Revival of our DMCA

Update: On April 17th 2007 I changed the wording to make the distinction between C-60 and the new bill clearer. I also highlighted part of the exerpt from the Q&A.

Update 2: On April 27th 2007 I added a link to Excess Copyright which contains a section of the Hill Times report.

Well, it looks like Bill C-60 is returning in a new form. Looking back on the original, it protected DRM and was thought to essentially eliminate private copying. Documents circulated among MPs are available and the Q&A provides a quick overview for those already familiar with the previous bill.

That is, the circumvention of a TM applied to copyrighted material will only be illegal if it is carried out with the objective of infringing copyright. Legitimate access, as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered. … Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.

Also of interest is the legislative summary.

… Section 80(1) of the Copyright Act gives consumers the right to make copies of music recordings for personal use, for example by converting CDs to MP3s so that they can be played on I-pods without the consumers’ having to pay for the same song twice. The anti-circumvention rule set out in subsection 34.02(1) would seem to render the right to make personal copies under section 80(1) virtually useless, since it is likely that all future CDs and DVDs will be protected by technological measures.

…

The bill makes it illegal for anyone other than the copyright holder to place a music file in a shared folder on a computer to which other users of a file-sharing program have access. Thus it will be illegal to upload music files onto on-line shared directories, as is the case when using KaZaa or BitTorrent, unless the person uploading the material is the rights holder of that material. Downloading music files for personal, non-commercial use remains legal under Bill C-60.

The old bill annoyed me. It would have neutered private copying thanks to DRM, made librarians into digital locksmiths, and extended copyright even further. The worst part is the MPs were aware that private copying would be virtually useless. I hope that the trend they predicted is wrong and I’m given hope by some labels recently deciding to go DRM-free.

I’m probably in the minority of young Canadians because I don’t mind the closing of unauthorized file sharing. That’s fine with me. Now get rid of the levy. I’ll buy my singles unDRMed from iTunes, eMusic, Magnatune, Nettwerk and many others that’re cropping up while also downloading freely licensed music and recording internet radio. Some creators have the courtesy to let me enjoy their work on whatever device I see fit without me having to pay over and over.

There is one good thing that came from C-60 and that should be put in place in the new bill. Liability of ISPs would finally be clarified, with notice-and-notice minimizing collatoral damage done by infringement seeking robots. We can’t get enough about robots. Rather than an ISP being forced to block allegedly infringing content they’d merely be required to pass on notices that were sent. That means that no obviously false allegations would result in content being taken down.

As Russel McOrmond points out the new bill isn’t known by the public yet. Everything up until this point is speculation based upon an article from The Hill Times which still isn’t available, not even behind a paywall. [update: Excess Copyright has a snippet.] Michael Geist summarizes it by explaining that the new bill is similar in reach to C-60 but with two important differences: “tougher anti-circumvention legislation (ie. DMCA-style laws that ban devices that can be used to circumvent as well as provisions that block all circumvention subject to the odd exception) and an educational exception that will provide for free access to web-based materials.”

More details on the old bill can be found at killbillc60.ca. I plan on heading to Copynight to glean a better understanding of this.

In the meantime, please turn your attention to two petitions circulated by Digital Copyright: The user’s rights petition and the petition to protect property rights in Information Technology.