The American DMCA has many faults, but one of the more serious faults found within is the so-called “anti-circumvention law”. This law essentially makes it illegal for Americans to bypass electronic locks, or “DRM”, on content they own. Such a law gives unlimited power to content owners, and strips any and all rights from consumers, including rights explicitly laid out in law. This is not a “fair and balanced” approach to copyright.

Before we pass a similar law here in Canada, we must first ask ourselves what the purpose of such a law would be? Industry groups advise that these locks are meant to protect against piracy, and that anti-circumvention legislation is therefore required to protect their intellectual property. If the goal is to prevent consumers from copying software, movies, and music, then we need pass no further legislation, for these acts are already illegal in this country (with the obvious exception of the private copying act of 1998). The act of copying such intellectual property is already illegal, and there is little sense in making it “more illegal”.

DRM has extremely dire side effects. DRM stands for “Digital Rights Management”, and that’s exactly what it does; it controls what Rights a consumer does and does not have over the media the consumer has purchased. But these are rights determined by the content provider, not by law, and the revocation of these rights becomes the province of private industry, which has already demonstrated a total disregard for consumer rights.

By enshrining digital locks and DRM in law, you ultimately give license to the content industries to write their own laws where copyright is concerned, because any rights given to consumers, even rights given explicitly under law, can be revoked by the application of a digital lock. Rights such as the “first sale doctrine”, the ability to enjoy content on the player of your choice, the ability to format shift media from one format to another; all of these are taken away by almost every existing DRM scheme.

Many DRM schemes, especially in the realm of computer software, do not explicitly enumerate which rights they revoke in a clear and transparent manner to the consumer. Many times consumers are not even aware of the restrictions imposed upon them until they attempt to breach those restrictions. Rarely are consumers trying to breach these restrictions with criminal intent. This bill stands to forbid Canadians from engaging in ordinary practices such as copying DVDs onto video iPods, unlocking cell phones for use with a competitor’s services.

The anti-circumvention provisions of the American DMCA are almost universally panned as being some of the worst legislation ever written. Please do not cripple Canadian industry, innovators and consumers with similar legislation. 

Section 41 of the Act, and references to it, should be removed or altered to ensure that Canadians retain the rights to use, transport, play, manipulate, archive, save and enjoy the digital works we have purchased, in perpetuity, regardless of whether there is DRM attempting to encroach on or remove those rights.

I want you, as my Member of Parliemnt, to represent me in the forthcoming copyright debate, and stop Jim Prentice from steamrolling a bill through Parliament without listening to Canadian voices.

If you haven’t already, write to your MP, and make sure you know where each other stand on this issue! What else can you do?

I am a constituent who cares about Canada’s cultural policy, and I am writing in regard to legislative proposals for “copyright reform.” During the last Parliament, Bill C-60 provided some very sensible approaches to this complicated topic, but it also left room for improvement.  As you consider the issue of copyright reform, I hope that you will work to ensure that any new legislation is not a regression from the sensible policies set out in Bill C-60.

In particular, I do not believe that “digital rights management” (DRM) technologies should stop the public from making lawful uses of their legitimately acquired media.  Publishers using DRM push aside the delicate balance between copyright and the rights of the public – a balance set according to an assessment of the public interest by legislators – and replace it with one-sided rules that reflect publishers’ private interests. Even artists disagree with publishers’ anti-consumer use of DRM, as evidenced by the recently formed Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Therefore, as in Bill C-60, new copyright reform legislation should not make it illegal to circumvent DRM for lawful purposes.

I am also concerned that the use of DRM can threaten computer security and consumer privacy, as in the recent Sony-BMG “Rootkit” fiasco.  When content companies routinely use technological measures to control how people enjoy entertainment in the privacy of their own homes, I think we need protection *from* DRM more than we need protection *for* it.

Transparency in computer software is essential to secure operation. I both utilize and contribute programming expertise to Open Source projects, not controlled by a single company. Fundamentally, DRM requires that people do not have control over their devices, and thus the people cannot publically debate, disclose, and contribute to such projects. I object to any legislature that makes it illegal for Canadians to tinker with the hardware, software, and media that they have ownership of. In effect, legislature that prohibits circumvention of DRM places control of Canadians’ rights in the hands of forign corporations.

For example, many cellphone handsets sold today support playback of musical ringtones. Customers pay for phones with such capabilities. However, in the current climate in America, companies often cripple handsets to play only approved ringtones, which are sold for exhorbant prices. This is artifical market control, and forces customers to pay twice for the same media. 

Implementing DRM in any hardware or software solution increases development and production costs, and reduces the value to users of that technology. DRM takes away rights such as time shifting (record something and play it later, like you can with a VCR), format shifting (for accessibility by disabled), and copies approved by the Canadian copyright laws (such as for context in political commentary, parody, and other analytical processes).

These concerns are shared by a substantial and growing number of informed Canadian citizens.  I hope that you will take them into account when considering any changes to Canadian copyright law.  Thanks very much for your time.

If you haven’t already, write to your MP, and make sure you know where each other stand on this issue! What else can you do?