Copyright Modernization Act

Last updated

Copyright Modernization Act
Parliament-Ottawa.jpg
Parliament of Canada
  • An Act to amend the Copyright Act
CitationS.C. 2012, c. 20
Territorial extent Canada
Passed by House of Commons of Canada
Passed18 June 2012
Passed by Senate of Canada
Passed29 June 2012
Royal assent 29 June 2012
Commenced7 November 2012 [1]
Legislative history
First chamber: House of Commons of Canada
Bill citation C-11, 41st Parliament, 1st Session
Introduced by Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture) Christian Paradis
First reading 29 September 2011
Second reading 13 February 2012
Third reading 18 June 2012
Second chamber: Senate of Canada
First reading18 June 2012
Second reading21 June 2012
Third reading29 June 2012
Summary
Legislative Summary
Status: In force

An Act to amend the Copyright Act (the 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 [2] 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.

Contents

The Act's anti-circumvention provisions have been called "the most restrictive in the world" [3] and student groups compared it to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act that was proposed in the United States. Ottawa lawyer Kathleen Simmons stated "If we take out the digital lock provisions, the bill appears to be very balanced. It introduces some additional protection for different rights holders and performers but it’s also introducing a lot of user-friendly exceptions." [4] After the Copyright Modernization Act passed, debates over its digital lock provisions continued in House discussions on Bill C-56, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act. [5]

Content

The Act contained many significant provisions. It: [6]

  • Makes explicit allowance for time shifting, format shifting and backup copies as long as no digital locks are involved.
  • Expands the scope of fair dealing to include education, satire, and parody which enables users to make use of fragments of copyrighted works if no digital locks are involved.
  • Introduces a new exception for user-generated content created using copyrighted works without digital locks.
  • Prohibits the circumvention of digital locks, even for personal use, with some limited exceptions (such as unlocking cell phones).
  • Limits the amount of statutory damages for cases of non-commercial infringement to between $100 and $5,000 for all infringements in a single proceeding for all works. Statutory damages for commercial infringement range from $500 to $20,000 per work infringed.
  • Adopts a "notice-and-notice" regime which requires ISPs to forward any notice alleging infringement received from copyright owners to the subscribers in question.
  • Allows an educational institution or a person acting under its authority to reproduce a work, or do any other necessary act, in order to display it. [7]
  • Allows libraries to reproduce works in its permanent collection in alternate formats if the original format is obsolete, or if the technology required to use the original is no longer available. [7]
  • Requires educational institutions to ensure that copyrighted course materials are destroyed 30 days after the end of said course. [7]
  • Requires libraries to place a five-day time limit on material borrowed electronically. [7]
  • Makes performers and photographers the primary owners of their commissioned works. [8]
  • Calls for a review of copyright law every five years. [8]

Reaction

From industry

During its consideration, the bill drew negative reactions from the US-based International Intellectual Property Alliance, which represents industries in movie, music, and software. In particular, the IIPA took issue with the "notice-and-notice" approach that only requires internet service providers to forward infringement notices to their subscribers, which it claims "fails to provide meaningful incentives for network service providers to co-operate with copyright owners to deal with copyright infringements that take place in the digital network environment". and said it will urge the U.S government to pressure Canada for more reforms as part of the negotiations for Canada's entry into Trans Pacific Partnership free trade agreement. [9] It also wanted Canada to repeal sections that limit statutory damages to a maximum of $5,000 for non-commercial infringement, claiming that the cap renders statutory damages "ineffective in achieving its goals of full compensation and deterrence in the online environment". [9]

CRIA lawyer Barry Sookman who supported the Act commented on the digital lock rules. He claimed that they did not actually criminalize every day activities and that critics were misinterpreting them. [10]

From the public

Richard Stallman joins the protest by promoting a political cartoon criticizing Bill C-11 on the blog of fellow copyright reform advocate Michael Geist. RMS on Canada comic.png
Richard Stallman joins the protest by promoting a political cartoon criticizing Bill C-11 on the blog of fellow copyright reform advocate Michael Geist.

When the Act was introduced, it was criticized for "mirroring the previous bill" and bringing back anti-circumvention laws unchanged. These laws were challenged by Liberal and NDP members whose amendments were rejected in the first and second readings. [11] During the third reading, the Bloc Québécois' André Bellavance and the Green Party's Elizabeth May proposed amendments that were also turned down. [11] Critics who wanted more consultation expressed concern over the committee stage which excluded any witnesses who commented on Bill C-32. [12] Law professor Michael Geist disputed the party's statements regarding how many Canadians they consulted as well as a claim by Christian Paradis and James Moore that the Copyright Act had not changed since before 1990. [13] During the reading of the bill in the Senate, Geist delivered testimony which led to Senator Wilfred Moore proposing amendments similar to those that were rejected in the House. [14] [15] These were defeated and the bill passed later that same day.

In addition to online protests, a street protest was held in Montreal. [16] Toward the end of the bill's consideration, a petition urging the government to make further changes was signed by more than 70 arts and culture organizations. [17]

I will give an example to show just how boneheaded the digital lock provisions are. If a journalist on the evening news wanted to show an excerpt from a movie that was being discussed or debated, the journalist would not be able to show that excerpt because he or she would have to break the digital lock to do it.

Charlie Angus on October 18, 2011 [18]

During debates, the extent to which the government understood the technology was questioned. On October 18, 2011, Industry Minister Christian Paradis incorrectly stated that most DVDs do not have digital locks. [19] On October 27, 2011, Conservative MP Lee Richardson in a letter used the line "If a digital lock is broken for personal use, it is not realistic that the creator would choose to file a law suit against the consumer, due to legal fees and time involved". [20] Referring to this, Liberal MP Geoff Regan commented on the irony of the government advising Canadians to break its own law. [21] On June 25, 2012, it was revealed that the Department of Justice had warned Industry Canada that prohibitions against the circumvention of locks may violate freedom of expression and/or disability rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

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

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paracopyright</span> Legal protection above traditional copyright

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 copyright law of Australia defines the legally enforceable rights of creators of creative and artistic works under Australian law. The scope of copyright in Australia is defined in the Copyright Act 1968, which applies the national law throughout Australia. Designs may be covered by the Copyright Act as well as by the Design Act. Since 2007, performers have moral rights in recordings of their work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair dealing</span> Limitation and exception to a right granted by copyright law

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">Copyright infringement</span> Illegal usage of copyrighted works

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

<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.

Notice and take down is a process operated by online hosts in response to court orders or allegations that content is illegal. Content is removed by the host following notice. Notice and take down is widely operated in relation to copyright infringement, as well as for libel and other illegal content. In United States and European Union law, notice and takedown is mandated as part of limited liability, or safe harbour, provisions for online hosts. As a condition for limited liability online hosts must expeditiously remove or disable access to content they host when they are notified of the alleged illegality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Economy Act 2010</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Digital Economy Act 2010 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The act addresses media policy issues related to digital media, including copyright infringement, Internet domain names, Channel 4 media content, local radio and video games. Introduced to Parliament by Lord Mandelson on 20 November 2009, it received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. It came into force two months later, with some exceptions: several sections – 5, 6, 7, 15, 16(1)and 30 to 32 – came into force immediately, whilst others required a statutory instrument before they would come into force. However some provisions have never come into force since the required statutory instruments were never passed by Parliament and considered to be "shelved" by 2014, and other sections were repealed.

An Act to amend the Copyright Act 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. In March 2011, the 40th Canadian Parliament was dissolved, with all the bills which did not pass by that point automatically becoming dead.

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.

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. "SI 2012/85 - Copyright Modernization Act: Order Fixing Various Dates as the Dates on which Certain Provisions of the Act Come into Force". Canada Gazette . 7 November 2012.
  2. Geist, Michael (2011-09-29). "Copyright Is Back: Why Canada is Keeping the Flawed Digital Lock Rules". Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  3. Pacetti, Massimo (2011-10-21). "Copyright Modernization Act". openparliament.ca. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  4. Lytvynenko, Jane (2012-02-28). "Unlocking Bill C-11: What are digital locks and why should you care?". Fulcrum. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  5. Angus, Charlie (2013-06-12). "Combating Counterfeit Products Act". openparliament.ca. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  6. 1 2 3 4 "Bill C-11: The Copyright Modernization Act". University of British Columbia. Retrieved 11 February 2013.
  7. 1 2 "Legislative Summary of Bill C-11: An Act to amend the Copyright Act". Parliament of Canada. 2012-04-20. Archived from the original on 2015-01-05. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  8. 1 2 Geist, Michael (Sep 23, 2012). "Copyright lobby demands rollback of recent Canadian reforms in secretive trade deal". Toronto Star. Retrieved 11 February 2013.
  9. Sookman, Barry (2011-10-03). "Some Observations on Bill C-11: The Copyright Modernization Act" . Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  10. 1 2 Geist, Michael (2012-05-14). "Bill-C11 Enters Final House Debate With Green Party & Bloc Amendments" . Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  11. "Bill C-11 Copyright Bill Blog". Vote Canada. 2012-01-28. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  12. Geist, Michael (2012-05-25). "The Government's "10,000 Consultants" on Copyright". Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  13. Geist, Michael (2012-06-22). "Last Call on C-11: My Appearance Before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade & Commerce" . Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  14. Geist, Michael (2012-06-29). "Liberal Senators Take Last Shot and Copyright Bill's Digital Lock Rules" . Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  15. "Copyright protest to be held in Montreal". The Montreal Gazette. 2012-02-10. Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  16. Carroll, David (2012). "Canadian cultural sector calls on the Senate to repair Bill C-11". Canadian Federation of Musicians. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  17. Angus, Charlie (2011-10-18). "Copyright Modernization Act". openparliament.ca. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  18. Geist, Michael (2011-10-20). "Copyright Debate Hits the House of Commons: Opposition Won't Support C-11 Due to Digital Locks". Archived from the original on 2014-04-29. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  19. Doctorow, Cory (2011-10-27). "Canadian Tory MP: Don't worry about violating our stupid new copyright law, because we probably won't catch you if you do". Boing Boing. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  20. Regan, Geoff (2011-11-14). "Copyright Modernization Act". openparliament.ca. Retrieved 2014-05-23.
  21. Geist, Michael (2012-06-25). "The Missing Copyright Docs, Pt 1: Justice Dept Warned About Constitutionality of Digital Lock Rules". Archived from the original on 2014-05-24. Retrieved 2014-05-23.