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 262: Zack Shapiro on the Claude AI Native Law Firm
byMichael Geist

March 16, 2026
Michael Geist
March 2, 2026
Michael Geist
February 23, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Acting on Antisemitism: If This Was Always Possible, Why Didn’t It Happen Sooner?
Setting Canada’s AI Policy Priorities: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 262: Zack Shapiro on the Claude AI Native Law Firm
The Online Streaming Act in Jeopardy: U.S. Takes Aim at the CUSMA Cultural Exemption With Threats of Bill C-11 Retaliation
The Hidden Lawful Access Tradeoff: How Bill C-22 Lowers the Evidentiary Standards for Police Access to Subscriber Information

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?