James Gannon's IP Blog

Last Friday, Canadian MP Charlie Angus, NDP critic for “Digital Issues”, brought forth a petition in the House of Commons. The petition decried what Angus referred to as “the sacrosanct protection for digital locks”. He later elaborated on his stance regarding digital locks by noting:

For example, the present government’s plan with digital locks would actually lock down content unnecessarily and criminalize individuals who have legal rights, for example, librarians or blind people who need to be able to access educational works through digital locks. They will be treated the same as an international counterfeiter under the Conservatives, not surprisingly of course because the Conservatives have a dumb-down approach on pretty much everything. A blind student will be treated the same as an international counterfeiter if he or she has to break a digital lock to access digital works.

If Charlie Angus truly believes the above statement, which he felt important enough to include in a Parliamentary debate regarding the anti-spam bill, then it is no surprise that he would be concerned about the TPM provisions in Bill C-32. However, the statement is inaccurate on every point, almost as though Angus was referring to a different Bill. In fact, the opposite of everything he claims is true:

• Bill C-32′s TPM provisions only criminalize commercial, purposeful circumvention.
• Libraries are explicitly exempt from criminal penalties.
• There is a specific exception that allows circumvention for persons with perceptual disabilities.

The TPM provisions in Bill C-32 aren’t overly complicated to read. Certainly, they should not be too difficult for the NDP expert on copyright and digital issues to understand. However, given the widespread misunderstanding of the “digital locks” part of Bill C-32, here is a quick summary of the Bill’s TPM provisions:

• A technological protection measure (TPM) is a device that a copyright holder uses to restrict access to or copying of a work (s.41)
• It is an infringement of copyright to circumvent a TPM (s.41.1(1)(a)), provide circumvention services (s.41.1(1)(b)), or provide circumvention devices (s.41.1(1)(c)).
• There are eight exceptions to the circumvention prohibition, including for persons with perceptual disabilities (s.41.16), and the government can enact new exceptions through regulation as needed (s.41.21).
• There are no statutory damages (i.e. “default damages” of $100-$5000 per infringement) for private TPM circumvention (s.41.1(3)). Those found to have circumvented a TPM for private purposes will only have to reimburse the copyright holder for the damage caused by their act of circumvention (s.41.1(4)).
• Large-scale, commercial and purposeful infringement of TPMs is punishable as a criminal offense (s.42(3.1)), except for libraries, archives, museums or educational institutions.