The DMCA cancer spreads....

[Skirge01]

Here's where it follows the US DMCA perfectly (and stupidly):

41.1 (1) No person shall

(a) circumvent a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition “technological protection measure” in section 41;
(b) offer services to the public or provide services if

(i) the services are offered or provided primarily for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure,
(ii) the uses or purposes of those services are not commercially significant other than when they are offered or provided for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure, or
(iii) the person markets those services as being for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure or acts in concert with another person in order to market those services as being for those purposes; or

(c) manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale or rental or provide — including by selling or renting — any technology, device or component if

(i) the technology, device or component is designed or produced primarily for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure,
(ii) the uses or purposes of the technology, device or component are not commercially significant other than when it is used for the purposes of circumventing a technolog- ical protection measure, or
(iii) the person markets the technology, device or component as being for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure or acts in concert with another person in order to market the technology, device or component as being for those purposes.

All other sections that I've seen make reference to section 41, which clearly states that any circumvention of a "technological protection measure" negates any other sections which allow someone to do something.

Note that it also makes the HDFury illegal.

I don't know about you, but this sure as hell sounds like the craptastic DMCA we have here in the US.

[dead_ferrets]

Originally Posted by wayner

What I am concerned about is section d. I bet that I am not the only one that keeps some of my recordings from SageTV permanently, or at least for many years, this is particularly the case for children's shows, and movies. If this Bill passes then I will be breaking the law if I continue to do so.

My understanding is that we are all breaking the law by recording any television right now. I don't think time shifting has ever been legal in Canada.

Originally Posted by wayner

Section c could also be an issue if you transfer a Sage (or other PVRed) recording from your HTPC to a laptop/iPod, etc.

This is a very interesting point. There is a right to format-shift but if you're only allowed one copy of a tv show what trumps what? What if I record the show and then transcode it and then delete the original recording? Is that a violation of this clause?

Originally Posted by wayner

And I wonder if using a device like an HDfury would violate section b?

Another doozy! So if this is a violation of section b, what about using the analog out on my Roger's box to record TV? I'm clearly doing this to circumvent the protection on the digital signal.

[wayner]

On the legality of timeshifting in Canada - I would think that there would be some ruling from the VCR days that covers some aspects of timeshifting although with PVRs this would be somewhat different. Otherwise the law has been broken repeatedly for over 30 years since VCRs were introduced in the country.

I don't think using the analog out on a cable box would be a violation since you are not "picking a digital lock". But it is possible that some time in the future that the Component outputs could be disabled, perhaps even with a software "upgrade".

[vividweb]

Originally Posted by wayner

I don't think using the analog out on a cable box would be a violation since you are not "picking a digital lock". But it is possible that some time in the future that the Component outputs could be disabled, perhaps even with a software "upgrade".

Maybe not, but you are capturing the copyrighted content with the TPM removed and the copyright holder is not able to control how you use it anymore. The wording in these bills is always so vague and open to interpretation.

[dead_ferrets]

Originally Posted by wayner

On the legality of timeshifting in Canada - I would think that there would be some ruling from the VCR days that covers some aspects of timeshifting although with PVRs this would be somewhat different. Otherwise the law has been broken repeatedly for over 30 years since VCRs were introduced in the country.

Yes, this is my understanding. The law has been repeatedly broken for the last 30 years. This is why there is the inclusion of time shifting in the new proposal: To make sure the vast majority of Canadians are no longer breaking the law when they record TV.

The U.S. did have a legal case that established the legality of time-shifting but it's my understanding that the same case has never gone to court in Canada to establish the principle.

[vividweb]

But is there a difference between using a provider supplied PVR that has DRM and follows all content flags vs using Sage (or another non DRM PVR) and an HD-PVR.

[dead_ferrets]

That's a good question, but given that that our copyright law hasn't been updated since the 90s, I highly doubt it (since broadcast flags weren't around yet).

[wayner]

Originally Posted by vividweb

But is there a difference between using a provider supplied PVR that has DRM and follows all content flags vs using Sage (or another non DRM PVR) and an HD-PVR.

IANAL but I fail to see the legal difference between an HD-PVR and an older PC tuner with s-video (or composite) inputs (or, for that matter, a VCR or DVD recorder). You are NOT breaking any digital or analog copy protection - you are just hooking up the output of a cable (or satellite) box to a recording device. You are not circumventing any copy protection, simply recording from an output from your cable box.

[vividweb]

I agree, but I bet MPAA and the TV broadcasters would argue differently.

Still haven't seen any response from the goverment in regards to the questions that were asked about the new bill.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by wayner

IANAL but I fail to see the legal difference between an HD-PVR and an older PC tuner with s-video (or composite) inputs (or, for that matter, a VCR or DVD recorder). You are NOT breaking any digital or analog copy protection - you are just hooking up the output of a cable (or satellite) box to a recording device. You are not circumventing any copy protection, simply recording from an output from your cable box.

I agree... I doubt your are breaking the digital lock provision, since you are taking an analog source. But, you are still breaking copyright law (or will be under C32) if you hold onto that recording for a period of time that is longer that what is reasonable for you to watch it... or if you decide to make copies of it, ie, format shift it to your portable video device, etc

[wayner]

But this is totally unenforcable and I don't think anyone really has to worry about it. Surely this world has bigger problems than me saving a copy of Dora the Explorer for more than 30 days.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by wayner

But this is totally unenforcable and I don't think anyone really has to worry about it. Surely this world has bigger problems than me saving a copy of Dora the Explorer for more than 30 days.

I totally agree... which begs the question... why make it illegal to do this for personal use to begin with... whether or not I have to worry about the RCMP banging down my door is not really the issue. I still have to tell my kids why it's illegal for me to keep that episode of Dora after they've watched it (actually for my kids it's more like mythbusters now, but you get the point)

The one thing that you can be sure about, is that if it's illegal for someone to copy a show to their portable video player, then at some time, the law will be enforced