Canadian legislature to rule on controversial copyright bill
As the furor over copyright legislation dies down in the U.S., the controversy is heating up north of the border, where the Canadian legislature is debating the controversial Bill C-11.
March 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As the furor over copyright legislation dies down in the U.S., the controversy is heating up north of the border, where the Canadian legislature is debating the controversial Bill C-11.
The proposed legislation, first introduced in September 2011, represents the third attempt to strengthen Canada's copyright laws since 2008.
Existing Canadian copyright laws (Canadian laws? The proposed laws or the ones currently on the books?) are known for their leniency. The U.S.-based International Intellectual Property Alliance placed Canada on a list of countries suffering from “rampant online and physical piracy of copyrighted works and severe market access barriers.” The American government, on behalf of the U.S. movie, music and software industries, also has pressured Canada to crack down on copyright infringement.
Now, Canada's own content producers are fighting for much stricter copyright restrictions in C-11, which bears some resemblance to SOPA. The Canadian Independent Music Association (CIMA), for instance, seeks to hold social media sites, search engines, blogging platforms and other sites liable for hosting copyrighted third-party content. CIMA also is attempting to lengthen copyright terms, increase potential damages and remove fair use protections, according to law professor Michael Geist. Another controversial provision would ban the breaking of digital locks, even on content that users have purchased legally (e.g. foreign DVDs).
This week, a House of Commons committee will hear proposed amendments to the bill. A ruling is expected before the end of March.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
- 1Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
- 2Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)
- 3Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
- 4Appellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
- 5People in the News—Dec. 2, 2024—Marshall Dennehey, Pollock Begg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250