The Documentary Organisation of Canada continues to speak out against C-61, warning in a letter to the editor that it will "bring an end to the concept of 'fair dealing' and open public debate in any electronic media."
Documentary Organisation of Canada Speaks Out Against C-61
June 20, 2008
Share this post
2 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 232: What Will Canadian Digital Policy Look Like Under the New Liberal Carney Government?
byMichael Geist

May 5, 2025
Michael Geist
March 31, 2025
Michael Geist
March 24, 2025
Michael Geist
March 10, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
When the Drumbeat of Intolerance Becomes Too Loud to Ignore: Reflections on Campus Antisemitism, Academic Freedom and My Global Technology Law Exchange Course
Solomon’s Choice: Charting the Future of AI Policy in Canada
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 232: What Will Canadian Digital Policy Look Like Under the New Liberal Carney Government?
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 230: Aengus Bridgman on the 2025 Federal Election, Social Media Platforms, and Misinformation
It’s people like DOC, who make legitimate use of existing cultural materials, and especially those who use the archival past, who need to be speaking out. The implications of C-61 will have ramifications on creators who RE-create, for decades to come.
locking up history
I find the clause that requires librarians to enforce self destructing copies to be very dangerous. A company or publisher can exercise control over any document they create even if it is openly published. As an example, they can release all press releases with digital locks, that are at first open for anyone to read. If the press release turns out to be a mistake they can retract it and deny everyone access. Breaking the lock is of course illegal. So how could anyone have a legaly readable copy after the retraction?
Image if the tobacco, asbestos, drug and car companies had this law and technology in the past?