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

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:05:16PM -0500, Scott Elcomb wrote

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

  Lexmark eventually lost, the toner-cartridge refiller spent a bunch of
money defending themselves.  See...

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Control/

  Lexmark's DMCA case against Static Control, aimed at eliminating
aftermarket laser printer toner cartridges. Lexmark has implemented an
"authentication" handshake between its printers and toner cartridges.
When Static Controls reverse-engineered the authentication procedure in
order to enable refilled and remanufactured cartridges to work with
Lexmark printers, Lexmark sued in Lexington, KY, claiming both copyright
infringement and circumvention in violation of the DMCA.

> The terms start showing up in Section 2 of the amendments:
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-60/C-60_1/C-60-3E.html

  I still can't find them with {CTRL-F} in FireFox.

> > >  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.  :-)

  We definitely need an exemption for security somewhere.  The closest I
can come up with is...

############begin
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND OTHER RIGHTS, AND EXCEPTIONS
    
15. Section 27 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Secondary infringement related to private-use copy

    
(2.1) It is an infringement of copyright in a work, a performers
performance or a sound recording for a person knowingly to do any of the
following acts with respect to a reproduction of the work, performance
or sound recording that the person knows or ought to know was made as a
copy for private use under subsection 80(1):

    
(a) to sell it or rent it out or, by way of trade, expose or offer it
for sale or rental;

(b) to distribute it, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) to communicate it by telecommunication to the public or to one or
more persons in particular; or
############end

  I assume that (b) and (c) refer to acts *AND OMISSIONS*.  E.g. if you
deliberately leave your network drive visible to the internet, and
people download from it, that would be a contravention.  In general, if
you...
  1) make a *PERFECTLY LEGAL* private-use copy and store it on your hard
drive
  2) are negligent in protecting your machine, and the private-use copy
it holds

...then you risk being found in contravention.  This implies a duty to
protect your computer from compromise, or at least use due diligence
attempting to do so.  But I wouldn't want to have to pay a lawyer
thousands of dollars to prepare and present this argument.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org> In linux /sbin/init is Job #1
My musings on technology and security at http://tech_sec.blog.ca
--
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