ARCHIVED — Kenneth Lem

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 Kenneth Lem received on September 8, 2001 via e-mail

Subject: Comments on "Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues"

Comments - Government of Canada Copyright Reform
c/o Intellectual Property Policy Directorate
Industry Canada
235 Queen Street
5th Floor West
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5 Canada
fax: (613) 941-8151
copyright-droitdauteur@ic.gc.ca

Dear Sir/Madam.

This email is regarding the document "Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues". Specifically section 4.2 Legal Protection of Technological Measures.

The Canadian Charter of Rights states that everyone has the right to "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication". If the section in question were made into an Act I feel it would violate this part of the Charter of Rights.

The statement "Set camcorder in front of television, press record, press play on vcr." would be consider transmitting of an algorithm of a circumvention of a copyright protection. Simple thoughts like this would become criminal and an individual would have lost his freedom of expression. This is not an abstract complex algorithm, but simple 12 word sentence. Anyone could think of this independently yet to communicate this in any form would be illegal. This is a violation of the freedom of "thought, ... opinion and expression" given by the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Any criticism or reporting or study of any digital encryption would be illegal. Any journalists reporting on this encryption in any technical detail would be in violation. Even the threat of this legal protection would limit the coverage of this issue. This is a violation of the "freedom of the press and other media of communication" given by the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Any professors or students studying real-world practical examples, including topics of their strengths and weaknesses, would be prevented by this potential Act. This is a violation of their "freedom of thought, belief, ... and other media of communication".

Copyright issues is a matter already handled by the existing Copyright Act and its remedies available to the copyright holder are specified in Part IV. Any changes should done in that context with its limitations restricted to what is granted there keeping in mind the exceptions granted not be overridden by any amendment. Respect for the rights of fair use users of copyright should not become secondary to the rights of copyright holders.

Questions proposed by the "Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues"; "Given the rapid evolution of technology and the limited information currently available regarding the impact of technological measures on control over and access to copyright protected material, what factors suggest legislative intervention at this time? "

None. There is already a method of restitution for copyright holders for infringements in the existing Copyright Act. To protect digital works this must be done through technological means rather than legal ones as legal means proposes violate the Charter of Rights and Freedom as shown. Encryption protection is good enough for billions of dollars of Canadian and International banks transactions. They are secure enough for many people and corporations to trust their simple web browsers with 128 bit encryption without relying on laws that make illegal devices which circumvent this. Protection should be done technically, not with more, draconian legal remedies.

"Technological devices can be used for both copyrighted and non-copyrighted material. Given this, what factors should be considered determinative in deciding whether circumvention and/or related activities (such as the manufacture or distribution of circumvention devices) ought to be dealt with in the context of the Copyright Act, as opposed to other legislation? "

In my first example of a violation of the proposed act, selling the camcorder, camcorder tape, television and vcr or the plans to make anyone of these devices would be criminal, even though they can be clearly all used for non-copyright infringement purposes as they are currently. It is not the device which performs the illegal act, it is the person who uses them. Almost any device could be used for copyright infringement. Any generic, off-the-shelf programming language could be used to circumvent digital protection of copyright. Don't make devices illegal because it cast a too wide of a net. Make the act of copyright infringement illegal.

"If the government were to adopt provisions relating to technological measures, in which respects should such provisions be subject to exceptions of other limitations? "

The "freedom of expression and opinion" should be retained in a journalistic and academic setting. Criticism, study and reporting of technological devices should not be hindered. Academic freedom is especially important since technology is a fast evolving field and encryption that works and does not and why is vitally important to be studied.

"Are there non-copyright issues, e.g. privacy, that need to be taken into account when addressing technological measures?"

As mentioned before, there is the issue of violation of the "Charter of Rights and Freedom".

You may reproduce this email but please omit my address.

Thank you for you attention;

Kenneth Lem
(address removed)