Mapping C-61 Media Coverage

Since the introduction of Bill C-61 two weeks ago, there has been extensive coverage and commentary in the Canadian media.  I've created a Google Map that tracks the coverage – red indicates a negative review, yellow a neutral one, and blue represents positive coverage.  There are links to all the underlying articles on the map and I'll be updating this regularly.

View Larger Map


  1. interesting says:

    want to see where it al leads
    look at france and the UK

    As soon as i see someone i know with copyrighted material
    I rat them out and they get jerked off the net

    my proposal is we all rat each other out and then the company with such noobanite policy has no income.


  2. Surrey Leader Editorial
    I don’t understand Kurt Langmann’s arguments at all. There is absolutely NOTHING in C-61 about going to a concert and using a camera to record a presentation. That’s a “normal” copyright issue and not a digital copyright issue.

    What I don’t get is the complete disregard for the digital locks issue. Would Kurt really want to buy a DVD and not be able to put it on his iPod. Does he really want malicious software on his computer (a la Sony)?

  3. Surry Leader
    That Kurt Langermann fellow doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. Nice ‘editorial’ there, buddy!

  4. French article to add
    Thanks for compiling all of these articles Michael. I finally found a French one from the newspaper La Presse. It appears to be neutral on the subject of copyright reform but lacks detail on digital locks as a lot of neutral/positive articles do. Would you be able to add it?

    [ link ]

  5. What an idiot (Kurt Langermann).. There is no copyright on live performances in Canada. There is in the USA, but not over here. He should look things up before whining.

  6. Lang
    I sent this in as a letter to the editor in response to the Langmann opinion piece:

    Dear Editor,

    Kurt Langmann’s opinion piece “Protests should fall on deaf ears” evinces a serious misunderstanding of Canadian law, and is so simplistic it is false. Copyright infringement is enforced overwhelmingly through civil law, not criminal, and the RCMP has stated they will not pursue online sharing of content. Langmann writes: “Those who reproduce copyrighted prose, music, movies or video games – whether for their own use or for distribution, whether for profit or not – are committing an indefensible criminal act.” By this standard forwarding an email is “an indefensible criminal act” – an absurd result which follows from his absolutist and myopic view. Moreover, to not come to terms with our technological reality, that is that the genie can’t be put back in the bottle in terms of content being shared, is asking for Canada to have a law which is completely impractical and meaningless. Maybe we can call this “Langmann’s Law”, a fitting tribute to poorly reasoned thinking.

    Hank Ford
    Ladysmith, BC

  7. Vid
    I came across a nice little gem on youtube

    Howard Knopf Coming To The Defense Of Canadian Consumers

    I love how they use a mod chip to sell there agenda even tho when an xbox detects it you end up banned for life… Kinda spin logic that makes sense to them i guess.

  8. plasmacutter says:

    Actually, the mod chip argument is valid
    The mod chip argument stands.

    I’m not a heavy console gamer. I bought an xbox and modded it after I found out It could be used as a set top box that plays everything. (Something, I might add, which the DMCA made illegal–or legally impractical–in the US and most of the EU)