copyright (new technologies and performers' rights) amendment bill

Well missed the introduction of the amendment to the Copyright Bill on Monday.

Boing Boing has a slightly rubber hammer reaction to it, and Ben from gadgetophile.com has already whipped into action and sent my MP and the Minister responsible a letter on the issue.

Best to go to the source, the Bill is available online:

PDF here.

Plain text version here.

From a very brief scan of the bill here are some comments.

Private copying exception

s 81A(1) is the legalise iPod section. Basically if you are the genuine owner of a CD you’re allowed to make one copy of the CD to any device. So rip it in iTunes on your Mac/PC (one copy) then sync it with your iPod (one copy). This ability to copy is limited to music recordings and audio books. So ripping your DVDs to your computer or onto an iPod remains a breach of copyright.

Problems.

1. This section has a sunset clause, s 81A(3), which will see it expire after two years from the date that the Act comes into force. It can be extended multiple times by an Order in Council, so that means it’s easy enough to extend it should there be a political will to do so.

2. s 81A(2) allows the seller of music recordings and audiobooks to contract out of this provision by specifying how it may or may not be copied.

3. Why didn’t they extend this private copying exception to audio visual works? What is the fundamental difference? People are currently actively doing both forms (CDs and DVDs) of format shifting.

Technological Protection Measures (TPM)

Okay I’m not going to discuss the broader ugly issues with TPM. The EFF (consider a donation to the EFF it’s Christmas!) and Professor Ed Felten of Freedom to Tinker have plenty of background reading.

But there are some balances in the Bill to the obvious issues with TPM. s 226D outlines when TPM does not apply and s 226E provides a method for users to circumvent TPM when the TPM prevents them from ‘exercising a permitted act’.

Basically libraries, archives and educational institutes are allowed to circumvent TPM to undertake encryption research, effect interoperability of software, correct an error in software or allow a permitted act – like listen to your DRM music.

So in theory these provisions would enable a user to rescue music or video wrapped in a DRM system that was no longer supported. But they can only engage a library, archive or educational institute to bypass the DRM, see s 226E(b). How realistic is this? Will they supply DRM translation services, allowing Freeplay DRM to be unwrapped then rewrapped into Windows Plays for Sure DRM? Could be quite a profitable and active area of operations for these prescribed libraries, archives and educational establishments.

Disassembly of Computer Programs

s 80A allows a legal user of a computer program to decompile the program from a low level language to a high level language. This is granted for two purposes. Firstly where this is required to create another computer program which will interoperate with the first program. Secondly when there are errors in the program. The exception is only granted if the supplier does not play ball by either provide a means of integration in the first case, or where there is an issue with a program and the supplier does not supply ‘a properly functioning and error-free copy of the program…in a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.”

This cannot be contracted out of by suppliers of computer programs, see s 80C. Compare this with the private copying provisions which can be contracted out of.

So that’s my 1 hour brain dump. /p>
Filed under: nz  drm  copyright/ip