Канада авторлық құқық заңнамасына қатысты ұсынылған заң жобасы (C-60)

Proposed Canadian law

An Act to amend the Copyright Act (, Bill C 60) was a proposed law to amend the Copyright Act initiated by the Government of Canada in the First Session of the Thirty Eighth Parliament. Introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women Liza Frulla and then Minister of Industry David Emerson as An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, it received its First Reading in the House of Commons of Canada on June 20, 2005. On November 29, 2005, the opposition to the government tabled a non confidence motion which passed, dissolving Parliament and effectively killing the bill. The subsequent government tabled a similar bill called C 61. Bill C 60 primarily implemented amendments to meet compliance obligations of two World Intellectual Property Organization treaties Canada is seeking to ratify, the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. In particular Technology Protection Measures (TPMs) and Rights Management Information (RMI), components of Digital Rights Management (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 Internet radio and Crown copyright were not. Seen as the Canadian equivalent to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States, Bill C 60 met with public opposition before its first reading, with approximately 1800 Canadians signing the Petition for Users' Rights. 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 [Canadians'] creative, cultural and communications rights."

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 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.

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 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.