I'm working on a letter to my MP and Senator to fix the digital lock issue. This is the argument I'm fleshing out. Feedback is appreciated:
Regarding digital locks, in an earlier version of the bill called C-60, they had the completely reasonable position that circumventing digital locks would only infringe if the circumvention was done to further an infringing act. If you broke the lock to exercise your fair dealing rights, that would not be infringement.
The WIPO lawyers argued that wasn't the intention of the Internet treaties we signed, but I think that's bullshit. A marketing campaign after the fact about the possible intention of the law doesn't matter; only what's written and how it would be reasonably interpreted to achieve its stated aims.
The WIPO treaties explicitly allow for fair dealing and fair use restrictions on the rights granted to copyright holders. Further, they only demand that digital locks are protected to enforce rights of the copyright holders.
However, clearly the rights of the copyright holders are limited by the fair dealing provisions (1), and therefore the digital locks don't need to be enforced where they prevent non-infringing uses.
(1) If you don't get this, it's important to remember that rights and freedoms are never unlimited. We have freedom of expression in Canada, but that is reasonably limited when that expression causes harm to society, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or hate speech or even reporting election results early. The full right isn't the one paragraph that grants "freedom of expression" in the Charter, but that paragraph limited by the reasonable restrictions around it.
Similarly, copyrights are not the simple paragraph descriptions like "right to control copies", but the full right as limited by fair dealing.
Therefore, when WIPO only asks for enforcement of digital locks that protect the rights of copyright holders, that requirement is limited by fair dealing.
Regarding digital locks, in an earlier version of the bill called C-60, they had the completely reasonable position that circumventing digital locks would only infringe if the circumvention was done to further an infringing act. If you broke the lock to exercise your fair dealing rights, that would not be infringement.
The WIPO lawyers argued that wasn't the intention of the Internet treaties we signed, but I think that's bullshit. A marketing campaign after the fact about the possible intention of the law doesn't matter; only what's written and how it would be reasonably interpreted to achieve its stated aims.
The WIPO treaties explicitly allow for fair dealing and fair use restrictions on the rights granted to copyright holders. Further, they only demand that digital locks are protected to enforce rights of the copyright holders.
However, clearly the rights of the copyright holders are limited by the fair dealing provisions (1), and therefore the digital locks don't need to be enforced where they prevent non-infringing uses.
(1) If you don't get this, it's important to remember that rights and freedoms are never unlimited. We have freedom of expression in Canada, but that is reasonably limited when that expression causes harm to society, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or hate speech or even reporting election results early. The full right isn't the one paragraph that grants "freedom of expression" in the Charter, but that paragraph limited by the reasonable restrictions around it.
Similarly, copyrights are not the simple paragraph descriptions like "right to control copies", but the full right as limited by fair dealing.
Therefore, when WIPO only asks for enforcement of digital locks that protect the rights of copyright holders, that requirement is limited by fair dealing.