Tag: Bill C-32

C-32 enablement remedy targets secondary copyright infringementC-32 enablement remedy targets secondary copyright infringement



Mark Twain once famously commented, “Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet.” Canadian copyright law bears the burden of his axiom more than most. The pith of our copyright law dates from a 1911 bill passed in the United Kingdom, which we adopted wholesale in the early 1920s, and have not kept current with the changes in time.

Our law, which was designed to deal with player pianos and renegade printing presses, and later traditional broadcast techologies like radio and TV, is occasionally called upon to deal with illegal filesharing on the Internet.

En réponse à «Pour démêler la confusion à l’égard du droit d’auteur» (Clearing Up the Copyright Confusion), du Professeur Michael GeistEn réponse à «Pour démêler la confusion à l’égard du droit d’auteur» (Clearing Up the Copyright Confusion), du Professeur Michael Geist



Par Dan Glover,* 9 janvier 2011 (version originale en Anglais)

 Résumé

  • La création d’œuvres protégées par le droit d’auteur pour fins pédagogiques est une entreprise importante et complexe, particulièrement dans un pays aussi vaste, diversifié et peu peuplé comme l’est le Canada. Il faudrait mener une réflexion approfondie avant d’instituer des règles d’utilisation équitable qui menaceraient l’édition pédagogique.
  • L’équité est un concept subjectif qui doit être examiné au cas par cas. Six ans seulement après la décision historique de la Cour suprême dans la cause CCH concernant l’utilisation équitable, la voici saisie à nouveau !

A Response to Professor Michael Geist’s Clearing Up the Copyright ConfusionA Response to Professor Michael Geist’s Clearing Up the Copyright Confusion



Abstract*

·               The creation of copyright works for educational uses is a complex and substantial endeavour, particular in a country as large, diverse and sparsely populated as Canada. Careful thought should be given before adopting fair dealing rules that threaten the health of educational publishing.

·               “Fairness” is an eye-of-the-beholder concept that must be revisited on the facts of every new case. Only six years after the landmark CCH case on “fair dealing”, this issue is returning to the Supreme Court for a second review!

Liberals announce proposals to amend Bill C-32Liberals announce proposals to amend Bill C-32



The Liberal Party announced today a proposal to amend Bill C-32.

It intends to introduce a new Private Copying Compensation Payment of $35 million to be transferred to Canadian artists each year through the CPCC.

The Liberal Party also announced it intends to amend C-32 in order to:

“Restrict the education exemption by clearly defining “education” and inserting a clear and strict test for “fair” use for education purposes;

Re-insert the right of ephemeral recordings;

Restrict and tighten the language for “mash-ups”;

Remove the arbitrary 1988 statute on public expositions;
Introduce a new resale right on art, similar to European laws;

Ensure the rights of Canadian photographers are comparable to those shared by photographers around the world; and

Address the overly-restrictive digital lock provisions for personal uses.”

An FAQ on TPMs, Copyright and Bill C-32An FAQ on TPMs, Copyright and Bill C-32



This blog post is based on a transcription of the talk I gave last week at the Insight Conference on Rights and Copyright: Bringing Canada into the 21st Century. * I was on a panel with Michael Geist in which we both presented on the topic of “Bill C-32: Legal Protection for TPMs”. The slides I used with my presentation have already been posted here. For convenience they are also at the end of my remarks.

———————————————

Welcome. I hope everyone is having a good day so far.

My C-32 opening remarksMy C-32 opening remarks



The following were my opening remarks to the Parliamentary Committee studying Bill C-32 made earlier today.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear today to provide input on Bill C-32.

Before starting my remarks, I would like to give you some background about myself.  I am not telling you all of these things to boast, but because I understand some have expressed concern that I have one or two clients affected by this legislation and that is the only view shaping my perspective.

Separating copyright fiction from facts about C-32’s TPM provisionsSeparating copyright fiction from facts about C-32’s TPM provisions



Earlier this week Prof. Geist wrote an opinion piece in the Toronto Star in which he purported to separate “copyright facts from fiction”. His opinion piece, Separating copyright facts from fiction, followed by another blog post this week, The False Link Between Locks and Levies, are two in a series of blog posts and opinion pieces written by him recently that purport to expose as inaccurate statements made about Bill C-32 by various individuals and organizations. See: Responding to ACTRA: Group Calls C-32 a “Disaster” and Proposes Six Part Fix; Copyright Fear Mongering Hits a New High: Writers Groups Post Their C-32 Brief; In Search of A Compromise on Copyright; EU: ACTA Digital Lock Rules Don’t Cover Access Controls.

Bill C-32’s fair dealing and other new copyright exceptionsBill C-32’s fair dealing and other new copyright exceptions



Here are slides from the speech I gave earlier today at Osgoode Hall Law School’s professional development program on understanding Bill C-32. The speech focused on the proposed fair dealing exceptions including the new exception for education, exceptions for individuals including the UGC, format shifting, time shifting, and back-up copy exceptions, and the new exceptions for developing interoperable programs, encryption research, network security testing, and technological processes.

Sookman Osgoode C-32 Speech

Some observations about the debates on Bill C-32 in the House of CommonsSome observations about the debates on Bill C-32 in the House of Commons



Last week there was lots of interesting debate in the House of Commons about Bill C-32 leading up to a vote at Second Reading to refer the Bill to a legislative committee for further study.

All of the political parties agreed that copyright reform is important. They concurred with the objectives behind the Bill including the goals of creating a legal climate in which creators can both safely invest in and get paid for their content and at the same time ensure access by users to their works.