I've heard back from my (kind of) MP, Peter Braid, he's said that: "On the other hand, there are several provisions that would allow for the circumvention of digital locks, which include: reverse engineering for software compatibility; encryption research; personal information protection; access for persons with perceptual disabilities; and unlocking wireless devices."
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. I'll copy the entire email blow, just for fun: ==== Dear Mr. Spaans, Thank you for your email regarding Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act. I appreciate hearing about issues of importance to constituents. To begin, it is important to note that the Copyright Modernization Act is distinct from legislation introduced in the United States, notably the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). For example, concerns have been raised about a website being shut down due to copyright infringement; however, there is no such provision included in Bill C-11. With regards to Canada's copyright legislation, I had the unique opportunity to be at the forefront of this important discussion as a member of the previous Legislative Committee on Bill C-32. This Committee received a diverse array of witnesses representing experts and Canadian stakeholders. Numerous submissions were received from all sides and I can assure you that they were taken into account during the course of discussion. On February 13, Bill C-11 was referred to the special Legislative Committee once again; as a member of this committee as well, I am quite aware of the extensive range of suggested amendments. The key objective of this legislation is to balance the interests of both consumers and creators of copyrighted materials. Having certain legal protections for digital locks, for example, brings Canada in line with international partners, as well as the requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet Treaties. Canadian jobs depend on the ability to make a return on investments, and now businesses that choose to use digital locks as part of their business model will have the protection of the law. These measures will in fact spur and reward innovation. On the other hand, there are several provisions that would allow for the circumvention of digital locks, which include: reverse engineering for software compatibility; encryption research; personal information protection; access for persons with perceptual disabilities; and unlocking wireless devices. The Government of Canada will also retain the ability, through regulatory power, to provide new exceptions to the digital lock prohibition to ensure access where the public interest might be served or where anti-competitive behaviour arises. With respect to copyright infringement on the Internet, Bill C-11 includes provisions to support the important role played by intermediary companies such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engines. For example, this legislation ensures that ISPs and search engines will not be held liable for the copyright infringements of their subscribers, to the extent that they are acting as neutral intermediaries (i.e. when they provide Internet access, allow users to download material they have stored in online personal storage space they control, or make temporary cached copies for network efficiency). Providing clear limitations on ISPs' liability will ensure that these companies can continue to provide users with open access to the dynamic online environment. Further, this bill formalizes the voluntary "notice and notice" regime currently used by Canadian ISPs. ISPs are often the only parties that can identify and warn subscribers accused of infringing copyright. Under this system, an ISP would receive notice from a copyright holder that a subscriber has allegedly infringed on copyright, and would then forward a notice to the subscriber. It is important to note that the identity of the subscriber may only be released with a court order. The "notice and notice" approach to addressing online infringement is unique to Canada, and helps ensure copyright owners can enforce their rights while respecting the interests and freedoms of users. I also support provisions within C-11 that will ensure technological neutrality moving forward, such as those for consumers and educators. For consumers, this includes: time and format shifting of legitimately acquired content; fair dealing as applied to copyrighted material if used for research, private study, education, parody or satire; and user-generated content for non-commercial purposes. Further, those at the forefront of Canada's education system, such as Paul Davidson, President of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), have shown support for Bill C-11's provisions regarding copyright for educational purposes. For more details, please see AUCC's September 29, 2011 media release at http://www.aucc.ca/media-room/news-and-commentary/?page=7&filter_year=0&r=5. It is important to note that a new requirement for a parliamentary review of the Copyright Act every five years will help to ensure technological neutrality, so that the law is more adaptable to the constantly-evolving technology environment. Through the re-introduction of this legislation without changes, our Government acknowledges the extensive analysis and comments that were provided on this issue in the last Parliament. I will continue to monitor this bill closely through my work with the committee, and I appreciate hearing from constituents on this important issue. If you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office. For more information, please visit www.balancedcopyright.gc.ca. Sincerely, Peter Braid, MP Kitchener-Waterloo _______________________________________________ fsfc-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfc-discuss
