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 278: Ben Waldman on Gander Social and the Challenges of Building a Sovereign Social Network
byMichael Geist

August 10, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Digital Trade Alignment: What May Be in Play in the Canada-U.S. Trade Deal
TMU Picks Damage Control Over Fixing the Damage: Behind Its Shameful Response to the Devastating Benotto Report on Campus Antisemitism
Thanks For Joining the Movement: French Constitutional Council Strikes Down Kids’ Social Media Ban
Denial, Hate, and Silence: The Three Responses to Overwhelming Evidence of Canada’s Campus Antisemitism Crisis
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 278: Ben Waldman on Gander Social and the Challenges of Building a Sovereign Social Network

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.