>Message: 3 >Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 13:32:11 -0400 (EDT) >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [clug-talk] OT: Bill C61 Info >To: "CLUG General" <[email protected]> >Message-ID: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>> What catches my eye is the 'allow individuals to copy a range of >> legitimately aquired material to various devices they own.' >> >These 'rights' are there, but there is a HUGE catch-ya. You may only >perform said copying if the source material is not protected by a 'digital >lock'. >For example copying an audio cassette would be OK, copying a DVD (as it >most likely uses the CSS content/market protection scheme) would not.... >When applied to modern media, the distinction becomes even harder to >measure. >Simple copy protection on an audio CD might just be the presence of a data >track with 'special code' along side the audio. So does this mean that >holding shift down means you are breaking the digital lock? >Any application/code which breaks a 'digital lock', regardless of the >purpose, would become illegal to own/distrubute/etc.... >Simon. I find the provisions against tools for decrypting anything the most offensive. There will be many unintended consequences from these provisions, some of which are well documented in the USA. For example, a vendor of any electronic product can now put simple encryption on commands for a remote control device say for a TV or garage door opener and thus make 3rd party replacements for those devices illegal. I recently bought a generic remote for an older TV for $8 that the original vendor wanted $50 plus shipping. Imagine what they will charge once I cannot by a generic remote. This is just the beginning... Greg
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
