If a Machine Could Talk, We Would Not Understand It: Canadian Innovation and the Copyright Act’s TPM Interoperability Framework

This analysis examines the legal implications of technological protection measures (‘‘TPMs”) under Canada’s Copyright Act. Through embedded computing systems and proprietary interfaces, TPMs are being used by original equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs”) of agricultural equipment to preclude reverse engineering and follow-on innovation. This has anti-competitive effects on Canada’s ‘‘shortline” agricultural equipment industry, which produces add-on or peripheral equipment used with OEM machinery. This requires interoperability between the interfaces, data formats, and physical connectors, which are often the subject of TPM control. Exceptions under the Act have provided little assistance to the shortline industry. The research question posed by this analysis is: how does the CanadianCopyright Act’s protection for TPMs and its interoperability exception impact follow-on innovation in secondary markets? Canada’s protection for TPMs and its interoperability exception is inadequate for protecting follow-on innovation in relation to computerized machinery and embedded systems. This is due to the Act’s broad protection for TPMs, yet limited conceptualization of interoperability as a process that exists only between two ‘‘computer programs”. In legally protecting TPMs which safeguard uncopyrightable processes, data formats and interfaces, the Act’s interoperability exception fails to address the need to access subjects of TPM protection that extend beyond computer programs. This results in an asymmetry of protection and renders the interoperability exception inadequate. This article proposes enacting regulations under the Act to provide new exceptions and limitations to TPM protections which would enable shortline innovation. Both the Copyright Act and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement envision such additional TPM exceptions where the effect of protection has adverse effects on competition in a secondary market. In exploring a path forward for Canada’s shortline industry, the article then examines approaches taken in the United States and France to illustrate potential avenues for TPM regulation in Canada

Repair As Research: How Copyright Impedes Learning About Devices

Widespread computerization and ubiquitous smart devices have enabled software-based copyright governance to reach into new domains. Beyond their instrumental utility, these devices are also containers of vast amounts of information in the form of software and technical know-how. Through copyright and anti-circumvention rules, however, this information can be cordoned off and confined to exclusive distribution channels. This can have a significant impact on research. While copyright law traditionally conceives research as the use of expressive works within institutional settings, this paper proposes a broader conceptualization that includes device research, including informal inquiries and DIY activities. Whether for the purposes of modification, repair, user innovation, or testing, device research involves the analytical engagement with physical devices. With a particular focus on repair-related activities as a modality of device research, this paper refers to product teardowns, reverse engineering, security research, and testing analyses. It then looks to case studies that exemplify the ways in which copyright can impede this type of research. In highlighting the conceptual overlap between the Right to Repair and Right to Research movements, the authors propose that a broader concept of research in copyright that includes device research could normatively reinforce and bolster support for a Right to Research in international copyright law

A Modern Copyright Framework for the Internet of Things (IoT): Intellectual Property Scholars\u27 Joint Submission to the Canadian Government Consultation

In response to the Canadian government consultation process on the modernization of the copyright framework launched in the summer 2021, we hereby present our analysis and recommendations concerning the interaction between copyright and the Internet of Things (IoT). The recommendations herein reflect the shared opinion of the intellectual property scholars who are signatories to this brief. They are informed by many combined decades of study, teaching, and practice in Canadian, US, and international intellectual property law.In what follows, we explain:•The importance of approaching the questions raised in the consultation with a firm commitment to maintaining the appropriate balance of rights and interests in Canada’s copyright system, within the broader framework of the Constitution;•That the modernization of the Copyright Act requires a careful examination of the copyright framework within larger observable trends of dominant positions in the marketplace and anti-competitive practices, of the extraction of big (personal) data, and of market and legal infrastructures’ heavy reliance on non-negotiated standard form contracts;-That the growing prevalence of the IoT shows more clearly than ever before why Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) need to be recalibrated in keeping with the objectives of copyright, the Constitution, property rights, and of promoting competitive markets.As such, we recommend:-To narrow the scope of the TPM prohibitions under the Copyright Act, whereby the circumvention of access controls or copy controls for non-copyright-infringing purposes would be lawful, with a non-exhaustive list of such purposes to provide greater legal certainty. The same treatment would apply to the dealing in TPM circumvention technology enabling the exercise of non-copyright-infringing purposes.In the alternative, the Copyright Act should be amended to:-Introduce a new exception that would confirm that the TPM provisions (and other relevant exclusive rights in the Copyright Act) do not apply to the right to repair, including for maintenance and diagnostics purposes.-Introduce a new exception to encourage follow-on innovation.-Additionally, just as copyright holders should not be allowed to contract out of exceptions to copyright infringement through non-negotiated standard form agreements, neither should they be allowed to opt out of exceptions to TPM prohibitions by contract

A Modern Copyright Framework for Artificial Intelligence: IP Scholars\u27 Joint Submission to the Canadian Government Consultation

In response to the Canadian government consultation process on the modernization of the copyright framework launched in the summer 2021, we hereby present our analysis and recommendations concerning the interaction between copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). The recommendations herein reflect the shared opinion of the intellectual property scholars who are signatories to this brief. They are informed by many combined decades of study, teaching, and practice in Canadian and international intellectual property law.In what follows, we explain:- The importance of approaching the questions raised in the consultation with a firm commitment to maintaining the appropriate balance of rights and interests in Canada’s copyright system, consistent with a robust principle of technological neutrality.- The importance of ensuring that text and data mining (TDM) activity can be undertaken in Canada without the threat of potential copyright liability. We therefore propose both an opening up of Canada’s fair dealing doctrine to better accommodate TDM activities, and the enactment of a specific statutory provision to confirm that uses of copyright works and other subject matter for TDM (whether commercial or non-commercial) do not infringe copyright.- The importance of resisting calls to extend copyright protection to AI-generated outputs. We therefore propose maintaining and confirming the existing principled requirements of human authorship and original expression as preconditions of copyright protection, and we caution against any move to establish new neighbouring or sui generis rights in respect of AI outputs. Works generated by AI should remain in the public domain.As such, we recommend:- Enacting a broad statutory provision confirming that use of a work or other subject matter for TDM does not infringe copyright. This specific exception should be available to all users, apply to commercial and noncommercial uses, permit the retention and sharing of copies, and be protected from contractual override.- Amending section 29 of the Copyright Act to make the list of purposes an illustrative list (“for purposes such as”) and adding TDM or data/informational analysis as an enumerated purpose therein.- Confirming in section 2 of the Copyright Act that “author” means a human being/natural person; and confirming in section 5 of the Copyright Act that copyright shall not subsist in a work created without a human author

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

If a Machine Could Talk, We Would Not Understand It: Canadian Innovation and the Copyright Act’s TPM Interoperability Framework

This analysis examines the legal implications of technological protection measures (‘‘TPMs”) under Canada’s Copyright Act. Through embedded computing systems and proprietary interfaces, TPMs are being used by original equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs”) of agricultural equipment to preclude reverse engineering and follow-on innovation. This has anti-competitive effects on Canada’s ‘‘shortline” agricultural equipment industry, which produces add-on or peripheral equipment used with OEM machinery. This requires interoperability between the interfaces, data formats, and physical connectors, which are often the subject of TPM control. Exceptions under the Act have provided little assistance to the shortline industry. The research question posed by this analysis is: how does the CanadianCopyright Act’s protection for TPMs and its interoperability exception impact follow-on innovation in secondary markets? Canada’s protection for TPMs and its interoperability exception is inadequate for protecting follow-on innovation in relation to computerized machinery and embedded systems. This is due to the Act’s broad protection for TPMs, yet limited conceptualization of interoperability as a process that exists only between two ‘‘computer programs”. In legally protecting TPMs which safeguard uncopyrightable processes, data formats and interfaces, the Act’s interoperability exception fails to address the need to access subjects of TPM protection that extend beyond computer programs. This results in an asymmetry of protection and renders the interoperability exception inadequate. This article proposes enacting regulations under the Act to provide new exceptions and limitations to TPM protections which would enable shortline innovation. Both the Copyright Act and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement envision such additional TPM exceptions where the effect of protection has adverse effects on competition in a secondary market. In exploring a path forward for Canada’s shortline industry, the article then examines approaches taken in the United States and France to illustrate potential avenues for TPM regulation in Canada

Zen and the Art of Repair Manuals: Enabling a participatory Right to Repair through an autonomous concept of EU Copyright Law

Repair manuals are an essential resource for repairing today’s modern and computerised devices. Though these manuals may contain purely utilitarian and uncopyrightable facts, they often receive copyright protection in their entirety as literary works. This protection can impede community-based efforts toward fostering a culture of participatory repair throughout the EU, including repair cafés and tool libraries. Participatory repair activities provide numerous environmental, social, and economic benefits. This article explores whether directive 2001/29/EC’s exception for “uses in connection with the repair or demonstration of equipment” at Article 5(3)(l) (the “Repair Exception”) may offer an avenue for enabling such non-profit activities. Following an examination of the shortcomings of recent EU-wide policy measures and industry-led commitments aimed at providing access to repair information, the article looks to the Repair Exception’s origins, member state implementation, and its interpretive scope as an autonomous concept of EU law. Considering the strong public interest in participatory repair and dissemination of technical knowledge, the article calls for a robust autonomous interpretation of the Repair Exception in line with Article 11 TFEU. This interpretation should enable non-profit repair activities throughout the EU while accounting for and balancing the legitimate economic interests of rightsholders

Repair As Research: How Copyright Impedes Learning About Devices

Widespread computerization and ubiquitous smart devices have enabled software-based copyright governance to reach into new domains. Beyond their instrumental utility, these devices are also containers of vast amounts of information in the form of software and technical know-how. Through copyright and anti-circumvention rules, however, this information can be cordoned off and confined to exclusive distribution channels. This can have a significant impact on research. While copyright law traditionally conceives research as the use of expressive works within institutional settings, this paper proposes a broader conceptualization that includes device research, including informal inquiries and DIY activities. Whether for the purposes of modification, repair, user innovation, or testing, device research involves the analytical engagement with physical devices. With a particular focus on repair-related activities as a modality of device research, this paper refers to product teardowns, reverse engineering, security research, and testing analyses. It then looks to case studies that exemplify the ways in which copyright can impede this type of research. In highlighting the conceptual overlap between the Right to Repair and Right to Research movements, the authors propose that a broader concept of research in copyright that includes device research could normatively reinforce and bolster support for a Right to Research in international copyright law

Copyright in the Public Interest: Canada’s Perceptual Disability Framework

This chapter explores the lawfulness, under the current Canadian copyright regime, of making and displaying of 3D reproductions of works of visual art for the benefit of persons with disabilities. For the purposes of this chapter, the authors posit that such reproductions would typically be performed either by a person with a disability or, more likely, by a museum, art gallery or other third party on behalf of such persons. Since this issue has yet to be examined by the courts, any assessment remains speculative. The creation and public exhibition of a three-dimensional reproduction of visual art would undoubtedly impact the rights granted under the Copyright Act. Nevertheless, the authors believe that non-profit organisations such as a museum would probably be able to invoke two mechanisms: the defense of fair dealing for the purpose of research and private study; or the application of the statutory exception for the benefit of persons with perceptual disabilities. The authors propose that this interpretation of Canada’s Copyright Act gives the greatest meaning to the country’s ambition to create an inclusive society for persons with disabilities, which includes their participation in cultural and artistic life

Copyright in the Public Interest: Canada’s Perceptual Disability Framework

This chapter explores the lawfulness, under the current Canadian copyright regime, of making and displaying of 3D reproductions of works of visual art for the benefit of persons with disabilities. For the purposes of this chapter, the authors posit that such reproductions would typically be performed either by a person with a disability or, more likely, by a museum, art gallery or other third party on behalf of such persons. Since this issue has yet to be examined by the courts, any assessment remains speculative. The creation and public exhibition of a three-dimensional reproduction of visual art would undoubtedly impact the rights granted under the Copyright Act. Nevertheless, the authors believe that non-profit organisations such as a museum would probably be able to invoke two mechanisms: the defense of fair dealing for the purpose of research and private study; or the application of the statutory exception for the benefit of persons with perceptual disabilities. The authors propose that this interpretation of Canada’s Copyright Act gives the greatest meaning to the country’s ambition to create an inclusive society for persons with disabilities, which includes their participation in cultural and artistic life