Anti-circumvention technology legislation in Canada : drafting a new law in the wake of the DMCA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En devenant un signataire des traites du World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO, Organisation Mondiale de la Propriete Intellectuelle), le Canada s'est engage a assumer 1'obligation de fournir une protection contre la mise en echec des mesures technologiques conches pour proteger les oeuvres aux droits d'auteur.Malgre l'apparence simple de cette obligation, tout ceci entraine en realite une interessante intersection de politique, loi et technologie, menant a une situation complexe pleine de repercussions.Les Etats-Unis, co-signataire des traites du WIPO, ont repondu a cette tension en decretant le Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA, Loi des Droits d'Auteur du Millenaire Numerique).Cette loi regule tres lourdement la technologie de detournement et a obtenu par consequent d'enormes critiques.Les critiques ont designe cette loi comme etant imprevisible et trop generate au niveau de sa legislation, ce qui a pour consequence de refroidir la liberie d'expression, d'abuser de l'usage juste, d'etouffer la recherche et les etudes, et d'encourager les monopoles en eliminant la competition.Influencee largement par 1'experience des Etats-Unis, cette these a pour but de suggerer une voie que le Canada pourrait prendre pour remplir ses obligations envers la WIPO.Elle commencera par la revue des dispositions des traites afin de determiner l'etendue des obligations du Canada.Elle examinera ensuite les propositions du Canada et les reponses de ses citoyens quant aux futures legislations anti-detournement.Elle examinera aussi la DMCA en detail et tentera d'en trouver les failles.Finalement, elle etudiera l'etendue du besoin de nouvelles lois anti-detournement en examinant les lois Canadiennes existantes concernant la protection des mesures technologiques.Ce processus foumira 1'evidence que le Canada a, en grande partie, rempli ses obligations envers la WIPO en maintenant un equilibre delicat entre les depositaires des lois de droits d'auteur.Ceci etant, malgre le fait que de nouvelles lois anti-detournement soient peut-etre encore requises, le Canada dispose de suffisamment de latitude pour creer une loi qui recommit pleinement les droits de tous les depositaires dans 1'equation des droits d'auteurs, et qui reste consistante avec les principes propres au Canada sur les droits d'auteurs.In response to their obligations to the WIPO and Section 92 of the Copyright Act, the Canadian Government launched a document called A Framework of Copyright Reform, 6 in 2001.The Framework outlined the copyright reform process the government (through Industry Canada and Heritage Canada) would undertake to modernize the Copyright Act.The Framework's purpose was to inform Canadians about the objectives of the reform and outline a number of substantive issues in need of consideration through the reform process.As a first step in the copyright reform process, the government released consultation papers for public comment, one of which, the Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues, 7 dealt directly with Canada's obligation under the WIPO regarding circumvention technology.8The paper addressed the delicate balance between protecting the creator while allowing the dissemination of information.It recognized the importance of fair dealing as a valid exception to copyright law and the fair dealing exemptions under the Copyright Act would be affected by future anti-circumvention legislation.It also took into account how the WIPO obligations had been enacted in other countries and its effects on their copyright regime.Finally, the government solicited submissions regarding possible amendments to the Copyright Act with respect to the issues described in the Consultation Paper, submissions that would allow it to "establish a legal framework which, on the one hand, covers virtually all activities that undermine the use of technological measures, but at the same time continues to reflect the policy balance currently set out in the Act."In October 2002, Industry Canada concluded its hearings and submitted its report entitled "Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act."The report has since been referred to the Standing Committee on 6 Framework, supra note 1. 7
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".