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

Law Bytes
Episode 275: David Loukidelis on Why Stripping Privacy Enforcement from Canada’s Privacy Commissioner in Bill C-36 is Unnecessarily Risky Policy
byMichael Geist

June 22, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
Outdated Data and Dubious Comparisons: Digging into the Government’s AI Strategy Adoption Claims
Why Being Locked Out of Frontier AI is The Sovereignty Threat Canada Missed
Blocked Twice: How Bill C-34’s Kids’ Social Media Ban Would Compound the Online News Act’s Harm to Young Canadians’ News Access
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 275: David Loukidelis on Why Stripping Privacy Enforcement from Canada’s Privacy Commissioner in Bill C-36 is Unnecessarily Risky Policy
The Data on Australia’s Social Media Ban: The Better the Privacy Protection, The Less Effective the Ban

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.