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

Scott Elcomb psema4-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org
Tue Nov 15 09:17:44 UTC 2005

On 11/14/05, Walter Dnes <waltdnes-SLHPyeZ9y/tg9hUCZPvPmw at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > 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.

Application of both terms appear on the next page, under Civil
Remedies(, General):

A .pdf for the full document is also available from the table of contents:

>   We definitely need an exemption for security somewhere.  The closest I
> can come up with is...
[... C-60, proposed amendment Sec 27 subsection (2.1) ...]
> ...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.

Nor most "Canadizens" I imagine.

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