Regulatory: Bringing Canada to the digital age
With the Royal Assent of Bill C-11 on June 29, and the expected proclamation of most of its provisions, Canada joins a list of countries that recognize the importance and challenges of protecting copyright in the digital age.
October 31, 2012 at 05:15 AM
10 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
With the Royal Assent of Bill C-11 on June 29, and the expected proclamation of most of its provisions, Canada joins a list of countries that recognize the importance and challenges of protecting copyright in the digital age. As digital technology has dramatically transformed the use and transmission of intellectual property through new and ever-changing technological means, revisions to Canadian copyright law were imperative, yet long overdue. The bill, with the short title Copyright Modernization Act (CMA), was the third attempt to modernize Canada's Copyright Act, after two failed attempts in 2005 and 2008.
Aligning Canadian copyright law with international standards, the CMA ratifies two treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). Key amendments in this bill address issues confronted by copyright owners and creators trying to protect their rights in the digital age, while still balancing the right of users and consumers to have reasonable access to copyright materials. The CMA also provides additional recognition on the role played by digital intermediaries, such as Internet service providers (ISPs), in the dissemination of copyright works.
The CMA contains numerous and complex amendments, some of which are highlighted here.
Owners' rights
The CMA increases a copyright holder's rights in a digital environment. Copyright owners are now provided with the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit their works from being made available for dissemination on the Internet. Copyright holders of photographs and portraits benefit from new provisions recognizing that communication of a copyrighted work by telecommunication includes making such works available through interactive means. The CMA also grants exclusive rights to performers and makers of sound recordings to make their recordings available to the public over the Internet and to sell or transfer ownership in physical recordings.
The new changes also grant performers the right to protect the integrity of recorded works and to have them attributed or not (typically known as “moral rights”). Under the CMA, photographers and painters are deemed to own copyright in commissioned works, in contrast to the previous copyright regime where the first copyright owner of a photograph or painting was deemed to be the person who commissioned the work unless the parties had entered into an agreement to the contrary.
Technical protection measures and anti-pirating measures
The CMA introduces provisions that prohibit the removal of, or tampering with, technical protection measures (TPMs, also commonly known as “digital locks”) and new measures that allow copyright holders to pursue IP “pirates.” TPMs may be built into digital music, DVDs, software, video games, websites with online subscription services and other media and technology products to protect the underlying work from unauthorized copying. The CMA attributes liability to persons who set up services to enable infringement of copyright materials or market or distribute TPM-circumvention tools such as digital lock-cracking software.
Other new anti-pirating measures in the CMA allow content owners to access data through ISPs, and to sue those who facilitate pirating, such as peer-to-peer file sharing sites.
Users' rights
The CMA adds a number of provisions that recognize users' rights as balanced against owners' rights, including expanding the fair dealing exception for copyright infringement to allow for copyrighted materials to be used for educational purposes, parody or satire. The CMA also permits educational institutions, museums, libraries and archives, subject to limitations, to make and distribute electronic copies of course materials, books and other protected works.
In relation to TPMs, the CMA allows for certain exceptions to its anti-TPM circumvention provisions, including for the purposes of law enforcement and national security, preventing the collection or use of personal information, computer systems or network security and making works accessible to persons with perceptual disabilities.
Under the amendments, ISPs are not liable for infringement by their customers when performing services relating to the operation of their sites, such as caching. ISPs are also required to implement a “notice and notice” regime, where the copyright holder may send notice of alleged infringement to the ISP, which must then forward the notice to the relevant customer and retain identification records. The ISP need not “take down” the content, nor does it need to identify the customer unless there is a court order to do so.
Similarly, search engines may make copies of copyright material necessary for technical operation. They are only liable in the case of an injunction against reproduction after notice has been given. Additionally, a website operator is not liable for infringement for providing digital memory to a person to store infringing copies unless that operator knows of a court decision that holds that such person is indeed infringing.
As a result of the CMA, both Canadian copyright owners and users benefit from expanded rights and protections in the digital age. Due to the number and complexity of amendments introduced under the CMA, copyright owners, users and intermediaries in Canada are advised to become familiar with its provisions.
Note: The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Janice Wu, an articling student with Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, to this article.
With the Royal Assent of Bill C-11 on June 29, and the expected proclamation of most of its provisions, Canada joins
Aligning Canadian copyright law with international standards, the CMA ratifies two treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). Key amendments in this bill address issues confronted by copyright owners and creators trying to protect their rights in the digital age, while still balancing the right of users and consumers to have reasonable access to copyright materials. The CMA also provides additional recognition on the role played by digital intermediaries, such as Internet service providers (ISPs), in the dissemination of copyright works.
The CMA contains numerous and complex amendments, some of which are highlighted here.
Owners' rights
The CMA increases a copyright holder's rights in a digital environment. Copyright owners are now provided with the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit their works from being made available for dissemination on the Internet. Copyright holders of photographs and portraits benefit from new provisions recognizing that communication of a copyrighted work by telecommunication includes making such works available through interactive means. The CMA also grants exclusive rights to performers and makers of sound recordings to make their recordings available to the public over the Internet and to sell or transfer ownership in physical recordings.
The new changes also grant performers the right to protect the integrity of recorded works and to have them attributed or not (typically known as “moral rights”). Under the CMA, photographers and painters are deemed to own copyright in commissioned works, in contrast to the previous copyright regime where the first copyright owner of a photograph or painting was deemed to be the person who commissioned the work unless the parties had entered into an agreement to the contrary.
Technical protection measures and anti-pirating measures
The CMA introduces provisions that prohibit the removal of, or tampering with, technical protection measures (TPMs, also commonly known as “digital locks”) and new measures that allow copyright holders to pursue IP “pirates.” TPMs may be built into digital music, DVDs, software, video games, websites with online subscription services and other media and technology products to protect the underlying work from unauthorized copying. The CMA attributes liability to persons who set up services to enable infringement of copyright materials or market or distribute TPM-circumvention tools such as digital lock-cracking software.
Other new anti-pirating measures in the CMA allow content owners to access data through ISPs, and to sue those who facilitate pirating, such as peer-to-peer file sharing sites.
Users' rights
The CMA adds a number of provisions that recognize users' rights as balanced against owners' rights, including expanding the fair dealing exception for copyright infringement to allow for copyrighted materials to be used for educational purposes, parody or satire. The CMA also permits educational institutions, museums, libraries and archives, subject to limitations, to make and distribute electronic copies of course materials, books and other protected works.
In relation to TPMs, the CMA allows for certain exceptions to its anti-TPM circumvention provisions, including for the purposes of law enforcement and national security, preventing the collection or use of personal information, computer systems or network security and making works accessible to persons with perceptual disabilities.
Under the amendments, ISPs are not liable for infringement by their customers when performing services relating to the operation of their sites, such as caching. ISPs are also required to implement a “notice and notice” regime, where the copyright holder may send notice of alleged infringement to the ISP, which must then forward the notice to the relevant customer and retain identification records. The ISP need not “take down” the content, nor does it need to identify the customer unless there is a court order to do so.
Similarly, search engines may make copies of copyright material necessary for technical operation. They are only liable in the case of an injunction against reproduction after notice has been given. Additionally, a website operator is not liable for infringement for providing digital memory to a person to store infringing copies unless that operator knows of a court decision that holds that such person is indeed infringing.
As a result of the CMA, both Canadian copyright owners and users benefit from expanded rights and protections in the digital age. Due to the number and complexity of amendments introduced under the CMA, copyright owners, users and intermediaries in Canada are advised to become familiar with its provisions.
Note: The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Janice Wu, an articling student with
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
© 2025 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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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