ARCHIVED — Rupert Brooks
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 Rupert Brooks received on September 10, 2001 via e-mail
Subject: comments on copyright reform
Dear Sir / Madam
I am writing to express my concern regarding some of the discussion on copyright reform described on your website at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html
In particular, I am gravely concerned about the possibility of Canada instituting a US-DMCA-like law. The DMCA was founded upon very dubious principles of law to begin with, and has already been shown to have a chilling effect on free speech and journalism.
Specifically my reasons for opposing such a law are as follows.
Anti-circumvention laws are unconstitutional with respect to the right of free speech. Observe the case of Felten in the US who is afraid to publish his cryptographic research for fear of lawsuit or prosecution. Furthermore, we have few if any precedents for such restrictions on speech. I am perfectly entitled to write a book on lock-picking without being held responsible for what readers do with the knowledge.
Such laws do not take into account the intent of the creator of an anti-circumvention device. Someone writing software simply to play their collection of media under a different software system - a legitimate use - could easily be treated the same under the law as someone who circumvents copy protection to allow an black market copying scheme.
Such laws ban technology with many legitimate uses. Banning such technology is the equivalent, in my mind, of banning fertilizer because it can be used to make bombs, or banning crowbars because they make good burglary tools.
Finally, I want to point out that even if Canada insists on ratifying the WIPO treaty, it appears from the comments in "DISCUSSION PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATY" by Daniel and Harris that such draconian measures would not be necessary.
(see proposal 1 of section 11 in Daniel and Harris, where the following woudl bring the Copyright Act into line.)
"It would be an infringing act to remove or bypass, for infringing purposes, any device or measure intended to limit reproduction, [performance in public or communication to the public]/[or any other right granted under the Copyright Act] of a work or other subject matter."
This wording would, according to this report, comply with the treaty, and would place a requirement in the law for showing intent to infringe copyright before guilt could be assigned. Therefore scientists researching cryptography, or programmers trying to get legitimately purchased media to play on new systems would not be criminals under this law.
I sincerely hope you will consider these provisions carefully, and will avoid trampling the rights of many innocent Canadians in a likely ineffective effort to get at the activities of a few criminals - who would already be criminalized under existing laws.
Sincerely,
Rupert Brooks
- Date modified:
