The CCA puts out two documents (1, 2), which acknowledge that a key driver behind the bill is "unrelenting pressure from the United States and the mass media interests who regard Canadian copyright law as harmful to their economic interests. (This despite the fact that the World Economic Forum rates Canadian copyright law as being superior to American legislation.)"
Canadian Conference of the Arts on C-61
July 28, 2008
Share this post
4 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 258: Jaxson Khan With an Insider Perspective on AI Policy Development in Canada
byMichael 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
December 22, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
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
Time for the Government to Fix Its Political Party Privacy Blunder: Kill Bill C-4’s Disastrous Privacy Rules
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 257: Lisa Given on What Canada Can Learn From Australia’s Youth Social Media Ban
Court Ordered Social Media Site Blocking Coming to Canada?: Trojan Horse Online Harms Bill Clears Senate Committee Review

Apparently they forgot…
In the second document, “While the CCA welcomes the recognition that copyright is an essential tool to reward and encourage creativity and innovation, the expanded exceptions within C-61 broaden access to copyrighted materials with little recompense to the creator/copyright owner.”
Apparently they forgot the exceptions to the exceptions, namely DRM. Granted, the primary beneficiary of DRM is not the authors, but rather the publishers. However, so long as the authors/artists get a slice of the sales, they also benefit.
Kevin,
no they got it right, there is no benifit to the authors. You must be smoking something good if you think the publisher is going to change it’s stripes.
Not forgotten
Since the advent of copyright of media, when has any Government on this planet of ours ever cared about what the authors rights are?
Is it just me or is the International Political response to this so called protection of intellectual copyright, disproportionate to the actual issue?
Why and how is an issue of what is basically pocket change in World Markets Terms being given so much time in our Political Arena’s?
Basic:
I don’t care more about corporation right than citizen right.
Those corporate clearly want citizen right twiddle to oblivion.
Copyright should be:
1- Any money made upon copyright product is a copyright infringement.
That is… the bottom line of copyright protections. Now, that was the first copyright symbol when they created the first law of it… and in that time the Citizen Rights were more important than the corporate one. (the copyright is a monopoly for 20 years, after that the product is considered owned by the humanity)
That is the bottom line of my “religion”. In that regard, my religion permit me to share, care for my neighbors. People that try to stop my virtue of sharing are working for the Devil… and my religion don’t permit me to knee before them.
Jourdespoir