Yesterday's posting referenced the damages limitation for libraries, archives, museums, and educational institutions that limits their liability for "innocent circumvention" to an injunction only. It is worth asking why this principle does not extend to all Canadians. If the circumvention occurs for innocent purposes (ie. where the individual did not know that the circumvention violates the law), there is no reason to layer on the prospect of financial liability. As many have stated, the law fails to distinguish between cases of commercial piracy and non-commercial, private activities. The damage provisions should be amended to reflect those differences, not privilege only libraries, archives, museums, and educational institutions.
61 Reforms to C-61, Day 34: TPMs – LAM and Educational Institution Limitations, Part Two
August 7, 2008
Tags: 61 reforms / anti-circumvention / archives / c-61 / copyright / dmca / libraries / museumsCopyright Canada / prentice
Share this post
3 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 246: Mohamed Zohiri on the Rise and Emerging Regulation of Stablecoins
byMichael Geist

October 20, 2025
Michael Geist
October 6, 2025
Michael Geist
September 22, 2025
Michael Geist
September 15, 2025
Michael Geist
July 28, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 246: Mohamed Zohiri on the Rise and Emerging Regulation of Stablecoins
Senate Bill Would Grant Government Regulatory Power to Mandate Age Verification For Search, Social Media and AI Services Accompanied By Threat of Court Ordered Blocking of Lawful Content
Government Reverses on Bill C-2: Removes Lawful Access Warrantless Demand Powers in New Border Bill
Why The Recent TikTok Privacy Ruling Swaps Privacy for Increased Surveillance
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 245: Kate Robertson on Bill C-2’s Cross-Border Data Sharing Privacy Risks

Designed to Fail?
I paranoically wonder if perhaps that failure wasn’t planned from the beginning when this bill was first put together.
As was pointed out yesterday, no-one can now claim innocence
high-balling
I would argue that they’re aware it won’t pass it it’s present form, but they will pass a watered down version of it, this way they can say they’re responding to Canadian concerns and those of industry.
They’re playing both sides of the fence like the their predecessors.