• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

There is No Two without Three: Bill C-32 is Dead

March 26, 2011 by Giuseppina D'Agostino

Giuseppina D’Agostino is the Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, and an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School.

It’s true what they say: there is no two without three. With Harper’s visit to the Governor General today, the Canadian Government, or rather, the government that has insisted it be addressed as  “the Harper Government” is dissolved and so die its many bills, including Bill C-32, Canada’s most recent attempt at copyright reform.  Bill C-32 was introduced on June 2, 2010, as the Copyright Modernization Act. 

The two previous incarnations of the Bill were Bill C-61, tabled in June 2008, and Bill C-60, tabled in June 2005.  Bill C-61 died before second reading, when in September 2008 an election was called.  Bill C-60 also died before second reading when a non-confidence vote brought down Parliament in November 2005.  Bill C-32 squeaked through Parliament the furthest. It passed second reading in the House and made it to a Legislative Committee where Parliamentarians were meant to study the Bill.  See our reporting on some of the hearings here and here as well as my opening remarks to the Legislative Committee on December 1, 2010.

For over a decade now, Canada has made attempts to amend the Copyright Act, mainly in order to meet its obligations under two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties:  the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty.  Both treaties were adopted by WIPO members in 1996.

When Bill C-32 was introduced, one might say the Canadian mood was generally hopeful.  As I wrote at the beginning of last summer, from an initial impression of the Bill, the government had taken seriously the need to consider a variety of copyright voices. Despite the Bill’s various shortcomings and unintended consequences, many thought that with some rehabilitation Canada would get a new copyright act passed, finally.  Now that another bill has died on the order paper, it will be months before another bill is introduced and the legislative process will technically have to start from scratch.  The new government will be privy to years of feedback and no doubt renewed attempts by all to make their positions heard.

One exercise that is well worth making in the interim is to understand the copyright law that we do have and what it already says or does not say on the many issues we want to change, in light of our ever-evolving copyright practices. To kick things off, in a few weeks, while we will be in the middle of an election, I will be chairing a panel that will look more practically to issues like fair dealing, user-generated content, secondary liability and technological protection measures and assess what might have been, what is and what could and should be.

At that same conference, I will be speaking on freelance author issues that continue to go unresolved, as is clear from Nino Ricci’s latest post. In my book, Copyright, Contracts, Creators: New Media, New Rules (see review), I say that copyright law needs to do better. My hope is that the new government will do something about it in the next round.

Posted in copyright reform

One Response to “There is No Two without Three: Bill C-32 is Dead”

  1. Friday’s Endnotes – 04/01/11 | Copyhype, on April 1, 2011 at 6:57 am Said:

    [...] There is no two without three: Bill C-32 is Dead — Late last week, the Canadian government dissolved, along with the latest attempt at reforming the country’s copyright law. IP Osgoode takes a look at the decade-plus effort to modernize the Copyright Act and implement changes needed under WIPO treaties, as well as what the future will hold after elections. [...]

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« French Academic Libel Case considers who has Jurisdiction on the Internet? | Settlement Denied: What’s Next for Google Books? »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • James Wagner on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Ken Anderson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Courtney Doagoo on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • Denis Borges Barbosa on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • D Vaver on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Dr. Emir Crowne on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Adam Stevenson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Anonymous on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Aidan Hollis on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Kalen Lumsden on IP Osgoode Speaker Series: Robert Levine and Dr. Brett Danaher
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • One Step Closer: Bill C-11
  • Bergeron Entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (BEST) Program Launches at York
  • Whose Patent is It Anyway?: The Ongoing Legal Legacy Between Samsung and Apple
  • Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Luksan v. Van der Let, Or Rather, EU v. UrhG?
  • Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law
  • Sampling Questions Still Unsettled After Jay-Z/Kanye West Sampling Settlement
  • World Intellectual Property Day 2012
  • The Legal Implications of Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights
  • Announcement: Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law: the 2012 National Health Law Conference

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Announcements (2)
  • Blogs (4)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (6)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (59)
  • copyright reform (136)
  • defamation (15)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (4)
  • European Union (32)
  • events (75)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (126)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (145)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (138)
  • Internet (236)
  • IP (1041)
    • Copyright (522)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (64)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (28)
      • Fair Dealing (61)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (124)
      • Internet Sharing (92)
      • Literary Works (52)
      • Moral Rights (9)
      • Movies (47)
      • Music Industry (88)
      • Originality (29)
      • Ownership (81)
        • Licensees (31)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (19)
    • Patents (331)
      • Access to Medicines (12)
      • Cross Border Issues (48)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Patent Practice (18)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (97)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (65)
    • Trademarks (201)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (15)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Intensive (4)
  • IP Litigation Practice (15)
  • Jurisdiction (65)
    • Canada (24)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (25)
    • US (28)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (20)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (6)
  • Music Industry (72)
  • Open-Source (16)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (165)
    • Electronic Databases (36)
    • Human Rights Issues (26)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (2)
  • Smartphones (10)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (23)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (208)
  • Telecommunications (73)
  • Trade Secrets (3)
  • UK (10)
  • Uncategorized (82)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (9)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736