The Canadian government plans to extend the term of copyright from the international standard of life of the author plus 50 years to life plus 70 years without mitigation measures that would have reduced the harms and burden of the extension. The Budget Implementation Act, a 443 page bill that adopts the omnibus approach the government had pledged to reject, was posted late yesterday by Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s department and could be tabled in the House of Commons as early as today. Page 328 of the bill features the shoehorned amendments to the Copyright Act, including an extension of the term of copyright. While the government is not making the change retroactive (meaning works currently in the public domain stay there), no one seriously expected that to happen. What many had hoped – based on the government’s own committee recommendations and copyright consultation – was to introduce mitigation measures to reduce the economic cost and cultural harm that comes from term extension. Instead, Freeland, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Innovation, Science and Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne, and Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez have chosen to reject the recommendations of students, teachers, universities, librarians, IP experts, and their own Justice Minister.
Archive for April 27th, 2022
Episode 127: Lucie Guibault on Canada's Approach to Copyright Term Extension
byMichael Geist

May 2, 2022
Michael Geist
April 25, 2022
Michael Geist
April 11, 2022
Michael Geist
April 4, 2022
Michael Geist
March 28, 2022
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
No Comment: Government Moves to End Debate on Online News Bill Despite a No-Show from Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez
Is the Government Seeking to Short Circuit the Senate Review of Bill C-11?
CRTC Chair Confirms Bill C-11 Captures User Content, Will Take Years to Implement
Is There Anything Less Convincing than CRTC Chair Ian Scott’s Empty Assurances on Bill C-11 User Content Regulation?
Digging Into the Government’s Online News Act Claims, Part Two: This is “Minimal Market Intervention”?!