Copyright bill would ban breaking digital locks

[Andrew]

Copyright bill would ban breaking digital locks

In Canada

This is the 3rd time this bill has been introduced. First by liberals, then Conservatives.

So let's say you go buy a DVD, and it has DRM on it. But you have a 10 year old DVD player that can't play the DRM. So you want to try and watch it using VLC and/or bypass the DRM somehow so you can watch it. Now you are a criminal and can pay a fine up to $5000.

Will media have big warning labels on it to say it has DRM that you can not legally get around, and list exactly what devices/software can legally play it?

Bought a video that uses DRM that checks into a server in order to play? When server is deactivated, you can not try to find a way around it to play your video.

Sounds like I might have to vote for Pirate Party of Canada in next election to secure my freedoms.

Save me Michael Geist!!

I think he was the one who saved us back in 2005 (or maybe it was 2008).

[Mahdi]

But Andrew, all you'd have to do is go out buy buy a brand new, state of the art Blue Ray player, hook it up to your wireless network (don't have that?  Go buy a router!) which is connected to the internet (Don't have that?  Subscribe!  In an area that doesn't have highspeed?  Pay $400 to have an antenna attached tot he top of your house for it!  Then Subscribe!) and then download the latest patch that will allow you to play your blue rays on your blue ray player.  It's that simple! 

Unless the company you bought your blue ray player from sin't associated with every movie studio making movies you like, then you might have to do that two or three times to watch all of your favourite movies...

[Andrew]

Yah, I hear the blu-ray DRM is a piece of shit. You need to constantly upgrade the firmware in order to watch your movies, and at any time they could probably kill the ability to watch them.

From michael geist link

new BitTorrent provision which establishes infringement for providing services via the Internet that a person knows or should have known is designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement

So using bit torrent will become illegal.

ISP sees you using too much bandwidth? Lose your connection.

Stock up on media before this takes place...

From CTV news article

Under the proposed changes, removing a technological lock in order to transfer legally acquired copyright material, such as CDs or DVDs, onto multiple digital devices would become a violation.

Want to watch that DRM DVD you bought on your portable video player (or smartphone)? Pay a fine. Want to play DRM mp3 on non DRM capable mp3 player? Pay a fine.

But on CTV's Power Play later Wednesday, Clement said the reforms are designed to target large-scale violators of copyright law, rather than individuals who may download an occasional song.

Well then specify exactly how many an occasional song is. If I download occasional song illegally, should I get a lawyer? Use software/hardware encryption on all devices to protect myself?

"We are working with the copyright holders and the creators and the artists to go after the big guys and gals," Clement said. "The ones that are putting millions of movies or millions of songs online, destroying the value completely by doing so -- that's where we want to target."

Why not ask these media companies to offer their content for sale on the internet so I can buy it? Oh wait, the 'content' is advertisers (TV).

So where can I purchase in non DRM digital file online of the new 1080p LotR blu-ray that is coming out? Difficulty: Linux (and definitely no itunes)

What's that? you're not going to sell me in that format in that distribution method? But the pirates are offering it for FREE!

I think this will make VLC illegal in Canada. Since it can play DVD without paying DVD license etc.

[Mahdi]

VLC  works tons better than any actual DVD playing software I've ever had on my comp.  It's crazy stuff like that could end up being "outlawed".

Did you hear about the producer of the hurt locker who said he was going to sue "tens of thousands" of people for downloading the movie?  It's down to 5000 now.  Still a huge number, but not nearly as big as three weeks ago.  I wonder what happened.

I work from home.  I use a ton of bandwidth in my regular job and spend a great deal of time streaming LEGAL shows from ctv, global, city, etc.  So does that mean my internet will cut my bandwidth in case I'm using bit torrent?

[Andrew]

VLC  works tons better than any actual DVD playing software I've ever had on my comp.  It's crazy stuff like that could end up being "outlawed".

VLC 1.1 should be out sometime soon (RC1 released 1 week ago). With lots of improvements.

Also possible that in linux (ubuntu) if you install some software to play mp3 etc, that would be illegal. I'm pretty sure it is technically illegal in USA due to DMCA.

Did you hear about the producer of the hurt locker who said he was going to sue "tens of thousands" of people for downloading the movie?  It's down to 5000 now.  Still a huge number, but not nearly as big as three weeks ago.  I wonder what happened.

Yep, they were all in USA. I'm not sure if that can happen in Canada (if law passed), or if Hurt locker complains to isp, isp give out our info, hurt locker tells gov, then we pay gov fine?

Or do we pay person suing us directly with our fine? This should do a good job of clogging our court system. Will there be a clause that if your network is not secured you can not use the excuse that someone must have leeched your network to download/upload copyright infringed material?

Did you hear

I work from home.  I use a ton of bandwidth in my regular job and spend a great deal of time streaming LEGAL shows from ctv, global, city, etc.  So does that mean my internet will cut my bandwidth in case I'm using bit torrent?

I'm not sure exactly. Will have to wait for the law pdf to be released at parliament website.

My guess is if you have torrent program open, using encryption, maxing bandwidth nonstop, they can cut you off for fear you are engaging in copyright infringement. Although every ISP already has clauses stating you won't clog their tubes in your contract.

With streaming  media, and increase in bandwidth usage the media companies (and ISP) will cry a lot about people using too much bandwidth. I'm sure if I had youtube video loading nonstop 24/7/365 the ISP would complain. Even though they never explicitly state how much bandwidth you are allowed.

[Mahdi]

I made sure when I signed up for mine that the bandwidth was unlimited.  That was one of the terms before I paid my $300 set up fee and signed up for a 3 year $55/month contract for "highs  peed" internet that is slower than my light cable internet ever was (and is currently slower than when I use my Blackerry to connect to the internet and go on Rogers 3G network).

[Tatar Khan]

Well the law has few good things in too. Lets say you buy the ebook online well apparently under old laws transfering it to your computer was illegal. Using Steam, Direct2Drive, GamersGate or GOG is also illegal under current interpretation too. Putting mp3 on your iPhone is copyright infringement too right now. The fact is that most of these things were kind not enforced.

As for bandwith and ISP, well for me I have 60GB limit per month on downloads and uploads and if I go over there is extra charge. Also if you start going really high in bandwith use they will throttle me down. Also the packets of p2p programs are being identified and slowled down too.

About 5 years ago they would just have cut me of for a day or two completely.

Don't forget that ISP guys have to protect themselves too. I think last legislation stated that if a pedofile downloads child pornography than ISP is also criminally liable because it passes through their servers and therefore they act as distributor and producer of child pornography. So they know that industry lobby can say how is it different with copyrighted media. If pirated media passes through ISP servers than ISP should be held liable because it acts as distributor here like in the other law. This actually could even pass under equity theory of law. an 18 years old pirate who dowloads and uploads games, music and movies could be sued in court for damages (which ussually is large amount) but he would be hardly able to pay however ISPs have the mney to pay such damages.

[Andrew]

Well, the worst part about current legislation is being illegal to circumvent DRM. If they got rid of that, then it wouldn't be so bad. Not being allowed to use your devices/media that you legally purchased in any way you choose (for personal use) is bad for consumers. And if this part did pass, I would expect every device/media to have even more strict DRM since legally nobody could circumvent it.

In one of the articles, it states that broadcasters can insert DRM(flag) to a show, so if you have recorded it for later viewing, they can delete it at any time from your device.

Bill C-32 - Content online. Now to read it.

simple question: Would this make 'unlocked' smartphones illegal? Basically to buy a phone not tied to a service provider? What about changing the OS on it. Say a smartphone comes with camera, but the OS doesn't have access to camera yet, and I put custom OS/firmware on it or find a way to enable it. Would this be illegal?

Hmm, based upon section 41.1(1)C, this would be illegal

© manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale or rental or provide — including by selling or renting — any technology, device or component if

(i) the technology, device or component is designed or produced primarily for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure,

(ii) the uses or purposes of the technology, device or component are not commercially significant other than when it is used for the purposes of circumventing a technolog- ical protection measure, or

(iii) the person markets the technology, device or component as being for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure or acts in concert with another person in order to market the technology, device or component as being for those purposes.

Would circumventing itunes to sync mp3 on ipod be illegal (use non apple software to sync ipod music)? Know how it is a cat and mouse game between apple and other software makers that try to access ipods.

Ahh, yes another great example: Section 29.24 Backup copies

29.24 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter for a person who owns — or has a licence to use — a copy of the work or subject-matter (in this section referred to as the “source copy”) to reproduce the source copy if

(a) the person does so solely for backup purposes in case the source copy is lost, damaged or otherwise rendered unusable;

(b) the source copy is not an infringing copy;

© the person, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection meas- ure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; and

(d) the person does not give any of the reproductions away.

Section A = good

Section B = good

Section C = OMG WTF? So I have 3 Dune DVD sets. Let's say one of them has DRM on it (I have no idea, but I guess I better check before I am made a criminal). It would be illegal for me to circumvent that in order to back it up. So should people go backing up all their DRM media now before it is illegal?

Section D: Hmm, so what if I make backup copy, and let someone borrow source? Example: I make backup of my Dune DVDs, then lend out my source (originals). That legal? But illegal to lend out my backups? I'd rather keep my source safe (say packaging etc valued more than blank dvd copy), and lend out my backup. Note I am lending out my backup, not selling/renting or giving away.

Section 29.22

29.22  (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if

(a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;

(b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;

© the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;

(d) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and

(e) the reproduction is used only for private purposes.

part C: Once again, DRM will prevent consumers from doing what they want with their media. Therefor media companies will put DRM on every piece of media possible, forcing the user to purchase the same item over and over to be able to play it on any device they wish.

So let's say I'm a media corporation. Put DRM on everything, and force user to buy a version of my product for every device. Maybe enter into an agreement with say Apple that puts DRM on it so it will only work on iphone/ipad. someone tries using that version on windows/linux, they're a criminal.

So would 'jailbreaking' iphone be illegal? Must use apple DRM on their product?

EDIT:

I remember Handbrake used to have DRM (DVD decryption) circumventing stuff included, but they removed it.

So now if you have DVD with encryption (DRM), you can not backup. You can not use on other devices. Every piece of media will have this.

Bought the latest release dvd/blu-ray, and it comes with DRM? Want to watch on your ipod/ipad? Have to purchase digital file from itunes.

If I am a manufacturer of a hardware device (netbook/smartphone/graphics card) and I include DRM to limit what my product is capable of (to possibly segment market, force people to buy more expensive product or force lockin), or possibly limit what software or operating system can be installed/used, and person decides to use custom firmware/software/OS to bypass these limitations, is this illegal?

[Gruntlord6]

Well, the worst part about current legislation is being illegal to circumvent DRM. If they got rid of that, then it wouldn't be so bad. Not being allowed to use your devices/media that you legally purchased in any way you choose (for personal use) is bad for consumers. And if this part did pass, I would expect every device/media to have even more strict DRM since legally nobody could circumvent it.

very few laws make it through Parliament without having the crap modified out of them, if at all.

[Wolf]

The U.S. copyright code already contains an exception for circumvention of DRM for programs whose DRM protocols cause the software/device to fail due to the obsolescence of one or the other:

"(f) Reverse Engineering.--

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title."

From 17 U.S.C.S. 1201. I'm surprised that Canada lacks such an exception? (Though, to be fair, a lot of us think that someone snuck a gamer into some Congressperson's staff.)

[athanasios]

Am I a moron to buy a copy protected media that needs access to the internet to wok? Then how will I keep my collection when the company goes bankrupt after 2 or 3 years or stop support because they like so or because they were bought over by another company that doesn't care a s***?

P*** off! Who cares? 'You can always 'buy' from pirates for free'!

[SandChigger]

Admirable.

Isn't piracy a form of theft? And isn't theft a sin?

My, my, What Would Jebus Do? :)

[Tatar Khan]

Andrew you got to consider the fact that some laws are made not excatly to completely stop certain activity but maybe to reduce it. Hard to explain but here is an example:

Ontario recently passed a use of cell phone in the car while driving law. You can't be driving and texting or holding your cell phone to your ear or your are fined. Reason for the law the conversation ont he cell phone is a distracting person from driving. However, having things such as bluetooth or in car phone (OnStar style) or other hands free device is fine. But are they not distracting either? Isn't a child that sitting in the backsit and talking to you is distructing or a person on the passenger seat next to you? Well the lawmakers know this but they also know that not everyone has bluetooth or hands free device (and not everyone going to go and buy one now) and not everyone has a child or a passenger in the car all the time. But almsot everyone has a cell phone and so the idea is to reduce the amount of distracted drivers by banning the cell phone in the car.

Same with the current legislation on Copyrights, this will reduce the amount of people outputting pirated material however it will hardly stop people who consume it from using it and finding ways to break it. Otherwise such tools as DAEMON Tools and Alchol 120% would not exist. If the government was really into stopping piracy that they could just do a door to door search I am sure they can put half the country in jail for illegal Windows and Windows Office programs copies.

Section D: Hmm, so what if I make backup copy, and let someone borrow source? Example: I make backup of my Dune DVDs, then lend out my source (originals). That legal? But illegal to lend out my backups? I'd rather keep my source safe (say packaging etc valued more than blank dvd copy), and lend out my backup. Note I am lending out my backup, not selling/renting or giving away.

Well without this part of the bill I can run the following business. I take my DVD and computer game collection and than lend the back up copies to my

[Mahdi]

Tartar:  If the Ontario Liberals had completely gotten there way in there recent distracted driving legislation two teenagers wouldn't be allowed in the same car at once if one of them was driving.  I understand what you are saying, but it's a bad example.

[Andrew]

@ Tartar_Kahn

If you bought Dune DVD for $30, and it contains DRM (of course this isn't shown on the packaging/label/info, and a list of devices supported is not listed), which prevents easy access to rip/convert to put on your smartphone. Should the user have to legally go and purchase portable version for smartphones?

What if you have an iphone, and your significant other has android and thus even if you purchased portable edition, it wouldn't work on different devices due to DRM compatibility?

Basically you have to purchase a piece of media for every single device you own. And if you decide to change OS (or device), you can't even play the media.

Now I have to repurchase all my media to play on any device I expect prices to fall for every purchase. Of course that has barely happened yet.

If we are being forced to 'rent' media then I want renting prices. None of this full price crap and not allow to put on other devices.

Another example.

You buy CD for $10. Contains DRM. Not legally allowed to rip to put on smartphone.

What if you buy a cell phone, and the OS forces you to purchase 'ringtones' from only manufacturer or service provider store because it has DRM preventing you from simply uploading music (ringtones) you already own? What if your friend created a ringtone and DRM on device/OS did not allow you to use that ringtone because it was not 'signed' (aka not sold) by service provider? Bypassing this would be illegal.

Sure the new laws are being made to stop bad pirates. But it is also taking away consumer rights with not being allowed to circumvent DRM on media/devices they already own. Maybe the question is whether we own the media/devices. Guess they should decide that before making this law. But with there being infinite products, and various levels of DRM, it would be impossible to define.

So they should get rid of that clause. Because if they keep it and say they are only targeting the big pirates that circumvent DRM, then we have to define what makes a person break the law enough times in order to warrant a fine? Would it be illegal for me to have a tech shop where I offer my services to take DRM DVD people own, and create portable edition of video for their specific portable device (or backup services if they are not smart enough to do on their own)? Let's assume my customers must show receipts of their product to insure they legally own it. Still illegal?

With this law in place can we expect to be searched at various places (border/airports), and must have proof that every piece of media we have on device is ours? To make sure it wasn't pirated or that we circumvented DRM in order to get off of physical product (DVD->video file, or blu-ray->video file, CD->mp3 collection etc).

"Hold up citizen, this form of digital file on your smartphone wasn't sold by the creator, thus you must have circumvented DRM, I'll write you up a ticket".

EDIT:

People who text and drive are just as likely to crash as drunk drivers.

I can understand banning cell phones in vehicles, as it is distracting, but obviously if you are using one hand to hold phone, that makes it more difficult to have control of car. Yes talking over bluetooth in earpiece is still distracting, but at least you don't have to worry about finding your phone to pick it up when it rings, or holding it. Press a button on earpiece and start talking.

[athanasios]

Isn't piracy a form of theft? And isn't theft a sin?

Matthew 10:8:

... Freely you have received, freely give.

Luke 3:11:

John answered, "Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same."

[Andrew]

A Detailed Look at Bill C-32

[Tatar Khan]

Now I have to repurchase all my media to play on any device I expect prices to fall for every purchase. Of course that has barely happened yet.

If we are being forced to 'rent' media then I want renting prices. None of this full price crap and not allow to put on other devices.

Well while the price reduction is interesting suggestion, it is practically impossible because of inability to verify if person purchased something or not.

Well they could say that if you want the portable edition that it would be even more expensive, it is the same argument the game developers use now with digital download add-on stuff. If person likes it enough they will buy the digital stuff but if the person did not like it at least he paid less.

Sure the new laws are being made to stop bad pirates. But it is also taking away consumer rights with not being allowed to circumvent DRM on media/devices they already own. Maybe the question is whether we own the media/devices. Guess they should decide that before making this law. But with there being infinite products, and various levels of DRM, it would be impossible to define.

Not necessarily they would just have to create list of the conditions of what constitutes a product or service for media and that is all

Ex. If it requires constant internet connection to use the media or it requires the internet connection at beginning of the use of the media , or media has a limited period use input in it (like Overdrive Library) than it is a service.

If the media is available through the physical component and can be physically carried around than it is a product.

Than the common law courts will create all the necessary interpretation and sub committees will put in all the necessary regulations.

So they should get rid of that clause. Because if they keep it and say they are only targeting the big pirates that circumvent DRM, then we have to define what makes a person break the law enough times in order to warrant a fine? Would it be illegal for me to have a tech shop where I offer my services to take DRM DVD people own, and create portable edition of video for their specific portable device (or backup services if they are not smart enough to do on their own)? Let's assume my customers must show receipts of their product to insure they legally own it. Still illegal?

Well the law will say it is illegal period but than law enforcement won

[Andrew]

Well the law will say it is illegal period but than law enforcement won

[athanasios]

[Me tempted by your post to download it.

Let me see the critics...

Blah, yet another USA propaganda movie. They should pay you to watch it.]

Now I am wondering if the requirement to connect to the web to watch/play/listen/etc

might create more abandonware stuff. If the company doesn't support it anymore how can they claim that you are stealing them? That's a legal issue and some willing lawyers will fill their pockets...

[Tatar Khan]

Will Canada see what happens in the USA where the media companies sue dead people, 9 years olds, grandmothers, and people who don't have internet connections?

As my law professor used to say, you can sue anyone you want, it just what matters if you win. So yes they can sue in civil courts the dead people (their estate), 9 years olds (and get compensation paid to them in Pokemons), grandmothers and people with no internet connections.

They happily sue anyone who downloads media illegally. Will they be able to do that in Canada? Or do they just provide proof of it to a government agency that imposes fines to the person?

In USA 5000 people are being sued for downloading Hurt Locker. Can we expect that to start happening in Canada for individual downloader

[Mahdi]

Well now, in a surprising development, Global, along with streaming current and past TV shows on their website, has started streaming movies.

http://www.globaltv.com/video/index.html#global+movies

CTV has streamed their own made for TV movies for awhile, but this is the first I've seen a TV station streaming actual hollywood films online.

[Andrew]

If the bill passes, and a cell phone company puts DRM on the phone to prevent you from switching to another service provider, and you decide to circumvent the DRM, that would be illegal.

Phone companies will love this bill as it means they can legally lock your phone to their service.

What if I sent my DRM phone to the states (or offshore), and someone unlocked it? What about purchasing unlocked phones? All illegal because DRM was circumvented? Is putting custom firmware on phones illegal since I'd be wiping DRM off the phone?

omg boyz n the hood!? awesome. Boo advertisements played before each segment of video (7 parts wtf). Quality worse than DVD. 2.0 sound anyone know?

I see I'm set to use medium bandwidth, how do you change that? I assume it affects quality.

Looks nice, but still has lots of flaws. At least they are trying (about 5 years too late though).

[Mahdi]

HD versions of the films are available, but only if your internet is a certain speed that you and I cannot get since we live in rural areas.  I don't mind the commercials - they've got to get some income somehow to support it.

Yes, it is too little too late but at least it is an attempt.  This is a new Global video player - the old one was replaced a couple months ago.  It really sucked.  I couldn't use it most of the time, it would keep freezing or disconnecting.  CTV, on the other hand, has used the same video player for years now and I've hardly ever had problems with it.  Once in awhile it will disconnect and I'll have to start the segment over again, but it's format to restart segments is much nicer than even the current Global/CBC/city set up.

I heard there was legislation coming in that would force telecommunications companies to sell unlocked versions of each phone they carry, to counteract the issues you are writing about.

[Andrew]

The NDP introduced that legislation. Doubt it would pass. Since it would hurt profit margins. Maybe if they make it an election issue, they'll get some votes.

NDP bill aims to unlock cellphones