Industry committee  Let me just give you the specific provision, because I think it will cover most of what you're talking about. It's paragraph 6(5)(a): “This section does not apply to a commercial electronic message...that is sent by an individual to another individual with whom they have a person

Industry committee  I think we could attempt to do that.

Industry committee  Right. Why don't you guys answer this too? My own view is that we often try to get away from some of these definitional issues because early on we would have some of these discussions and spend half a day talking about what your definition is. It wasn't particularly productive

Industry committee  There is an exception in here as well for that sort of consumer-to-consumer personal correspondence. The issue is whether this now rises up to the level of clear commercial activity. I think there's some question as to whether or not it rises to that level. There is also, though,

Industry committee  I don't think there are many individuals who are going to look at that and think twice before they send out a message to their friend saying--

Industry committee  I think the realtor would be comfortable, assuming they had asked the person if they had permission to send it on to the friend.

Industry committee  To supplement that, it's essentially shared responsibility. You can get federal law and state law. Under pre-emption rules in the United States, if the federal law wades into an area, it will pre-empt the state law, which, as we mentioned, is what happened when they brought in CA

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Michael Geist. I am a law professor at the University of Ottawa. As I'm sure many of you know, I have been very active on copyright policy issues for many years. In 2007 I launched the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Yes or no? I think there are provisions in there that clearly benefit creators. I think there are some provisions that benefit users, although I think there's some concern with those. I think we can address some of the concerns that creators have, particularly with respect to fai

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I'm sorry that this isn't yes or no, but I think that we have to unpack some of the various provisions a little bit. The ephemeral rights issue is one in which clearly some revenue is at stake. I'm sure you'll get both sides in to talk a bit about what's being paid for and whethe

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Right. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I think that any copying that takes place, including under the new exception for education, must still be fair. It would be disingenuous to argue that there is going to be no copying that's currently compensated for that might now fall

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Absolutely not. When you take a look at some of the provisions with respect to fair dealing or with respect to digital locks or whatever, it's clear the bill has been vetted by those who recognize what the standards are in international law, and I believe the law is compliant as

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Absolutely there should be responsibility, and I think the approach that the bill takes on notice and notice is one through which there is responsibility on the part of the ISP. It's one in which there are significant costs incurred by an ISP, but at the same time what it does is

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thanks. I would respond with two things. One is to reiterate the fact that the notion there are people out there who will be able to make any kind of copying and claim it's for educational purposes, and that it stops there, is fundamentally not what the bill says nor what the law

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  There are a couple of things there. First, if it's a citizen's right and we're going to agree that something like time shifting or format shifting is appropriate and ethical and that the law should reflect that, then I don't think it's appropriate to say that the right can simply