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 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police
byMichael Geist

March 2, 2026
Michael Geist
February 23, 2026
Michael Geist
February 9, 2026
Michael Geist
Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act's Private Right of Access
February 2, 2026
Michael Geist
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 255: Grappling with Grok – Heidi Tworek on the Limits of Canadian Law
January 26, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Why the Online Harms Act is the Wrong Way to Regulate AI Chatbots
More Transparency Not Police Reporting: Navigating the Safety-Privacy Balance for AI ChatBots
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police
Nobody Wants This: Senate Rejects Government’s Anti-Privacy Plan for Political Parties By Sending Bill Back to the House With a Sunset Clause
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 258: Jaxson Khan With an Insider Perspective on AI Policy Development in Canada

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?