This paper would be dedicated to the assessment of the following two rules from the Copyright Modernization Act C-11: digital locks and reproduction for private purpose. The following aspects would be covered by this investigation – the compatibility of these rules and the legal issues, which may arise in the case when the two rules come into contact.
While discussing the Digital Locks, it is essential to refer to the fact that “digital locks”, which is also referred in the scientific literature as the “technological protection measure”, may be defined from two following perspectives. First of all, it pertains to any effective technological option, component or device, which is responsible for controlling the access to the work. The second definition of this rule implies the use of effective technological option, component or device, which is responsible for limiting the access of an individual to the owner’s exclusive right’ exercising; otherwise it pertains to the remuneration rights - such ones, which control the copying of reproduction.
It is essential to note that any form of the illegal access to the control, installed on a work, is prohibited by the Bill C-11. In addition, it is not legal (in accordance with the regulations, set in the Bill C-11) to access the performance of the performer when it is fixed in a form of the sound recording even in the cases when such work is subjected to the legally acquired digital lock (Bill C11, sect.1 F).
In addition, the prohibitions of the digital lock – as they as set by the Act, have the potential of prevailing or “trumping” over the set of other different expectations, which are set in the Copyright Act. As an evident example, it is possible to refer to the educational exceptions or fair dealing.
While discussing the core traits of the Reproduction for Private Purpose (aka the “format-shifting exception”), which is an integral part of the New Personal Use / Fair Dealing Exceptions, it is essential to outline the following information. These regulations provide the end client with the right of reproducing some records for their private purpose. The only essential issue in this case is the legal access to the copy of protected subject matter or work of art. In such cases the copy, retrieved from the “audio-recording medium” cannot be considered as the legally obtained one. As an evident example, it is possible to refer to the case when the client has the right of copying the song, which was previously purchased by him from the iTunes from one’s computer, tablet or laptop to one’s own smartphone (or vice versa)
It is essential to note that it is clearly stated in the section 79 that it is not permitted to use the copies of the musical work, which are issued on the audio recording medium (sect 79). In other words, the reproductions on CD-Rs and Mini-Discs are not allowed for use – in accordance with the regulations, set in Bill C-11 (Bill C-11, sect 2 B ii).
While investigating the actual protection of the work by the Digital Lock, it is essential to refer to the following practical example – in the case if an individual has gained an access to some copyright information, while using the authorized password or one has logged in, while using the CWL password and username for accessing the authorized works, one has an option of legal accessing to such work. At the same time, in the case if the individual gets the key or password from the unauthorized sources (such as finding the technological option for breaking the digital lock), such actions are referred as offenses.
It is possible to define the Use Restriction as the technological option, which limits individuals from some actions (those, ones, which differ from simple accessing the file). As an example, it is possible to consider the restriction, set on the option of downloading the copy of the file or making some partial copies from its text – as in the case of Google books service.
There is a set of exceptions under the Copyright Act, which permit the educational entities the set of actions – for example, the “fair use exception”. This exception provides any individual with the right of using the copyrighted work for the set of permitted purposes - such as education, private investigation, parody, satire, review etc., without the permission of the copyright holder. In such case these works are retrieved from the public libraries, university libraries or other public access points (UBC 1).
While taking in consideration the fact that both the “digital locks” rule and the “reproduction for private purpose” are integral parts of one Bill, they are compatible, as they cover different areas of the copyright information protection and use. It is obvious that some legal issues may arise when these rules come into act. In the case of digital lock, the user may access the information (such as Google book service), one may read it for one’s own purpose (such as educational or entertainment), but cannot copy it from the site without an authorized access (for this purpose, one has to purchasing it). At the same time, in the case if some materials are copied from this book (even a purchased one) or while omitting the protection, set by the digital lock, and are not cited, the rule, referring to the ‘reproduction for private purpose’ comes into force, as an individual should clearly cite the source, of information, used by one.
Works Cited
Bill C11:The Copyright Modernization Act. 2012
UBC. Copyright Guidelines for UBC Faculty, Staff and Students. 2012. <http://copyright.ubc.ca/guidelines-and-resources/copyright-guidelines/ >
