ARCHIVED — Wojnarowicz
Archived Content
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
Copyright Reform Process
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED REGARDING THE CONSULTATION PAPERS
Documents received have been posted in the official language in which they were submitted. All are posted as received by the departments, however all address information has been removed.
Submission from Jakub Wojnarowicz received on July 24, 2001 2:01 PM via e-mail
Subject: Do not make the new copyright law equivalent to the DMCA
DMCA = Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a heinous abuse of the American's constitutional rights
Already, after reading the consultation reports, I find some disturbing hints as to what direction the
Canadian government is leaning.
Take this quote from http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01099e.html :
In its response to IHAC (presented in Building the Information Society: Moving Canada into the 21st Century, 1996, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ih01103e.html), the government promised that the "ministers of Industry and Canadian Heritage will work closely with stakeholders to resolve outstanding copyright issues related to the Information Highway and to reach a determination as to whether there is a need to revise the present Act further". (p. 14)
To work closely with stakeholders? Why are they the only ones to be concerned with copyright law. The Canadian people deserve more of a say in their laws than those who stand to benefit by those laws.
As with the DMCA, I find these two following suggestions virtually unbearable:
- prevent the circumvention of technologies used to protect copyright material; and,
- prohibit tampering with rights management information.
As a computer user, I can name many circumstances in which I needed to circumvent copyright protection to use the software properly. Certain CDs use protection schemes which make it difficult for CD writers to read the data that they're supposed to write. However, these schemes also have the unfortunate side-effect of making the CD itself unreadable to many kinds of older-model CD drives. These CD drives are not antiquated (even by computer standards), yet I am forced to buy new hardware to run my software, even though my system meets the required specifications on the box. If the box asks for a 12X CD-ROM (meaning a CD-ROM drive capable of spinning 12 times as fast as the typical audio CD), and I have a 12X or greater, my software should work. Anything else is false advertising - yet no company gets punished for this.
Another issue is with Sony PlayStations and archival copies of software. I believe, that in the US at least, citizens are allowed to make an archival copy of anything they buy. This copy is fully functional and intended for backup use only - if the original is damaged or fails. Yet the PlayStation incorporates technology that circumvents the use of backups and prevents the user from exercising his own rights. Users have found a way around this with the use of 'mod chips' which are soldered onto PlayStation circuitry to allow the PlayStation to used these archival copies. Yet even the discussion of this technology is now illegal in the United States with the passing of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Internet message board moderators on playstation.com are told to track down offenders by use of their IP address and report them to their ISPs.
Yes, there are illegal uses for these mod chips. They allow gamers to run pirated software (since CD-burning, the same technology that allows backups, also allows illegal copying.) However, that does not give any *corporation* the excuse to dispense punishment upon the users of its products. Canada has gun laws that make acquiring a gun difficult, to protect its citizens from the random idiot. Canada's laws should also protect its citizens' rights, from the random idiot corporation.
What right does a corporation have to say "You can use only region 1 DVDs"? License or no license, how does this hold the *force of law*? Who gave a corporation the right to set such a license in the first place? Does anyone not see the ramifications of allowing companies to set rights, permitted uses and restrictions beyond anything defined in the constitution? If I buy a PlayStation, DVD player or car, I can do what I want to it. I do not license it. I *buy* it. Government should not be forced to hold the fort for corporations. If they do not want their hardware to be modified to do something they don't want, they'd better build it right. Until then, Canadians should continue to enjoy the freedom to modify their electronic goods just as they modify their mechanical ones.
Why is it fine to buy an old car, fix it up, upgrade its parts so it can go much faster than it was intended (and much faster than is legal)? Because that is an established right. A police officer can see a Camaro with a big block engine and massive blower, ready to take off on a race, but he can't pull over or stop the driver until the driver exceeds the speed limit. Why are electronics different? Why are changes to electronics made "illegal", even before anything *truly* wrong or damaging to society has been done?
Canadian copyright law should not be a shield and a weapon for corporations. It should be a tool that allows individuals to protect their ideas and intellectual property from theft. Why should Canadian taxes go towards enforcing silly license schemes put down by corporations. Let them enforce that themselves - it's in their interest. How do Canadians benefit from those licenses? Punish real offenders, not potential ones.
- Date modified:
