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
Episode 84: Dwayne Winseck and Ben Klass on Canada's Wireless Woes
by Michael Geist
April 12, 2021
Episode 81: Why Isn't Canada Supporting a Proposal to Help Developing Countries Gain Access to COVID-19 Vaccines?
March 22, 2021
Episode 80: A Roundtable on the Canadian Challenges of Delivering Universal, Affordable Internet Access
March 15, 2021
Search Results placeholder
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 84: Dwayne Winseck and Ben Klass on Canada’s Wireless Woes
- Why the Liberals Have Become the Most Anti-Internet Government in Canadian History
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 83: Inside in the Industry Committee Hearing on the Proposed Rogers-Shaw Merger
- Registration for Extension: My Submission to the Copyright Term Extension Consultation
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 82: Jonathan Curtis on the CRTC’s Push to Block Botnets