265:
forward the notice came with a maximum damage award of $ 5,000, there was no penalty for filing a wrongful notice. The bill required the network service provider retain subscriber identity records for six months upon receipt of an infringement notice and for one year in the event of legal proceedings. Failure to do so came with statutory damages of up to $ 10,000 for the network service provider.
195:(DRM) systems were addressed. It also included updates addressing short-term copyright reform issues dealing with the "challenges and opportunities presented by the Internet and digital technology in general". These focused on subjects such as network service provider liability, remote technology-based learning, and digital inter-library loans. Photography issues were given attention but
301:
more stifling for technological innovation. Secondly, in the area of the
Internet, Bill C-60 sought to impose a system of notice-and-notice for network service providers. In contrast, the DMCA prescribes a system of notice-and-takedown in order for network service providers to be exempt from infringement liability.
273:
Referred to in Bill C-60 as "information location tool providers", search engines were required to abide by a similar notice-and-notice system as that of network service providers. Provisions were made for one exception: copyright infringement through the caching mechanism of the search engine. While
233:
Instead of explicitly prohibiting circumvention of TPMs, Bill C-60 provided remedies to copyright holders in the event of a TPM being compromised. These powers applied in three cases: (a) compromising a TPM for the purpose of infringing copyrights; (b) aiding in compromising a TPM; or (c) being aware
229:
Technology
Protection Measures (TPMs) refer to any technology-based solution that controls access to works, use of works, or both, ranging from simple passwords to complex cryptographic measures. They are often used to control copy protection of material and are often combined with other technologies
282:
While Bill C-60 did not alter the right to make private copies of copyrighted material, it introduced limitations on the use of these private copies. In particular, the bill sought to make selling, renting, trading, distributing, and communicating legally-made private copies of a copyrighted work an
264:
Bill C-60 prescribed that network service providers are only required to remove content pursuant to a court order. However, it required network service providers to operate by a notice-and-notice system: allegations of copyright infringement needed to be forwarded to the subscriber. While failure to
300:
Bill C-60 targeted only the act of circumventing copy-protections for the explicit purpose of infringing copyright, while the DMCA targets the makers and distributors of devices using circumvention techniques and bans all forms of circumvention without regard to intention. The latter is seen to be
291:
Under Bill C-60, photographers commissioned to take photographs were to retain ownership of the copyright of these photographs. This change came as an attempt to generalize the treatment of authors under the act; in the existing act, photographers were treated differently. This made sense for
250:
Similarly to TPMs, Bill C-60 did not imply that removing or altering an RMI constitutes copyright infringement, however, it provided copyright holders with remedies for alterations that facilitated or concealed the owner's copyright. These powers applied for material: (a) sold or rented; (b)
292:
corporate commissioning, giving the photographer substantial bargaining power. However, for the average consumer, the provisions removed rights, and control over the use, duplication, distribution, display, and derivations of such commissioned works were greatly compromised.
274:
not liable for infringements made in this manner, Bill C-60 stated that search engines can be ordered to remove the infringing material from the cache or be requested to stop caching infringing content. In this case, a notice-and-takedown system is established.
246:
Rights
Management Information (RMI) refers to information that is attached to a material form of a work that permits identification of the work or its author or describes terms or conditions of its use. RMIs are commonly part of DRM systems.
216:. Those opposed to the bill saw Bill C-60 as a move towards strengthening rights for copyright holders, while conceding the rights of users. They appealed to the government to "protect creative, cultural and communications rights."
234:
that material in one's possession contains a compromised TPM. These provisions effectively sought to remove the right of people to make private copies of sound recordings. For example, when Bill C-60 was introduced, most songs on
251:
distributed in a way damaging to the copyright owner; (c) as a result of trade, distributed or exposed to sale, rental, or public exhibit; (d) imported material into Canada; or (e) telecommunicated to the public.
321:
316:
347:
538:
283:
infringement of copyrights. This implied that if downloads via peer-to-peer were "for personal use, and not redistributed, there will be no infringement."
173:
212:(DMCA) in the United States, Bill C-60 met with public opposition before its first reading, with approximately 1800 Canadians signing the
366:
180:
405:
188:
555:
581:
172:
which passed, dissolving
Parliament and effectively killing the bill. The subsequent government tabled a similar bill called
384:
367:"Government Bill (House of Commons) C-60 (38-1) - First Reading - An Act to amend the Copyright Act - Parliament of Canada"
310:
238:
were sold with TPMs. The previously available right to make a private copy would have required compromising this TPM.
576:
543:
431:
591:
341:
208:
586:
596:
191:. In particular Technology Protection Measures (TPMs) and Rights Management Information (RMI), components of
106:
326:
165:
69:
29:
192:
533:
456:
510:
331:
140:
549:
489:
152:. Introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women
184:
169:
149:
145:
8:
81:
409:
490:"Over 1800 Canadians rejected changes to copyright, even before bill was introduced"
168:
on June 20, 2005. On
November 29, 2005, the opposition to the government tabled a
200:
179:
Bill C-60 primarily implemented amendments to meet compliance obligations of two
131:
196:
570:
157:
99:
561:
558:- Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (University of Ottawa)
322:
An Act to amend the
Copyright Act (40th Canadian Parliament, 3rd Session)
317:
An Act to amend the
Copyright Act (39th Canadian Parliament, 2nd Session)
153:
95:
40:
513:. Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. 2007-06-02
406:"Government of Canada Introduces Bill to Amend the Copyright Act"
457:"Bill C-6 and Copyright in Canada: Opportunities Lost and Found"
336:
235:
348:
Protection of
Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations Treaty
534:
Government
Statement on Proposals for Copyright Reform
408:. Government of Canada. 20 June 2005. Archived from
327:Bill C-11 (41st Canadian Parliament, 1st Session)
568:
254:
138:, Bill C-60) was a proposed law to amend the
546:- Circulated to Canadian MPs from Government
259:
552:- Digital Copyright Canada (June 22, 2005)
483:
481:
286:
183:treaties Canada is seeking to ratify, the
148:in the First Session of the Thirty-Eighth
136:Loi modifiant la Loi sur le droit d’auteur
487:
295:
181:World Intellectual Property Organization
478:
206:Seen as the Canadian equivalent to the
189:WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty
164:, it received its First Reading in the
569:
454:
311:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
49:An Act to amend the Copyright Act.
13:
14:
608:
527:
461:Canadian Journal of Communication
268:
241:
224:
162:An Act to Amend the Copyright Act
127:An Act to amend the Copyright Act
511:"Bill C-60: Copyright Bill 2005"
488:McOrmond, Russell (2005-06-22).
342:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
209:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
277:
503:
448:
424:
398:
377:
359:
156:and then Minister of Industry
1:
353:
582:Canadian federal legislation
437:. Government of Canada. 2005
432:"Frequently Asked Questions"
255:Internet related protections
7:
304:
10:
613:
562:Petition for Users' Rights
492:. Digital Copyright Canada
219:
214:Petition for Users' Rights
166:House of Commons of Canada
70:House of Commons of Canada
30:House of Commons of Canada
260:Network service providers
193:digital rights management
115:
105:
91:
80:
75:
65:
57:
35:
28:
23:
577:38th Canadian Parliament
385:"Bill C-60 at LegisInfo"
230:as part of DRM systems.
592:Proposed laws of Canada
332:Copyright Act of Canada
287:Photography protections
587:Canadian copyright law
455:Murray, Larua (2005).
387:. Parliament of Canada
135:
296:Differences from DMCA
185:WIPO Copyright Treaty
170:non-confidence motion
16:Proposed Canadian law
597:2005 in Canadian law
146:Government of Canada
539:Bill C-60 Full Text
76:Legislative history
144:initiated by the
123:
122:
604:
522:
521:
519:
518:
507:
501:
500:
498:
497:
485:
476:
475:
473:
472:
452:
446:
445:
443:
442:
436:
428:
422:
421:
419:
417:
402:
396:
395:
393:
392:
381:
375:
374:
363:
21:
20:
612:
611:
607:
606:
605:
603:
602:
601:
567:
566:
530:
525:
516:
514:
509:
508:
504:
495:
493:
486:
479:
470:
468:
453:
449:
440:
438:
434:
430:
429:
425:
415:
413:
412:on 18 June 2009
404:
403:
399:
390:
388:
383:
382:
378:
365:
364:
360:
356:
307:
298:
289:
280:
271:
262:
257:
244:
227:
222:
201:Crown copyright
66:Enacted by
53:
50:
45:
44:
17:
12:
11:
5:
610:
600:
599:
594:
589:
584:
579:
565:
564:
559:
553:
547:
541:
536:
529:
528:External links
526:
524:
523:
502:
477:
447:
423:
397:
376:
371:www.parl.gc.ca
357:
355:
352:
351:
350:
345:
339:
334:
329:
324:
319:
314:
306:
303:
297:
294:
288:
285:
279:
276:
270:
269:Search engines
267:
261:
258:
256:
253:
243:
242:RMI protection
240:
226:
225:TPM protection
223:
221:
218:
197:Internet radio
121:
120:
113:
112:
109:
103:
102:
93:
89:
88:
85:
78:
77:
73:
72:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
52:
51:
48:
38:
37:
36:
33:
32:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
609:
598:
595:
593:
590:
588:
585:
583:
580:
578:
575:
574:
572:
563:
560:
557:
556:Bill C-60 FAQ
554:
551:
550:Press Release
548:
545:
544:Bill C-60 FAQ
542:
540:
537:
535:
532:
531:
512:
506:
491:
484:
482:
466:
462:
458:
451:
433:
427:
411:
407:
401:
386:
380:
372:
368:
362:
358:
349:
346:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
328:
325:
323:
320:
318:
315:
312:
309:
308:
302:
293:
284:
275:
266:
252:
248:
239:
237:
231:
217:
215:
211:
210:
204:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
177:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
158:David Emerson
155:
151:
147:
143:
142:
141:Copyright Act
137:
133:
129:
128:
118:
114:
111:June 20, 2005
110:
108:
107:First reading
104:
101:
100:David Emerson
97:
94:
92:Introduced by
90:
86:
83:
79:
74:
71:
68:
64:
60:
56:
47:
46:
43:
42:
34:
31:
27:
22:
19:
515:. Retrieved
505:
494:. Retrieved
469:. Retrieved
464:
460:
450:
439:. Retrieved
426:
414:. Retrieved
410:the original
400:
389:. Retrieved
379:
370:
361:
299:
290:
281:
278:Peer-to-peer
272:
263:
249:
245:
232:
228:
213:
207:
205:
178:
161:
139:
126:
125:
124:
116:
39:
18:
416:18 February
154:Liza Frulla
96:Liza Frulla
571:Categories
517:2014-05-22
496:2014-05-22
471:2014-05-22
441:2014-05-22
391:2014-05-22
354:References
203:were not.
150:Parliament
41:Long title
87:Bill C-60
61:Bill C-60
24:Bill C-60
305:See also
187:and the
58:Citation
220:Content
119:Expired
117:Status:
344:(DMCA)
337:DADVSI
313:(ACTA)
236:iTunes
132:French
435:(PDF)
84:title
418:2016
199:and
174:C-61
98:and
82:Bill
467:(4)
160:as
573::
480:^
465:30
463:.
459:.
369:.
176:.
134::
520:.
499:.
474:.
444:.
420:.
394:.
373:.
130:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.