C-11s most concerning feature are the provisions to prevent the circumevention of drm. This measure is present throughout the bill and seems to be a primary motivator for the bills passage. Regardless of what rights the bill seems to enshrine, if companies are given the ability to sue an individual for circumventing DRM, these rights are essentially void, because companies would be able to dictate how a intellectual property is to be consumed.
These policies would not be enforced on the level of the individual, which would be essentailly impossible, but rather tools that would make circumvention of DRM possible to the average user would become more difficult to distribute in Canada because the distribution of these tools would essentailly allow for the illegal activity of circumventing digital locks. Almost all media today comes with the inclusion of some DRM DVD´s, blurays and videogames. That makes most fair dealing uses of copyrighted material void, which is of course the intentional point of this bill.
It’s likely that the protection of digital locks will remain in the final bill that is passed. It technically doesn’t violate any constitutional rights and it doesn’t really affect bushiness’s interests. Part of the anti-SOPA push, a legislation that would have prevented user-generated content, was that it strongly opposed to by many prominent companies that would have been affected by the bill. These companies have no real incentive to stop the passage of this law. Business like it or not has as large of a voice in the political system as people do and for most business’s the DRM provisions may actually be seen to help increase sales.