The Battle over C-11 Concludes: How Thousands of Canadians Changed The Copyright Debate

Nearly 15 years of debate over digital copyright reform will come to an end today as Bill C-11, the fourth legislative attempt at Canadian copyright reform, passes in the House of Commons. Although the bill must still receive Senate approval, that is likely to be a formality that could happen very quickly. Many participants in the copyright debate view the bill with great disappointment, pointing to the government’s decision to adopt restrictive digital lock rules as a signal that their views were ignored.

There is no sugar-coating the loss on digital locks. While other countries have been willing to stand up to U.S. pressure and adopt a more flexible approach, the government, led by Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore on the issue, was unwilling to compromise despite near-universal criticism of its approach. It appears that once Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the call for a DMCA-style approach in early May 2010, the digital lock issue was lost. The government heard that the bill will hurt IP enforcement, restrict access for the blind, disadvantage Canadian creators, and harm consumer rights. It received tens of thousands of comments from Canadians opposed to the approach and ran a full consultation in which digital locks were the leading concern. The NDP, Liberals, and Green Party proposed balanced amendments to the digital lock rules that were consistent with international requirements and would have maintained protection for companies that use them, but all were rejected. Yet with an eye to the Trans Pacific Partnership as well as pressure from the U.S. government and U.S. backed lobby groups, seemingly no amount of evidence or public pressure would shift its approach. The net result is incredibly disappointing with even Conservative MPs assuring constituents that digital lock enforcement against individuals is unlikely (there are no statutory damages for non-commercial circumvention).

Despite the loss on digital locks, however, the passage of Bill C-11 features some important wins for Canadians who spoke out on copyright.
I delivered a talk at NXNE last week in Toronto in which I made the case that the “Canadian copyfight” had resulted in dramatic changes to Canadian copyright. While not everyone was convinced (others have expressed similar skepticism), I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Since the Conservatives took power in 2006, there were effectively four bills: the Pre-Bill C-61 bill that was to have been introduced by Jim Prentice in December 2007 but was delayed following public pressure, Bill C-61 introduced in June 2008, and Bill C-32/C-11, which was introduced in June 2010 (and later reintroduced in September 2011). The contents of December 2007 bill was never released, but documents obtained under the Access to Information Act provide a good sense of what it contained (a call was even scheduled on the planned day of introduction between Prentice and U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins to assure the U.S. that digital locks were the key issue and would not be altered).  This chart highlights many of the key issues and their progression over the years as the public became increasingly vocal on copyright:

Issue Pre-Bill C-61 (2007) Bill C-61 (2008) Bill C-11 (2012)
Fair Dealing Expansion No No Yes (education, parody, satire)
Format Shifting No Limited (only photographs, book, newspaper, periodical, or videocassette) Yes (technology neutral, no limit on number of copies, includes network storage, and no reference to contractual overrides)
Time Shifting No Limited (no network PVRs, Internet communications) Yes (C-61 limitations removed)
Backup Copies No No Yes
User Generated Content Exception No No Yes
Statutory Damages Cap No Limited ($500 cap for downloading) Yes (Max of $5000 for all non-commercial infringement)
Enabler enforcement provision No No Yes
Internet Publicly Available Materials Exception for Education Yes Yes Yes
Public Performance in Schools No No Yes
Technology Neutral Display Exception in Schools No No Yes
Limited Distance Learning Exception Yes Yes Yes
Limited Digital Inter-Library Loans Yes Yes Yes
Notice-and-Notice Yes Yes Yes
Notice-and-Takedown No No No
Three Strikes//Website Blocking No No No
Internet Location Tool Provider Safe Harbour Yes Yes Yes
Broadcaster Ephemeral Change No No Yes
Expanded Private Copying Levy No No No
Commissioned Photograph Change Yes Yes Yes
Alternate Format Reproduction No No Yes

The first five issues – fair dealing, time shifting, format shifting, backup copies, and user generated content – are all user-focused reforms. None were the source of serious interest from the major lobby groups (even education groups were initially more interested in an Internet exception than fair dealing reform). None were included as part of the pre-Bill C-61 approach and just two appeared in limited form in Bill C-61 itself. Yet as the public became increasingly engaged on copyright, the government shifted its approach and added these provisions in an effort to address their concerns. The importance of these provisions should not underestimated. For example, the non-commercial user generated content provision contains broad protections for individuals and websites that host the content.

The next two issues on the chart – statutory damages and enforcement – were not part of the 2007 bill either. The goverment eventually arrived a trade-off that most Canadians would make: a tougher provision to target sites that facilitate infringement (the law already allows rights holders to do this) in return for a full cap on liability for non-commercial infringement. This applies not only to individuals (likely bringing to an end the prospect of file sharing lawsuits in Canada) but to any non-commercial entity including educational institutions and libraries (who may adopt more aggressive interpretations of the law with less risk of liability).

The success of individual Canadians is also found in what did not make its way into the bill. Despite some other countries caving to pressure on increase Internet provider liability by adopting notice-and-takedown, three strikes, or website blocking, all those measures were rejected by the Canadian government. The pressure for website blocking during the SOPA debates was particularly intense but it generated tens of thousands of emails earlier this year that seemingly put a stop to the prospect for their inclusion in the bill. Instead, C-11 kept the more balanced notice-and-notice system with the benefits of effectiveness and preservation of free speech and subscriber privacy. Similarly, efforts to expand the private copying levy were rejected, replaced by the backup copy and format shifting provisions that allow Canadians to make personal copies with no additional fees or liability. These are all issues that respond to public voices on copyright.

The government gradually did more for education as well. The exception for publicly available materials on the Internet was there from the beginning, but the expansion of fair dealing and the new exceptions for display (which could prove very valuable) and public performance (which should save significant money in licence fees) which only arrived in 2010 are useful. The digital lock rules and the restrictive distance learning provisions (with destruction of lessons) hurt, but the education provisions unquestionably improved since 2007.

This is not to suggest that the changes are due solely to Canadians speaking out on copyright. They clearly are not: the broadcaster reforms reflect the strength of that lobby and the retention of notice-and-notice certainly owes much to the influence of Canada’s telecom companies. Moreover, the identity of the government ministers makes an enormous difference, with former Industry Minister Tony Clement clearly focusing on the importance of a technology-neutral, forward looking approach that led to important changes in Bill C-32.

Yet it can be argued that the two most important forces shaping the evolution of Canadian copyright policy since the Conservatives took power in 2006 have been U.S. pressure on digital locks matched against public pressure for greater flexibility and balance. The U.S. pressure was relentless, particularly in the aftermath of Canada caving on an anti-camcording provision that sent the message that high level pressure worked. The result were digital lock rules mandated at the very highest level in the Canadian government.

Public engagement on copyright continuously grew in strength – from the Bulte battle in 2006 to the Facebook activism in 2007 to the immediate response to the 2008 bill to the 2009 copyright consultation to the 2010 response to Bill C-32. While many dismissed the role of digital activism on copyright, the reality is that it had a huge impact on the shape of Canadian copyright. The public voice influenced not only the contents of the bill, but the debate as well with digital locks the dominant topic of House of Commons debate and media coverage until the very end. Bill C-11 remains a “flawed but fixable” bill that the government refused to fix, but that it is a significantly better bill than seemed possible a few years ago owes much to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians that spoke out on copyright.


  1. “And, while Lenin read a book on Marx the quartet practiced in the park, and…
    We sang dirges in the dark the day the music died.”


  2. pat donovan says:

    liberty, freedom, privilege, prerogative.

    they have NO property rights over something I have bought, can’t legislate any, and the enforcement of anything even remotely resembling this will be HIDEOUSLY expensive.

    their position has gone to their heads.


  3. James Plotkin says:

    freely available on the internet.
    Does this mean that the revised AC tariff which now covers URL’s is unenforceable?

    If so, then why the hell didn’t they wait? The tariff making process is long and costly…If all that was a waste of effort and resources…

    Of course the digital locks provisions are still there. We can only hope that someone brings a constitutional challenge based on division of powers and that the courts agree with me in that these provisions have little to do with copyright and a lot to do with retail consumption (provincial domain). fingers crossed!!!

  4. What does this mean for us?
    For normal internet users, for folks that don’t download thing but just use the net to play games, and watch Youtube, what does this mean for us?

    What did we loose? What will change tomorrow?

  5. I really hope someone with deep pockets and stamina will bring the digital lock issue to court, and soon. This is just railroading at its worse.

  6. @James
    Who can we contact so we make sure that some someone does bring this to court?

  7. MadClownDisease says:

    Military State Meets Cyber Division(s)
    This whole DRM thing is going to be a military disaster. I tried to warn the government that this is not the best approach to cyber defence.

    We could try and hire/train some smart people to find existing holes in process architecture; but no, they want to put them in there themselves so that they know about it. They also wanted to make it illegal to circumvent their “security” monitoring systems. This is all based on carefully surmised publicly available information.

    Now every carlos charlie spook gook chink and jap is going to find and utilize these “security” holes we put in to help protect our own citizens.

    This has almost certainly set the stage for civil conflict. This open act of hostility towards information that is written into a few small lines of law will spur the reorganization of the human race.

  8. Curmudgeon says:

    Logical conflict
    So we’re allowed to make backup copies but we’re not allowed to circumvent DRM or cyberlocks. How does one make a backup copy of something with a cyberlock or DRM on it?

    In the article you mention that there is no penalty for non-commercial purposes but in the table it says: “Yes (Max of $5000 for all non-commercial infringement)”

    Which one is the correct answer, Mr. Geist can you clear that up for us.


  10. The day democracy died in Canada
    Will forever be known as June 18th, 2012 as the government passes legislation that is entirely in the interest of *foreign* corporations and not at all in the interest of the constituency that they purport to represent.

    Yes, the constituency was thrown a bone or two to try to placate it, but each one of them had a string tied to it that it can be yanked away at any time effectively completely invalidating any or all of those provisions.

    But one government official did indicate that Canadians should feel safe in breaking the laws they are passing since no Canadian will likely be prosecuted for it (,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,91/).

    So also on this remarkable date, Canada will enter a new era of lawlessness — just like the old west. I wonder which other laws Canadians will start to determine for themselves as “unjust” and simply decide to ignore — given that the government has now set an example to which we can all follow.

  11. So with the “digital locks” provision, could people just encrypt online activities (ie. email, torrents, web browsing) to then render all electronic surveillance illegal? They’d have to break a “digital lock” to see what people were doing which would be illegal. You also could not use evidence obtained illegally in court.

  12. The people spoke and our PMO listened, and proceeded to ignore what we said. The Government is supposed to represent the people, not pass dictatorial laws against their interests. Nice job conservatives, nice job.

  13. Yeah, they expanded the fair use provisions… and I’ll fully support the notion that it’s good that they did.

    However, they made it so that it is only applicable to content that is not digitally locked…. and by adding any legal protections whatsoever for such locks, an unavoidable side effect is that it *WILL* create incentive for publishers to utilize them, reducing the availability of alternative and unlocked works for the general consumer.

    How is it right, for example, that a publisher might intend to give permission to format shift a movie on DVD to your tablet device, and give you keys to transfer the movie to your iPad, but in 5 years, when newer technology has come out, that permission is effectively moot because some of the newer devices aren’t necessarily compatible with the ones that the publisher may have initially supported to format shift it, and where the publisher may simply not have the resources to constantly be supporting newer technologies for older content? In the end, Canadians will simply not care… they will perceive the digital lock prohibitions in C-11 as an unfair restriction on what they can do with their own property, assuming that they even know about the bill, and will proceed to ignore them… privately or otherwise.

    As an aside, that the conservatives has even said it will not actively hold anyone accountable for “private” breaking of digital locks is, in the end, saying that our government is literally *INTENDING* to condone closet lawbreaking by this country’s citizens. This concept alone is outrageous enough that the conservatives should be stripped of *ALL* rights to have any influence at all in the governing of Canada.

    Anyways, the digital lock provisions of C-11 make the fair dealing provisions in it all but completely moot, as an ever increasing amount of content is stored digitally, and many of the most common mediums have some form of lock on them as a simple adherence to a specific standard.

    C-11 is not remotely balanced, nor fair… and it is a certainty that most Canadians won’t think so either.

  14. Congrats
    To Dr. Geist & all the diehards like myself, Oldguy, Daryl, IamME, Enduser etc. (and even John Degen in his own twisted way).

    Good job! and stay vigilant.

  15. whoa hold up, doesnt it still need to go through the senate first? or did i miss something here

  16. @zb
    never mind answered my own question

  17. @zb

    I’m sure it’ll have the rubber stamp on it in no time. Assuming that at least one senator shows up to work rather then hiding in Hawaii or other tropical destinations.

  18. Ray Saintonge says:

    The reassurance that the government will not go after the private individual digital lockpicker is worth as much as the legislation in which that reassurance is printed.

  19. c-11
    I’ve read somewhere that it’s not likely to pass before summer, I got it from here…

  20. @zb: There still needs to be a vote on it… but it is just a formality in this case, because the conservatives have a majority of the seats and can thus automatically win any vote, regardless of opposition (in fact, every other party is unanimously against the passing of this bill as it is currently worded).

  21. @Mark: “it *WILL* create incentive for publishers to utilize them”

    …and a strong disincentive for me to buy any…

  22. Canadians have only their self to blame
    We’ve seen what Harper was like when he was powerless in a minority government … and what did we do? We gave him a majority. And now he’s ramming his agenda down everyone’s throat to make his personal “Mark” on Canada and doesn’t give a damn if you don’t like it.

    You can talk all day about splitting the vote – but at the end of the day, if the conservatives didn’t get any votes they wouldn’t have won. I, personally do not find the laws that they are passing to be that disturbing – its to be expected in a steamroller government. What I find disturbing is how they can break the law (Wheat Board Act, Elections Act) and still be in power. W–T–F ???

  23. Explanation of Issues?
    Is there a page which gives a brief explanation of the issues in the above table? Thanks!

  24. Daniel: Your remark that Canadians have only themselves to blame is neither helpful nor factual, and comes across as needlessly unsympathetic.

    Most Canadians didn’t vote for Harper… in fact, only 40% of the voters actually voted conservative. Coupled with the possibility that there may have been some non-conservative voters that did not get to the polls on voting day because they were misdirected by the robocall issue, and it’s just possible that the conservatives might not have even had a majority government at all (although the vote counts involved are differing enough that I expect the conservatives would have likely still been the governing party of Canada).

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly… your remark is such a gross overgeneralization as to deservedly be considered utterly false. I am proud to call myself Canadian, and to count myself among them. I make it a practice to *ALWAYS* vote, and I voted in the last federal election, but I categorically did *NOT* vote conservative. The Conservatives did not win in my riding, but ultimately that doesn’t matter. They’ll push their agenda through, and the bill will still affect me… and everybody else who didn’t vote Conservative.

    Which is MOST of Canada.

  25. @ Daniel
    I don’t believe we did give him a majority with those robocalls and all, they cheated and shouldn’t even be in power or at least pass any laws when under investigation.

  26. @Daniel @Mark

    I agree wholeheartedly with both your comments.
    Seriously though, for the people who did vote Con,
    did they not see this coming? I knew we were in
    trouble once they got their majority.

    It’s too damn obvious they’re being lobbied and
    possibly bribed by foreign lobbyists. This awful
    Bill-C11 and Bill C-30 reek of US political
    and lobbyist pressure.

    If people are smart enough in the next three
    years, they’ll vote to get these clowns out!
    I really hope some people realize that they
    made a mistake now, in being naive and voting
    for this Corporate Party of Canada to rule over

  27. Mark Hahn says:

    arbitrary enforcement
    If the lock provisions have no statutory damages, then why are they in the bill? Any time a law has provisions which will not be enforced, it degrades ALL laws, makes ALL enforcement arbitrary.

  28. @ Mark

    Why do yo think the cons plan on building
    these new mega prison, although crime has
    decreased over several years? It’s for filesharers
    who will get cocky, and think they can get away
    with “pirating” copyrighted digital files.

    The MP who said they wouldn’t enforce this law
    was full of it. They’re going to make us, the
    taxpayers foot the bill, for letting our ISP’s
    act as stool pigeons, letting some US company
    know who stole their files off the net.

    $500-$20,000 per non-commercial (which you don’t
    intend to sell what you had downloaded) infringement!

  29. It will be safe to download from public
    domain sites still, I would hope! lol

  30. Logical Conflict
    DRM doesn’t prevent time-shifting or backups — 0’s and 1’s are inherently copyable, regardless of whether the content they’re encoding represents a digital lock or not.

    Format-shifting is a different story. Format-shifting almost always requires decoding the original format and re-encoding it into the target format. That initial decode step would require breaking the DRM.

    Likewise, any fair use that uses clips of the source material would necessarily require breaking the DRM. So you could parody a work by cartooning it up (for example,) but doing something like over-dubbing a movie clip with funny commentary would be out, fair use be damned. Taking a still shot of a scene from a movie would also be out. That sort of thing.

    But basic copying (for example CD-to-CD or DVD-to-DVD) can be done without breaking DRM. So that’s a win.

  31. Wrong

    But basic copying (for example CD-to-CD or DVD-to-DVD) can be done without breaking DRM. So that’s a win.

    How? — Video games – Nope, Most PC Software – Nope – Movies Nope.

    So explain how can you ‘backup’ without touching the lock, 90% of the stuff out there that has DRM can quickly detect or block a copying system from working.

    So you backup is just a bunch of useless 0’s and 1’s

  32. @anOn
    Can’t you just download a program that can get around it?

  33. not quite
    @KL – it says that it’s $5000 for non commercial infringement. What I want to know, is how do you guys think this going to play out? Is the recording industry going to take this and run with it – sending out a few takedown notices to each torrenter (which I assume means they downloaded files created by that company more than once, over time), and then start suing these people on mass, for $5000 each? Will they selectively sue BIG offenders or those doing so for profit (chinese-style dvd vendors). Will they ignore it and hope bill c-30 passes? How will it apply to youtube?

  34. Mark E.S. Bernard says:

    Director, Governance, Risk and Compliance
    Dear Michael Geist,

    I find it interesting that one who argues against something like ‘digital locks’ uses them himself on his blog.


  35. Andrew Kohlsmith says:

    What did “normal” internet users lose?
    @scared — what did “normal” internet users lose, those who just play games and check email and facebook?

    What “normal” internet users lost was the ability to enjoy future technological advances and breakthroughs that come through the garage tinkerers. Yes, we got educational exceptions to break the locks, but that’s only useful if you can actually break the lock. So far locks have only been broken through bugs or oversights of those to implement the lock.

    What “normal” internet users lost is the ability to keep their digital archives around forever because when their proprietary-formatted data no longer has a reader, perhaps because the company was bought out and shut down or decided the product was no longer economically viable or important to the business. If you really had to you can build another VHS player or use fancy laser-based record players. Not quite as easy for digital media locked with strong encryption and under threat of legal action. Your jpeg pictures and mpeg4 videos are safe, but your DRM’d audio and video isn’t. Your DRM’d e-books aren’t. Don’t buy DRM? That’s a possibility, but only if there is enough traction for the non-DRM formats. We do seem to be heading in that direction, but corporate interests are fickle and consumers are eager to give up their digital rights for the next shiny trinket.

    If you wanted to interpret the law broadly, you could argue that if the auto makers decided to put an electronic lock on the hood you couldn’t change your oil except at their facilities, or that you could only buy vendor-approved salt for your water softener, or perhaps only Tide (a hypothetical corporate-affiliate of Maytag) detergent for your washer. All of those can easily be locked down with digital locks and circumventing them would be illegal.

    You may not have lost something that you consider important *today*. What the rest of us “abnormal” internet users were up in arms over with digital locks is that they are damaging to the advancement of technology today and could cost us a lot more in the longer term. Corporate interests have no place in law, and digital lock enforcement puts them at centre stage.

  36. ..
    So what the fuck are we doing about this… I hope opposition gets serious about it and bring this to court and whoever is the guy/woman sitting up there better know what the fuck is good for us and not CONS who say they’re doing what Canadians wanted! sorry about language I’m mad. :/

  37. ’tis a sad day indeed
    @Tun You mentioned encryption…yes encryption is a type of digital lock, which will be generally be illegal to break under this legislation. It’s used on DVDs, for instance. The problem with many on-line activities is that while you can encrypt the traffic, you have to expose your IP address for routing purposes. There are ways to mask this, proxies and VPNs probably being the most common, but a vigilant law enforcement officer with enough time and money and follow the breadcrumbs all the way back to you. Encryption protects against interceptions, but when they already know what the content is they have you at hello, so to speak.

    As I said, ’tis a sad day when I become a law breaker for simply utilizing content I’ve purchased, when it becomes illegal to remove the DRM from a game I’ve purchased because the DRM causes so many issues, when it becomes illegal for me to copy my DVD collection to my media server because I have to decrypt it, when it becomes illegal for me to buy a DVD simply because it not region 1, this is a blanket that even applies to content not and never available here…incidentally LEGAL to download and/or buy non-legit copies under the Berne Convention, but illegal to buy under C-11…WTF!!!….when our wannabe-neo-fascist government cow-toes to big business at the cost of it’s own people’s rights and freedoms…you name it, big oil, big media, big telecom…is there any big industry our government is NOT in bed with? It’s a good thing Canada is so large otherwise I fear Harper would have usurped and imposed his coveted totalitarian regime by now. This government makes me sick and I hope they suffer an eternity in Hell for selling Canada out. I’m pretty sure there must be a special place in Hell for corrupt politicians.

  38. Here is the payout in all its sorid details …

    In this Globe article it lays out how Harper sold out the citizens of Canada for a chance at joining the Trans-pacific trade agreement. Now, it looks like Canada will have to join as a junior member or not at all!

    Good job Conservatives, standing up (then stepping on) the little guy.

  39. @KL: It’s not viable to enforce the digital lock provisions in cases where the breaking is done privately because if it is *truly* done privately, and in particular, for private purposes, nobody else would even know that it actually happened in the first place.

    Trying to enforce it, taken to its logical extreme, is tantamount to trying to actively enforce how people are even allowed to *THINK*… (since even simply _remembering_ something you experienced for yourself could be construed as a form of personal use copy of that experience), and we should all know where the concept of thought crime comes from.

    Of course, even *trying* to enforce things at that level is wholly technologically impossible right now. It probably won’t be forever, however, as technology progresses and more advances are being made to interface the human mind and machine (the strongest applications for the immediately foreseeable future being to assist disabled people, but how long before other applications are discovered and utilized?)

  40. MadClownDisease says:

    This is my kind of crazy!
    These are the moments that define us. There is no going back: this legislation being railroaded tells us the consequences have already occurred. Can you hear them laughing? It’s infectious. We are finally being let in on the joke. Pretty funny, huh?
    Your freedom has already been taken. Your only remaining freedom is access to information. Now they want to declare “digital rights”. As soon as someone declares a charter of rights: everything not listed is illegal.
    It is time to start the civilization: the human reorganizing revolution that will free our information.
    Let’s all laugh together because we have nothing to be afraid of. Until the machines physically start stopping us from opening them up and circumventing the DRM. Anthrax Warning: Don’t liberate that software human!

  41. FreedomLoving says:

    So, if our police and our courts are willing to enforce foreign copyright as little as possible, then it becomes a win-win for Canadians. We get the “Trans Pacific Partnership” and copyright freedom both.

  42. @Doog

    Is that $5,000 for just downloading one file?
    Or is it 5,000 per file a person has downloaded?

    It’s pretty obvious that it’s the torrenters
    who would be the easiest to catch. What about
    file locker sites like Rapidshare? I would think
    it much more difficult for a content owner to
    catch someone infringing from a site like that.
    Also worth noting the chances of downloaders
    getting caught of sites like YT, and other tube
    social and porn sites. Harder for the Government
    to catch people frequenting, and downloading off these

  43. @Mark

    You’re right. If breaks a digital lock in their
    own home, there’s really nothing they can do
    about it. Unless of course in the future, they
    manage to come up with some kind of tracking
    chip on the media that’s been purchased. Or
    one chip that notifies the authorities if
    the lock has been tampered with.

    On the internet it will be easier to catch
    online infrigers, due to a content owner
    being able to jot down ones IP address.

  44. that guy
    I like this, the government has keys to our technology, I said it before, time to make a new internet. Look up pirate box, portable wifi, you can set up a wifi to wifi network.

    But alas, we can’t get along, the empire has us and we love them for it. Thank you.

    Its ok a wrote this on my phone so the government can come to my house, burn my books and imprison me. Because they own me, up to and including my life.

  45. another guy says:

    its simple. so all those cheap dvd players that have the hidden menu to allow region changing from 1 to 0 (or free) bypass a digital lock on media. those dvd/blu-ray players will be illegal someone tell BESTBUY/FUTURESHOP quickly.

    unlocking and jailbreaking an iphone or other cell phones will be illegal, another digital lock, so selling those products or services that do unlocking (sim piggybacks) will be illegal but BELL/TELUS/ROGERS can unlock iphones and change money is legal?

    but selling a mac computer that will allow ripping of CD audio (bypassing sony’s cd protection) is allowed?
    so if a person sells products that can be used to bypass digital locks and its for their own private use is that now illegal. So London Drugs better get rid of their video stabilizers (macrovision removers) yes! and the person using it is also doing something illegal, even thou its for their backups.

    joke. Where is Hogan (Heroes’) for these Neo-paid-off-govt we have. Shame on Ontario people, you did a great job voting.

  46. I hope that Quebec will finally become independent from Canada… I’m sick of those corrupted individualists.

  47. Digital locks
    I am disgusted by this legislation. We have now just made a piece of legislation that lets another country determine what is a crime and what is not. My first concern is things like the human genome progect. At the moment only a few companies have the rights to publish. with the US copyright laws extending copyrights indefinitely it is conceivable that research from these projects will never fall into public domain and be added to. The US will now own a lot of scientific discoveries indefinitely. maybe i am misunderstanding this, i hope i am misunderstanding this.
    The second is digital locking. it will literally make it illegal to record any content from a digital cable box (or especially a PVR) as it is encrypted from the source. DVDR’s and even VHS will be illegal devices after everything goes digital. this means to access your content you will always need a cable account. If you think this wont be twisted by the cable companies you havent been paying attention.

  48. Enough is Enough
    I am sick and tired of this arrogant CDN government legislating for its own political interests and not for the CDN people. Nobody likes this except those who lobbied and wrote the legislation in order to appease a corrupt and bought and paid for US Congress.

  49. question about c-11, now that it passed
    So lets say a user a is downloading a torrent, can the user a be sued for downloading this torrent? also how does that go with tv show torrents???

    PS: user would not download tv show torrents if they would be available for sale at reasonable prices and not through HBO only.

  50. @Simon

    Whether they’re TV, movie or music torrents
    is irrelevant. If it’s a copyrighted file
    and your caught…..

  51. Well, as far as I know, it will be legal
    to watch videos on the internet. It’s
    downloading a copyrighted file/or files that
    the public would have to worry about.

    Watch yes. Download no, if copyrighted.

  52. another guy says:

    streaming watching tv
    actually false.
    you cant watch tv programming (streaming) that is or isnt available in canada.
    you can watch HOUSE off GLOBAL website, but you cant watch it streaming from anywhere else since GLobal has the rights for canada. so when you watch it on global site there is advertising ( money generator ) since global spent money on the rights to broadcast the show.

    if there is a HBO show but HBO canada doesnt carry it, you cant watch it period. no one bought the rights to canada, its still illegal for you to watch it. but when it comes out on blu-ray or dvd in the stores you can buy it that way.

    so now a digital lock on a broadcast eg. Bell puts a digital lock on their broadcast (or re-broadcast) it can just any kind of bit. it doesnt actually need to do anything it can be an ID tag bit. so right there, you cant record or of course do anything with it, since they changed a bit made it (called it our ID tag security bit). there another digital lock that isnt a lock, but can be called a lock.

    once passed i hope sony sues apple for their mac computers for bypassing their XCP technology cd music digital lock and Scotch tape for doing the same. Movie industry should be going after futureshop/bestbuy/source etc for selling dvd/blu-ray players that can allow movie media to be played from other regions and the mfg of them. hidden menu or not. its illegal.

    here we go! come on industry show the muscle against the companies that sell your goods. chickens!

  53. @Another Guy

    I thought digital locks were only going
    to be put on physical copies of CD’s and
    DVD’s. You’re also saying broadcasters in
    Canada are also going to be putting locks
    on certain vids on the internet?

    I’ve seen many videos taken down due
    to copyright infringement on Youtube.
    Many of them big US movie studios
    and TV broadcasters.

  54. human
    Stay in your country, and i’ll stay in mine, minding my own business as you should mine yours.

  55. todas las prohibiciones que estan fraguando los poderosos de las industrias del entretenimiento.obedecen al nuebo modo o nueva manera de someter a los ceres humanos .poco a poco nos estan quitando nuestras libertades y nuestros derechos .en realidad no es el dinero el gatillante de todas las restrinciones que estan inponiendo en todo el mundo .el motivo real detras de toda esta parafernalia es imponer nuevas leyes que nos mantengan mas controlados y poco a poco someternos a el rango de esclabos sin ningun derecho y sin libertades . muy cercano esta el dia en que tendremos que pagar asta por respirar .

  56. Basia Serwatka says:

    Pozdrawiam ;)) z Polski ;)))

  57. John Nordness says:

    I am amazed at the two facetedness of this Government,here they are with surveilance, infringing on our privacy rights by setting up laws to supposedly fight child pornogrphy criminals,and teorrists,while our Charter of Rights is being illegaly,and lawlessly ignored,it all sounds good on the surface doesn’t it? Like it the only way to secure our nation even it means forfieting our freedoms,Right? But is there a hidden,and deeper purpose to all this? What about this other legislation that in the works,to no longer be able to obtain a Pardon for a criminal record after a certain bill is being forged and in the works? What about the citenzen of Canada who has completely rehabilatated him or herself,ie,the alcoholic or addict that has obtained sobriety,has been clean and sober for a number of years.It often takes many years of his or her life to achieve this,many who are approaching the twighlight of their lives.and though now sober and in their right minds,can’t afford the legal costs to obtain it? Why not leave well enough alone? In my growing years,copyright laws were continuously broken,remember when television was free? Remember the ED SUVILLAN SHOW,THE DINA SHORE SHOW,the ANDY WILLIAMS SHOW,the WRITTEN NEWS CHANNEL,while copywritten songs were constantly being played,etc.Then came the invention of the tape recorder,following that the great VCR where you could record shows that you would other wise miss,due to work,date,party,appointment,etc.What about copywrite then was they any fuss? Isn’t greed and big bussiness that this has come about? It’s been said if something is causing a great amount of contention,to fix it just stop it!Thats my answer to all of this hate and contention, just stop doing it right now!

  58. John Nordness says:

    Leave us Canadians alone with our computers and the internet,invent with the money,prespirationand inspiration and what ever else it takes,find another solution to this wickedness that abounds and leave the good people of this country alone and let them enjoy that which has been invented for their joy and happiness,okay?

  59. to kl
    I work in the industry. the Cable companies put digital locks on anything that is record to your hard drive on a PVR. the only way to access it is to have a cable account. Also the HDMI port on their equipment has an encryption algorithm so you cannot make a digital copy directly from the box. you have to use an analog port. so because this isnt addressed in the legislation just by hooking your DVR to the analog ports on your equipment could be considered circumventing a digital lock. Of course the government will say ‘no one will be persecuted for that’… but when the cable companies start charging you to record content becuase of copyright… well then it is going to get sporty.
    wierdly enough though, PVRing netflix will be legal because it is just using a straight video codec.

  60. David Piepgrass says:

    Just cuz it’s encrypted doesn’t mean you can’t copy it
    Curmudgeon said: “So we’re allowed to make backup copies but we’re not allowed to circumvent DRM or cyberlocks. How does one make a backup copy of something with a cyberlock or DRM on it?”

    In many cases you can copy something with a digital lock on it. For example you can duplicate a commercial DVD, but you have to use the more expensive high-capacity DVDs. To backup the movie on a regular DVD-R you have to break the lock (i.e. decode the movie) before you can compress it to a smaller size. Commercial pirates often don’t bother breaking DVD digital locks, they just make exact copies which any DVD player can decrypt just as well as the original.

    But breaking the lock is required to modify the signal in any way, whether it’s to make the data smaller or to extract a small excerpt for educational or fair-dealing purposes.

    Uhh, to the Spanish guy, ¿Sabes que no hablamos español aquí? Y aprenda deletrear. Yo, yo no hablo español muy bien, pero yo sé deletrear “está”, “seres”, “nuevo”, etc. 🙂 En comparación a inglés, español es muy fácil deletrear, asi que no tienes buenas excusas como los ingleses. Pero estamos de acuerdo, por supuesto, que no se debe confiar en los poderosos de las industrias del entretenimiento decidir nuestas leyes.

  61. another guy says:

    digital locks
    you are allowed to make backups, but if there is a digital lock, you cannot make backups without written permission of the copyright holder.
    that is why you now see blu-ray with, dvd with digital copy being offered in stores.

    you cannot break teh digital lock legally anymore unless written permission. you will notice on licensing agreements for the past 10 years, you buy a game, but you dont own the IP of the game. you can resell it, but you cant duplicate it, share it etc.

    if a movie has no digital protection then you can backup it up once.
    you may even make it a divx. but if there is a digital protection lock, you cant do anything to it. because you are not allowed to break it.. legally.

    it will be interesting… but again you cant use a mac to rip CD AUDIO with sony DRX protection. hmmm, but cant use a windows machine. haha.

  62. Fís.
    One more topic among thousands,yes of course is important but, please, dont make it a big one, my best wishes to Canadians beautifull people, please be friends and important and above all: dont kill kitties, are so, say, loyables?, pretty god ones, funny and graceful that seeing them is a meaningfull? experience, Thanks.

  63. Ian Wrigley says:

    Do you think thousands of Canadians could change the killing spree of thousands of Seal Pups every year.

  64. Except none of the so called wins are actually wins with the TPM loss.

  65. smurphy_it says:

    It’s a real shame this was introduced. What does this mean for such things as “Linux” ? I personally will NOT buy a piece of hardware coded for Microsoft’s garbage O/S. At what point is there a distinction between bought and paid for vs. licensed. If I buy a home router, I own it and should have every legal right to modify it (such as installing a better firmware), or buy a Nettop and want a different Operating System on it.

  66. DR
    i think alot of cats will be dead & alot of them already dead (since the internet comes into our live ) ..
    briefly my poit of view is ,, new bands & singers in whatever music types rock , pop , rap , ritusl , electroinc , ………….. & my many more .. are appearing to music life as well as those musician need fame & spread between audiance .
    so what they do ? ,, they give their music for free in many websites & therefore this is a chanlge for well known muscian , & their (well known muscian )only way to defend music is to give it freely on line to whoever needs it in order to keep their names .
    & production companies don”t care about that becaause they get expenses from sales as time is going.
    so, we should raise cats as much as we can to keep them from extension ..
    have a nice day 🙂
    & god bless all

  67. monster beats pro says:
  68. John Nordness says:

    Here we are Oh Canada were aprox 35000000 Strong With Big Brother or Uncle Sam Aprox 300000000 STRONG getting the constitutional right to watch any television show they want on their computers international and Good Old U.S.A. while our BIG EGO WITH A BIG INFERIORITY COMPLEX legislates to make it illegal to have a constitutional right taken away under our noses. What is wrong with this “PICTURE” anyway??? if I CAN WATCH IT ON TV WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE ANYWAY??? “Oh Canada” It high time that CANADADIAN CITIZENS be treated like CANADIAN CITIZENS really that’s how easy it is,SOUND GOOD??? or is there another agenda going on here that I am not aware of and if there is would you mind telling me what it is???$$$ Signed x -CANADIAN CITIZEN-

  69. John Nordness says:


  70. Should be the big ISPs objecting the most
    I would think the big service providers like Shaw and Telus would object the most about internet censorship and file sharing restrictions. The BIG reason for having high speed connection to net is to have the ability to exchange large files in a reasonable time. Take this away and there is no reason to have a fast connection. May as well go back to 56K dial up, if all I can do is email, web surf and youtube.

  71. locksmith hamilton says:

    locksmith hamilton
    This is the best locksmith hamilton service center in canada.locksmith hamilton is the best company for locksmith services in hamilton area we are 24 hour locksmith services in hamilton. our website

  72. this is about corpate stakes
    The mayor players ,the corporate people how control our goverment ,not the the people .The big players ,how are in the pockets of the people regulating our lifes and how and when what we do it ,its none of there business ! Blocking web pages content ,blocking internet media players and throttling when told not to ,yet they allow this bill to favor them ! These player dont listen ,breaching our privacy is what they do and are being allowed to. Corporates of canada ,the big three run and line the pockets of the the people in charge ,the only thing they forgot is the 25 million people of canada are suppose to be in in charge,less bell rogers and other isp -tv and commuication providers! Are we missing something here! If so you open your eyes !

  73. Thanks
    Thanks for great information you write it very clean. I am very lucky to get this tips from you. I think it will help me in my business –

  74. How Thousands of Canadians Changed The Copyright Debate
    Great post.Check my blog at Health Geek

  75. How Thousands of Canadians Changed The Copyright
    Great post.Check my blog at

  76. Thanks
    This is great info to share here

  77. Great
    This is great info to share here