Category:Val's Stuff

From low-art Gloominati

• When confronted with DMCA issues, the majority of people (both policy makers and voters) immediately think of music and video piracy, as this is the most popularized facet of the issues surrounding the subject of DMCA. Although the original intent of the DMCA legislation was indeed to target these cases, the seven years of its use have clearly shown a multitude of unintended consequences. The majority of the people also tend to think of the DMCA issue as something not directly relevant to their day to day lives, especially if they have nothing to do with the information technology. This is a very dangerous misconception, since DMCA is so broad it can, and routinely has been used to stifle a wide array of legitimate activities, rather than to stop copyright infringement. As our modern information channels become increasingly dependent on digital technologies, we will see an inevitable loss of information diversity available to the public, as the broad application of terms like "copy protection" and "circumvention" will be used to the ends of corporate intimidation of competitive information sources.

• DMCA is anti-competitive, since it is much more effective with helping large companies "crush the competition", than it is with protecting copyright owners. Companies have not shied away from using anti circumvention clauses of the DMCA to limit competition. Lexmark, a leading printer company, sued a rival printer cartridge company for copyright infringement for circumventing technological protection measures designed to prevent consumers from using the rival company's printer cartridges in Lexmark printers. Similarly, Chamberlain, a garage door opener company, sued Skylink for creating a universal remote control that interoperated with its garage door opener by circumventing a technological protection measure. In both instances, appellate courts recently denied the suits, but fear of a potential lawsuit will be sufficient to stop competitive activity from small businesses.

• DMCA will add nothing to protecting copyright owners that the existing Canadian copyright law does not already do (Existing Copyright Law), but it will provide powerful organizations with the ability to shut down unwanted information sources such as websites or blogs via legislative intimidation that most individuals simply will not have the resources to challenge. These unintended consequences will weaken Canada's democracy as they threaten several of the Fundamental Freedoms outlined in the Charter of Rights.

• DMCA is a threat to free speech. DMCA take down notices require an information host to pull down an allegedly infringing information merely upon receipt of the notice. No lawsuit is necessary. The implications of non-compliance to the host are significant and therefore very unlikely to be challenged. Although in theory the victim of the take down notice can take legal action, it would be very difficult to do so for a person without the necessary legal knowledge or resources. This is yet another example of how DMCA is heavily unbalanced to favor the copyright owner and not provide enough protection for the consumer. (source: http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/copyright-infringement)

• DMCA will mean that technological anti-circumvention measures, or TPMs (Technological Protection Measures) will be installed on all devices that provide access to digital information. TPM technology can and often does override fundamental privacy protections. TPMs typically use surveillance to monitor and collect detailed information about people’s access to and use of creative works. Information about people’s private browsing, reading, listening and viewing habits collected by TPM is highly sensitive ‘core biographical’ information, which should not be available to copyright owners. Copyright should not be a license to invade privacy. (from http://www.intellectualprivacy.ca/documents/open_letter.pdf)

• In most cases TPMs end up being used to manipulate markets to the detriment of consumers, rather than to protect content. For example, Hewlett-Packard has begun to install TPMs into their printer cartridges. The technology is used to block consumers from purchasing cartridges in one region and using them in another, thereby enabling the company to maintain different pricing structures for the same product in different global markets.

• DMCA will place the Canadian tech industry at the mercy of the US tech industry. From http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/27/canadas-coming-dmca.html:

If this law passes, it will mean that as soon as a device has any anti-copying stuff in it (say, a Vista PC, a set-top cable box, a console, an iPod,
a Kindle, etc), it will be illegal for Canadians to modify it, improve it, or make products that interact with it unless they have permission from the 
(almost always US-based) manufacturer. This puts the whole Canadian tech industry at the mercy of the US industry, unable to innovate or start new 
businesses that interact with the existing pool of devices and media without getting a license from the States.

If this law passes, it will make Canada into a backwards nation, lagging behind the UK, Israel and other countries that are passing new copyright laws
that dismantle the idea of maximum copyright forever and in all things.

• A Canadian DMCA will have a devastating effect on small business, which will face barriers to innovation and the prospect of costly litigation.

• From http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/02/howto-fight-canadas.html

The US's approach to enforcing copyright in the digital age has resulted in 20,000 lawsuits against music fans, technology companies being sued out of 
existence for making new multi-purpose tools, and has not put one penny into the pocket of an artist or reduced downloading one bit. The USA stepped into uncharted territory in 1998 with the DMCA and fell off a cliff -- that was reckless, but following them off the cliff is insane. 

The Canadian minority Tory government is planning to do just that, first thing in the New Year, with a full-court press for a Canadian DMCA that goes way beyond the US counterpart, making it one of the worst copyright laws in the developed world, with extra-strong anti-circumvention rules that 
prohibit making and using tools that open up locked digital files, even when those files belong to you. 

• From the EFF website:

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a mere allegation of copyright infringement on the Internet can result in content removal, silencing a 
creator before any misuse is proven. This "shoot first, ask questions later" system can silence online artists and critics, creating unfair hurdles to 
free speech.

• As more information migrates toward digital storage and distribution, the ability to quote, criticize, and make other "fair uses" of a large amount of our cultural artifacts may be practicably lost. Collections of works that contain only a limited amount of copyrightable subject matter, made up mostly of facts, or that contain other significant public domain materials, are vulnerable to being locked up by copyright owners behind technological protection systems. The protection of these "thin copyrights" behind access control mechanisms gives copyright owners control over works that are not intended to be protected by copyright law.

• Just as Jean Chretien stood up for Canada, in rejecting the flawed American logic for war in Iraq, Harper needs to stand up for Canada, rejecting the flawed American logic for copyright.

• Consumer, privacy, technology, academic and even some copyright owner groups all oppose the DMCA. Does this copyright reform really serve Canadian interests, or is it yet another case of the US record and movie industry trying to buy our government's support for their out-of-date and crumbling business model?

• The purpose of copyright is to balance between the interests of creators and the interests of the general public. However, the debate on the subject of copyright reform has been dominated by special interest industry lobby groups representing intermediaries (people who are neither creators nor the general public).

• While the government is clearly committed to implementing the WIPO Internet treaties, those treaties feature considerable flexibility. Leaving aside the debate over whether it is even wise to ratify treaties made over 10 years ago, when the digital technology was in its infancy, there is no debating that Canada need not adopt a maximalist, U.S.-style DMCA in order to be compliant with the treaties. Given that flexibility, why would Canada revert unnecessarily to a more restrictive approach?

• We could easily harvest these questions into strong points: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2439/125/. Perhaps we could also suggest that the MPs we contact put these questions forth to the parliament?