ARCHIVÉE — Brander (En anglais eulement)

PROCESSUS DE RÉFORME DU DROIT D'AUTEUR

SUGGESTIONS REÇUES RELATIVEMENT AUX DOCUMENTS DE CONSULTATION

---

Les documents reçus seront affichés dans la langue officielle dans laquelle ils auront été soumis. Toutes les suggestions sont affichées comme elles ont été reçues par les ministères; toutefois, toutes les informations sur les adresses ont été enlevées.

---

---

Suggestion de Roy Brander reçue le 4 août 2001 17h27 par courriel

Objet : Comments on new Copyright legislation

--
Roy Brander, P.Eng.
(Address removed)



Intellectual Property Policy Directorate
Industry Canada
235 Queen Street
5th Floor West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H5

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Thank you for requesting public comment on your "Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues".

This paper is of grave concern to me, and the issue it addresses will form a large part of my political concerns and sway my votes and my political volunteerism and contributions for many years to come.

I have no direct interest, certainly not commercial, in the issue; my primary relationship with digital copyrighted content is as a paying customer, not a creator, nor have I any interest in obtaining such material for free. I certainly have no philosophical belief that it should be free, nor that technological change will compel it to be free.

My interest is acute because I do not believe it to be possible to enshrine digital copyright protection technologies in law to the entent that the American "DMCA" law does, without grave harm to private, non-commercial content creation, to "fair use" of copyrighted material, to personal privacy, and indeed even to freedom of speech.

Digital content is a genie that is very difficult to put back in the bottle. The outlawing of the mere development of tools that could be used to circumvent technological restrictions on copyrighted material requires legislation that must inevitably be interpreted and enforced in a draconian manner, however mild the wording may be. If the interpretation and enforcement are not draconian, the law will be useless.

To outlaw a tool that can be used to gain access to digital copyrighted material must be understood as going far beyond comparable laws in the physical world, such as outlawing the possession of "burglar's tools". It is like outlawing the possession of a machine shop that could be used to manufacture them.

The American "DMCA" legislation has already generated a large body of debate on these points and I will not attempt to repeat it all, as I'm certain the Directorate is already familiar with the concerns many American citizens now have about their freedom of speech and their freedom to excercise their rights to "fair use" excerpts of material. I share all these concerns and am willing to volunteer, to contribute, and to vote as needed to help avoid such legislation being inflicted on Canada.

I am concerned for the economic future of the content creation industry, as well, but I feel that this concern has been exaggerated by an industry that naturally wishes to have the most advantageous position possible in the future - not the fairest position that is best for all the nation as a whole.

A certain amount of sharing has always occurred, "hand to hand" as it were, between friends, with every medium of material. Books have always been in libraries or shared between friends; videotapes also; and records copied via cassette tape. None of the affected industries suffered significant harm, and may even have ultimately benefitted from these common and traditional practices.

Widespread, massive duplication of material (as with Napster) is a separate issue that is fairly well addressed by existing legislation. It is already outside the law and any commercial (or free) service that does such acts can and will be stopped - leaving only small, personal copying that simply will not challenge the vast bulk of the revenue stream of the content creators and distributors.

The outlawing of the mere ability to make copies, the digital equivalent of taping a record album, is a reduction in the level of consumer control over the material they have purchased - and thus, a reduction in the commonweal.

I believe the Government of Canada would be remiss in its responsibility to the population at large were it to pass legislation similar to that contemplated in your document. The outlawing of decryption and similar tools is by far the most objectionable portion of the legislation discussed.

Thank you for your attention.

---
Roy Brander, P.Eng.
(Adresse enlevée)

---