Library of Parliament’s Legislative Summary of Bill C-32
5 Comments
Recent Posts
Why the Government’s Plan for Warrantless Access to Internet Subscriber Information Will Lead to Millions of Disclosure Demands Each Year 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 235: Teresa Scassa on the Alberta Clearview AI Ruling That Could Have a Big Impact on Privacy and Generative AI 
What Is With This Government and Privacy?: Political Party Privacy Safeguards Removed in “Affordability Measures” Bill 
More Than Just Phone Book Data: Why the Government is Dangerously Misleading on its Warrantless Demands for Internet Subscriber Information 
Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill
…
“However, Dr. Mihály Ficsor, former Assistant Director General of WIPO and author of the WIPO Guide to Collective Administration of Copyright and Related Rights, argues that in order for the anti-circumvention provisions in the WIPO Internet Treaties to be enforceable, the broader language found in Bill C-32 is necessary.”
But does this mean we would not be WIPO compliant?
If it were ‘necessary’ then why was the anti-circumvention clause left vague and flexible in regards to implementation? I would like to know who decides if a countries laws are WIPO ‘compliant’ or not? Perhaps Dr. Ficsor has some personal stake or incentive for his views after the fact?
WIPO compliant?
The world has changed considerably since 1996. The intent and spirit of the measures in WIPO are equally as important as the exact wording, if not more so. To understand that, you must consider the appropriate context of the times, and how that maps into today’s world.
In law, the wording is of paramount importance. In a treaty, the spirit and intent should take precedence over the exact wording. Legal training tends to focus someone on the exact wording, at the expense of the spirit.
The wording in WIPO is flexible enough that it is obvious that it is the spirit that should be considered. We don’t need “broad language” around TPM in C-32 to meet the spirit.
I am not at all sure what he means when he says the broader language in C-32 is required for it to be “enforcable”. This sounds too much like a “sound bite” pulled from a larger discussion. I can’t find the larger discussion anywhere. It certainly needs a fuller context to understand the basis for this comment.
Misinformation
This is just another tool our government is empoying to try and misinform the public. Let’s consider the author of the report.
According to the document posted…
Dara Lithwick
Legal and Legislative Affairs Division
Parliamentary Information and Research Service
Library of Parliament
I found a 2009 WIPO document where the same Dara Lithwick is listed as:
“Dara LITHWICK (Ms.), Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Industry Canada, Ottawa”
To me “Industry Canada” screams big-business…including the CRIA…
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=201936&V_TOKEN=1286222053236&crpNm=Recording Industry&crpNmbr=&bsNmbr=
Are her opinions, perhaps, biased, skewed or based on past experience or affiliations? Are there perhaps other incentives for her to take Dr. Ficsor’s comments out of context?
Rome Convention
Interesting that they mention the Rome Convention… which the US has never signed…
you may check here:
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/SearchForm.jsp?search_what=C
So why does Canada need to sign and implement “ad litteram” each and every WIPO document, while the vocal bully doesn’t?
Nap.