Copyright Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Copyright Act

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Christian Paradis  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the Copyright Act to
(a) update the rights and protections of copyright owners to better address the challenges and opportunities of the Internet, so as to be in line with international standards;
(b) clarify Internet service providers’ liability and make the enabling of online copyright infringement itself an infringement of copyright;
(c) permit businesses, educators and libraries to make greater use of copyright material in digital form;
(d) allow educators and students to make greater use of copyright material;
(e) permit certain uses of copyright material by consumers;
(f) give photographers the same rights as other creators;
(g) ensure that it remains technologically neutral; and
(h) mandate its review by Parliament every five years.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 18, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
May 15, 2012 Passed That Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 54 the following: “(3) The Board may, on application, make an order ( a) excluding from the application of section 41.1 a technological protection measure that protects a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording, or classes of them, or any class of such technological protection measures, having regard to the factors set out in paragraph (2)(a); or ( b) requiring the owner of the copyright in a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording that is protected by a technological protection measure to provide access to the work, performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording to persons who are entitled to the benefit of any limitation on the application of paragraph 41.1(1)(a). (4) Any order made under subsection (3) shall remain in effect for a period of five years unless ( a) the Governor in Council makes regulations varying the term of the order; or ( b) the Board, on application, orders the renewal of the order for an additional five years.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 52 with the following: “(2) Paragraph 41.1(1)( b) does not”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 51 with the following: “(2) Paragraph 41.1(1)( b) does not”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 7 on page 51.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 33 on page 50.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting line 37 on page 49 to line 3 on page 50.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 29 on page 48.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 44 on page 47.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 47 the following: “(5) Paragraph (1)( a) does not apply to a qualified person who circumvents a technological protection measure on behalf of another person who is lawfully entitled to circumvent that technological protection measure. (6) Paragraphs (1)( b) and (c) do not apply to a person who provides a service to a qualified person or who manufactures, imports or provides a technology, device or component, for the purposes of enabling a qualified person to circumvent a technological protection measure in accordance with this Act. (7) A qualified person may only circumvent a technological protection measure under subsection (5) if ( a) the work or other subject-matter to which the technological protection measure is applied is not an infringing copy; and ( b) the qualified person informs the person on whose behalf the technological protection measure is circumvented that the work or other subject-matter is to be used solely for non-infringing purposes. (8) The Governor in Council may, for the purposes of this section, make regulations ( a) defining “qualified person”; ( b) prescribing the information to be recorded about any action taken under subsection (5) or (6) and the manner and form in which the information is to be kept; and ( c) prescribing the manner and form in which the conditions set out in subsection (7) are to be met.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 47 the following: “41.101 (1) No one shall apply, or cause to be applied, a technological protection measure to a work or other subject-matter that is intended to be offered for use by members of the public by sale, rental or otherwise unless the work or other subject-matter is accompanied by a clearly visible notice indicating ( a) that a technological protection measure has been applied to the work; and ( b) the capabilities, compatibilities and limitations imposed by the technological protection measure, including, where applicable, but without limitation (i) any requirement that particular software must be installed, either automatically or with the user's consent, in order to access or use the work or other subject-matter, (ii) any requirement for authentication or authorization via a network service in order to access or use the work or other subject-matter, (iii) any known incompatibility with ordinary consumer devices that would reasonably be expected to operate with the work or other subject-matter, and (iv) any limits imposed by the technological protection measure on the ability to make use of the rights granted under section 29, 29.1, 29.2, 29.21, 29.22, 29.23 or 29.24; and ( c) contact information for technical support or consumer inquiries in relation to the technological protection measure. (2) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the form and content of the notice referred to in subsection (1).”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 47 the following: “41.101 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)( a) does not apply to a person who has lawful authority to care for or supervise a minor and who circumvents a technological protection measure for the purpose of protecting the minor if ( a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter with regard to which the technological protection measure is applied is not an infringing copy; and ( b) the person has lawfully obtained the work, the performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or the sound recording that is protected by the technological protection measure. (2) Paragraphs 41.1(1)( b) and (c) do not apply to a person who provides a service to a person referred to in subsection (1) or who manufactures, imports or provides a technology, device or component, for the purposes of enabling anyone to circumvent a technological protection measure in accordance with subsection (1). (3) A person acting in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) is not entitled to benefit from the exception under that subsection if the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright or contravenes any Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 40 on page 46.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 45 with the following: “measure for the purpose of an act that is an infringement of the copyright in the protected work.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 30 to 34 on page 20.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 37 on page 19.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 27, be amended by deleting line 42 on page 23 to line 3 on page 24.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 29 on page 23 with the following: “paragraph (3)( a) to reproduce the lesson for non-infringing purposes.”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 21, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 17 the following: “(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations defining “education” for the purposes of subsection (1).”
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
May 15, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Feb. 13, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Feb. 13, 2012 Passed That this question be now put.
Feb. 8, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Nov. 28, 2011 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, because it fails to: ( a) uphold the rights of consumers to choose how to enjoy the content that they purchase through overly-restrictive digital lock provisions; (b) include a clear and strict test for “fair dealing” for education purposes; and (c) provide any transitional funding to help artists adapt to the loss of revenue streams that the Bill would cause”.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, at the very least we can say that, unlike the third party, this party is actually prepared to read the bill and work with us to get it to committee and hear what even more Canadians have to say. We spent a lot of time in the previous Parliament on this bill and heard from a number of witnesses. I spent a lot of time over the summer doing the exact same thing.

Over the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot of disagreement among members of the NDP over a number of different issues within their party but there always seems to be unanimity on one issue; that is, when there is talk about increasing taxes on Canadians. It seems to me that this speaker and also the speaker before, the member for Western Arctic, continuously talk about bringing back taxes on Canadians, whether it is an iPad tax or any other form of tax.

I wonder if the member could just clarify for me if the overriding dilemma or problem that the members opposite have with this bill is that it does not tax Canadians enough. Is that the problem they are having? Are they truly going to continue to advocate for a tax on iPads? Where will it go? Will we be taxing people who make PVR recordings of their favourite TV shows? I just wonder how far along the tax road we are going to go with this.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:40 a.m.
See context

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, that shows a significant lack of understanding of what we are talking about on this side of the room and, more importantly, because this cannot be driven just by political parties but by the creative classes.

They are saying very clearly to us that they want to be paid. We are not talking about taxation here. They want to be paid for their services. The content owners are saying they have development costs and they want to be compensated for that, not only fairly but extremely generously.

All we are saying is the creative groupings, those content owners, go nowhere unless this work is done and it is only going to be done, and done well, if they are properly compensated. We are talking about people being paid for the work they do and being paid at least reasonably well, let me say “fairly”, nowhere near as generously as we hear from the content owners and the demands they have.

This not about taxation at all. It is about a fee that is being imposed. As a lawyer, I expected my fees were going to be paid for the work that I did. If I am creating a piece of art or a new piece of technology I would expect to be paid accordingly, fairly, in direct compensation for what I have done and for what it has contributed to my society. The whole question has a basic fallacy at its base. This is not about taxation. This is about fair compensation in the marketplace.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:45 a.m.
See context

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of my colleague's legal expertise to try to clarify a few things.

If I invented a new technology, my rights would be protected by patents that would bring in the money I need to continue creating. As an artist, my rights are protected, in principle, by copyright. However, if I am a content owner, there does not seem to be any protection for me. If I am not mistaken, this bill will take money from artists' copyright and transfer it. I would like my colleague to clear that up and to tell me if I am understanding correctly.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:45 a.m.
See context

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely right. That is what the government's bill does. It is clear that the government completely ignored the consultations and testimonies from the last Parliament.

As the hon. member said, the evidence and testimonies are there, but the Conservatives completely ignored them.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:45 a.m.
See context

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to talk about the bill before the House.

Since I have spent more of my life as a teacher in a university than as a politician, I thought I would focus on the implications for the university and college sector.

In this regard there is both good news and bad news. The bill gives the educator something positive and in another way takes that back. I am referring to the new fair dealing rights and exceptions, where education is now included. This will make it somewhat easier for teachers in the classroom to use certain materials without arduous cost.

Some of the producers have objected to this, but my impression is that it is a positive thing. Some teachers want to innovate. An example would be teachers who want to show a one-minute clip of a movie to make a point, but currently they cannot do that without paying very high copyright fees.

The impact of this new education right on producers will be less negative than some have claimed. This is because in determining what is considered fair, our courts use a two-step test created by the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether a use is fair or not. The first step is to determine whether the use of a work is for one of the fair dealing purposes listed in the act. The second step is to assess the fairness of the use against six factors, including the amount of the work used and the effect of the use on the market for the work. Using this test, our courts have consistently determined that the scenarios envisioned by creators, unmitigated free copying with no payments, is not fair and thus is not permitted.

A clear definition of what is fair should be included in the act. One way to accomplish this would be to embed the Supreme Court's two-step test into the act itself.

That overall is positive, fair, reasonable and balanced. The problem comes with the issue of the digital locks.

Bill C-11 introduces new rights for Canadians to make copies of copyrighted works for personal use, such as format shifting, time shifting and making backup copies, but Bill C-11's new digital lock provisions override these new rights. In other words, under this new law, if a company puts a digital lock on a CD, the person who buys the CD cannot circumvent the lock to put the music on to his or her iPod without breaking the law. This exact issue was a highly controversial change which was fought when the Conservatives' previous copyright bill was introduced.

A long list of leading academics, educators, librarians, archivists, documentary filmmakers and citizens have expressed legitimate concern that digital lock provisions will undermine the balance that copyright law is intended to strike between creators and users, completely undermining a user's ability to use copyrighted works that they have purchased.

Several experts, including Canadian research chair, Professor Michael Geist, have suggested an easy way to fix this would be to amend the bill to make it okay to circumvent a digital lock if the purposes for which a lock was circumvented were lawful. This would be an easy amendment to make to the bill. It would preserve that better balance which I think most of us are seeking.

Because restrictive digital locks can effectively undermine consumer rights articulated in the copyright law and the very balance copyright law seeks, and because the Conservatives have made no attempt to change their stance on digital locks, that is sufficient reason for the Liberals to oppose the bill.

Going back to my example of education, the bill makes it easier for educators to use materials in their classrooms, but then it negates that advantage by bringing in these digital locks which, under certain circumstances, would make it illegal for the professor to produce the clip or other material which he or she wished to use in class. It would be lawful to use that material in the class, but because of the digital locks, it would be unlawful to produce the material which it is legal to use. That makes no sense. That is why we in the Liberal Party are extremely concerned about this issue of digital locks.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:50 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS

Mr. Speaker, I, too, as an educator had great concerns about the copyright legislation. I looked into it and talked to people in the educational community. They are very satisfied with the way the bill is now. In fact, the Association of Universities and Colleges supports this bill. It said:

This bill reflects a fair balance between the interests of creators and users of copyright works and is a positive step forward for university communities across Canada.... [The bill] clarifies important questions and will help ensure students and learners have access to the content they need, including digital material.

As my colleague across the way mentioned, the law now says that teachers can use any media to show these types of products. Before it specifically indicated they could be used in overhead projectors and flip charts, but now it takes away references to specific technologies so that modern technology can be used in the classroom. The universities and colleges are very happy with this legislation. They say it is fair treatment protecting both creators and users. It also improves the technological availability to our classroom teachers across Canada. I would hope that the member across the way, as a former teacher, would support that.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, the most charitable response is to say that my colleague's quote by the Association of Universities and Colleges is incomplete. It is not completely happy with this bill.

I happen to have with me a direct quote by James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Here is what he said:

We are pleased that the Bill reflects the priorities of Canada’s academic and research community to expand fair dealing specifically for educational purposes.... This represents a genuine effort to introduce balance into Canadian copyright law.

That is the part that my hon. colleague likes. Mr. Turk went on to say:

At the same time we are disappointed that the legislation makes it illegal to circumvent digital locks, even for lawful reasons such as fair dealing.

That was precisely my point and it is precisely stated by the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's speech. I, too, am very worried about digital locks and anti-circumvention measures. Last spring, ironically enough, the members across the way were tearing their hair out during the debate about Statistics Canada and prison terms related to the long form census.

In Bill C-11, people who try to bypass a security measure could be fined $1 million or sentenced to up to five years in prison. Given that the omnibus bill will make it even more difficult for someone sentenced to jail time to be rehabilitated, could Bill C-11 have serious consequences?

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the point raised by my colleague. It is not a good idea to put people in jail for such reasons. But Bill C-11 is not surprising given that the Conservatives want to put almost everyone in prison.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. Modernizing copyright is a legitimate goal, but how we achieve that goal is what must be debated. However, before I focus on any specific aspects of what the Conservatives are proposing, I would like to take a moment to share a little story.

Please allow me to illustrate the injustice suffered by our creators with an example taken from the reality facing wheat producers in the west. Imagine that a company has invented a revolutionary way to duplicate wheat to allow the synthesis of an equally high-quality flour used in a simple, practical, compact machine that makes sliced bread. Thanks to a sophisticated device, the wheat can be duplicated almost exactly, so well in fact that once it is milled into flour, the illusion is complete and the machine can produce tasty, fresh, aromatic bread. But it does not end there. The machine is quickly improved. It becomes more compact, lighter and easier to use. It can now even make buttered toast with a choice of toppings: peanut butter, jam or, my personal favourite, honey. It is easy to carry around so you can have breakfast anywhere; you can have a nice piece of bread in your car, on the bus or at the office. As a bonus, all of these places then smell like fresh bread or buttered toast, to everyone's amazement and delight.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 10:55 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is time to proceed to statements by members. The hon. member will have eight minutes to finish his speech after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou has eight minutes to finish his speech.

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.
See context

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, imagine the wonderful smell of buttered toast, smothered in honey, wafting through our offices. Obviously, that makes us think that the machine I described is a marvel. However, it is relatively expensive to purchase. A few hundred dollars, but we can pay a price per piece or buy a subscription to get toast at a fraction of the cost of the traditional way. That obviously makes this new machine more attractive, since any honest, hard-working individual will jump at the chance to improve his life for a low price.

That being said, not everyone agrees with this new approach to breakfast and some people refuse to buy the appliance and stick to their traditional methods. However, this innovation becomes quite successful and is sold across the country. This revolutionary device shakes up our morning habits and causes major changes that affect the stakeholders in the traditional bread industry. We have to tell it like it is: our wheat farmers are not compensated for the process to duplicate the real wheat in our fields. Initially, the appliance is not seen as a threat because no one could imagine anything replacing real bread, but the astounding success of the new machine results in lost markets for the wheat farmers. After a high-profile court case, the farmers' legitimate calls for a fair price for their wheat are dismissed. That same wheat remains absolutely necessary in the duplication process created by the innovative company that is now an industrial giant.

That is not the worst of it. The government takes the side of the company in question and, in a supreme act of bad faith, describes the legitimate royalties the farmers are seeking for their wheat as a consumer tax. Our wheat farmers do not have the means to stand up to this powerful and dishonest propaganda and are forced to continue fighting rearguard actions with limited means, hoping to find allies in the public or among other groups in order to reverse the trend.

There you have a story to illustrate the major technological changes we are experiencing—

Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 21st, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.
See context

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, please. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wishes to speak.