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 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
byMichael Geist

May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
May 4, 2026
Michael Geist
April 27, 2026
Michael Geist
Ep. 265 – Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
April 20, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests
Make It Make Sense: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Plan
Why Social Media and AI Chatbot Bans for Kids Are Bad Policy: Making the Case at the Senate Social Affairs, Science and Tech Committee

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?