Copyright-related Policy summary for
CLUE: Canada's Association for Open Source

The Vision of CLUE is to nurture a Canadian Information Technology environment which promotes collaborative innovation as well as open standards and the rights of consumers.

The Mission of CLUE is to promote the use and development of Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), by providing a public voice to the community for its Canadian users, developers and supporters. CLUE will enhance this community's ability to share resources, define standards, and promote its values within Canadian society.

Overall policy focus is to protect the the right of the owners of digital technology to make their own software choices, and further to seek to remove any legal or other barriers that would favour non-FLOSS software over FLOSS.

Petitions: CLUE endorses both the "Petition for Users Rights (in Copyright)" and the "Petition to protect Information Technology property rights" as organized by the Digital Copyright Canada forum.

Primary Copyright related concerns:

Policy proposals:

Language issues:

There are many misconceptions about terms such as Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technical Protection Measures (TPMs), which are used to mean different things by different people. Many of the beliefs about DRM and TPMs are based in science fiction, and not science. I try to avoid using these terms to avoid confusion.

Technical people talk about technologies, such as cryptography, that can be used to protect the authenticity, integrity, and privacy of information, as well as ensure that only authorized access to computers and data are possible. Cryptographic theory documents why cryptography, the strongest of the technical measures, can not be used effectively to stop copyright infringement. There is no way to use this technology in the situation where the intended recipient of an encrypted message and the attacker are the same person.

Two important policy questions need about the use of these technologies: Who is deciding what is "authorized", and is the owner "authorized" to access and control their own hardware? We should not be enacting laws that allege to protect copyright at the expense of tangible property rights.

In any policy analysis we must separate the 4 possible owners involved in digital communications technology: content, media, hardware, software. This is required to ensure that the policy does not reduce the rights of one owner in order to allegedly protect the rights of another.

See: Protecting property rights in a digital world

CLUE: Canada's Association for Open Source

Policy Coordinator: Russell McOrmond

305 Southcrest Private, Ottawa, ON, K1V 2B7