Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

HeartsOfFire · 06-03-2010, 02:31 PM

If it was brought up in earlier pages, I apologize:

I spent some time today going through Bill C-32 and its amendments to the current Copyright Act.

There are some good points, particularly how it allows the owner of a software license to modify said software for the purposes of improving compatability or strict private use. In fact, if it weren't for some unacceptable provisions, I would support it.

Alas, the implication that breaking digital locks serves as an automatic infringement on copyright is something I wholeheartedly disagree with and cannot abide in the slightest.

But then there's this interesting tidbit... Straight from the bill itself:

[Copyright ingringement] does not apply to a person who circumvents a technolog- ical protection measure if

(a) the work, performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording that is protected by the technological protection measure is not accompanied by a notice indicating that its use will permit a third party to collect and communicate personal information relating to the user or, in the case where it is accompanied by such a notice, the user is not provided with the option to prevent the collection and communication of personal information without the user’s use of it being restricted; and

(b) the only purpose of circumventing the technological protection measure is to verify whether it permits the collection or communication of personal information and, if it does, to prevent it.

So I interpret this as, if a media format has a digital lock on it, the producer of the media must a) inform you that its use will activate a means for a third party to collect personal information on you AND b) give you instructions on how to opt out of said information collection OR allow you to dictate how said personal information will be used..

Failure to abide means it's perfectly okay to circumvent any and all digital locks.

Am I right? Or is someone more versed in Legalese than I and could provide a better translation?

06-03-2010, 02:31 PM	#190
HeartsOfFire Lifetime Suspension Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bitter, jaded, cursing the fates. Exp:	If it was brought up in earlier pages, I apologize: I spent some time today going through Bill C-32 and its amendments to the current Copyright Act. There are some good points, particularly how it allows the owner of a software license to modify said software for the purposes of improving compatability or strict private use. In fact, if it weren't for some unacceptable provisions, I would support it. Alas, the implication that breaking digital locks serves as an automatic infringement on copyright is something I wholeheartedly disagree with and cannot abide in the slightest. But then there's this interesting tidbit... Straight from the bill itself: [Copyright ingringement] does not apply to a person who circumvents a technolog- ical protection measure if (a) the work, performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording that is protected by the technological protection measure is not accompanied by a notice indicating that its use will permit a third party to collect and communicate personal information relating to the user or, in the case where it is accompanied by such a notice, the user is not provided with the option to prevent the collection and communication of personal information without the user’s use of it being restricted; and (b) the only purpose of circumventing the technological protection measure is to verify whether it permits the collection or communication of personal information and, if it does, to prevent it. So I interpret this as, if a media format has a digital lock on it, the producer of the media must a) inform you that its use will activate a means for a third party to collect personal information on you AND b) give you instructions on how to opt out of said information collection OR allow you to dictate how said personal information will be used.. Failure to abide means it's perfectly okay to circumvent any and all digital locks. Am I right? Or is someone more versed in Legalese than I and could provide a better translation?