[kwlug-disc] Yesterday in C-32 news

[Paul Nijjar]

On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 02:54:22PM -0400, Chris Irwin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 14:26, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
> >> Of course, freely available content such as Die Beauty or Nina Paley's
> >> movie or Allison Crowe's music can be shared and distributed, so uploading
> >> that is a yes-yes.
> >
> > As is, of course, Linux distros available as torrents! (-:
> 
> Are we allowed to distribute tools to bypass "digital locks"?

Looking at the bill again, I am again wondering whether we may have
some of the protections we are asking for. 

The relevant section of the bill is 41.12: 

======

41.12 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)(a) does not apply to a person who owns a
computer program or a copy of one, or has a licence to use the program
or copy, and who circumvents a technological protection measure that
protects that program or copy for the sole purpose of obtaining
information that would allow the person to make the program and any
other computer program interoperable.

(2) Paragraph 41.1(1)(b) does not apply to a person who offers
services to the public or provides services for the purposes of
circumventing a technological protection measure if the person does so
for the purpose of making the computer program and any other computer
program interoperable.

(3) Paragraph 41.1(1)(c) does not apply to a person who manufactures,
imports or provides a technology, device or component for the purposes
of circumventing a technological protection measure if the person does
so for the purpose of making the computer program and any other
computer program interoperable and
		
  (a) uses that technology, device or component only for that purpose; or
		
  (b) provides that technology, device or component to another person
  only for that purpose.

(4) A person referred to in subsection (1) may communicate the
information obtained under that subsection to another person for the
purposes of allowing that person to make the computer program and any
other computer program interoperable.

(5) A person to whom the technology, device or component referred to
in subsection (3) is provided or to whom the information referred to
in subsection (4) is communicated may use it only for the purpose of
making the computer program and any other computer program
interoperable.

(6) However, a person is not entitled to benefit from the exceptions
under subsections (1) to (3) or (5) if, for the purposes of making the
computer program and any other computer program interoperable, the
person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright.
	
(7) Furthermore, a person is not entitled to benefit from the
exception under subsection (4) if, for the purposes of making the
computer program and any other computer program interoperable, the
person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright or an
act that contravenes any Act of Parliament or any Act of the
legislature of a province.

======

We know that this does not protect Linux users who want to watch DVDs
or Blu-Ray users on their machines. DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are not
computer programs. 

This also does not address the concern that every party in the debate
conveniently ignores: DRM can be broken, and even broken DRM is
protected under the law according to this legislation. This creates
two classes of copyright, which is a big problem. 

Having said that: Sections (3) and (4) may be the protections I was
hoping for.  provided that the relevant libraries count as either
information or a technology. So maybe you will still be allowed to
interface your iPod to Linux, which is an important step. (You may
even be allowed to write and distribute a Netflix client for Linux if
one does not exist already.)

What am I missing here? 

- Paul