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: