Copyright Consultation Submission

As a security researcher, Ph.D. student, avid computer user, and citizen of Canada, copyright laws affect how I can both view content created by others as well the distribution of content I create myself. For the content I create, it's important that I have the ability to choose who I licence or sell my work to. For the research done by others, it's important that I be able use their work (and combine it with other's work) in new and innovative ways in order to extend and advance the field. This includes both the written papers by other authors as well as their software tools which they choose to make available. In using the work created by others, it is important that I not be time-limited in how long I can use their work. As a security expert and computer user, I'm worried about the potential for abuse should companies be allowed to deploy digital locks which invade my privacy and are illegal to work around. I interact daily with those much less knowledgeable about the common forms of DRM and fear that they will be ill-equipped to deal with the privacy issues surrounding DRM on their own. As an avid computer user, I want flexibility to use the content I have purchased on the various devices I own (or will purchase in the future).

The major elements I would want to see in any copyright bill include:

1. The prosecution for breaking of digital locks should be directly tied to what activities are performed once the lock is broken. By tying the prosecution for breaking digital locks to actual copyright infringement, the use of content for non-infringing purposes is still preserved (I get into what I believe should be considered fair-use below). Note that DRM systems can be used for more than protecting copyrighted works -- in all discussion pertaining to DRM systems, I am specifically referring to those DRM systems used to protect copyrighted works. Related to allowing DRM to be bypassed for non-infringing uses, the ability to distribute tools which can be used to bypass DRM should not be outlawed. Using such tools to bypass DRM and perform copyright infringement should be illegal. It is also worth considering what happens when the underlying work protected by DRM becomes public domain -- the DRM should expire, not continuing to restrict distribution of the work.
2. A discussion of fair use. In my opinion, the sale or licencing of a copyrighted work is to an individual, not a device. An inanimate object is incapable of agreeing to a legal contract. Fair use should thus include provisions for an individual to perform format shifting, device shifting, and time shifting of the content. Fair use should also include the ability to incorporate sections of the work for the purposes of social commentary. While it should be up to the content creator who the work is sold or licenced to, it should be up to the content consumer how they personally use the work.
3. If we are to mandate what can be done with systems protected by some form of digital lock, we must also mandate the general guidelines under which such DRM systems are created and deployed. In this area, I have two comments. (1) A DRM system used to protect copyright must not interfere with the privacy of an individual more than necessary. While I realize this definition is vague, the focus is to put responsibility on the designer of the DRM system. (2) The DRM system used to protect copyright must not unnecessarily restrict the individual's fair-use rights.
4. The ability to backup content needs to be part of the law. Most digital media has a lifespan much less than a lifetime. If the media is protected against copying by a digital lock, the consumer is left in a position where they are provided with content in such a way that it will become obsolete and has no recourse to ensure that it does not. This problem of preserving content applies to libraries as well. We need to ensure that the works created by society can continue to be enjoyed and examined long after we have passed on.

In order to withstand the test of time, the key should be to ensure that the proposed bill does not rely on or mandate any specific technology. It also should not prevent the use of other technologies. While the temptation to go after technologies such as P2P networks is high, the real issue with these networks is not that they exist, but that they are sometimes used to distribute copyrighted works without the author's consent. At its core, copyright law should be designed to ensure that the content creator is duly compensated but that society as a whole can benefit from the work. In being overly protective of the work, society as a whole suffers. If the the content creator is not able to obtain fair compensation for their work, they are less motivated to contribute. A proper copyright law will strike a balance between the two, reflecting the views of the majority of Canadian citizens (not a select few).

In order to maintain creativity, it is important that the content creators are properly compensated for their work, but it is also important that the content consumers are not overly restricted in how they use the work. Innovation does not occur solely on the creator side, but on the consumer side as well. I believe the outlawing of breaking digital locks unduly restricts innovation.

Glenn Wurster