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

Cancelling my Fair Vote Canada membership/donation

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...
Read more

Byron Sonne is Still in Prison

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...
Read more

Why is a license required for a Canadiana project built from public domain material?

I was asked in a comment why the CRKN announcement about the new collaboration with Canadiana.org mentioned Creative Commons licensing. Short answer: What is in the public domain stays in the public domain.  What Copyright restricts, this project will be releasing under a Creative Commons license.  It is copyright law which defines the line between the public domain and what must be licensed. Longer answer: I am a system administrator at Canadiana, and not someone involved in policy relating to licensing of the parts of this project that will be covered by Canadiana copyright.  When it is a Canadiana decision, it is our Board of Directors made up of librarians and archivists, and our executive director, who ultimately are responsible for such policies. As someone who has spent more that a decade dedicated to Copyright related policy discussions (see Digital Copyright Canada ), and been involved in the Free Software movement since the early 1990 's, I have my own opini...
Read more