Information identifiée comme étant archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’a pas été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis la date de son archivage. Les pages Web qui sont archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes applicables au Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez la demander sous d’autres formes. Ses coordonnées figurent à la page « Contactez-nous »
I've made my views and the views of those I share available here: http://andrewmcintyre.ca/tag/copyright/
But I think the views of Dr. Meera Nair best summarize my own at in this post.
My position is simple: Digital locks are bad for Canada. They do not meet Minister Clement's standard of "standing the test of time" and actually take away existing rights.
To summarize I will quote the relevant section of my blog post here:
Dr. Meera Nair had a very interesting response to a question I asked her about how digital locks — software that blocks users' ability to copy files including Technonological Protection Measures, TPMs, and Digital Rights Management, DRM — reconcile with the fair dealing provision afforded by Canadian legislation and case law. Dr. Nair explains on her blog "Fair Duty"
Simply put, once a work is locked, it's game over. Fair dealing is meaningless if you cannot access the material. Many individuals are anxious that IF Canadian law were to prohibit the circumvention of TPMs, such a prohibition should only apply to circumvention for infringing purposes. Meaning, if you circumvent a TPM for a noninfringing use, such as fair dealing, you will not run afoul of the law. Yet, there is a question of why permit the use of TPMs at all? TPMs take away existing rights available to Canadians. To limit access to published work is to deny fair dealing. Said another way, TPMs violate a structure of law that has been in place since the creation of copyright itself (nearly300 years) and present in Canadian law since its inception in 1924.
In other words, the very idea of companies or industry consortiums using digital locks to prevent people from making copies of works they've legally purchased runs counter to the notion of limitation in copyright law — which limits both creators and consumers — as well as the existing provisions afforded by fair dealing under Canadian law.
I'm certain the word "balance" is almost losing its meaning after encountering it so many times in this consultation. I'm tired of it too.
In fact, we don't need as much "balance" as most parties that invoke it are asking for. Adopting an overly-restrictive regime, that limits users rights, would be — in effect — criminalizing common behaviours of reasonable people.
You can make it easy for citizens to obey the law and create legislation that stands the test of time, while maintaining the incentive to create, by erring on the side of users.