Comments to Bill C-32 Clause-by-clause notes

Please reply to this article with any comments you may have about the Bill C-32 Clause-by-clause notes I authored. My intention is to keep that document updated with whatever feedback I receive.

Comments

  1. KRJune 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM

    With regard to clause 33, I read that as saying only that exempt media, as recognized by the CRTC, may qualify for the broadcast undertaking exemption, rather than that the CRTC has any say as to the content of the exception.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Russell McOrmondJune 3, 2010 at 6:54 PM

    The clause reads as follows:

    "33. The portion of subsection 30.8(11) of the Act after paragraph (c) is replaced by the following:

    The undertaking must hold a broadcasting licence issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission under the Broadcasting Act, or be exempted from this requirement by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission."

    The new part is the part in italics here, which was underlined in the bill. The existing 30.8 is all about an exception to copyright for Ephemeral Recordings. Section 30.8(11) is "Definition of “programming undertaking”".

    We may want to ask for clarification on this. The "or be exempted from this requirement" by the CRTC seems like the CRTC is able to exempt a "programming undertaking" from the other limits to the exception that exists within 30.8(11), such as holding a broadcast license.

    ReplyDelete
  3. KRJune 4, 2010 at 10:07 AM

    Grammatically, "this requirement" would seem to refer back to "must hold a broadcasting license." That is, the conditions for eligibility for the broadcasting undertaking exception are:
    1) hold a broadcasting license, or
    2) be exempt from the requirement to hold a broadcasting license.
    In each case, the CRTC makes the determination with respect to eligibility, but that's it.

    I can't see any harm in asking for a clarification, but it seems straightforward to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Russell McOrmondJune 5, 2010 at 2:17 PM

    I am still not convinced we interpreted the language of the bill differently. I think where we may have a problem is that my comment was poorly written.

    Old:

    "Not sure, but does this allow the CRTC to authorize exemptions for unlicensed new media? (See discussion on blogspot)"

    How about:

    "This allows the Ephemeral Recordings exemption to apply to entities that hold a broadcasting license, as well as allowing the CRTC to exempt additional entities that don't have a broadcast license. This additional flexibility will hopefully be used by the CRTC to enable this exemption for new media which, being unlicensed, were ineligible for similar exemptions."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Traditional definitions in the copyright debate.

On social issues I consider myself a pretty liberal parson, and am OK with people being whoever they want to be. My limits come when those activities harm others: your right to swing your cane ends at my nose, and all that. After being told I represented the "copyleft" so often by folks associated with Access Copyright, I decided to do some thinking (and writing) on that. Far from being a redefinition of an existing term, it is a new term that turns out to be useful for understanding some of the conflicts between creators in the copyright debate. One thing I get frustrated with, however, is when people abuse language by redefining terms to fit their temporary purposes. There are terms that are very heavily loaded that should be used in their dictionary meaning, or not at all. One of those terms that is all too loosely abused is calling people anti-Semitic, often levelled at people who think the country of Israel should be treated as and critiqued like any other, and who...
Read more

Next steps for the Canadiana.org platform: IIIF, JHOVE

This is a new fiscal year.  I'm excited to discuss some of our current plans, and hopefully get some feedback and help from the community. Some related Internal Projects for our 3 person DevOps team include adoption of IIIF APIs, JHOVE , and updates to associated METS application profile and schemas. A quick note about when? The Phoenix Project describes how IT Operations only do 4 things . This work falls under Internal Projects, and will be bumped by Business Projects as well as Unplanned Work. While this work may be exciting to the DevOps team, other work will take precedence.  This means that while I can say we are working on it, we can't offer any useful idea of when there will be something other people can use. International Image Interoperability Framework The name gives an impression much less than what this community is doing.  It isn't only a common way to access images, but a community that is working on common APIs and documentation for institutions like ou...
Read more

Taxpayers should pay authors for educational uses of works, not intermediaries

Replying to a Letter to the Editor in The Varsity . It is taxpayers and authors that are paying the costs of this ongoing dispute, one way or the other. What we are effectively discussing is a government funding program masquerading as copyright, and because of the misdirection that this is a copyright issue we are allowing intermediaries like educational institutions, collective societies, foreign publishers, and all their lawyers, to extract the bulk of the money. If Mr. Degen was focused on Canadian authors getting paid he would be agreeing with me that we need to redirect taxpayer money misspent with the current regime towards a program similar to the Public Lending Right . The existing Public Lending Right funds authors based on their works being loaned by libraries, and a "Public Education Right" could directly fund authors based on specific uses of their works in publicly funded educational institutions. This would be applied only to that very narrow area o...
Read more