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 226: Richard Gold on Why Canada Should Target U.S. Patents To Help Counter Tariff Trade Pressure
byMichael Geist

February 10, 2025
Michael Geist
February 3, 2025
Michael Geist
January 27, 2025
Michael Geist
December 9, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 226: Richard Gold on Why Canada Should Target U.S. Patents To Help Counter Tariff Trade Pressure
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 225: How Canada Can Leverage Digital Policy to Retaliate Against Trump’s Tariffs
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 224: Why Prorogation and Donald Trump Spell the End of an Era in Canadian Digital Policy
Why Years of Canadian Digital Policy Is Either Dead (Prorogation) or Likely to Die (Trump)
New Era and New Risks: Meta’s Content Moderation Reforms and Freedom of Expression Online
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.