Yesterday's posting referenced the damages limitation for libraries, archives, museums, and educational institutions that limits their liability for "innocent circumvention" to an injunction only. It is worth asking why this principle does not extend to all Canadians. If the circumvention occurs for innocent purposes (ie. where the individual did not know that the circumvention violates the law), there is no reason to layer on the prospect of financial liability. As many have stated, the law fails to distinguish between cases of commercial piracy and non-commercial, private activities. The damage provisions should be amended to reflect those differences, not privilege only libraries, archives, museums, and educational institutions.
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 34: TPMs – LAM and Educational Institution Limitations, Part Two
August 7, 2008
Tags: 61 reforms / anti-circumvention / archives / c-61 / copyright / dmca / libraries / museumsCopyright Canada / prentice
Share this post
3 Comments
Law Bytes
Episode 197: Divest, Ban or Regulate?: Anupam Chander on the Global Fight Over TikTok
byMichael Geist
March 25, 2024
Michael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
March 11, 2024
Michael Geist
February 26, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 197: Divest, Ban or Regulate? – Anupam Chander on the Global Fight Over TikTok
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 196: Vibert Jack on the Supreme Court’s Landmark Bykovets Internet Privacy Ruling
- Better Laws, Not Bans: Why a TikTok Ban is a Bad Idea
- Government Gaslighting Again?: Unpacking the Uncomfortable Reality of the Online Harms Act
Designed to Fail?
I paranoically wonder if perhaps that failure wasn’t planned from the beginning when this bill was first put together.
As was pointed out yesterday, no-one can now claim innocence
high-balling
I would argue that they’re aware it won’t pass it it’s present form, but they will pass a watered down version of it, this way they can say they’re responding to Canadian concerns and those of industry.
They’re playing both sides of the fence like the their predecessors.