Oh dear – here we go again. Doctor Ficsor, you are quickly gaining a reputation for inaccuracy. I was originally going to refute you point by point, but that would have resulted in another long document, and as you stated, this is Christmas. I have children and a wife (never mind two adorable dogs) who would like to see me away from the computer for a while, so I will make this short.
Point Number One:
You have stated that the United States is compliant with the treaty in regards to ‘Technological Protection Measures (TPM)’. According to the wording that you, yourself have provided they are not. Their implementation, known as the ‘Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998’ is defective in many areas. I’ll pick one to demonstrate, specifically the Kindle, an E-Reader marketed by Amazon. The Kindle uses ‘Digital Rights Management (DRM)’ (a more accurate name would be Digital Restrictions Management), another name for a TPM, to prevent copying of the E-Books on the Kindle. According to your reading of the treaty, any legislation is supposed to outlaw ‘circumvention devices’ for any TPM.
However flatbed scanners are sold in many stores. With a flatbed scanner, I have the capability of scanning the book page by page. I can then, using commercially available Optical Character Recognition Software (OCR) transform the scanned pages into a DRM electronic file.
If your statement about the United States being compliant with the treaty was accurate, flatbed scanners and OCR software would not be legally available for sale in the United States, as they allow me to circumvent the TPM on the Kindle.
You may regard this example as ridiculous, however there is nothing in the treaty which allows a country to
Point Number Two:
Article 11, Obligations Concerning Technological Measures, states that:
Contracting 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.
This section was written to protect the rights of an author, like you or I. Under this measure, only authors are protected. Publishers are not. Let’s use Canadian singer/songwriter Avril Lavigne as an example. If she writes a song, and records it, and she chose to use a TPM to protect the recording, under the wording of Article 11, if Canada ratified the treaty, you say we would have to enact legislation to prevent the sale and/or manufacture of circumvention devices of any sort. However if her label, RCA used TPM, we would not be required to enact legislation to protect the TPM from circumvention devices.
Or if Avril recorded a song that I wrote (an unlikely eventuality), since she is not the author, again, Canada would not be required to enact legislation to protect the TPM from circumvention devices.
So your blanket statement about the requirements for legislation to control circumvention devices is inaccurate. The requirement exists only if the author chooses to use it. No one else has that ability.
Point Number Three:
I have asked twice now, for you or Barry to supply me one or more peer reviewed cost/benefit studies. So far you have not done so. In fact your only argument is the Lemming argument. If a Lemming runs off a cliff, the other Lemmings have to follow. This makes any Lemming that follows the pact eligible for a Darwin Award, and would definitely improve the Gene Pool.
The obvious inference is that you either can’t or don’t want to supply the information. If you can’t supply the information, because such a study was not done, advocating that Canada sign the treaty would be a breach of fiduciary duty on your par
If you don’t want to supply the information, because the study showed that there either was no benefit, or that implementation would have a negative effect on the citizens of Canada, this would also be a breach of fiduciary duty on your part.
Since, as you pointed out, this is Christmas, I will happily wait until the end of the second week of January, for you to supply this information.
Point Number Four
As I pointed out in my earlier responses, to you and Barry, the Government of Canada is responsible to the citizens of Canada, not to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The Government of Canada has a fiduciary duty to the citizens of Canada, not to the WIPO, or to any other political or judicial body outside the boundaries of this great country.
Canada is a democratic country. For you to suggest that our politicians have a greater responsibility to the WIPO, than to the citizens of this country, which you have done, is insufferable. Your original invitation read more like an order.
Since it is now December 24th, I will wish you a Merry Christmas. Even a Maoist Revolutionary can do that.