ARCHIVÉE — John DiMarco (En anglais seulement)

PROCESSUS DE RÉFORME DU DROIT D'AUTEUR

SUGGESTIONS REÇUES RELATIVEMENT AUX DOCUMENTS DE CONSULTATION

---

Les documents reçus seront affichés dans la langue officielle dans laquelle ils auront été soumis. Toutes les suggestions sont affichées comme elles ont été reçues par les ministères; toutefois, toutes les informations sur les adresses ont été enlevées.

---

Suggestion de John DiMarco reçue le 10 septembre 2001 par courriel

Objet: Comments -- Government of Canada Copyright Reform

Monday, Sept 10, 2001

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the consultation paper on Digital Copyright Issues. This is a very important matter, and complex, and it is crucial to obtain the input of all parties concerned, particularly those with a solid understanding of information technology issues.

I wish to comment on two matters:

Firstly, adding legal protection for technological measures to protect copying is not necessary, and may be counterproductive. If a Canadian should circumvent a technological measure but not infringe on the copyright act as it currently stands (e.g. not copy or redistribute the copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright owner), there is no harm done to the copyright owner, and no need for legislation in the matter. If the Canadian should circumvent a technological measure in order to infringe on the copyright act as it currently stands, then the act as it stands is sufficient. The presence of the technology is irrelevant.

Further, legal protection for technological measures may be counterproductive, because it removes the need for copyright holders to use good technology to protect their works. A simple scrambling technology (which from a technical perspective is no different from no protective technology at all) would be sufficient to invoke the legal protection. Because it is not easily within the competency of the legal establishment to distinguish good technology from bad, legal protection for technological measures would become merely a round-about way for copyright holders to obtain additional rights and powers beyond the intent of the copyright act.

Secondly, on the question of ISP liability, this issue is not significantly different from that of common carriers - an ISP is not fundamentally different from a phone company in that it provides a communications service in which the content of the communication is determined by the two persons communicating. Matters of copyright should be entirely determined by, and liability assigned to, the parties involved in the communication, not the neutral carrier in between, for that carrier provides only a neutral communication service in which the determination of material to be communicated is decided by the communicating parties, not by the carrier.

These views are my own, and may or may not reflect the official views of the University in these matters, if any. However, I would be happy to comment further on these or related issues if you wish to contact me at the address or number below.

Best Regards,

John DiMarco
(Adresse enlevée)