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

The Canadiana preservation network and access platform

Image
Canadiana is sending me to Access 2016 .  While I expect to learn quite a bit and meet new people, I wanted to make an additional introduction online ahead of time. I have participated in many changes to the technical platform at Canadiana since I started in January 2011.  As always, what I write is my own thoughts and isn't an official statement from my employer. Software platform In early 2011 Canadiana was in transition from an access platform simply called "ECO" for Early Canadiana Online.  This was a mod-perl 1 application that was tightly tied to a legacy version of Apache, was written by an outside consultant, and was in need of upgrading.  I did my best to keep that running as long as possible while keeping our machines secure by having the mod-perl1 application running within a chroot() environment within a newer version of Debian which no longer supported mod-perl1.  This is something we would use linux containers for today, but that wasn't ready in 2...
Read more

Works of cultural industry are nothing like "Happy Meal" toys.

When discussing cultural policy you will sometimes bump into individuals who seek to diminish the value of culture by comparing it to consumer products.  To them, one creative work is no different than another.  To quote Mark H. Goldberg  who consults to the telecommunications industry (including "regulatory and government relations") and organizes the Canadian Telecom Summit : @russellmcormond @RessyM @BenKlass there are lots of sources of video content. A specific show no different from a specific Happy Meal toy — Mark Goldberg (@Mark_Goldberg) June 18, 2015 As an author (mostly of software) who recognizes the value of the creative works of others, and as an audience and sometimes major fan of creative works, it is an understatement to say I disagree with that attitude. Creative works obviously have economic value, and we creators deserve to be materially rewarded for our contributions, but creative works have value far beyond economics.  Whether you are th...
Read more

For better or worse: 10 things that will be gone in our lifetime?

I was sent one of those  10 things that will be gone in our lifetime  list from a family member.  There are a variety of   (plagarized) versions circulating around for decades, but I decided to comment on this specific list.  Who the original author is seems to be unknown. I consider these to be wordsmithed, politically motivated lists. One common theme is that there is various types of creative works that will "disappear" because people aren't paying. The reality is that while these creative industries are changing, people still want to pay.  Failures have been largely the fault of the incumbent industries themselves. If there is no more for-profit music, it will be because the currently unnecessary * recording * industry kills it for composers and performers. The recording industry have been fighting a battle for decades against modern technology which makes the * recording * industry redundant, and allows all the money for the continuously commerci...
Read more