GTALUG Position on Bill C11?

[Colin McGregor]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Mike Kallies <mike.kallies-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> C-11 is The Canadian Government's most recent attempt to live up to
> their promise to support the WIPO treaty of 1996.  It's similar to the
> previous attempt of Bill C-32, and the one before that, C-60.  With some
> exceptions, for GTALUG C11 seems mostly okay.
>
> Canada has agreed to fulfill obligations of the 1996 treaty.  If we
> oppose all changes to the current copyright law, we may in the future be
> presented with something as ugly as what they have down South.  GTALUG
> PAC would like to present a constructive message to our representatives
> about GTALUG's position on C-11.
>
> As a member of GTALUG, how does C-11 affect you?  Are there particular
> concerns which are not being addressed or protected?
>
> Two concerns were identified by the GTALUG PAC:
>
> For digital locks:  the right to open digital locks to research the
> origin of software so as to uncover suspected acts of copyright
> infringement *must* be ensured. --  The GPL uses copyright to ensure
> that the works we share are always shared.  Digital locks could hide
> modified and redistributed works.  If it is impossible or illegal to
> break those digital locks to research a suspected act of infringement,
> it could mean that it is impossible to identify or prove infringement of
> your rights.
>
> C-11 notice-and-notice provisions:  these have measures for alleged
> copyright holders to require service providers to forward notifications
> of alleged copyright infringement to their customers.  There needs to be
> a protection from abuse of this system.   Fees might be one way to do
> this, however, 41.26 section 2 makes it unclear as to whether service
> providers will be able to pass fees on to the alleged copyright holders
> who may be abusing the system.  For this to work, a maximum fee needs to
> be set at the time of legislation.

My view is that we need to be more concerned about a minimum fee
rather than a maximum fee, What we don't want is an abusive rights
holder (or rights claimant) with very deep pockets from being able to
view the maximum fee as a cost of doing business. In other words a
rights holder or claimant needs to know that abuses will cost at least
$X and could get so high as to be punishing regardless as to how much
money they have.

> Are there other concerns in the proposed amendments in the copyright act?
>
> Thanks for any input,
>
> -Mike (and the GTALUG PAC)
>
> <http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&File=9>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists