Canadian Copyright Reform may jeopardize Ubuntu-Rescue-Remix

The Canadian minority Conservative Government has introduced new copyright legislation that would seem to legalize activities commonly engaged in by thousands of Canadians — such as copying a CD. But the key provision to this bill is the criminalization of the breaking of digital locks placed on gadgets and media, no matter how trivial. This provision negates any of the seemingly positive aspects of the bill.

So while the bill specifically mentions that making backups of the songs or movies you have purchased is OK, that recording televisions shows for later viewing is OK, or that ripping and burning copyrighted content for the use of parody or satire is OK, if the publisher decides to put a copy-protection method in place, you will be guilty of breaking the law of you do any of the activities I just mentioned!

Read the CBC story here

In short, if a publisher decides to put a digital lock on any content, you, the consumer, have no rights to use the content as you wish (no matter that the other clauses of this bill say you do!)

There seemed to be quite of lot of consultation with the public this time 'round (this is the third attempt to reform Copyright in Canada in recent years), but it seems that the most important opinions voiced during that consultation have been ignored. What needs to be changed is that the circumvention of a digital lock should not be prohibited when undertaken for lawful purposes such as for personal, non-commercial use.

Despite the minority government's trying to fast-track this bill into law, we need to make some changes to it. Many of the tools used in Ubuntu-Rescue-Remix do circumvent digital locks since this is necessary in many data recovery tasks. This Bill could put into jeopardy the future of Ubuntu-Rescue-Remix.

Please read Michael Geist's website for further information on the topic and how to take action. See also Speak Out On Copyright.

I understand software like

I understand software like DeCSS would be prohibited so I would not be able to backup or format shift DVD's I have purchased. What other specific software or uses would not be permitted in/with URR?

I think it is important to cite specific use cases that would no longer be permitted when trying to explain the implications of allowing DRM to trump all other uses.

Where do I begin? Mounting a

Where do I begin?

Mounting a "hidden" partition can be considered circumventing a Technological Protection Measure. Anything that deals with encryption. Editing the windows registry on a windows system to restore data from another, unbootable instace of Windows. Discovering and changing passwords for users who have forgotten them. When you image a drive, you are making a copy of all the software on that drive - if each program has it's own TPM (such as asking for a registration code when you install it), you have just circumvented each and every one of them by making a copy.

And that's just off the top of my head. The problem with this clause is that the TPM has to be an attempt at protecting the software so it can be anything trivial. It leaves a wide open field for the software publisher's lawyers to turn around and call a TPM - so there really would not be much software that would fall under the bill's consumer-sided benefits.

What I understand of this is

What I understand of this is that, if this bill is adopted, a user's right to private copying some digital content would become an "exception for private copy", which is something in place in some European countries (France?): users have the autorization to copy/backup digital content only if the distributor allows them (or at least does not prevent them using some kind of TPM) to do so.

Well, it sucks. It gives too much power in the hands of content distributors.

This is plain ridiculous. As

This is plain ridiculous.
As a content distributor; I do not feel the need, nor the desire to have this much control over my users! This bill not only affects the free distribution of software, but also puts content distributors in difficult situations. For example; I want users to be able to copy and distribute my content freely; however, I use activation mechanisms to track how software is being distributed for statistical analysis. Do these mechanisms now make it illegal for users to freely distribute my software? Also; my software creates hidden partitions for the purpose of data encryption and storage of secure information, which can be accessed solely by the user with the correct key for the information. Does this also make this type of storage illegal?

Another problem: "ISPs and search engines would be immune from the copyright violations of their users"
Shouldn't ISPs be responsible for the activities on their networks? This gives them too much power!