ARCHIVED — Alayne McGregor
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 Alayne McGregor received on September 15, 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
Sept, 15, 2001
Re: Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues
Dear Sirs:
I would like to respond specifically to sections 4.2 and 4.3 of your consultation paper. I have been a professional software designer for more than 20 years, and have followed many of these issues closely. I am also a library board trustee, and am extremely concerned that any changes not reduce libraries' effectiveness in serving the community.
I am concerned because possible proposals to prevent the circumvention of anti-copying technologies and prohibiting tampering with rights management information may seriously interfere with current fair use rights to use information. Under no circumstances should a Canadian citizen's right to read and disseminate information be lessened by these extensions. I am seriously worried that your government's support of technologies like digital watermarking may make it more difficult, for example, for libraries to freely distribute books or even for individual users to store information without having to pay for it again and again (see, for example, the article _Licensed to Bill_ in the October, 2001 Wired magazine).
The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act is, as I am sure you are aware, being challenged in the courts by Princeton University professor Edward Felten. He filed his suit to overturn many provisions of the DMCA after he was threatened by music industry representatives for presenting a paper on cracking digital watermarks. Although the industry representatives finally agreed not to sue and Dr. Felten presented his paper, it is only one example of the outrageous interference with free speech and freedom of inquiry that the DMCA has led to. We should not be passing a clone of that legislation in Canada.
Frankly, I am not impressed with technologies that are so weak or so poorly designed that they must rely on criminal law to discourage even research into those technologies. Given that violating copyright will remain illegal -- as it should -- I don not see the pressing need to make research into circumvention illegal, especially since there are reasonable "fair use" reasons for this development. I agree with the comment in your paper that the Copyright Act may not be the proper instrument for this.
Of the possibilities outlined in section 4.2, I believe that the basic form of prohibition, outlawing specific acts, is the appropriate one in this circumstance -- continuing to outlaw improper behaviour while not restricting free inquiry or proper uses.
As regards rights management information, I am concerned that this does allow for fair use. I note your concerns re this information becoming out of date (a particular concern for libraries), and suggest that legislation is not the appropriate method, again, to add additional copyright rights. I am also concerned that this entire technology will allow additional tracking of use of information, and question why we should be endorsing it at all.
Lastly, I would like to applaud your last core principle (sec. 3) -- that the framework be technologically neutral -- and ask that that be interpreted to ensure that the government not endorse, implicitly or explicitly, any rights management technology or anti-copying technology that is specific to only one or a few operating systems. One should be able to access electronic information using whatever platform one chooses. There should never be a situation where the legal method to access information is only available on one or a few operating systems.
I would appreciate hearing of the next steps in this consultation, and would be happy to discuss these points further as necessary.
Yours sincerely,
Alayne McGregor
(Address removed)
- Date modified:
