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 281: Mikołaj Barczentewicz on Europe’s Digital Sovereignty Push, CADA, and the Implications for Canada
byMichael Geist

November 2, 2026
Michael Geist
October 26, 2026
Michael Geist
October 19, 2026
Michael Geist
August 10, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Has the Government Read Its Own Bill? What Three Days of House Debate Revealed About Bill C-34 Before the Committee Hearings Begin
Surveillance By Design: Government Officials Say Lawful Access Could Reach Gaming Platforms, Daycares and AI Services
Canada’s First Digital Trade Agreement: Why the Canada-EU Deal Will Likely Follow Europe’s Template and What That Means for Canadian Digital Law
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 281: Mikolaj Barczentewicz on Europe’s Digital Sovereignty Push, CADA, and the Implications for Canada
Ofcom Did the Work Canada Plans to Skip: What the UK’s Age Verification Report Reveals About the Bill C-34 Social Media Ban

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?