RSS FeedCBC and Copyright
Scott Tribe pointed out on his blog today that the CBC has implemented new copyright policies on its online news properties. As boingboing explains, the CBC has signed up with iCopyright, an American service which sells licences to digital content creators to allow them to re-post or re-publish CBC content for a monthly fee. Cory Doctorow points out that this is the same service that purports to sell readers of Associated Press content the ability to quote 5 or more words from AP stories.
As a business strategy, I think this is clearly going to be a spectacular failure. Any company large enough to pay $250/month to re-post a single article can also create its own original content at a lower cost. Consequently, I don’t imagine that the CBC will sell very many licenses.
Of course, selling licenses isn’t really the point of the new policy. The point is scare small, independent digital content creators from sourcing the CBC. As Doctrow observes:
The cherry on the cake? iCopyright offers a reward of up to $1,000,000 for snitching on bloggers who don’t pay Danegeld to Canada’s public broadcaster to quote the works they funded.
On top of that, the licensee must “agree not to criticize the CBC, the subject of the article, or its author.”
This, too, seems like an unsound business strategy to me. When bloggers link to or reference CBC’s online content, it is almost universally the practice of good bloggers to provide a link to the original content. This drives traffic to the CBC’s online properties both directly (through people clicking on the link) and indirectly (through the Google PageRank benefit which accrues from inbound links, causing CBC’s stories to achieve more favourable rankings in search results). The CBC seemed to acknowledge the important role that bloggers play in the online news ecosystem when it introduced features such as their “most blogged” content. Recently, these innovative social media features were removed; now they are being replaced with restrictive copyright policies that discourage bloggers from linking to CBC at all.
The CBC, like any other content provider, has a right to protect its intellectual property within the limits of copyright law. To the extent that other parties wish to re-publish the CBC’s content in full and without comment (by the way, good bloggers never do this anyway), the CBC has the right to dictate the terms and conditions.
However, as the Supreme Court made perspicuous in CCH Canada Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, there are limits on the scope of copyright protection. The Court is extremely clear on the point that fair dealing is not simply a defence to a claim by a copyright holder; it is a distinct right held by users of copyright material. In other words, “Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright [emphasis added].”
In determining whether the use of copyright material falls within the fair dealing exception, the court will look at six factors (I have provided short extracts from the case to explain each factor):
- The purpose of dealing.. “In Canada, the purpose of the dealing will be fair if it is for one of the allowable purposes under the Copyright Act, namely research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting”
- The Character of the Dealing. “If multiple copies of works are being widely distributed, this will tend to be unfair. If, however, a single copy of a work is used for a specific legitimate purpose, then it may be easier to conclude that it was a fair dealing.”
- The Amount of the Dealing. “If the amount taken from a work is trivial, the fair dealing analysis need not be undertaken at all because the court will have concluded that there was no copyright infringement.”
- Alternatives to the Dealing. “If there is a non-copyrighted equivalent of the work that could have been used instead of the copyrighted work, this should be considered by the court.”
- The Nature of the Work. “Although certainly not determinative, if a work has not been published, the dealing may be more fair in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work — one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair.”
- Effect of the Dealing on the Work. “If the reproduced work is likely to compete with the market of the original work, this may suggest that the dealing is not fair. Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair.”
On his site, Scott proposes three ways of circumventing the CBC’s iCopyright program. First, he proposes to paraphrase any material he uses from the CBC. Second, he says that he will seek out alternative sources that use more permissive copyright policies. Finally, he references a commenter on boingboing who suggests that one user can purchase a license and then every other user can link that original licensed use. I question the legality of the third option, as this would likely still constitute an infringement of the original work.
Not being a lawyer, I am prohibited from offering legal services or advice to anyone. Personally, though, I will continue to quote from and source CBC’s copyright material on my blog, without purchasing a license (as I did in this post). When I quote from CBC, I will link to the original source. I will also continue to ensure that any use I make of copyright material falls within the fair dealing exception by quoting minimally and supplementing quotations with my own original analysis, commentary, criticism, review, and research. It’s not at all clear to me why I would pay $250/month to exercise my existing legal rights, while also contracting out of my right to criticize the original source.
There is one thing that I will change as a result of CBC’s new iCopyright policy. From now on, whenever I link to CBC, I will use the the rel=”nofollow” construct. This attribute instructs search engines like Google not to index the link as part of its PageRank algorithm. Essentially, the links don’t help their destination sites to achieve higher rankings in search engines. I already use this construct when linking to sources such as the Conservative and Liberal parties (being a New Demcorat, I want to ensure that I’m not giving any advantage, however trivial, to my political opponents). From now on, CBC will not get the trivial benefit they enjoy in terms of search engine ranking when I link to them. This practice will continue until CBC adopts a more balanced and realistic approach to copyright.
With Parliament Suspended, Harper Proceeds with Secretive Treaty Negotiations
I’m very glad to see that the NDP is taking notice of the Harper government’s participation in the ongoing Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement (ACTA) negotiations. Despite a lack of transparency and public consultation, some controversial details of the proposed agreement have been leaked.
The proposed agreement would include a “three strikes” policy on suspected illegal downloading. Under this policy, users would have their internet access cut off after being accused of copyright violations three times, whether or not those allegations are true. In contrast to our constitutionally-entrenched presumption of innocence, the “three strikes” rule would allow rights holders and service providers to sanction users in the absence of any credible evidence or proof. It would create an untenable imbalance of power between rights holders, service providers, and users by placing the onus of disproof on those least capable of defending themselves.
Loss of access to the internet would be a severe consequence for many users. As Cory Doctorow has pointed out, online communication has become increasingly essential for daily life in terms of employment, access to government services, etc.:
I mean, it’s not as though internet access is something important right?
In the past week, I’ve only used the internet to contact my employers around the world, my MP in the UK, to participate in a European Commission expert proceeding, to find out why my infant daughter has broken out in tiny pink polka-dots, to communicate with a government whistle-blower who wants to know if I can help publish evidence of official corruption, to provide references for one former student (and follow-up advice to another), book my plane tickets, access my banking records, navigate the new Home Office immigration rules governing my visa, wire money to help pay for the headstone for my great uncle’s grave in Russia, and to send several Father’s Day cards (and receive some of my own).
The internet is only that wire that delivers freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press in a single connection. It’s only vital to the livelihood, social lives, health, civic engagement, education and leisure of hundreds of millions of people (and growing every day).
This trivial bit of kit is so unimportant that it’s only natural that we equip the companies that brought us Police Academy 11, Windows Vista, Milli Vanilli and Celebrity Dancing With the Stars with wire-cutters that allow them to disconnect anyone in the country on their own say-so, without proving a solitary act of wrongdoing.
Beyond the troubling “three strikes” proposal, the ACTA has troubling implications for privacy, freedom of association, and the innovative potential of collaborative online projects.
Negotiations are taking place at a time when Parliament is suspended, preventing opposition MPs from holding the government accountable in question period.
Privacy is important. You should protect yours.
Reputation Management Law is the Next Big Thing
Tony Wilson, of Boughton in Vancouver, wrote in this week’s issue of Lawyer’s Weekly,
Reputation matters… But it’s not just companies and trade-mark owners who have reputations to protect. We all do, and these days, much of our personal reputation is on the web for all the world to see.
Like many professionals, physicians in Canada operate by word-of-mouth referrals, largely based on the personal experiences of patients or other referring physicians. RateMDs has become an increasingly popular site for patients to share experiences about their physician.
It’s become enough of a concern to physicians that Sam Solomon provides some advice to MDs in this month’s edition of Parkhurst Exchange:
- Ask for the review to be taken down
- The Medical Justice approach of providing patients a contract allowing them to only post reviews on sites that confirm poster identity
- Sue
- Encourage patients to post positive reviews
- Use the criticism as an opportunity to improve practice
It’s unclear whether option 2) would hold up in court, and 1) is rarely effective, either due to confidentiality issues, site administrative policies, or simple refusal.
RateMDs was founded by the same people who made RateMyProfessors.com, RateMyTeachers.com, and the Ratingz.net network of rating sites that includes LawyerRatingz.com. It seems quite a few of my law professors are up there. A quick survey reveals that many Canadian attorneys have been rated, and most not favourably.
Assuming that the only people to ever review professionals are clients who have utilized their services is far too presumptuous. Competitors, business rivals, people with personal vendettas, and even opposing parties in lawsuits can pose as a client in an attempt to portray the person in a negative light.
It can and has happened. Solomon points to the case of Dr. Mohamed Foda of Leduc, Alberta, who forced RateMDs to provide information about a negative poster through the California Northern District Court in Foda et al v. RateMDs, Inc. On April 28, 2008, the Edmunton Sun covered the story,
An Edmonton urologist has launched a $12-million defamation lawsuit against two unidentified people for allegedly posting bogus poor ratings about him on the California Internet site RateMDs.com. In a March 31 statement of claim, Dr. Mohamed Foda alleges the postings were not made by actual patients of his, but by someone who has a “malicious” motive to harm his medical business, and states he will seek to identify the unknown defendants by searching for their computer identifying information. Foda claims the defamatory comments have caused irreparable harm to his reputation and medical practice and caused him emotional distress and anxiety.
The posts in question stated:
“This doctor prescribed me an antibiotic that causes birth defects after I clearly told him I was 4 months pregnant!! Apparently he made a ‘mistake.’” — Posted on RateMDs.com on October 1, 2007
“I found Dr Foda to ignore problems until drastic measures were required. Had to call numerous times to get an appointment. Felt that Dr Foda did not do required follow up in a timely manner. Did not inform patients of what he did in the OR [such as] remove tumours. Would have died if not for another [doctor].” — Posted on RateMDs.com on May 26, 2007
Administrator of RateMDs, John Swapceinski, says that the site gets letters from lawyers once a month. Not surprisingly, they do not comply with the requests. The site does serve an important public function for consumers of healthcare. But Swapceinski also said that Dr. Foda’s suit is the first time a lawyer has actually followed through and sued the site, and he indicated he would cooperate with a subpoena to release the information if one was provided.
In light of the Cohen v. Google and York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises cases I’ve covered previously, it’s probably no great surprise that the court did reveal the identity of the poster.
What is also unique about this case is that the person identified as the RateMDs poster was involved in different lawsuit on the other side of Dr. Foda in Foda v. Capital Health Region, [2007] A.J. No. 22; 2007 ABQB 19, where he was making a claim for breach of contract, conspiracy, harassment, defamation, and direct interference with economic relations.
The Court of Appeal ([2007] A.J. No. 668;2007 ABCA 207) upheld a motion to add a party to his statement of claim, but the defamation claim agains this party was struck for lack of evidence using the test in Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications Ltd.,
62 …it is sufficient to observe that a publication which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right‑thinking members of society, or to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, is defamatory and will attract liability. See Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067, at p. 1079. What is defamatory may be determined from the ordinary meaning of the published words themselves or from the surrounding circumstances. In The Law of Defamation in Canada (2nd ed. 1994), R. E. Brown stated the following at p. 1‑15:
[A publication] may be defamatory in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of extrinsic facts or circumstances, known to the listener or reader, which give it a defamatory meaning by way of innuendo different from that in which it ordinarily would be understood. In determining its meaning, the court may take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including any reasonable implications the words may bear, the context in which the words are used, the audience to whom they were published and the manner in which they were presented.
But if the party Dr. Foda was seeking to add in the Alberta case – a Donna Canart, Surgical Clinic Coordinator at Leduc Community Hospital – is the same person identified in the California proceedings, this evidence may now be available. Canart allegedly filed a report against Dr. Foda according to the Capital Health Corporate Workplace Respect Policy, raising issues in the Alberta case of malicious prosecution. However, similar defamation claims in Alberta were made against co-defendant Linda Scott. The California case has only had two hearings to date, and Dr. Foda only spoke in general terms to Sam Solmon, so it is difficult to ascertain which specific party was behind the RateMDs posting.
Even when a claim is substantiated, it is possible for either party to turn malicious. The Foda case highlights that litigants in lawsuits can and will attempt to affect the reputation of the opposing party online, something I’ve predicted repeatedly. All types of litigation will invariably cross over into this specialized area of law.
Some of these rating sites allow the professors to respond to their students, even with video. Or, as they put it,
Your professors have been reading your comments on RateMyProfessors.com. Now it’s their turn…
I don’t see other professions going the same way, given the nature of client solicitation. So where do people turn for help?
Wilson concludes,
Just like there was no such thing as Internet law before the Internet or franchise law before there were franchises, a new and growing niche area is “reputation management law.” It straddles libel, slander and defamation law, freedom of speech, privacy law, copyright and trade-mark law, employment law and the rules governing Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and other social media. And like environmental law 25 years ago, it has nowhere to go but up…
Either way, it’s clear that online reputation management is the next big thing that everyone will have to deal with.
Everyone reading this is now searching their name on LawyerRatingz.com, or other sites like CanLaw. They’re probably wondering what they would do if they were deliberately maligned, and trying to figure out who is the best”reputation management lawyer” they know, if any.
And that’s assuming that you waited until the end of the article to do so.
Digital locks issue not going away any time soon
People often complain that Canadian copyright law is out of date and that we need a stricter law to protect the artists.
I’d just like to turn to one particularly controversial topic on copyright law today: provisions against the circumvention of DRM (digital locks). With the Copyright Consultation that is currently going on in Canada, that has been pegged as the issue that has seen the most opposition from Canadians thus far.
Bill C-61 (aka the “Canadian DMCA“) may have died, but the digital locks issue is not going away any time soon, because of a particular provision in the WIPO Copyright Treaty (Article 11), signed by Canada, that states:
Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.
The treaty was ratified by the United States in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) back in 1998. As it stands now, the DMCA makes it illegal for consumers to, for example, remove the encryption on a DVD they have legally purchased so that they can play the video on a portable player. To protect the artists, indeed. I think it’s quite clear who this law benefits.
How important should it be to for Canada to follow through on its treaty obligations, even when so many people have spoken against them? In the case of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, fewer than 50% of countries have ratified it. Is this a simple matter of “the law is the law”, or should more flexibility be afforded here?
Cross-posted from Trials and Tribulations
An Extraordinary About Face on Copyright Reform
An interesting article in the Star: Ministers finally embrace Canada’s digital future
In an age where powerful lobby groups are advocating a copyright regime that looks much more like tyranny than sound public policy, here is evidence that other voices are being heard. Realistically, Mr. Clement’s comment is VERY tepid. He merely admits that we are in a “somewhat different” public policy environment and that he will undertake broad consultation. This could be lip service. If I was a gambler I’d bet money on it. However, lip service is a paradigm shift of unparalleled proportions. WOW!
Copyright Law, Freedom of Expression and Canwest v. Horizon
In a previous post I erroneously stated that the appeal of Canwest Mediaworks Publications v. Horizon Publications had been dropped. As it turns out, the appeal is pending; the game is on. Those who wish to know more should visit the Seriously Free Speech Committee website where there is a wealth of information including the trial court decision and the Notice of Appeal. While browsing the site, I noticed that within some of the articles there are calls for Canwest to drop the suit. Although I completely understand why the appellants would want to be freed from the onerous burden of legal action, I am hoping that the case proceeds for the benefit of society.
Copyright law occupies an unusual place in the legal landscape. It is an extraordinarily complicated regime that affects our daily lives in hundreds of ways, yet it is rarely litigated. There are only a handful of appellate court decisions pertaining to copyright law; opportunities to move the law in a positive direction are infrequent and questionable decisions like Michelin can linger for decades.
While many cases of infringement involve activities that could reasonably be described as unjust enrichment, the wording of the statute is such that a black letter interpretation renders a number of practices unlawful that are in fact beneficial to society and do not involve usurping the gains of a copyright-holder. A prime example is the artistic practice of appropriation, i.e. using culturally recognized symbols (for which copyright usually subsists) to express a unique idea. In the Michelin case, a cartoon was distributed to promote a union drive which depicted a large smiling “Michelin Man” about to trample on a Michelin factory worker.
Although appropriation is an old artistic technique, it is becoming much more common in our media-rich culture, and I would suggest that the growing importance of appropriation is a natural evolution in a society where we are constantly bombarded with images and sound bites. No individual alive today created the English language. We were “bombarded” with it when we grew up, and we appropriated the words and phrases as tools for our own expression. This is a reasonable and indeed productive activity. It is for this reason that copyright protection is not permitted for words and ideas; they are the building blocks of expression that are part of our cultural heritage and rightly belong in the public domain.
In a media-saturated society, the same elements are at work with the many images and sound bites that we are exposed to. With the growing variety of tools to manipulate them, it is only natural that artists would incorporate some of these images and sound bites into their own unique works, and often as a means of social commentary. This is what artists do. They have never been satisfied with painting pretty pictures, but prefer to shine a harsh light on the society in which they live through the innovative use of symbols. This is an important part of the social dialogue and free exchange of ideas that underpin our culturally rich society.
The law of copyright, in its current form, depends upon the concepts of originality and substantiality to protect the building blocks of expression, and therefore only permits appropriation that is not substantial (with narrow exceptions for fair dealing as explained by David Fewer — thank you for your comment). This test is too simple to ‘get it right’. As a result, it has the incidental effect of stifling the vast majority of appropriative forms of artistic expression and social commentary, regardless of the social import and regardless of how creative a work is.
There can be no doubt that copyright law protects legitimate interests, and it must continue to do so. However, I respectfully submit that the current statute, as applied by the courts, does not adequately serve the dual objectives of “promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator” (Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain inc., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34 at para 30.). To the contrary, the law actually discourages the creation and distribution of new works.
In a society where copyright cases are rarely litigated, the Canwest case is an invaluable opportunity. It is my hope (and apparently I am not alone) that the Canwest case results in a more nuanced enunciation of copyright law in Canada: one that allows appropriation in circumstances where it does not interfere with the legitimate interests of a copyright holder.
The Charter Does Not Apply to Copyright Law
Despite the public attention that has been directed at copyright law recently, the issues surrounding the Charter right to freedom of expression have been absent from the public discourse. The matter was litigated last fall when the Supreme Court of British Columbia cited the Federal Court’s dubious Michelin decision to summarily cast aside any Charter defences to copyright infringement. I’m talking about the decision in Canwest Mediaworks Publications v. Horizon Publications, 2008 BCSC 1609, and I am surprised that it drew so little public attention.
In this case, political activists created and distributed free of charge a satire of the Vancouver Sun newspaper in an attempt to draw attention to the alleged editorial bias of the Sun’s parent company, Canwest Mediaworks. Canwest is responsible for 80% of the newspapers sold in B.C., and the freedom of expression issues are fairly obvious with respect to truth-seeking and the marketplace for ideas that a democratic society requires to function properly. Meanwhile, from a policy standpoint, it is difficult to see any benefits that accrue to society by protecting Canwest’s copyright interests in this context, let alone any benefits that would trump the value of the Charter. However the Court saw no merit in the Charter issues.
The decision was appealed but Canwest decided not to pursue the matter. While some civil liberty supporters cheered this outcome, the fact that the Canwest decision was not reevaluated means that both Michelin and Canwest represent the current state of copyright law in Canada with respect to the Charter.
Canadian legal scholars have yet to weigh in on Canwest, but they have been unanimous in their criticism of Michelin. According to Vaver, “the … view in the Michelin case, with its disturbing assertion that the freedom of expression guarantee in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can never override copyright ‘property’ should be rejected.” (David Vaver, Copyright Law ( Toronto: Irwin Law, 2000) at 195). Similar sentiments have been expressed by David Fewer, Jane Baley and Karen Lowe.
I respectfully agree. Copyright law is necessary to facilitate a business model that is widely accepted in our society but it affects the ability of various parties to communicate and is therefore likely to affect Charter rights from time to time. How absurd to suggest that copyright law is immune to Charter scrutiny.
Yet, there are two concurring cases as precedents, and typically the loser pays the winner’s costs, so it is unlikely that these decisions will be overruled in the foreseeable future.
Those who are interested are encouraged to read the following:
David Fewer, “ Constitutionalizing Copyright: Freedom of Expression and the Limits of Copyright in Canada” (1997) 55 U. Toronto Fac. L. Rev. 175.
Jane Bailey “Deflating the Michelin Man: Protecting Users’ Rights in the Canadian Copyright Reform Process” in Michael Geist, Ed., In The Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Toronto, Irwin Law 2005).
Karen Lowe “Shushing The New Aesthetic Vocabulary: Appropriation Art Under the Canadian Copyright Regime” (2008) 17 Dalhousie J. Leg. Stud. 99.
The Michelin case makes for interesting reading as well: Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin-Michelin & Cie v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (T.D.) (1996), [1997] 2 F.C. 306.
NOTE: Shortly after publishing this note I learned that the appeal was not dropped. Bloggers beware: there are a lot of news articles on-line and many are not current. Some have the facts wrong. It is easy to be misinformed. As well, due to a computer glitch, the original post was deleted so this post is a ‘resurrection’ of sorts. Unfortunately the insightful comments by Pulat Yunusov and David Fewer were lost in the process. I am very disappointed … but life goes on.
Social Media in Canadian Politics, and Defamation and Copyright
Omar Ha-Redeye gave a talk on the use of social media in politics, focusing on the Canadian scene, at the Miles S. Nadal Management Centre in the Ernst & Young Tower of the Toronto Dominion Centre.
Issues of copyright, including the use of YouTube, are discussed, as well as social media alternatives to defamation actions.
Law is Cool – Podcast #12
In my first podcast for Law is Cool, I had a conference call with Dr. Sam Trosow and a group of political bloggers about copyright and Bill C-61. They are concerned about the impact of the proposed legislation on creators and consumers of digital media. Special thanks to Omar Ha-Redeye and Scott Tribe for making this show possible.
The Panelists
- Dr. Sam Trosow is an Associate Professor at the University of Western Ontario, jointly appointed to the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Information and Media Studies. He is also a co-author of Canadian Copyright: A Citizen’s Guide.
- Scott Tribe is the author of the blog Scott’s DiaTribes and an Administrator of the Progressive Bloggers community. Progressive Bloggers has come out against Bill C-61 and promoted the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group.
- John Klein is the Saskatchewan-based blogger behind Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy. An expert on tin foil hats, he was recently a member of the Bloggers team on CBC’s “Test the Nation”.
- Mike Park is a left libertarian blogger from Ottawa. His blog is called Rational Reasons.
New Copyright Bill C-61 Rallying Canadians
Copyright reform may not seem like the sexiest of issues, but it has caught the attention of Canadians and launched itself to the front of the political agenda. The membership of Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group surged recently and now has over 80,000 members.
The support is really astonishing in Canada. Copyright reforms have been going on throughout the world as countries try to meet international agreements. However, nowhere has the issue generated as much support as it has Canada. In Switzerland, for example, the issue seemed to receive little mainstream attention. The site No Swiss DCMA attempted to collect 50,000 signatures to force a referendum on the revision of the copyright act. They managed to get 803.
One reason for the widespread support seems to be that the proposed changes in the recently tabled Bill C-61 will impact every single Canadian. One group of people which will be particularly affected is students. From distance education to music copying, if passed, this law would make thousands copyright infringers.
Bill C-61 protesters questioned Jim Prentice at his Calgary Stampede breakfast. Photo: k-ideas @ Flickr
To market the bill, Industry Minister Jim Prentice has dubbed it the “made in Canada” bill (as opposed to “imported from the US DCMA” bill) and is highlighting the new provisions that most Canadians probably think are already law. The current Copyright Act:
- “does not specifically allow you to make a copy of a book, newspaper, periodical, photograph or videocassette in order to enjoy it on another device. It also does not specifically allow you to copy music onto devices such as computers and digital audio recorders.”
- “does not specifically allow you to record a radio or television program.”
Podcast Feeds
Awards
Partners
- Advertise Here
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Whiners - The Elusive Fish Creative Services
- Mesothelioma Lawyer
- no win no fee solicitors
- Compensation Claims
- personal injury lawyer toronto
- no win no fee
- Pardons Canada Accident Claim Medical Negligence Whiplash Claim
- No win No fee Claims
- Venue
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
