p2pnet - rss feed: Canadian Copyright Law
p2pnet.net Special:- As 2007 fast approaches, I’ve tried to document key changes in Canadian copyright over the last century, starting from before Canada even had our own Copyright Act separate from the British Act.
Contrary to the ludicrous lobbying efforts of the legacy recording industry in Canada, the first all-Canadian copyright act was in 1921 and not 1908. As the chronology makes clear, the Canadian Copyright Act is also a document that’s seen radical changes over the years, with much of what we currently think of as Copyright coming out of the 1980’s.
If there are any major changes or dates I’m missing, please let me know. I’m not a legal historian, and did most of my research referencing online sources.
Thanks. Russell McOrmond
[McOrmond is an independent author (software and non-software) who uses modern business models and licensing (Free/Libre and Open Source Software, Creative Commons). He’s also the CLUE policy coordinator and p2pnet contributing editor.]
The process of revising copyright has been ongoing for many years. While most of the folks with the Digital Copyright Canada forum joined this process in the summer of 2001, some earlier developments will be documented. Each entry will indicate the type of participant: government (the bureaucracy), parliament (members of the elected parliament), senate, court, citizens, NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations), Corporation, etc.
Please send me a note with any updates.
Department of Canadian Heritage: Copyright Reform Process
Department of Industry: Copyright Reform Process
- The Canadian Encyclopedia: Historical notes on Copyright
- Nineteenth-Century British and American Copyright Law by Philip V. Allingham, Faculty of Education, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario
- The Canadian Copyright Act 1921-2006: Historical, Cultural, Economic, Legal & Political Significance by Harry Hillman Chartrand
- Summary of Phase I (1988) and Phase II (1997) by Michael Best and Elizabeth Grove-White
- University of Alberta: Copyright
Chronology of Canadian Copyright Law
1872: Dominion of Canada bill
Westminster refused to ratify an 1872 Dominion of Canada bill that enshrined a fixed-royalty principle for Canadian publishers to re-print British copyrighted works (Allingham). A 1875 bill was ratified which only allowd Canadian republishing of books that had gone out of print.
1889
Canada “passed an act requiring that, in order to secure Canadian copyright, a book would have to be published in Canada within one month of its publication elsewhere” (Allingham)
1908
Legacy recording industry lobbiests like to mention this year, claiming that copyright hasn’t changed much since this time. When researching I couldn’t find any specifics on a copyright act of this year, just laughable claims from lobbiests. I’m still looking for the source of their reference to this date.
1911: U.K Copyright Act
Our copyright act is largely based on U.K. copyright law, and thus the history in the U.K. is important for analyzing Canadian law.
1921: An Act to amend and consolidate the Law relating to Copyright, (S.C. 1921, c. 24)
“The Canadian Copyright Act is an evolving work product of Parliament striving to fulfill its constitutional responsibility for copyright. That responsibility, however, was not fully assumed until 1921, more than fifty years after Confederation. Until then it was divided between the Imperial Copyright Act and sections of other Imperial and Canadian statutes, e.g., the Criminal Code of Canada. During this time, the Parliaments at Westminster and Ottawa were often at odds over which provisions should prevail as the law of the land (Allingham 2001).” (Harry Hillman Chartrand)
Many court cases (Including most recently Robertson v. Thomson Corp., 2006 SCC 43) document this date as the first Canadian copyright act.
1928: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
- Berne convention comes into force in Canada on April 10, 1928
1985
Report: From Gutenberg to Telidon
1985: Bill C-42
- Justice: Copyright Act ( R.S., 1985, c. C-42 )
While this act has been amended many times since 1985, this was the most recent rewrite.
1985 Parliamentary sub-committee report: A Charter of Rights for Creators
1986
1986 Report: The Government Response to A Charter of Rights for Creators
1988: Bill C-60 (Phase I)
“The original Copyright Act of 1924 was amended in 1988 by Bill C-60 which addressed computer programs, anti-piracy remedies, the relationship of the copyright and industrial design legislation, the Copyright Board, the collective management of copyright, moral rights, the protection of choreographic works, the abolition of compulsory licences for the making of sound recordings, and the right to exhibit artistic works in public. At the time the Act was proclaimed, the Government promised a second package of amendments which was intended to deal with issues, primarily exemptions to the Act, not covered in Bill C-60.” (University of Alberta: Copyright)
These amendments came as a result of a 1985 parliamentary sub-committee on the Revision of Copyright. This sub-committee recommended in its report called “A Charter of Rights for Creators” that the Copyright Act be revised immediately to reflect major changes since 1924, when the Act was promulgated.
The obvious question is when the user-rights side (follow-on creators, new methods of production, distribution and funding of creativity, etc) of Copyright will ever be brought forward by the government?
1989: NAFTA
established a retransmission right and system of compensation for certain retransmissions.
1992 (?): Bill C-88, An Act to amend the Copyright Act
retransmission right of musical works
1997: Bill C-32: (Phase II)
- Parliament: C-32: An Act to amend the Copyright Act
June 2001: A Framework for Copyright Reform
- Government: A Framework for Copyright Reform
- Government: Consultation Paper on Digital Copyright Issues
- Citizens: Response from Canadians (700 documents)
- Government: Summary of Written Stakeholder Submissions
- Citizens: Canada DMCA Opponents launches
This is the mailing list that later became the Digital Copyright Canada forum
- NGOs/Citizens: EFF/EFC joint submission to consultation
- Citizen: Russell McOrmond’s submission
“In order for a correct balance on copyright to be achieved we need to investigate a number of different relationships between copyright and other related Canadian laws, the differing and often incompatible needs of different copyright holders, as well as the needs of different constituencies such as authors, publishers and readers.”
- Citizen: Matthew Skala’s multiple submission
“The most important point made in this submission is that digital rights management (DRM) technology should not and cannot be protected by Canadian law. DRM should not be protected because such protection would harm Canadian policy goals; and DRM cannot be protected because such protection would be contrary to the Constitution.”
March/April 2002: Cross-Canada consultation meetings
October 3, 2002: Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act (Section 92 report)
- Government: Supporting Culture and Innovation: Report on the Provisions and Operation of the Copyright Act
- Citizen: Submission from Russell McOrmond This is a submission to House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to their section 92 review of the copyright act.
- NGO: PIAC’s submission Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) has made a few submissions respecting the public interest in copyright reform.
- Government: Copyright and the Educational Use of Internet Content - December 8, 2003 working group report, follow-up to the December 11-12, 2002 Consultation.
2002: C-11 An Act to amend the Copyright Act
- Parliament: C-11 An Act to amend the Copyright Act
Bill introduced in parliament on a fast-track on 9 October 2002 (deemed to have passed all stages at once), and received Royal Assent on 12 December 2002. The purpose was to create an exception to excluded Internet re-transmitters from the purview of the compulsory licence for retransmission, disallowing Internet re-transmitters the same rights as cable and satellite re-transmitters. This set the tone for many of us to understand the government as being opposed to new media, and willing to go out of their way to protect the anti-competative special economic interests of old-media companies.
2003: C-36 An Act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence
Also known as: L. M. Montgomery Copyright Term Extension Act
The controvercial copyright amendments were eventually dropped as there was a December 2003 deadline for unpublished posthumous works entering into the public domain. The bill didn’t pass the Senate by the end of 2003, and passed as Bill C-8 in the following session of parliament.
March 4, 2004: CCH Canada v Law Society
- Court Case: CCH Canada Ltd v. Law Society of Canada 2004 SCC 13 (established that setting up the facilities that allow copying does not amount to authorizing infringement)
March 25, 2004: Status Report on Copyright Reform
- Government: Status Report on Copyright Reform
|
March 31, 2004: BMG Canada v Doe (”The CRIA case”)
- Court Case: BMG Canada Inc. and others v. Doe and others 2004 FC 488 (comments regarding the legality of Internet file sharing)
May 2004: Interim Report on Copyright Reform: Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
- Parliament: Interim Report on Copyright Reform: Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
- Citizen: Summary of report from Russell McOrmond
June 30, 2004: SOCAN v CAIP
- Court Case: Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers 2004 SCC 45 (ISPs as common carriers. Status of caches)
March 24, 2005: The Government of Canada Announces Upcoming Amendments to the Copyright Act
May 19, 2005: BMG Canada v Doe (”The CRIA appeal”)
- Appeal of previous Court Case: BMG Canada Inc. and others v. Doe and others 2005 FCA 193 (vacated previous comments regarding the legality of Internet file sharing, clarified path for future cases)
June 20, 2005: Minister of Canadian Heritage tables Bill C-60: An Act to amend the Copyright Act
- Parliament: House Government Bills, link to C-60
- Citizens: Launch of KillBillC60.ca
- Citizens: “In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law” book launched on September 29.
- Citizen: A 1-page summary of Canadian copyright reform?
Russell McOrmond met with his MP, David McGuinty, on November 15 and then wrote a summary.
November 28, 2005: Bill C-60 dies on the order paper
- Parliament: Opposition Motion–Confidence in the Government
October 12, 2006: Robertson v. Thomson Corp., 2006 SCC 43
- Supreme Court of Canada: Robertson v. Thomson Corp., 2006 SCC 43
- NGO: A perspective on the freelance journalism case from CLUE: Canada’s Association for Open Source.
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
December 28th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
“Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works”
Yes, I know this is the heading on the linked WIPO page. Nevertheless the title is a misnomer.
The Berne Convention protects the economies of the leading (controlling) member nations. It certainly does not protect the second tier countries, those that are net importers of “cultural” content, the literary and artistic works.
Actually, the Berne Convention destroys culture to the same extent that copyright law does. Therefore it does not “protect works”.
Copyright laws (and their cousins, the courts) only protects big companies and publishers, the ones that sue kids and the ones that do not pay artists and songwriters, that payout the payola and buy the judges.
Even within a leading controlling country, such as the USA, whose “pop” culture is mostly worthless (just listen to the music on radio. utterly worthless), copyright law destroys culture more than it helps the creators.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com