One of the most controversial bills being considered by our federal Tories is C-61, which is being put forward as an attempt to revamp outdated legislation from 1997, an era not completely familiar with the dubious ‘grey markets’ of the Internet.

Consumer groups across the net have been signing petitions addressed to bill advocates, including The Honourable Jim Prentice, (P.C., Q.C., M.P. Minister of Industry) and The Honourable Josée Verner, (P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage), urging them to amend certain portions of their proposal. Here is their response, as it has appeared in signers’ inboxes, which describes the new bill and addresses some of the public’s concern:

The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.

What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?

Specifically, it includes measures that would:

* expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the “statutory damages” a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;

* implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;

* clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and

* provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.

What Bill C-61 does not do:

* it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

What this Bill is not:

* it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.

For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home

Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.

The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C.,
M.P. Minister of Industry

The Honourable Josée Verner,
P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Status of Women and Official Languages and Minister for La Francophonie

Of course, specific technological issues are not fully addressed here, specifically the act of breaking digital locks and the status of card readers and similar devices, prompting legal experts and consumer advocates to voice their opposition. From the CBC:

University of Ottawa internet law professor Michael Geist, a vocal opponent of the legislation, said the anti-circumvention clause invalidates all the other new provisions.

“They’ve got a few headline-grabbing reforms but the reality is those are also undermined by this anti-circumvention legislation. They’ve essentially provided digital rights to the U.S. and entertainment lobby and a few analog rights to Canadians,” Geist told CBCNews.ca. “The truth of the matter is the reforms are laden with all sorts of limitations and in some cases rendered inoperable.”

Cory Doctorow, co-editor of the influential Boing Boing blog, said the anti-circumvention clause will lead to a revival of digital rights management, or the software that prevents media from being copied. The entertainment industry has for the past few years been moving away from protecting its content with DRM because consumers have shied away from buying restricted media.

“You have to wonder what they’re smoking on Parliament Hill if they think there’s this compelling need for DRM, given that the marketplace seems to be rejecting it left, right and centre,” he told CBCNews.ca.

While certain amendments would decrease the liability of people downloading media illegally for personal use, capping damages due to copyright owners at $500, breaking digital locks or even uploading songs to YouTube or Facebook could see individuals facing penalties up to $20,000.

Keep in mind that this law, if passed, would be under civil not criminal law, meaning copyright owners themselves will have to sue infringers themselves. We’ll see how far these amendments can go through parliament as it comes under increased opposition. While it’s still likely that Bill C-61 will be squashed or brought back to the drawing board, you can be sure Legal Action will be keeping its eyes on it’s development.