An Act to amend the Copyright Act (40th Canadian Parliament, 3rd Session)

Last updated
Bill C-32
House of Commons of Canada
  • An Act to amend the Copyright Act
CitationBill C-32 [1]
Enacted by House of Commons of Canada
Legislative history
Bill titleBill C-32
Introduced by Tony Clement and James Moore
First reading June 2, 2010 [2]
Second reading November 5, 2010 [2]
Status: Expired

An Act to amend the Copyright Act (Bill C-32) was a bill tabled on June 2, 2010 during the third session of the 40th Canadian Parliament by Minister of Industry Tony Clement and by Minister of Canadian Heritage James Moore. This bill served as the successor to the previously proposed but short-lived Bill C-61 in 2008 and sought to tighten Canadian copyright laws. [3] In March 2011, the 40th Canadian Parliament was dissolved, with all the bills which did not pass by that point (including bill C-32) automatically becoming dead.

Contents

Many restrictions in the bill were harshly criticized, especially those regarding the circumvention of digital locks. Law professor Michael Geist commented that the bill was introduced by an "out-of-touch Moore, who has emerged as a staunch advocate for a Canadian DMCA". [4] After Bill C-32's introduction, James Moore responded to criticism by calling the bill's detractors "radical extremists". [5] In the aftermath of the bill, the United States diplomatic cables leak revealed ongoing pressure from US officials wanting Canada to pass stricter copyright laws. [6]

The bill was revived in the next Parliament as C-11 on September 29, 2011. [7]

Content

The bill would have criminalized the act of circumventing, or making available to the public the ability to circumvent, digital rights management software locks. [3] These restrictions were described as "arguably worse than those found in the U.S." [8] While explicit mentions of "videocassettes" in Bill C-61 were replaced with technology neutral terms, the copying of DRM encumbered media such as DVDs was still prohibited by Bill C-32. [8] Bill C-32 was also interpreted as banning the user of region-free DVD players. [9] According to CBC News, the bill would have even criminalized "websites designed to encourage violation and piracy". [10] When describing the main principle of the bill, Michael Geist said "anytime a digital lock is used - whether on books, movies, music, or electronic devices - the lock trumps virtually all other rights." [8]

Bill C-32 called for a mandatory review of copyright law every five years. Two clauses it introduced that had not been seen in previous Canadian legislation were an exception that allowed unlocking cell phones and a "YouTube exception" permitting compilations of copyrighted works as long as they had no digital locks. [8] Under the bill libraries lending materials electronically would have been required to make those copies self-destruct within five days. Schools offering online course materials would have been obligated to render those materials inaccessible thirty days after the course's end date. [8] Performers and photographers were set to receive greater control over reproductions of their works.

Bill C-32 sought to subject Internet Service Providers to a "notice and notice" obligation. Such a scheme requires accusations of copyright infringement to be forwarded to the subscribers being accused and information about them kept for a period of time. [8] The bill proposed to limit statutory damages to $5,000 in the case of non-commercial infringement, compared to the previous fine of $20,000 that did not distinguish between commercial and non-commercial. [8]

Reaction

Many Canadians criticized the bill's attempts to follow American-style copyright law, including Michael Geist who called it "flawed but fixable". [8] Since many rights granted by Bill C-32 were nullified by the digital lock protection, CIPPIC referred to the bill as "a case of Jekyll and Hyde". [11] Artists and consumers both asked for further consultation on the bill, stating that it infringes on the right of private citizens to transfer something they own to another medium, and that the prohibition against circumventing corporate software designed to lock users out would hamper research. [5] After interviewing several copyright lawyers on Bill C-32, The Financial Post concluded that "ultimately, most lawyers suggest that the fair dealing definitions and exceptions should be broadened and consumers should have the right to break digital locks for personal use." [12]

Among groups who opposed Bill C-32 were the Canadian Consumer Initiative [13] and the Documentary Organization of Canada. [14] Charlie Angus of the NDP stated that "the only rights you will get under this bill are those that U.S.-based entertainment concerns decide you get." [13] SOCAN and the Canadian Music Creators Coalition criticized Bill C-32 for not doing enough to compensate artists [15] and the Quebec Bar Association opposed the bill on the grounds that it would create an unnecessary amount of litigation. [16] A protest was held in Calgary on June 27, 2010 citing environmental reasons as well. [17] Some groups such as the Canadian Library Association and the Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright generally supported the bill but took issue with DRM circumvention being illegal for personal use. [18] [19]

Heritage Minister James Moore drew particular criticism when on June 22, 2010, he warned conference attendees about "radical extremists" who "oppose copyright reform" and suggested that they be confronted on social media. [5] The speech was originally set to contain an admission that Bill C-61 was too restrictive in its protections of digital locks. [20] The specific party vilified in Moore's speech was widely considered to be Michael Geist. [21] [22] [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA) was a proposed law in the United States that directly challenges portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and would intensify Federal Trade Commission efforts to mandate proper labeling for copy-protected CDs to ensure consumer protection from deceptive labeling practices. It would also allow manufacturers to innovate in hardware designs and allow consumers to treat CDs as they have historically been able to treat them.

Ripping is extracting all or parts of digital content from a container. Originally, it meant to rip music out of Commodore 64 games. Later, the term was used to mean to extract WAV or MP3 format files from digital audio CDs, but got applied as well to extract the contents of any media, including DVD and Blu-ray discs, and video game sprites.

Anti-circumvention refers to laws which prohibit the circumvention of technological barriers for using a digital good in certain ways which the rightsholders do not wish to allow. The requirement for anti-circumvention laws was globalized in 1996 with the creation of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Copyright Treaty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright law of Canada</span>

The copyright law of Canada governs the legally enforceable rights to creative and artistic works under the laws of Canada. Canada passed its first colonial copyright statute in 1832 but was subject to imperial copyright law established by Britain until 1921. Current copyright law was established by the Copyright Act of Canada which was first passed in 1921 and substantially amended in 1988, 1997, and 2012. All powers to legislate copyright law are in the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada by virtue of section 91(23) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Copyright Act of Canada is the federal statute governing copyright law in Canada. It is jointly administered by the Department of Industry Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Copyright Act was first passed in 1921 and substantially amended in 1988 and 1997. Several attempts were made between 2005 and 2011 to amend the Act, but each of the bills failed to pass due to political opposition. In 2011, with a majority in the House of Commons, the Conservative Party introduced Bill C-11, titled the Copyright Modernization Act. Bill C-11 was passed and received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Geist</span> Canadian academic on internet and e-commerce law

Michael Allen Geist is a Canadian academic, and the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He is the editor of four books on copyright law and privacy law, and he edits two newsletters on Canadian information technology and privacy law.

An Act to amend the Copyright Act was a proposed law to amend the Copyright Act initiated by the Government of Canada in the First Session of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament. Introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women Liza Frulla and then Minister of Industry David Emerson as An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, it received its First Reading in the House of Commons of Canada on June 20, 2005. On November 29, 2005, the opposition to the government tabled a non-confidence motion which passed, dissolving Parliament and effectively killing the bill. The subsequent government tabled a similar bill called C-61.

Paracopyright is legal protection above and beyond traditional copyright. The most often cited example is "legal protection for technical measures" from the 1996 WIPO Internet treaties. Paracopyright provisions in these treaties are not about the term or scope of copyright, but instead are about providing legal protections for the technologies that may be used by copyright holders.

File sharing in Canada relates to the distribution of digital media in that country. Canada had the greatest number of file sharers by percentage of population in the world according to a 2004 report by the OECD. In 2009 however it was found that Canada had only the tenth greatest number of copyright infringements in the world according to a report by BayTSP, a U.S. anti-piracy company.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FAIR USE Act</span>

The "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing United States Entrepreneurship Act of 2007" was a proposed United States copyright law that would have amended Title 17 of the U.S. Code, including portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to "promote innovation, to encourage the introduction of new technology, to enhance library preservation efforts, and to protect the fair use rights of consumers, and for other purposes." The bill would prevent courts from holding companies financially liable for copyright infringement stemming from the use of their hardware or software, and proposes six permanent circumvention exemptions to the DMCA.

Turbo SIM card is considered to be the forerunner of a large family of "Dual SIM" devices that piggyback on a mobile telephone SIM card to alter its normal operation. It was introduced on December 1, 2004 by BLADOX, located in Prague, Czech Republic.

An Act to amend the Copyright Act was a bill tabled in 2008 during the second session of the 39th Canadian Parliament by Minister of Industry Jim Prentice. The bill died on the Order Paper when the 39th Parliament was dissolved prematurely and an election was called on September 7, 2008. The Conservative Party of Canada promised in its 2008 election platform to re-introduce a bill containing the content of C-61 if re-elected.

The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) is a legal clinic at the University of Ottawa focused on maintaining fair and balanced policy making in Canada related to technology. Founded in the fall of 2003 by Michael Geist, its headquarters is at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, Common Law Section.

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

On Apple devices running iOS and iOS-based operating systems, jailbreaking is the use of a privilege escalation exploit to remove software restrictions imposed by the manufacturer. Typically it is done through a series of kernel patches. A jailbroken device permits root access within the operating system and provides the right to install software unavailable through the App Store. Different devices and versions are exploited with a variety of tools. Apple views jailbreaking as a violation of the end-user license agreement and strongly cautions device owners not to try to achieve root access through the exploitation of vulnerabilities.

Rooting is the process by which users of Android devices can attain privileged control over various subsystems of the device, usually smartphones. Because Android is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel, rooting an Android device gives similar access to administrative (superuser) permissions as on Linux or any other Unix-like operating system such as FreeBSD or macOS.

Fair dealing is a statutory exception to copyright infringement, and is also referred to as a user's right. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is more than a simple defence; it is an integral part of the Copyright Act of Canada, providing balance between the rights of owners and users. To qualify under the fair dealing exception, the dealing must be for a purpose enumerated in sections 29, 29.1 or 29.2 of the Copyright Act of Canada, and the dealing must be considered fair as per the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

<i>Copyright Modernization Act</i> 2012 Canadian law

An Act to amend the Copyright Act, also known as Bill C-11 or the Copyright Modernization Act, was introduced in the House of Commons of Canada on September 29, 2011 by Industry Minister Christian Paradis. It was virtually identical to the government's previous attempt to amend the Copyright Act, Bill C-32. Despite receiving unanimous opposition from all other parties, the Conservative Party of Canada was able to pass the bill due to their majority government. The bill received Royal Assent on June 29, 2012 becoming the first update to the Copyright Act since 1997.

Remedies for copyright infringement in the United States can be either civil or criminal in nature. Criminal remedies for copyright infringement prevent the unauthorized use of copyrighted works by defining certain violations of copyright to be criminal wrongs which are liable to be prosecuted and punished by the state. Unlike civil remedies, which are obtained through private civil actions initiated by the owner of the copyright, criminal remedies are secured by the state which prosecutes the infringing individual or organisation.

References

  1. ↑ "Government Bill (House of Commons) C-32 (40-3) - First Reading - Copyright Modernization Act - Parliament of Canada". www.parl.gc.ca.
  2. 1 2 "Bill C-32 at LegisInfo". Parliament of Canada. Retrieved January 23, 2012.
  3. 1 2 Reynolds, Graham. The Mark News, How balanced is Bill C-32? Archived February 16, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  4. ↑ Geist, Michael (2010-05-19). "National Post Reports "Heavy Handed" Copyright Law Coming Next Week". Archived from the original on March 23, 2011. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  5. 1 2 3 "Copyright debate turns ugly". CBC News. June 24, 2010. Retrieved January 23, 2012.
  6. ↑ Geist, Michael (2011-04-29). "Wikileaks Cables Show Massive U.S. Effort To Establish Canadian DMCA". Archived from the original on April 30, 2011. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  7. ↑ "Harper Government Delivers on Commitment to Reintroduce Copyright Modernization Act". Balanced Copyright. September 29, 2011. Archived from the original on January 27, 2012. Retrieved January 23, 2012.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Geist, Michael (2010-06-02). "The Canadian Copyright Bill: Flawed But Fixable". Archived from the original on 2010-06-05. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  9. ↑ Geist, Michael (2010-05-25). "Seven Copyright Questions for Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore". Archived from the original on May 28, 2010. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  10. ↑ Nowak, Peter (June 3, 2010). "Copyright bill would ban breaking digital locks". CBC News. Retrieved January 23, 2012.
  11. ↑ "Grassroots Advocacy: Fix C-32". Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. 2010-06-07. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  12. ↑ Carlson, Daryl-Lynn (2011-03-10). "Pending copyright law needs a fix". The Financial Post. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  13. 1 2 Nowak, Peter (2010-06-16). "Consumer groups blast Moore over copyright". CBC News. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  14. ↑ "New Copyright Bill Hinders Documentary Filmmaking". Mediacaster Magazine. 2010-06-03. Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  15. ↑ Karrass, Robert (2011-03-02). "Bill C-32: A Lifeline for a Dying Industry". IP Osgoode. Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  16. ↑ Taylor, Kate (2010-11-01). "Ottawa pushes ahead with copyright bill amid opposition". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  17. ↑ "Rally opposing copyright infringement". CTV News. 2010-06-27. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  18. ↑ "Canadian Library Association Gives Passing Grade to New Copyright Legislation". CNW. 2010-06-03. Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  19. ↑ "The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright welcomes the introduction of the Copyright Modernization Act". CNW. 2010-06-03. Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  20. ↑ Geist, Michael (2010-12-08). "Canadians told us the TPM provisions in C-61 were too far reaching". Archived from the original on December 11, 2010. Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  21. ↑ Geist, Michael (2010-06-23). "James Moore's Attack on Fair Copyright" . Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  22. ↑ Sookman, Barry (2010-06-23). "Minister Moore's Speech on C-32" . Retrieved 2014-05-22.
  23. ↑ Haggart, Blayne (2010-06-23). ""Radical extremists" and the smearing of Michael Geist" . Retrieved 2014-05-22.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.