Here are links to the bill itself, and to a government site called “Balanced copyright” that has information about the bill.
I have not yet taken the time to read it in detail or think it through. Here is Michael Geist’s initial reaction.
There is something I don’t understand though – as the logic escapes me.
The bill will expand fair dealing – in other words - things we can legitimately copy. (e.g. private study, news reporting, parody, time shifting, format shifting.)
At the same time, it embraces the concept of a digital lock, and makes it unlawful to break a digital lock for any reason. In other words, a content owner can lock down their content so we can’t use it for those fair dealing purposes.
So the government says users should have certain rights – then turns around and lets content owners take those rights away? Seems like they are abdicating their legislative power to content creators.
Highly illogical.
In my new article, “Modernization of the Inconceivable”, at http://mincov.com/articles/index.php/fullarticle/modernization_of_the_inconceivable/ (http://bit.ly/8YQZ3r), I explain why modernization of the copyright law based on compromise and concessions, without a good understanding of the underlying principles of copyright protection, is doomed to fail.
Copyright laws exist either for the protection of the creator, or for the benefit of the public. There is no middle ground. As long as we keep entrusting the government (any government) to find the right “balance” between the two, we are destined to keep on making up exclusions from limitations on exceptions from the rights – without even stopping for a second to question why we are doing this.