Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text

    Blog Archive

    PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
    SMTWTFS
      12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930

    61 Reforms to C-61 - Wrap-Up Post

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Wednesday September 17, 2008

    With the 61 reforms to C-61 series now concluded, this post provides more accessible access to the many posts.  A PDF version of all 61 posts can be downloaded here.  A list of all the posts, grouped by subject matter, can be found below.


    Tags:
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     

    61 Reforms to C-61, Day 61: The Mysterious Section 3

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Monday September 15, 2008
    The 61 reforms to Bill C-61 project concludes with one of the most puzzling provisions in the bill.  Bill C-61 adds the following to copyright owners' basic set of exclusive rights:

    in the case of a work that can be put into circulation as a tangible object, to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the tangible object, as long as the ownership of that tangible object has never previously been transferred with the authorization of the author in or outside Canada,

    There is considerable debate among the copyright community about why this provision has been added and what it achieves.  At first blush, it appears to be a codification of the first sale doctrine - the notion that the copyright owner holds the right of first sale and after that the work may be resold without permission.  Another possibility is that the provision is designed to reverse the holding in Theberge, an important 2002 Supreme Court of Canada case in which the court rejected Quebec painter Claude Theberge's attempt to stop the transfer of his works from a poster to canvas on the grounds that there was no reproduction. 

    The most disconcerting interpretation, however, is that it provides broad new rights over any tangible object of a work.  This could come into effect in any number of cases.  For example, consider the controversy over the sale of a handful of Harry Potter books before the release date.  This new provision could be used not only to stop the sales - the books are a tangible object never previously transferred with the authorization of the author - but could leave the sellers open to statutory damages for having infringed copyright by selling the book.  The same provision could similarly interfere with the grey market, where legally obtained copies of books, CDs, or other works in one country are stopped from sale in another country.  While some of these concerns may be legitimate, they can also typically be addressed by commercial agreement.  It is not entirely clear why we need such a significant reform to the Copyright Act to address the issue.
    Tags:
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
     

    61 Reforms to C-61, Day 59: Statutory Damages Reform - Removes Court Discretion For Reduced Damages

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Thursday September 11, 2008
    While the new statutory damages provision may create a ceiling of $500 in damages for certain infringements, it also creates a minimum that is higher than the current statute.  The drafting is complex, but the change is as follows:

    Tags:
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     

    61 Reforms to C-61, Day 58: Statutory Damages Reform - What It Doesn't Cover

    PDF  | Print |  E-mail
    Wednesday September 10, 2008
    The problems associated with the statutory damages reform extend beyond the questions it raises.  The provision is presumably a response to the over 30,000 file sharing lawsuits in the United States which each bring the prospect of millions in liability.  Politically, the image of that kind of liability for Canadians would not sell well on the campaign trail.  Yet notwithstanding the intent, the current provision does very little to address the prospect of enormous liability for all sorts of activities.

    The new provision would likely reduce liability for downloading (though downloading of sound recordings is already arguably permitted due to the private copying levy), however, it certainly does not address uploading or the making available of content on file sharing networks without authorization.  This means that BitTorrent users - who simultaneously upload and download - will still face the possible liability of $20,000 per infringement.  Similarly, uploading a copyrighted work to YouTube raises the same potential liability. 

    Tags:
    Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterTagsShare
    View
     
    << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

    Results 1 - 4 of 53