Dalhousie law professor Graham Reynolds published an op-ed in the Mark News, in which he argues that the claims of balance are more marketing than reality owing to the digital lock provisions.
Reynolds on the C-32 Balance
One Comment
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 280: A Fall Update on Where Things Stand on Canadian Digital Policy Reforms 
The Wrong Ban: The Heritage Committee Backed a Targeted Ad Ban for Kids and Stopped Short of a Social Media Ban, Yet the Government Chose the Reverse 
Regulator First, Rules Later: Bill C-34 Debate Shows the Government Wants a Digital Safety Commission Before It Figures Out What It Will Do 
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban 
“Position Has Not Changed”: The Canadian Government Reaffirms That Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism
It seems that nearly everyone has singled out the DRM clauses in C-32. These clauses are put together in such a way as to nullify the exceptions granted under fair dealing.
When this many people quickly see the obvious contradictions in C-32, I have to wonder if anybody actually read and understood what they put into C-32? Hopefully this question will be raised during question period.