Fwd: [d at DCC] DRM, security, absurdity and Bill C-60

Scott Elcomb psema4-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
Mon Nov 14 22:05:16 UTC 2005

On 11/14/05, Walter Dnes <waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > (http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/5884)
>   Am I missing something somewhere...
>   - C-60 lists some amendmants that define "technological measures" and
>     "rights management information"

Correct, except that the definitions are not terribly clear cut.  For
example, see Bill C-60's definitions (below) and
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/5885 for a description of
interpretation problems.

>   - but I don't see any reference to those terms in either the current
>     Copyright Act, or the rest of C-60

The terms start showing up in Section 2 of the amendments:

>   Has anyone asked about a potential repeat of the Lexmark printer
> lawsuit or the other one about a company that reverse-engineered garage
> door opener codes?  What if Ford implements trivial technological
> measures to prevent any non-Ford oil-filters being used in Ford cars?
> Does circumventing that get you in trouble?

I'm drawing a blank on the Lexmark case -- what was the cause?  (thx!)

> >  On Windows:
> >  1. Disabling autorun (or holding the shift key when inserting CDs)
> >  2. Running without administrator priviledges.
>   This is going to be ugly.   It can be argued to be a security measure.

Ug!  You can say that again.  :-)

> Analogous to this, let's say federal police have a warrant to enter a
> facility covertly.  As undercover agents (i.e. not in uniform) try to
> enter at 2:00 AM in the morning, the burglar alarm goes off, and city
> police (not aware of the warrant) show up and arrest the undercover
> police.  The undercover police are freed the following day, but the
> owner of the premises is now aware that police are interested in him,
> and this screws up the investigation.  Is the owner, or the burglar
> alarm manufacturer, or installer guily of obstructing justice?

I'd assume that the law enforcement agencies have processes in place
to work out this type of situation (though it problably wouldn't be
"plan A" :-) without the need of arresting the undercover officers.

Who's at fault in this case?  No idea.  And when discussing
Intellectual Property (as opposed to physical property) the number of
variables increases dramatically.  The result looks more like
spaghetti than my code does!  (which is probably a good thing ;-)

Scott Elcomb
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 mailing list