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.
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.
"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.
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.
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."
Since some time close to the founding in 2000 I have been a member of Fair Vote Canada, including having a $10/month automatic donation. Today I have contacted FVC to cancel the donation and let my membership lapse. When I first joined the group was in favour of electoral modernization, was non-partisan and appeared agnostic to any specific voting system alternative to the very broken First Past the Post system. It appears over the years it has moved from being non-partisan to being multi-partisan, and is now focused on voting systems that favour political parties. When they speak of being proportional they mean party proportional, fixated not on the potential of a representative having the most voter support but only on votes which are targeted at parties rather than representatives. While I heard ramblings over the years about what I consider a change, the policy direction became obvious in the language of a motion for FVC members to have a referendum on limited support of Alter...
I sent the following as a letter to my federal member of parliament, David McGuinty. I suspect it would be useful for others to send similar letters to their MP if this issue disturbs them as well. Mr McGuinty, MP for my riding of Ottawa South, I wanted to make sure you are aware of a citizen from the security/hacker community I am part of that is still in prison from before the G20 summit. There is an audio story about the issue: http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/searchengine/index.cfm?page_id=613&action=blog&subaction=viewPost&post_id=13995&blog_id=485 "The strange, suppressed story of Byron Sonne, the G-20 security hacker who has been held, unconvicted, for 6 months and counting. An interview with technology journalist Jesse Hirsh." I find this very disturbing. There is a media ban on talking about the issue, with this being a case of a security person investigating the security measures being set up for the G20. In our community, security research...
I attended my first PAB last weekend. Even though it is in Ottawa, I hadn't heard of it until the folks at DyscultureD started to mention it. My initial thought was to crash the party a bit to meet with them while they were in Ottawa, but after looking at the schedule I decided to sign up and attend everything. It also turns out in hindsight that people wouldn't have been happy if I had crashed. I'm not a PODcaster, and that is beyond the fact I think the term is too closely associated with my political opponents at Apple. This is an artist conference, and I'm not really an artist: I've been invited on Netcasts, I take pictures (moving and still), record audio, and I blog (really?), but I do it primarily as a form of political expression rather than artistic expression. I have attended a number of conferences in the last decade that were artist focused, and have learned quite a bit which is helpful in understanding how others see the area of policy and p...
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.
ReplyDeleteThe clause reads as follows:
ReplyDelete"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.
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:
ReplyDelete1) 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteOld:
"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."