Fwd: [d at DCC] DRM, security, absurdity and Bill C-60
psema4-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
Sun Nov 13 06:14:54 UTC 2005
Pulling this accross from the DCC list because of potential
implications for Linux users.
Bill C-60 refers to the amendments to the Candian Copyright Act,
currently making their way through Parliament.
Constructive dialog here can be sent up-stream if necessary.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: none none <dclist-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
Date: Nov 12, 2005 6:52 PM
Subject: [d at DCC] DRM, security, absurdity and Bill C-60
To: Discuss-WolORMuebV4TBNh8kXeBKqyvx2GgBOVq930Pai70D+E at public.gmane.org
Can some one tell me, according to the wording of Bill C-60 are the
following legal or illegal?
When using copy controlled CDs (for example the Sony CDs in the news)
1. Disabling autorun (or holding the shift key when inserting CDs)
2. Running without administrator priviledges.
3. Removing copy protection entirely if it is damaging to the
performance of the computer, compromises its security or user privacy.
4. Creating an uninstaller or removal tool in above case (e.g.
antivirus company classifies it as malicious)
5. Using an uninstaller provided by the manufacturer (does even the
manufacturer have the legal ability to uninstall their own DRM? What
role does the copyright holder play here? If someone has the legal
ability to uninstall the DRM who is it, copyright holder or
6. Instructing someone how to disable such software in case #3
7. Distributing such instructions
8. Same as two points above in the case when the instructions are
provided by the manufacturer.
9. Disabling the DRM without knowing that it is DRM (e.g. identifying
suspicious files or processes and removing them, or, following
instructions from someone else)?
Does intention matter? If I disable these features to protect
security or privacy is it okay while if I do it with the intention of
circumventing the DRM its illegal?
If intention doesn't matter, must I purposely make my computer less
secure, deteriorate performance, compromise privacy... etc. to ensure
that the DRM works? Must I go out of my way, to my own detriment, to
enable the DRM?
If so, wouldn't this imply that it is illegal to use OSX, LInux,
BSD... etc. in the case that the DRM does not work on these platforms?
Again, does it matter if I use these platforms for reasons of
security/privacy or otherwise?
Other questions: The DRM from First4Internet on some of Sony CD's
hides files beginning with $sys$. It does this to hide its own files.
Any files can be hidden by adding a $sys$ prefix, hidden apparently
even from the DRM itself. Supposedly, by hiding files in this way from
the DRM copying/ripping tools become functional (but disabled by the
DRM when not hidden). Would the DRM then constitute a circumvention
tool for itself? In any case, couldn't someone conceivably create a
trivial form of DRM that depends on the visibility of files and then
sue Sony for creating a circumvention tool?
Discuss mailing list
Discuss-WolORMuebV4TBNh8kXeBKqyvx2GgBOVq930Pai70D+E at public.gmane.org
Fight might with Right. Your Right.
2375+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60
http://KillBillC60.ca Sign--> http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
More information about the Legacy