Comments on: New Copyright Bill C-61 Rallying Canadians

By: Lawrence Gridin

Lawrence Gridin — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:03:43 +0000

Ok, let me rephrase: the provision simply seeks to allow buyers and sellers of music to enter into contracts on the seller’s terms.

You’re right, of course, but this is a classic problem of contracting between a stronger and weaker party. It’s an issue that arises millions of times each day. Just about every single time that a consumer makes a purchase, they are entering into a contract for the sale of goods or services with a stronger party. How often in these situations does the buyer read the terms?

The reality is that for practicality’s sake, the courts have, I think rightly, upheld click-wrap licences, etc.

There is nothing new here.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:15:34 +0000

Lawrence you’re completely right when you say they did it for greater specificity. The reason I think it’s important though is that many people who are unaware of freedom of contract, may hear that there’s a new private music copying right, and not realize they entered into a contract removing this right when they buy music online.

When it comes to buying online, it’s one small user, buying from a corporate giant like Apple. The contract between them is done through a click-wrap license and the user, like most people, won’t bother to read it. Apple can put anything in there and the user isn’t in a position to negotiate. And if they have an iPod, they may feel compelled to shop at iTunes Store anyways since it’s tied together.

So I think the statement “The provision simply seeks to allow buyers and sellers of music to enter into contracts on their own terms,” is unfortunately not completely accurate in many online situations.

By: » Conservatives proposed copyright law making news even in rural newspapers Scott’s DiaTribes: My personal opinions on social and political issues from a progressive standpoint.

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:24:50 +0000

[...] noticed this article over at the Law is Cool blog today about how the Conservatives proposed new copyright law, known as [...]

By: Lawrence Gridin

Lawrence Gridin — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:10:56 +0000

I’m actually a member of that Facebook group.

I am unclear about one of the provisions you discussed in the post. Could you explain it for me?

You mention that “the private music copying provision can also be curbed by contract.”

How does this expand contract law generally?

In the past, the seller of media could bind the buyer to a contract stating that the buyer would not, for example, make copies of it. If the buyer violated the terms of this contract, they could be sued by the seller. Unless the new law makes it a statutory offence to violate such contracts (which I don’t think it does), then there’s nothing new here. It seems to me that all the proposed statute is doing is saying: “for greater specificity, this law does not trump private contracts.”

If the provision was not included, it could be argued that contracts containing do-not-copy clauses were null and void for illegality. The provision simply seeks to allow buyers and sellers of music to enter into contracts on their own terms.

Am I missing something?