The Economist on Canadian Copyright Law
September 4, 2012
Share this post
2 Comments

Law Bytes
Episode 260: What the Government Didn’t Want You To Hear About Bill C-4 And Its Weak Political Party Privacy Rules
byMichael Geist

March 2, 2026
Michael Geist
February 23, 2026
Michael Geist
February 9, 2026
Michael Geist
Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act's Private Right of Access
February 2, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Words Are Not Enough: Countering Relentless Antisemitic Violence in Canada With Action
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 260: What the Government Didn’t Want You To Hear About Bill C-4 And Its Weak Political Party Privacy Rules
Why the Online Harms Act is the Wrong Way to Regulate AI Chatbots
More Transparency Not Police Reporting: Navigating the Safety-Privacy Balance for AI ChatBots
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 259: The Privacy and Surveillance Risks of AI Chatbot Reporting to Police

Unsurprised that The Economist would gloss that part of things over.
Digital lock rules generally misunderstood…
It is sad, but the impact of the digital lock rules remain widely misunderstood. While Use Controls can be said to have some link to copyright, allowing the copyright monopoly to be abused to transfer control of devices from their owners to manufacturers, Access Controls are a replacement of copyright. While those are the facts, a majority in the debate still falsely believe both types of TPMs give more control to copyright holders, rather than the reality that they also transfer control from copyright holders to technology providers.
It is like the talk of the USA including Fair Use in future trade agreements. Hard to get excited about that given Access Controls replace copyright, wiping out any limits and exceptions such as Fair Use. I believe the US lobby understands this, and has recognized from the Canadian C-11 experience that people are easily distracted by fiddling with fair use/dealing while replacing copyright.