- Must C-32 address BOTH "access" and "copy" controls?
- Can there be a general exception for circumventing for non-infringing purposes, e.g. fair dealing?
- Should devices, software, or services that have substantial legitimate purposes be caught in the anti-circumvention net?
Obligations concerning Technological MeasuresContracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.(Emphasis added)
Supplementary means of interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
What seems clear is that, for reasons that are not apparent, the Government is using language in Bill C-32 similar to that which was specifically rejected in the WIPO treaty making process - i.e. re "devices".