (its not like torrents are usually posted with the DRM in-tact anyway.)

So who's benefiting? I assume somebody has a grand scheme somewhere. Or are all of the politicians and lobbyists just going through the motions because they think its what they're supposed to be doing even though they all know its essentially pointless?

content lost, these are dinosaur death throes

[Anonymous Coward]

a vpn cost $60 or less a year and through that you can get every piece of media you could ever want with no chance of getting sued

and even without a vpn the chance of you personally getting sued is so low that if you worry about it you might as well not leave the house because a random lightning strike has about the same chance of doing you in

a netflix streaming only sub costs nearly 100 a year for only a limited selection of movies that you can only watch on their approved devices

the old system of invest in content then charge for copies is dead, the only thing keeping it alive is inertia and laziness

we are moving to a 100% patronage system for content where there are no barriers between creators and their fans - the obsolete middle men are desperately trying to hold delay their inevitable extinction

Re:content lost, these are dinosaur death throes

[alexo]

Any recommendations for a good VPN provider then?

Re:content lost, these are dinosaur death throes

[RNelson]

There was an Ask Slashdot thread on this a couple of months ago with various suggestions from people.

Nice to have clarity

[canajin56]

Last week my wife wanted an eBook, but it wasn't available through Amazon. She bought it through Kobo, then removed the Kobo DRM and converted it to a .mobi and put it on her Kindle. It's nice to know that this is now legal format shifting and also illegal lock breaking. What a relief it is to have that kind of clarity. It's nice to know that the Harper government considers this acceptable because "It's unlikely that copyright holders would consider it worthwhile to sue individual violators". This makes me feel so safe. At least it's still just a civil violation, not a 10 year felony ;) It's still absolutely insane that Harper would defend the bill as "we won't enforce it so why worry?"

Re:Nice to have clarity

[Nerdfest]

I called my MP directly in advance of this bill and told him that I will not vote for a party that passes a law that makes me a criminal when I view a piece of media that I've paid for.

Re:Nice to have clarity

[mark-t]

No.... copyright infringement is definitely *NOT* just a civil violation. At least not in Canada. And yes... it can include a jail term, if the judge determines the circumstances are appropriate (afaik, only ever applied in cases of commercial infringement).

Re:Nice to have clarity

[camperdave]

Unfortunately, that's the system we have now. If t'were up to me, all governments would be minority governments.

Re:Nice to have clarity

[J Story]

Unfortunately, that's the system we have now. If t'were up to me, all governments would be minority governments.

The big problem with minority governments is that they have no backbone. Every party jostling for power will bribe voters with their own and their children's money. The only way that the Conservatives as a minority government were able to pass their budgets was by handing out more goodies while increasing the deficit to do so.

A side-effect of short-lived minority governments is that private members' bills and other legislation, that winds through Parliament at a deliberate pace, cannot get passed before the next election call. When the government falls, all bills that are in various stages of consideration "die", and must be reintroduced anew in the new parliament. Recently, a private members bill was introduced that had the general support of MPs. It had actually been introduced a couple years earlier (with similar support), but elections kept it from going anywhere. All but the most pressing bills take months before reaching Third Reading (i.e. getting getting passed). They also need approval from the Senate. As a result of this build-up of legislation, unstable governments reduce the level of scrutiny that bills can get if the bills are to be passed at all.

Re:Nice to have clarity

[canajin56]

Format shifting isn't copyright infringement anymore. Did you even read the summary? Apparently not. The illegal part comes from "digital lock breaking", a new offense created by this new law. There are no statutory damages for it, though, so although my wife is a criminal now, Kobo would be hard pressed to win a cent from her and so likely would not bother.

Re:Nice to have clarity

[mark-t]

Actually, format shifting any digitally locked work without consent of the copyright holder will be illegal under C-11. It doesn't matter whether or not the fair dealing provision should apply, because the fair dealing provisions explicitly exclude any case where the work was subject to a "technological protection measure".

This is why the so-called expanded fair dealing provisions in the bill are laughable... they are entirely revocable at the discretion of the content provider who can choose to use a digital lock.

The conservatives have stated that they don't expect to hold individuals accountable for "privately" breaking any digital locks, but that's only because trying to enforce it at that level would be virtually impossible without an enormous change in the privacy laws in Canada.

On the other hand, this bill effectively makes the Canadian blank media levy a completely illegal tax... since it exists to compensate artists for private use copying, but under C-11, with its digital lock provisions prohibiting decryption of any work without permission, any otherwise existing provision that might allow somebody to private copy a digital work is rendered all but completely moot. For what it's worth, it's the Conservative's intent to scrap this levy.

Re:Nice to have clarity

[Anonymous Coward]

The big problem with minority governments is that they have no backbone. Every party jostling for power will bribe voters with their own and their children's money. The only way that the Conservatives as a minority government were able to pass their budgets was by handing out more goodies while increasing the deficit to do so.

That's because the decision is made by the competitors, other parties, and not the people that count, the citizens. Imagine if your annual review wasn't done by your manager but by the lower-ranked employees waiting for a promotion...

A side-effect of short-lived minority governments is that private members' bills and other legislation, that winds through Parliament at a deliberate pace, cannot get passed before the next election call.

I get what you're saying but that's no reason to give a majority government free rein to do anything they please for 4 whole years. Again if you need to fire a bad employee, you fire them knowing full well that your project will take a setback from the turnover, but also realising that the consequences of not firing the bad employee are even worse.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[Scott64]

When this argument was brought up during the last attempt to pass this legislation, it was said that "effective" doesn't necessarily mean that it "works well" in this context, just that protection is "in effect" (no matter how ineffective the protection actually is). IANAL, but I believe that distinction was made by one and if I had any clue where I read that, I'd link to it.

Not sure about Canadian law...

[Anonymous Coward]

But here in the states with the limits on copyright duration, I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled DMCA and digital locks unconstitutional as it extends copyright to infinity. There are no provisions for placing all encryption keys into an escrow account to be released to the public on xyz date.
There are no provisions in the encryption methodology to turn off encryption after xyz date.

Current encryption methods used on all DVD and Blu-Ray devices are illegal due to how they extend copyright (based on DMCA or DMCA type laws).

Re:Not sure about Canadian law...

[TheSpoom]

I'm sorry, are you contributing multiple millions of dollars to reelection campaigns? No? Then you don't exist.

Re:Not sure about Canadian law...

[dgatwood]

But here in the states with the limits on copyright duration, I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled DMCA and digital locks unconstitutional as it extends copyright to infinity. There are no provisions for placing all encryption keys into an escrow account to be released to the public on xyz date.

No need. It becomes legal to break the encryption the moment copyright expires. By definition, the DMCA only covers systems that effectively protect a copyrighted work. (Title 17, section 1201: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.") Once the work is no longer under copyright (Title 17), the DMCA no longer prevents you from breaking the encryption.

Now there's still the question of the legality of tools to do so, but in about eighty years, when the first of the DVD copyrights expire, if anyone still cares about any of those movies, someone will challenge the legality of that part of the law. Of course, by then, nobody will care about those movies because DVDs will no longer be playable by any modern hardware, the movie studios will have failed repeatedly to release the content in a new format where people can actually enjoy it, and nearly all the people who actually remember those movies will have long since died.

Re:Not sure about Canadian law...

[Sloppy]

That all comes down to some judge's arbitrary decision for what the tool is "primarily intended" for. If you do this, choose your marketing terms carefully.

BTW, everyone: you don't necessarily have to wait eighty years for this. When a work transitions from copyrighted to PD, that is just one of the ways DMCA can cease to apply in spite of DRM still being present.

Another way is to get the copyright holder's authorization. You own a video camera, don't you? Good, then you can make movies. Now you've just got to somehow get your movie published with CSS or BD+ applied to it. Then grant authorization to yourself, customers, the world, whatever, to crack your movie's DRM. The more people who do this, the murkier things get. When someone makes a movie player, who is to say it's not intended for playing movies that are allowed to be played? Is it completely bullshit when there is 1 movie? 10 movies? 100? 1000? At some point, you cross a line into it being plausible enough.

Without you doing anything or signing anything or making any special deals, your movie may even be getting DRMed already, with HDCP every time you play it. For all I know, you might even be reading this very comment, right now, using an HDCP connection to your monitor. As this comment's copyright holder, I hereby grant you authorization to defeat the HDCP or any other techological measures which effectively limit access to my Slashdot comments.

Then there's the flip side of DMCA's "authority of the copyright holder." You might want to think about the legality of Sony's electronics business, if they make equipment which can play your DRMed movies but if you have not granted them authorization to do so.

Re:Not sure about Canadian law...

[anethema]

This wont help us Canadians though, there is no such wording in this bill:

41.1 (1) No person shall

(a) circumvent a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition "technological protection measure" in section 41;

This is the definition to which they are referring.

"technological protection measure" means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation,

(a) controls access to a work, to a perform er’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner;

Re:Not sure about Canadian law...

[J Story]

But here in the states with the limits on copyright duration, I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled DMCA and digital locks unconstitutional as it extends copyright to infinity.

I believe it was Lawrence Lessig who argued against the last extension of copyright a few years ago. SCOTUS found that as long as copyright was not forever then Congress was within its constitutional rights to continue extending copyright.

Re:Not sure about Canadian law...

[Altrag]

I would assume that if the terms for the BD+ / DVD labels don't already prevent you from doing this, they certainly would for your second movie. Its a non-starter.

I'm also pretty sure that at the very least, you'd only be granted a license to use the encrypting technology and therefore would not be legally justified in granting your users authority to break someone else' (presumably patented) algorithms.

You'd be better off to just release your work unencrypted in the first place and hope to hell you make a decent enough profit that you can say "told you so" to all the nay-sayers.

Win for Canadians... Sort of.

[twnth]

A win or a loss, depending upon your perspective. Appropriate for the 200th anniversary of the declaration of the War of 1812.

Use to protect communications?

[RecoveredMarketroid]

A thought off the top of my head... Can the digital lock provisions be used to protect personal communications? People are very worried about eavesdropping/profiling of their online activity-- wouldn't applying a 'digital lock' of even a trivial sort make place the eavesdroppers outside the law?

Obviously, strong encryption can protect your communications. But this is potentially something different-- you aren't guaranteeing the security of your communication, but rather, shifting the legal burden of violation onto some of the parties who sought to create the law in the first place...

For example, what if your bittorrent tracker information is protected by a digital lock?

Re:Use to protect communications?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, you actually think that the government will follow it's own laws? Don't you know that they make the laws, they don't follow them. =P

Funny verification : explains

Re:Use to protect communications?

[Mashiki]

A thought off the top of my head... Can the digital lock provisions be used to protect personal communications?

Oddly enough yes. I'll see if I can find the SSC summery judgement on the issue it was 5 or 6 years ago.

Re:Use to protect communications?

[mark-t]

Actually, the bill does contain explicit exemptions to its digital locks provisions for the specific purposes of both law enforcement and computer/network security. If you can make a valid case that your decrypting somebody else's lock falls in one of those categories, you're fine.

Re:Use to protect communications?

[Simoniac]

Actually, the bill does contain explicit exemptions to its digital locks provisions for the specific purposes of both law enforcement and computer/network security. If you can make a valid case that your decrypting somebody else's lock falls in one of those categories, you're fine.

Hmm, software like AnyDVD does allow you to run a malware scan on your media, and pre-recorded media have been sold with security-compromising software in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the direct link to the bill. It is in lawyer / legislative speak, but (as you alluded to) says nothing about effective.

Media companies

[ciderbrew]

I'm not too sure if people for "Media" read this; but here it goes.

Dear Crap Mongers
I've stopped downloading, no longer bother with cinema and haven't had a TV for well over a year. It's going well and I hope you go out of business. There is really so much more to be doing than watching the bland stuff you produce. (Live open mic comedy is fantastic in London).
Life without a constant barrage of marketing is really nice too.
Your's
Some bloke...

If I can't watch it on iplayer(BBC) - It's not worth the bother - I've really missed nothing of worth have I.

Re:Media companies

[Altrag]

Don't forget to stop playing non-indie video games or listening to any music that you didn't personally purchase from a local artist. The music and game industries are just as guilty as the movie industry for ramming extreme copyright down our throats. Oh. And don't read anything either. The publishing industry isn't our friend either. I assume you're running an open-source OS as well?

I hope you're extremely good at entertaining yourself, and that you work for a business that uses all open-source software (or do manual labor and not have to use software at all.)

Re:Media companies

[cheekyjohnson]

Protesting all of that at once is possible, but I'm not sure it's really necessary. You could do it one by one if need be.

Nothing changes

[TheRealGrogan]

Since they won't remove the "digital lock" provision from the bill, then we're all just going to ignore the laws like we always do anyway.

Like I really give a fuck what they say I can and can't do. Good luck trying to enforce criminal law... there's such a thing as needing solid evidence in criminal court. Go ahead and try to sue me... I deliberately own nothing and I won't even recognize the authority of the kangaroo court. (Make whatever judgement you want in my absence)

Re:Nothing changes

[Altrag]

Good luck with that one. This sort of attitude a) does nothing to improve the world, and b) is only useful as long as you aren't targeted.

If you're told to show up for a criminal trial and you just don't bother, the cops WILL come hunting and will forcibly drag you to the judge (and probably to jail) if they have to. So unless you're OK with being on the run for the rest of your life, you might want to rethink your choices.

You're a part of society whether you like or not.

Of course the chance that anyone will put that much effort into a copyright case is pretty slim, but the point still stands.

Re:Nothing changes

[TheRealGrogan]

In addition to being a condescending twat, you also can't comprehend what you read. I said criminal court requires real evidence (difficult to enforce criminal provisions... it wouldn't even get off the ground) and for being sued in civil (kangaroo) court, I just won't show up. I don't have to... judgment would be rendered in my absence. I really wouldn't even have to run, only withdraw. I would just have no money and there's nothing they could do about it as long as I did no banking transactions. This is Canada... I could declare bankruptcy tomorrow and not even have to pay my credit card bills or any other unsecured debt. Lawsuit awarded damages wouldn't go away like that, but it would be rendered moot because I'd never "have money" again. .... and fuck you. I've spent most of my life on the fringes of society and can survive very well underground. Here's a concept: You really do know nothing about people you know nothing about.

They're idiots

[msobkow]

You're allowed to format shift, but you won't be allowed to decrypt to format shift.

Freakin' morons!!!

Re:They're idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Freakin' morons!!!

They're not morons. They're con-men. They're providing wonderful representation to their real constituents, who definitely aren't your average Canadian citizen.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[mark-t]

It doesn't.

Different strings...

[snemiro]

I think the issue here is: - What the entertainment corporations want - Who's Govt work for - What is the Govt role in this decision - What consumers want / need - Who decides how things can be changed I think as a consumer, my version of the answers are: - What the entertainment corporations want Infinite money (to be laundered and keep the status quo) - Who's Govt work for well..one more level and we will find them in ebay.... - What is the Govt role in this decision To convince consumers that the right thing to do is to pay 5 times for something that could be paid just once, winking the eye to the corporations and taking every year vacation with all their family in that super fancy shmancy resort...for free.... - What consumers want / need Not to be ripped off by "the law". - Who decides how things can be done/changed We do. I think the big issue here is how to avoid politicians be approached by corporations to vote in their favor. The REAL democracy can only exist when no funding is needed to create and maintain a political party. Reality shows that politicians just exist to take advantage of their situation, receive a salary and collect as much as they can in bribes and favours...

Re:Different strings...

[mcgrew]

Who's Govt work for

Um, I think the Who's government is in Britain, not Canada.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. With the way things are going, if the Conservatives actually lose we'll be stuck with the NDP for 4 years. And if you thought this was bad, just wait until the unions and industry groups start dictating what the NDP will pass. The NDP doesn't give a shit about the individual. They only care about who's paying them to get elected.

Cold Turkey

[ThatsNotPudding]

Or you could, you know, stop watching/listening to all this stuff (even for 'free') and tell the content creators explicitly why you won't be bothering with their works until *they* are willing to cut out the Content Lords and deal with their fans directly in an honest and fair (affordable and DRM-free) manner. And if they won't (due to greed) why would you want to pay them or even pay attention to them anyway? Even copying their stuff helps keep a corrupt, democratically corrosive system going.

And if we cannot truly go without the luxury of entertainment (to keep us distracted from contemplating how empty and meaningless our lives are or some peer pressure 'did you see...' BS), then we have to take the first step and admit we're nothing but an addict.

Re:Cold Turkey

[Anrego]

I'd look silly without a nose...

Fighting Piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they are going to fight piracy by making a law that will make legitimate sources (music, video, etc...) MORE restrictive?

Solution: Don't buy media with locks on them.

Is it just me or is the result going to be different than what the people that wrote that thought it was going to be?

I mean if I legally buy something, and to make it useful to me I have to defeat a lock, which makes me a criminal anyway, why do I bother spending ANY money on legitimate services, which I might as well just skip the middle man, and pirate media directly? I mean sure perhaps I'm a criminal, but at least I wouldn't be paying to be one.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[Anonymous Coward]

if the Conservatives actually lose we'll be stuck with the NDP for 4 years. And if you thought this was bad, just wait until the unions and industry groups start dictating what the NDP will pass.

There is always a lot of fear mongering about the terrible things that will happen if the NDP ever get in power.

The truth is that there have been a number of provincial NDP governments over the years. Although I wouldn’t claim that any of them have been great, they have in general done a better job of maintaining or enhancing workers’ rights, environmental protections, consumers’ rights, privacy rights, and human rights than other political parties. And they have done this while at the same time, in general, doing a better job of balancing provincial budgets than almost all provincial Conservative governments. Since, unlike the sometimes vast difference in policies practiced by provincial and federal political parties of the same name, the federal and various provincial NDP parties have substantially identical platforms and policies, there would seem to be little to fear from an NDP federal government. Yet among certain voters fear of the NDP is rampant.

A few weeks ago, on the CBC radio BC noontime phone-in show, they had on a guest political expert to answer questions. Before taking calls, the expert gave detailed facts and figures on how when the NDP were the BC government about ten to fifteen years ago, they were more fiscally (small c) conservative than the current provincial Liberal government which ran on a platform of fiscal conservativeness. The expert appeared to try to be impartial, explaining that the good economic times during the NDP government were not entirely the result of NDP government policy, and that the current BC Liberal government deficit was in part (but not completely) due to economic factors beyond its control. Despite the expert having proven that an NDP government is not necessarily a problem for business and industry, the first caller to phone in went on an extended rant about how an NDP government can not possibly be tolerated because it would mean the provincial economy immediately going to hell in a hand basket.

Re:Much more solid way of removing that

[Samalie]

I'm afraid you're entirely incorrect in regards to the Canadian legislation.

As it is worded, you have the right to timeshift, formatshift, etc to your heart's content UNLESS there is a digital lock on the original.

IF there is a digital lock of ANY sort, you still technically have the right to timeshift, format shoft, etc, but in order to do so you will have to commit an illegal act to do so (circumventing the digital lock).

Now, IANAL, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with legitimately purchasing media and then downloading a DRM-free copy from torrent_site_01...in that case, YOU are not (personally) circumventing the digital lock.

DVDs

[hendrikboom]

You don't need to break the digital lock to copy DVDs. After copying, you will have a DRM'd copy.

-- hendrik

Re:DVDs

[DarwinSurvivor]

The legislation doesn't say break, it says circumvent. If you are able to copy the disk (which is what the DRM attempts to prevent) by copying the DRM as well, then you effectively circumvented it.

Re:DVDs

[hendrikboom]

Wow. This gets obscure. It all depends on just what circumvent is taken to mean. The DRM on DVDs was designed to prevent one from using a DVD from one region in another. Copying the entire DVD does not circumvent that. The copy still cannot be used in another region. To use the DVD in another region you actually have to break the encryption.

It's not clear how a court would interpret the word.

Copying it may, of course, still be a copyright violation whether a lock has been circumvented or not.

Re:DVDs

[YodasEvilTwin]

No, it's very clear what circumvent means in a legal context, which is exactly the regular definition of the word. As precendent shows clearly, bypassing = circumventing.

Re:DVDs

[DarwinSurvivor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the region coding has anything to do with the encryption, I believe that's on a reserved part of the disk and only the data itself is encrypted.

Re:DVDs

[hendrikboom]

The decryption key is on the DVD, but it's encrypted many times using the various encryption keys entrusted to various manufacturere. This way, if a manufacturer breaks the rules, it's just deleted from future DVDs and its equipment becomes useless for new DVDs.

I don't know where thet region key is actually stored.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[thoromyr]

you are wrong. the DMCA in no way requires the measure be effective. You are only allowed to circumvent measures if doing so does not create other crimes and you defeat it by yourself without assistance or instruction. In other words, using the library available for linux to decrypt a dvd is an illegal circumvention. The only case I've seen where this addressed by a judge it was found to be a sufficient exception.

Perhaps to you the "circumvention exception" demonstrates "lack of effective" but in that case you are simply living in the same world as the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/ESA lawyers. Congrats. The rest of us would appreciate being able to *legally* time shift/format shift content.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[anethema]

It does:

“technological protection measure” means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation,

(a) controls access to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; or

(b) restricts the doing — with respect to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording — of any act referred to in section 3, 15 or 18 and any act for which remuneration is payable under section 19.

Unlocking legal now.

[anethema]

Not sure how I or anyone missed this, but was reading through the bill and noticed a paragraph basically making sure unlocking was legal. Also made sure to include unlocking services for others was legal as well:

41.18 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply to a person who circumvents a technolog- ical protection measure on a radio apparatus for the sole purpose of gaining access to a telecommunications service by means of the radio apparatus.

(2) Paragraphs 41.1(1)(b) and (c) do not apply to a person who offers the services to the public or provides the services, or manufactures, imports or provides the technology, device or component, for the sole purpose of facilitating access to a telecommunications service by means of a radio apparatus.

Re:Unlocking legal now.

[anethema]

I mean unlocking telephones of course. Sorry if it was confusing.

Re:fuck harper

[J Story]

this and other stuff means with wont have to deal with harper again!

I hope the ndp removes it completely.

also the maximum fine of 5000$ is that per work? or a lump sum for all infringement I could not tell from the wording

If you had read the article closely, according to Geist the $5,000 is for all non-commercial infringement. We'll have to wait to see how everything pans out, but it seems to me that as long as you "infringe" for personal use and don't commit a crime that draws attention to yourself, you should be safe from harrassment.

Re:Much more solid way of removing that

[Altrag]

You do NOT have to break DRM to time-shift or backup digital media. The 0's and 1's will copy just as well regardless of whether they encode a digital lock or not.

Of course, it limits your ability to do so to same-format / same-media copies. Which essentially only makes it useful for CDs and DVDs (and maybe some day Blurays).. but still, its technically doable in some fashion :P.

Format-shifting and all other uses require breaking the DRM and thus are illegal of course.

What will it take for governments to change?

[jonwil]

What will it take for governments to STOP listening to the big media companies on issues like 3-strikes, anti-circumvention, website take-downs (the kind that happen without due process or any independent validation that yes, the site is doing something illegal) and other stuff?
Or is there no government willing to challenge the power of the media juggernauts?

Re:Much more solid way of removing that

[DarwinSurvivor]

Except that those locks are designed to prevent you from copying the media. So if you copy the DVD/CD (even 1:1 bitwise), you have technically circumvented the lock (notice the legislation says circumvent, not break!)

Re:fuck harper

[DarwinSurvivor]

You didn't answer the question. If I copy 2 cd's, is that a $5000 infringement, a $10,000 infringement (2 cds) or a $100,000 infringement (2 cds X 10 tracks each)?

Also, once you pay the $5000, are you now allowed to keep the content? If so, trading 2TB drives full of material (and then paying the fine), may become cheaper than buying the material in the first place!

Re:Much more solid way of removing that

[Altrag]

Nope, the lock is still perfectly in tact on the new copy.

Of course whether a judge will agree with such technicalities is another story, but the lock isn't touched in the slightest by copying a DVD or CD. If you can't play the original, you also can't play the copy.

Future technologies might change that of course, if the media companies can ever convince hardware manufacturers to implement some sort of do-not-copy flag that's respected across the board. If that ever happens, then making the copy would implicitly require breaking the (hardware-based) DRM. And its not entirely implausible. We've seen other DRM technology implemented across the board by all manufacturers (DVD region locking, for example.) But current technology doesn't include such a flag (hm. At least up to DVD. Not entirely sure about Bluray now that I think about it.)

Re:Much more solid way of removing that

[DarwinSurvivor]

Did you even read my comment? Or do you not understand the difference between "break" and "circumvent"? If you take a chain-saw to a locked door, you have "broken" the door. If you climb in through the open window beside it, you have "circumvented" it.

is this legal?

[peawormsworth]

Currently, I record unlocked TV signals in HD over antenna. I record these to a computer. The computer then processes the shows to mark the commercials. When I play back the content, the player is instructed to use the markers to skip this portion of the content. Note that no portion of the original show is deleted or edited... I mean it has commercials, I just choose not to see them. Is this legal or illegal?

I remind you that I do not have cable or satellite and I am not paying for these programs or agreeing to the delivery and recording rules of a broadcast company

If the above is illegal... then I wonder would it be legal to manually edit the freely broadcast and recorded shows myself to remove commercials in order to archive them to watch in the future without dated advertising. Would this be legal?

If both are illegal (skipping commercials or manually removing them)... then would it be legal for me to take the recorded content and instead cut the commercial content out and store that separate from the original program? I mean can I save commercials separate from the TV program?

If all of the above is illegal in ur opinion... then is it legal for me to record only 1/2 of a program. Say if I missed the first hour of a show and then just record and store the last hour... is that legal?

Maybe this bill has nothing to say about the above senarios. But I would like to know whether I am doing something that is about to become illegal. Also... as far as I can tell, all of the above senarios are exactly the same thing.