As for the ACTRA proposals, each is posted below along with some of my comments:
As for the ACTRA proposals, each is posted below along with some of my comments:
The Globe’s Time to Lead series looks at how Bill C-32 will affect Canadian culture, with some emphasis on the bill’s digital lock provisions.
Perhaps most disappointingly, the groups had promised in August to offer “constructive suggestions”, particularly on the issue of fair dealing, which was said to require clear legislative guidance. Rather than offering proposed language for such guidance, the groups simply want to hit the delete key. Inclusion of education as a fair dealing category? Delete. Non-commercial user-generated content? Delete. Digital inter-library loans? Delete. Format shifting for private purposes? Delete.
At a time when the opposition parties are asking for constructive advice on how to determine the confines of issues such as fair dealing, the writers groups maintain that there is no scope for including education as a category and refuse to offer any suggested language to improve the bill. Instead, they offer hyperbolic claims about how C-32 violates international copyright law (despite the fact that the U.S. typically offers more flexibility on these issues) or will result in unfettered copying (ignoring the fact that fair dealing includes a test for determining whether the copying is fair).
The full issues and recommendations section from the document (in italics) – along with a much-needed reality check – are posted below:
Appeared in the Hill Times on November 8, 2010 as In Search of a Compromise on Copyright Last week marked the return of the copyright debate to the House of Commons as Bill C-32 entered second reading. Six months after its introduction, it became immediately apparent that all three opposition […]