Post Tagged with: "prentice"

Bell’s PVR Legal Woes the Tip of the C-61 Iceberg

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) picks up on last week's story involving the Bell commercial touting a new digital video recorder that features an external hard drive permitting users to "record forever." The archiving functionality may sounds enticing, yet last week several media reports noted that Industry Minister Jim Prentice's Bill C-61 forbids Canadians from recording television programs for archival purposes. Indeed, the new "time shifting" provision in the Prentice bill contains at least a dozen restrictions that could leave consumers facing significant liability for those that fail to comply. Innovative businesses do not fare much better as they will also be forced to shelve potential new services if the bill becomes law. For example, Bill C-61 explicitly prohibits a network-based PVR that Telus has considered introducing into the Canadian market.

These restrictions leave Canadians trailing the United States, where consumers have enjoyed the legal right to time shift for more than two decades without the statutory restrictions that Prentice has proposed. Moreover, earlier this month a U.S. court ruled that Cablevision, a leading cable provider, can legally offer its network-based PVR. While it is tempting to focus on the need to improve the bill's PVR provisions, the reality is that the spotlight on Bell's promotion highlights a pervasive problem within Bill C-61. Surprisingly for a political party that typically promotes "market based solutions," the bill introduces a complex regulatory framework for everyday consumer activities and represents an unprecedented incursion into the property rights of millions of Canadians.

Just how far beyond restrictive television recording does Bill C-61 go?

August 18, 2008 — 18 comments — Columns

The Globe and Mail on C-61

The Globe and Mail publishes its masthead editorial on C-61. The verdict? While supportive of the intent of copyright reform, it notes the concern over how the bill mirrors the DMCA and expresses disappointment over the failure to extend and adapt fair dealing, stating that: Perhaps the Conservatives do not […]

August 18, 2008 — 3 comments — News

Athabasca University VP on C-61

Athabasca University Associate Vice-President of Research Rory McGreal has a great op-ed in the Edmonton Journal. McGreal argues that "the proposed new Bill C-61 will have profound negative effects on researchers and educators as well as the general public, preventing them from exercising their historical rights. We need to balance […]

August 18, 2008 — 1 comment — News

61 Reforms to C-61, Day 40: TPMs – No Regular Review Process

The U.S. DMCA experience leaves little doubt that the introduction of anti-circumvention legislation will create some unintended consequences. No matter how long the list of circumvention rights and other precautionary measures, it is impossible to identify all future concerns associated with anti-circumvention legislation. The U.S. DMCA addresses this by establishing a flawed tri-annual review process. The system has not worked well, creating a formidable barrier to new exceptions and long delays to address emerging concerns.

As bad as the U.S. system is, the proposed Canadian system under Bill C-61 is worse since there is no mandated review of the exceptions at all. Instead, Canada gets a flexible process that will allow the government to consider new exceptions if and when it sees fit. In other words, the same government that brought you the Canadian DMCA will decide if there is a need to add any exceptions. Section 41.2 (1) provides that: