Dear Editor:
I am a lawyer practising in copyright laws. Your article on Bill C-61 published in the issue of June 25, 2008 only got the proposed Copyright Amendment half-right.
Contrary to the first paragraph of your article, I wish to indicate the following:
- In a sense, all commercially available CDs are copyright-protected. It is only illegal to download or copy a CD that comes with anti-copying technology.
-It is clearly legal to use a PVR device to record broadcast programs transmitted to radio or TV for later viewing or listening, under Section 17 of the bill, reproduced below:
(a) the individual receives the program legally;
(b) the individual, in order to record the program, did not illegally circumvent a technological measure or cause one to be illegally circumvented, within the meanings of the definitions “circumvent” and “technological measure” in section 41;
(c) the individual makes no more than one recording of the program;
(d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time;
(e) the individual does not give the recording away; and
(f) the recording is used only for private purposes.
-Ripping a DVD or other legally obtained copies is legal as long as the user does not circumvent the technological measure, under Section 17 of the Bill, reproduced below:
(a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter of which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;
(b) the individual legally obtained the photograph, book, newspaper, periodical or videocassette, otherwise than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns the medium or device on which it is reproduced;
(c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent a technolog- ical measure or cause one to be circumvented, within the meanings of the definitions “circumvent” and “technological measure” in section 41;
(d) the individual
(ii) prints no more than one copy of the work, if the work is in digital form;
(f) the reproduction is used only for private purposes.
-The 20,000 damage for uploading a movie clip you referred to was not part of the amendment. It is part of the original legislation.
I hope the above helped to clarify some of the confusions implied by the article.
Sincerely,
Pei-Shing Wang
Barrister & Solicitor
