Tens of thousands of Canadians have spoken out against Bill C-61 over the past month. In addition to the letters, MP meetings, and town halls, many have created mashups, videos, comics, posters, photos, and other creative art to express their disappointment and concern with Industry Minister Jim Prentice's plan for […]
Archive for July 16th, 2008
The C-61 in 61 Seconds YouTube Video Competition
Tens of thousands of Canadians have spoken out against Bill C-61 over the past month. In addition to the letters, MP meetings, and town halls, many have created mashups, videos, comics, posters, photos, and other creative art to express their disappointment and concern with Industry Minister Jim Prentice's plan for […]
USTR Posts ACTA Submissions
The USTR has posted four volumes of public submissions on its Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement consultation. By contrast, Canada's DFAIT, which conducted a similar consultation this spring, offers only complete silence.
Canadian Court Awards Major Counterfeiting Damages
The Canadian Trademark Blog points to another court decision awarding huge damages for counterfeiting activities in Canada. Yet another example of how the claims that Canadian law is unable to address counterfeiting concerns do not stand up to any meaningful scrutiny.
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 18: TPMs – No Exception for Personal Uses
One of the most common criticisms of Bill C-61 is its failure to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial uses. It is becoming increasingly clear that many Canadians believe that they should have the right to use their property – whether music, videos or other content – in a fair manner without the law painting them as infringers for personal uses. Unfortunately, Canadian rarely considers personal uses (the private copying levy is an exception). This is not true for all countries. For example, Lithuania (which has acceeded to the WIPO Internet treaties), includes a blanket exception for personal uses. Article 20 provides that:
It shall be permitted for a natural person, without the authorisation of the author or any other owner of copyright, to reproduce, exclusively for his individual use, not for direct or indirect commercial advantage, in a single copy a work published or communicated to the public in any other mode, where the reproduction is a single-action.
While this kind of provision alone would be welcome under Canadian law (and remove much of the complexity found in the new round of consumer-oriented exceptions), it is noteworthy that the Lithuanian anti-circumvention provisions include a specific exception that preserve this personal use right by requiring content owners to enable legitimate uses. Article 75 (1) states: