Bill C-11’s digital lock provisions too restrictive: expert
Posted February 2, 2012 8:09 am.
This article is more than 5 years old.
VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – From public protests to thousands of letters piling up on MPs’ desks, more people are speaking out against Bill C-11, Canada’s proposed new copyright laws.
Many are concerned some basic consumer rights will be trumped by legislation meant to prevent transfers and copies of music, videos, ebooks, and software. News1130 spoke with noted technology law expert Dr. Michael Geist; he’s a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.
Q: Dr. Geist, you have said there are some good points in Bill C-11, such as being legally allowed to record TV shows or make back-up copies of works, but they are undermined by the bad. What are your concerns?
A: I’ve got two sets of concerns. I still have significant concerns about what’s in the law itself. I think there’s a lot of really good provisions within the law. But the digital lock provisions, as they’re currently structured, are amongst the most restrictive in the world and would affect literally just about every single Canadian who purchases DVDs, ebooks — a range of different things — and find a host of new legal restrictions on what they can do with those works. That remains an ongoing problem and we’ve seen many major business groups, creative groups, consumer groups, and educators all speak out against it.
The other concern that now emerges is the prospect that the government might change the law — not to address the concerns around digital locks, but rather cave to some of the lobbying pressure to add some new SOPA-like provisions.
Q: The US anti-piracy legislation has certainly generated a lot of controversy on both sides of the border. What parts of the Stop Online Piracy Act do you see making their way into Bill C-11?
A: The two that stand out in that regard are demands from the music industry, which is seeking new.. powers that would allow courts to order blocking of websites, much like we saw in SOPA legislation; secondarily, provisions that would expand the liability in what’s known as the “enabler provision.” The enabler provision is designed to target pirate sites. I think everyone agrees the law ought to be able to do that, although many believe the law already provides enough power to go after pirate sites.
The problem is that these proposals the music industry, the entertainment lobby, the software association, and even the film industry are looking for would greatly expand the scope of those provisions such that even legitimate websites like YouTube could be captured within its scope.
