The Industry committee’s clear assertion this week as the authoritative copyright review is grounded in process since the government gave it sole responsibility for conducting the review. While my earlier posts focus on the process and the unprecedented INDU release, the committee justifiably points out that it also heard from far more witnesses through hearings and briefs than the Heritage committee. In fact, it notes that it heard from the “vast majority of stakeholders who contributed to CHPC’s study.” Working with University of Ottawa student Philip Abraham, we reviewed the witness lists, the brief submissions, and the citations by the committees to better assess claims about which committee best reflects the full spectrum of stakeholder views on copyright. This post examines who participated in the committee work and a follow-up posts will highlight the balance in the witness lists and whether the committees were listening.
Archive for June 20th, 2019
Law Bytes
Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act
byMichael Geist
April 15, 2024
Michael Geist
April 8, 2024
Michael Geist
March 25, 2024
Michael Geist
March 18, 2024
Michael Geist
March 11, 2024
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
- Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act
- AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
- Tweets Are Not Enough: Why Combatting Relentless Antisemitism in Canada Requires Real Leadership and Action