http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5097/125/
Quote:
Penalties are reduced for individuals who circumvent for personal purposes. Doesn't this solve the problem?
No. First, claims that reduced penalties removes the impediment to Canadians circumventing digital locks for personal purposes assumes that concern for statutory damages is the primary motivator for a particular action. I disagree. In the education world, teachers and students will not break the lock because academic guidelines will make it clear that they can't. Similarly, research will also be stifled in the same way since researchers sign ethics documents when they apply for grants that their research plan is compliant with all laws. They can't sign the document in this situation, regardless of the likelihood of damages.
Second, C-32 also makes the distribution and marketing of devices (ie. software) used to circumvent illegal. This suggests it will be more difficult to get those tools (and perhaps risky), so the notion that people will circumvent in light of lower penalties is undermined by the underground nature of being able to do so.
Third, from a bigger picture perspective, rights holders have been complaining for years that the public does not respect copyright. This bill is an attempt to revive respect for copyright by having the law better reflect current norms (and therefore make it more respectable). However, you do not build respect for copyright by creating provisions that outlaw something but have the government indirectly say it is acceptable to violate its new rule. C-32 should craft rules that generate support and acceptance in the public and thereby build support and acceptance for copyright more broadly.
|
That's a good point, reducing the penalties to make it unappealing for rights holders to sue people still doesn't make it legal.