The Entertainment Software Association of Canada's Danielle LaBossiere Parr published an op-ed in the Calgary Herald supporting the digital lock provisions in C-32 (Heritage Minister James Moore saw fit to tweet the op-ed). The op-ed doesn't contain many surprises – entertainment software is booming in Canada (and has been for years without copyright reform) but the ESAC says without reforms the future of the business is threatened.

There are three claims that demand a response, however.

First, the op-ed suggests that without anti-circumvention legislation (which is the focus of the piece) the government "is basically forcing them [creators] to give their works away for free." This is utter nonsense. As many people supporting reforms of the digital lock provisions have repeatedly stated, the digital lock provisions need balance to protect those that have purchased a variety of products in digital form. Calling for a right to circumvent for legal purposes isn't about giving away products for free since we're talking about products that have been purchased by consumers.

Second, the op-ed provides possibly the weakest justification yet for C-32's anti-circumvention rules. According to the ESAC, digital locks are needed to prevent "cheating" at games that "gives other players unfair advantages." While it may be true that locks can be used for those purposes, it cannot possibly be the case that the government needs to enact legislation designed to stop people from gaining unfair advantages in video game play.

Third, the op-ed arrives at the astonishing conclusion that "failing to protect TPMs under the law means that the government is dictating the business model." The absence of anti-circumvention legislation does no such thing. In fact, it once again the opposite – by providing legal protection for this particular business model, it is encouraging the use of digital locks. The right approach from a market, business-model perspective is not to take sides at all. No one is suggesting banning digital locks or prohibiting their use. Those arguing for a balanced approach merely want to ensure that digital locks and their associated business models are not privileged above the basic rights that otherwise exist at law.