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 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law
byMichael Geist
April 22, 2024
Michael Geist
April 15, 2024
Michael Geist
April 8, 2024
Michael Geist
March 25, 2024
Michael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law
- Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act
- AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
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.