Separating facts from hype about C-32

Some anti-copyright critics compare the proposed copyright amendments in Bill C-32 with the copyright laws of the US to argue that Canadian copyright law with Bill C-32 passed would be more restrictive than in the US. International comparisons of copyright laws can be a very useful tool to gauge how Canadian laws stack up with international standards and norms. Regrettably, anti-copyright advocates often make their case by inaccurately and misleadingly describing US law to make it look more permissive than it is and by describing Bill C-32 in ways that makes it appear more restrictive than it is. This makes it difficult for the vast majority of the public to really assess Bill C-32 and to make properly informed judgements about it.

An example of this are several widely disseminated blogs written by Prof. Geist purporting to compare “how badly” C-32 stacks up against US law on two key issues in the Bill, digital locks and fair dealing. On these issues he argues that “Canada is far more restrictive than the U.S.” However, in making his arguments, Prof. Geist makes numerous errors in comparing Bill C-32 and US law.

Here are some illustrations from his recent blogs, The U.S. DMCA vs. Bill C-32: Comparing the Digital Lock Exceptions, U.S. Developments Demonstrate Canada’s C-32 Digital Lock Rules More Restrictive Than DMCABill C-32: My perspective on the key Issues, and CRIA Goes To Washington:

Geist claim: “U.S. rules contain a mandatory review of anti-circumvention exceptions every three years, but Bill C-32 only contains a review of the entire law every five years with no specific examination of anti-circumvention rules or mechanisms for new exceptions.”

Response: Bill C-32 contains two clauses that allow for the creation of new exceptions at any time: (1) regulations can be made any time with broad flexible criteria to exclude new classes of TPMs; and (2) regulations can be enacted to exclude classes of TPMs if they unduly restrict competition. Moreover, the US DMCA has no mechanism such as is available under Article 6(4) of the EU Copyright Directive to require rights holders to take appropriate measures to ensure beneficiaries of an exception can avail themselves of it. However, C-32 permits the enactment of further regulations at any time to require rights holders to provide access to a work to enable individuals to avail themselves of the enumerated exceptions to the TPM provisions.

Geist claim: “U.S. rules now contain an exception for unlocking and jailbreaking a cellphone. Bill C-32 only covers unlocking.”

Response: Under the recent Rulemaking by the Librarian of Congress, a new limited exception was recently established under the DMCA to cover jailbraking cell phones. The exception permits “Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.” Bill C-32 has a generally applicable exception for interoperability of computer programs that would enable circumvention of TPMs for jailbreaking applications that includes but is not limited to cell phones. Bill C-32 also contains a generally applicable exception to permit reverse engineering of computer programs that might be needed to develop applications that can work with jailbroken phones. US law does not have a comparable exception. Reverse engineering a computer program for interoperability purposes can be a fair use in the US in certain circumstances. It would also be a fair dealing for research purposes in Canada where permitted in the US.

Geist claim:  “U.S. rules contain an exception for e-books designed to facilitate access for the sight impaired. The Canadian rules do not contain a similar exception.”

Response: Under the recent Rulemaking, a new limited exception was recently established under the DMCA. It is restricted to “Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.” Bill C-32 contains a much broader generally applicable exception that applies to TPMs that protect all works and subject matter to enable the content to be made perceptible to the person with the perceptual disability. It is not limited to any specific formats or type of perceptual disability.

Geist claim: “… the new YouTube exception in the Canadian bill – trumpted as progressive – is still subject to digital locks, while the U.S. has specific exception for it”.

Response:  Neither the US nor any other country I am aware of has anything similar to the proposed UGC (YouTube) copyright exception that is in C-32. The new proposed UGC exception would expressly exempt copying and other uses of content (such as movies, music, books, computer programs, games, art, architectural and engineering drawings, databases, websites and corporate logos) to create new works (including derivative works) and permit them to be disseminated over networks including the Internet. Since the US has no exception that permits this, it goes without saying that there is no exception for circumventing TPMs to enable individuals to engage in these types of activities.

Geist claim: “U.S. rules contain an exception for everyone to circumvent DVD protection to gather a short clip to create non-commercial videos. Canadian rules include an exception for non-commercial videos, but do not exempt circumvention.”

Response: The US exception for circumventing a TPM to create a non-commercial video, which came into force only after C-32 was tabled in the recent Rulemaking, is much more limited than described by Prof. Geist. The exception for non-commercial videos applies only to (1) motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired, (2) that are protected by the Content Scrambling System (CSS), (3) when the circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works, (4) the purpose must be for criticism or comment, and (5)  the person engaging in the circumvention must believe and have reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use. As drafted, the Canadian UGC copyright exception applies even if an individual circumvents a TPM to create the UGC work. Bill C-32 does not prohibit individuals from circumventing copy control TPMs in order to create UGC works, only access control TPMs. So if an individual has purchased, licensed, or otherwise lawfully obtained access to original content, the individual can hack a TPM that would prevent copying in order to create a UGC work.

Geist claim: The “digital lock rules effectively trump virtually all other rights in the bill (particularly fair dealing and the new consumer exceptions) and extend far beyond what is required to comply with the WIPO Internet treaties.”

Response: The TPM provisions in the Bill, like those in the DMCA, do not prohibit circumventing copy control TPMs for fair dealing purposes. Prof. Geist’s analysis of what is required to comply with the WIPO Treaties has been utterly rebuffed by the former Assistant Director General of WIPO here, here and here.

Geist claim: “U.S. law contains a flexible fair use provision that covers everything from recording television shows to making backup copies. Bill C-32 contains a series of new fair dealing exceptions that are collectively still more restrictive than the U.S. fair use”.

Response: Bill C-32 would introduce three new fair dealing exceptions, parody, satire and education. The Bill would also create numerous new exceptions covering a myriad of activities engaged in by individuals, researchers, businesses and educational institutions including copying for format shifting purposes, time shifting, making back-ups, creating and disseminating UGC works, reverse engineering computer programs, encryption research, security testing, technical processes, and copying practically any content that is publically available over the Internet for educational purposes. These latter exceptions are not bounded or restricted in any ways that require them to be subject to any “fairness” analysis. However, all US activities that are exempted under fair use are, by definition, required to be fair. So, it is by no means accurate to assert that the Canadian Act with these new exceptions would collectively be more restrictive than US fair use.

Geist claim: “The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.” This is far less restrictive than Bill C-32.”

Response: Prof. Geist refers to a single US case involving MGE UPS Systems and GE for this unqualified assertion. As I previously pointed out, MGE v GE-what did the 5th Circuit decide about the scope of the DMCA TPM provisions and was it right?, Prof. Geist’s conclusions about this case are neither accurate nor complete. The case does not support the categorical statement that in the US “The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners”.

Geist claim: “Canada is not breaking any international treaties” with respect to copyright.

Response:  Canada signed the WIPO Treaties in 1997 committing this country to implement them, but hasn’t done so. Canada is the only G7 country to have failed to modernize its copyright laws to address the copyright issues associated with the Internet. Canada also lags behind all other G7 countries and international standards in failing to upgrade its laws to target counterfeiting and piracy. This was highlighted in a report just released by the RCMP.

Geist claim: “Bill C-32 adopts the successful notice-and-notice approach that has been used in Canada on an informal basis for many years.”

Response: As I have previously pointed out, Prof. Geist’s assertion that notice and notice works is without foundation. We have had a de facto notice and notice system in Canada for many years and there is no evidence that it changes people’s behavior to stop illicit file sharing and purchase creative products from legitimate services. As I also pointed out elsewhere, research by our trading partners shows that while a simple notice may have a temporary effect in reducing online file sharing, only notices that have a threat of some sanction operate as an effective deterrent.

In his latest blog Prof. Geist argues that “Canada needs to reform its laws based facts”.  I agree with this assertion. It is high time the debate about copyright in Canada was based less on hype and misinformation and more on facts.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

13 thoughts on “Separating facts from hype about C-32”

  1. Barry,

    “Bill C-32 does not prohibit individuals from circumventing copy control TPMs in order to create UGC works, only access control TPMs.”

    Are you actually unaware that any real-world “copy control” TPM is in fact an access control TPM with additional rules in the software that was granted access?

    If you want to argue that this debate should be based on facts, please ensure that those “facts” are based on science and not science fiction.

    This is one of the problems with most of the lawyers, both for or against C-32-style TPM provisions. Most lack the technical background to analyse how C-32 will impact real-world technology.

    As a technologically literate creator I am opposed to C-32 TPMs *because* I want creators to get paid, and C-32 style TPMs represent the greatest threat to copyright and the interests of creators.

    http://BillC32.ca/faq

  2. I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you. There is a well known conceptual distinction between these types of TPMs.

  3. Alexis says:

    Thank you for this clarification of some of the rhetoric surrounding Bill C-32

  4. Quentin Burgess says:

    Barry, thanks for this analysis.

    One thing, you have a broken link in the response regarding exemption for the visually impaired.

    Further on this, the CNIB states that Bill C32 addresses the permissions for the production of alternate format materials for people who have a perceptual disability. (Q&A #7. at http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/library/advocacy/publications/issues-myths.aspx) … so I believe Geist stating “the Canadian rules do not contain a similar exception” is flat-out wrong.

  5. Dawn says:

    Thanks very much for this explanation of some of the finer points.

  6. VS1629 says:

    Thank you Barry, for taking the time to clear up this misinformation. It’s essential to modernize our copyright laws so we can empower creators to continue to bring brilliant and innovative models to Canada. If fear mongering continues to the point where the bill isn’t passed, that will be tragic for Canada’s creators and our economy. Is the bill perfect? No – but its a great start.

  7. Thanks for the comment and the HU re the broken link. Its fixed now.

  8. BRYAN says:

    Yes Barry, the clarification is much appreciated.

    As a musician I’m constantly trying to wrap my head around the finer details of C32- and again, I’ve found it to be in the BEST interests of creators.

    It still feels like a fantasy to have compensation for my creative work- but with enough support artists will gain their power back. And hey, maybe i can even support ourselves.

    Fingers crossed.

  9. KentC says:

    Having potential legal backdoors to protect consumer rights and legal interpretations that could give room for what should be consumers rights is insufficient.

    C-32 needs explicitly stated protections for citizen’s rights.

  10. Dave Stelling says:

    Thanks for clearing some of those misconceptions up Barry. This was a very informative article.

  11. JT says:

    While it may or may not be sufficient to distinguish circumvention of copy-control TPMs as opposed to access-control TPMs in 41.1(1)(a), the prohibitions on distribution of TPM circumvention services and tools in 41.1(1)(b) and (c) do not make the same distinction. What good is it to have a right to circumvent if you can’t use it without creating your own tools?

  12. Paul Cullum says:

    The TPM protections will certainly impact my most common fair use use cases.

    1. I watch DVDs from my legit DVD collection on my LInux based HTPC using libdvdcss.

    2. I format shift my DRM infected iTunes songs to be able to play them on my non-iPod MP3 player.

    The most common use of TPMs is take the choice of platform away from consumers.

    TPMs offer nothing of value to consumers. Protection against circumvention offers nothing of value for consumers.

    It’s bad enough that I have to jump through circumvention hoops to use my media on devices of my choice, but to provide access controls legal protection against circumvention is outrageous.

    Access control TPMs aren’t a copyright issue. They are about asserting control of platforms. They are anti-competitive and inhibit freedoms and creative solutions by ordinary individuals such as myself.

    There is no victim to my circumvention. What will be my compensation for having my right to access my existing media on devices of my choice taken away?

    Circumvention doesn’t cause crime and it doesn’t cause infringement. To try to cast it as a crime similar to actual copyright infringement will only lessen the respect people have for protection against copyright infringement.

    Interoperability is a legitimate right. The need to protect arbitrary locks in order to protect artificial business models should not come before all consumer rights.

  13. Paul, your a activities would not become a crime under c-32. Access control tpms serve many useful purposes and are critical to many of the on demand and subscription delivery models for content. You always have the option of not purchasing an item that you believe doesn’t suits your needs. If there truly is a market aversion to certain toms, the content providers would have to take into account the pros and cons on using toms or using them in a way that consumers would find undesirable. Many vendors are providing new ways to view and use content that takes your concerns into account.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

So you want to protect computer programs by copyright, the Oracle v Google and SAS v WPL cases (Updated)So you want to protect computer programs by copyright, the Oracle v Google and SAS v WPL cases (Updated)



Are computer programs protected by copyright? That issue was a hot one three decades ago when courts began to struggle with whether these intangible utilitarian objects could be protected. Were they machine parts outside the ...

%d bloggers like this: