ARCHIVED—Adam C. Ottley
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 Adam C. Ottley received on September 15, 2001 via e-mail
Subject: Consultation Paper comment
Adam C. Ottley
To Industry Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Intellectual Property Policy Directorate and other concerned agencies:
I write to express my opinions regarding the idea of implementing anti-circumvention provisions into the Canadian Copyright Act.
Such provisions severely upset the balance between copyright owners and the public that the Canadian Copyright Act seeks to maintain. They introduce an avenue that copyright owners can use to tightly control post-sale uses of a work, and can eliminate legal uses that the copyright owner does not wish to allow, since access could be authorized by the copyright holder only for certain uses. Already similar provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States have illegalized a software program whose function (CSS decryption) is required for a person to watch legally purchased DVD movies on personal computers with operating systems other than Microsoft Windows or Apple MacOS. All uses that do not benefit the copyright holder could conceivably be eliminated, including research, fair dealing and reverse engineering. Also, if disseminating information on how to circumvent encryption technology is illegalized, those who critique such technologies would be silenced and it would be imp ossible for the market to enforce accountability for poorly-designed encryption technology.
Such provisions would provide no benefit to the public, and thus have no place in an act whose goal is to strike a balance between copyright owners and the public. I strongly urge that these provisions be removed from the Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues.
Adam C. Ottley
- Date modified: