Re: [fsfc-discuss] Canadian Free Software community taking on Bill C-11

[Russell McOrmond]

On 12-03-14 05:04 PM, Kyle Spaans wrote:
> Is this even true? And if so, how can I convince him that these
> provisions aren't enough? I'm thinking of trying the "government
> controls over private property" angle.


  While Mr Del Mastro and Mike Lake were quite well briefed on the 
legislation, I never had the impression that Mr Braid understood the 
details of the specific legislation or the general policy area being 
discussed.  He generally kept his questions during committee to a very 
superficial level.


  He has the talking point correct, which is that there are limits to 
the non-copyright TPM portions of the legislation which have those titles.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5144516&File=72#16

See 41.12 and 41.13

  Notice the language talking about the person who owns the copy of the 
program, etc.   In other words, an extremely technical person is 
"allowed" to modify their own technology to interoperate, and they can 
conduct security *research* (no clarity on implementing security policy, 
which appears prohibited).  It appears to disallow you from sharing that 
knowledge with others, including in the form of computer programs -- and 
obviously it would disallow FLOSS which is inherently transparent and 
accountable.




  Outside of TPMs you also have these sections:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5144516&File=57#11

These provisions were, however, amended on Monday/Tuesday to include the 
following additional restrictions on those existing litigation magnets.


---cut-and-paste---
G-4

COMMITTEE STAGE
March 9, 2012
Mr. Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry)

That Bill C-11, in Clause 31, be amended by


(a) replacing line 16 on page 33 with the following:

  30.61 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright

(b) replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 33 with the following:

  reproduce the copy if

  (a)they reproduce the copy for the sole purpose of obtaining 
information that would allow the person to make the program and
another computer program interoperable; and

  (b) they do not use or disclose that information, except as necessary 
to make the program and another computer program interoperable or to 
assess that interoperability.


  (2) In the case where that information is used or disclosed as 
necessary to make another computer program interoperable with the 
program, subsection (1) applies even if the other computer program 
incorporates the information and is then sold, rented or otherwise 
distributed.


(c) replacing line 25 on page 33 with the following:

  30.62(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), it is not an infringement 
of copyright

(d) adding after line 34 on page 33 the following:

  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person uses or discloses 
information obtained through the research to commit an act that is an 
offence under the Criminal Code.

  (3) Subsection (1) applies with respect to a computer program only 
if, in the event that the research reveals a vulnerability or a security 
flaw in the program and the person intends to make the vulnerability or 
security flaw public, the person gives adequate notice of the 
vulnerability or security flaw and of their intention to the owner of 
copyright in the program. However, the person need not give that 
adequate notice if, in the circumstances, the public interest in
having the vulnerability or security flaw made public without adequate 
notice outweighs the owner’s interest in receiving that notice.


(e) replacing line 35 on page 33 with the following:

  30.63(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), it is not an infringement 
of copyright

(f) adding after line 3 on page 34 the following:


  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person uses or discloses 
information obtained through the assessment or correction to commit an 
act that is an offence under the Criminal Code.

  (3) Subsection (1) applies with respect to a computer program only 
if, in the event that the assessment or correction reveals a 
vulnerability or a security flaw in the program and the person intends 
to make the vulnerability or security flaw public, the person gives 
adequate notice of the vulnerability or security flaw and of their
intention to the owner of copyright in the program. However, the person 
need not give that adequate notice if, in the circumstances,
the public interest in having the vulnerability or security flaw made 
public without adequate notice outweighs the owner’s interest in 
receiving that notice.


---cut---

The longer paragraphs should look familiar as an often debated industry 
practise.  Regardless of what you might think of it, this level of 
minutia has absolutely no place in what is by its title a "Copyright 
Act".   The same with the silliness about criminal offences: if someone 
is committing a criminal offence, should we really be being petty and 
worrying about deminimus copyright infringement?


  It is a demonstration of one of the fundamental flaws of this 
legislation, which is to take an already excessively complex and widely 
misunderstood (and not reasonably understandable by a vast majority of 
people it regulates) and make it even worse.   And that is what I think 
of the *good* parts of this bill :-)


--
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
 rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
 http://l.c11.ca/ict

 "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
  manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
  portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own